|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
PART B âI am not pakkha, because I have no joints; I am not deaf, because I have no ear; I am not dumb, because I have tongue. Do not think that I am dumb’. It appears that pakkha denotes a person who is unable to move, who is paralysed. The term phaka (phakka) used in the inscription must be a synonym of pakkha, and this is confirmed by the Mvp. (271, 121), where phakkaḥ occurs in a list of bodily defects, preceded by andhalaḥ, jātyandhah, kuṇḍaḥ, and followed by paṅguḥ etc. Probably phakka is the correct form which was changed into pakkha in Pāli under the influence of the common term pakkhāhata, ‘struck on one side’, ‘paralysedâ. B 60 (748); PLATES XXI, XLIV INSCRIPTION of the middle panel of the middle face of the same pillar as No. A 62, now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta (P 29). Edited by Cunningham, StBh. (1879), p. 134, No. 37, and Pl. XIV and LIV; Hoernle, IA. Vol. X (1881), p. 259, No. 18, and Pl.; Hultzsch, ɀDMG. Vol. XL (1886), p. 66, No. 55, and Pl.; IA. Vol. XXI (1892), p. 231, No. 55; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 86 f., No. 202; Barua, Barh. Vol. II (1934), p. 117 f., and Vol. III (1937), Pl. XXII (112); Lüders, ɀDMG. Vol. XCIII (1939), p. 100 ff.; Lüders, Bhārh. (1941), p. 19 f.
TEXT:
TRANSLATION:
Barua and Sinha have identified Kaḍariki with the hero of the Kaṇḍarijātaka (341)
which afterwards was embodied in the Kuṇālajātaka (536; Vol. V, p. 437 f.). He is a king
of Benares who is extraordinarily good looking. Nevertheless his wife falls in love with a
hideous cripple. In one of her nightly visits to her lover the queen loses one of her ear-ornaments. The king, who has secretly followed her, picks it up and by this article
is able to prove her misdemeanour. He gives order to behead her, but Pañchālachaṇḍa,
his wise purohita, detains him from acting rashly. He persuades the king to undertake a
journey through the whole of India in his company in order to become acquainted with
women’s ways, and the experiences they gather during their travels are sufficient to convince
the king of the innate immorality of womankind, so that after his return he pardons his wife
and has her only turned out of the palace. The king of this Jātaka, which is the prototype
of the introductory story of the Arabian Nights, is called Kaṇḍari in the Atthavaṇṇanā,
while the queen appears there under the strange name of Kinnarā. Barua and Sinha therefore explained the Kaḍariki of the inscription as combined from Kaḍari and Ki, an abbreviation of Kinnarā. I have shown[1] that the name Kaṇḍari in the prose tale owes its origin
to a wrong division of the words Kaṇḍarikinnarānaṁ in G. 21 into Kaṇḍari and Kinnarānaṁ instead of Kaṇḍarikin narānaṁ. The real name of the king therefore was Kaṇḍariki, exactly
as in the inscription, while the queen was not named at all in the original story. Barua-Sinha’s identification is thus established beyond doubt, and it is only surprising that in the
relief there is nothing to indicate the somewhat strained relations between the couple. The
king and the queen stand side by side to all appearance in perfect harmony, the queen
having put her right hand on the shoulder of her husband. The question as to what the
two persons hold in their hands has not been solved. Anderson (Cat. I, p. 69) mention
that the woman in her left hand carries a bird that has lost its head, while the man holds in [1]ɀDMG. XCIII, p. 101 ff. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
