|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
PART B herself when the Dānava returns. The demon swallows the box again without examining it, and it is only by an ascetic gifted with supernatural sight that he is informed of what has happened. He throws up the box, and as soon as he has opened it, the Vidyādhara muttering a spell flies up into the air. According to the Atthavaṇṇanā the faithless wife is turned away by the Danava. I think that Barua-Sinha’s identification may be accepted. In that case the strange object mentioned above may be suitably explained as being an attempt to represent the box opened with its lid lying in front of it. Barua’s suggestion that it represents the armour and dagger of the Vidyādhara is not convincing. The rocky landscape also would be appropriate to the situation. Perhaps the sculptor has represented the Vidyādhara as arranging his dress before entering the box. Barua-Sinha’s explanation gains in probability if we remember that the upper panel shows a couple, the female partner of which is regarded as the type of an adulterous wife. It would therefore seem to be quite likely that the sculptor should have chosen a similar couple also for the lower panel. The meaning of vijapi remains doubtful. Hoernle’s reading vijaṭi is impossible, and even if vijapi were taken as a clerical error for vijaṭi, the meaning of the word would not become much clearer, as vijaṭi cannot easily be explained as a derivation from vijaṭayati in the sense of ‘unravelling’ or ‘unwinding the head-dress’. Hultzsch took Vijapi as the name of the Vidyādhara which he traced back to Sk. Vijayin, but there are considerable phonetic difficulties implied in this derivation. In my article in the ɀDMG. I have discussed Sk. Vidyāvin, Vidyāvid or even Vidyājalpin as possible Sanskrit equivalents of the name, but the most probable original form would seem to be Vijalpin, which would have a parallel in Vijalpā, the name of a malignant spirit mentioned in the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 51, 50 ff. However, it cannot be denied that none of these explanations of vijapi is quite satisfactory and convincing.
B 62 (881)1; PLATES XXI, XLIII ON a rail-bar, since 1959 in the Bhārat Kalā Bhavan, Banaras. The inscription is
incised above No. A 104. First edited by Cunningham StBh. (1879), p. 142, No. 66,
and Pl. XXXIV and LVI; Hultzsch, ɀDMG. Vol. XL (1886), p. 76, No. 156; IA. Vol. XXI
(1892), p. 239, No. 159; Barua-Sinha, BI. (1926), p. 61, No. 165; Lüders, Bhārh. (1941),
pp. 73-79. [1] Lüders’ treatment of this inscription (B 62) has been lost. But we find a detailed note by him
on the story of Timitimiṅgila in his book Bhārh. l.c., of which the text below is an English translation.
Lüders begins stating, that the original of the medallion depicted in Cunningham’s book Pl. XXXIV, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
