|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA This tendency is noticed once in subscript y in Inscription No. 2 as well (cf. mya in line 2 with jyē in line 4). The form of m in Inscription No. 3 also shows some modification when compared to the same letter as found in the other two epigraphs. This type of m is not generally noticed in East Indian inscriptions. The epigraph possibly belongs to a date not much earlier than the second quarter of the seventh century A. D. The language of Inscriptions Nos. 1-2 is corrupt Sanskrit. The first inscription begins with the Buddhist formula which is a stanza in the Āryā metre and Pali language ; but it is found in a Sanskritised form in our record as in some votive epigraphs discovered in India.[1] The word paramōpāsikasya has been wrongly used for param-ōpāsikāyāḥ. Of orthographical interest is the female name Chandraśrī(śrī)yā Sanskrit Chandraśrī. Chandraśrī(śri)yā of this record may be compared with names like Śriyādēvī found in Indian epigraphs.[2] In dēyya-dharmma (line 5), dēyya is a Pāli word standing for Sanskrit dēya. The use of double nasal in dharmmō=yaṁm and satvānāṁm=anuº (line 5) is noteworthy. The mute m at the end of the first of the two expressions has been retained before the following s of the word sarvva. Some consonants following r have been reduplicated. Inscription No. 2 contains only two stanzas in the Anushṭubh metre. The language is not faulty as in Inscription No. 1. But its orthography is characterised by the wrong use of ṇ for n in several cases. Final m has been wrongly changed to anusvāra in maṇḍanaṁ (line 3) and final k in the word samyak (line 2) similarly to n (instead of ṅ) before the following n in sandhi.
clear, although it seems to contain a Buddhist tract. The passages that can be read in this fragmentary inscription are : dhamma cha at the end of line 2 ; ºsēkinō cha tu dayatu saṁpaº about the middle and mahiddhikō at the end of line 3 ; [Sa]ṁvō(bō)dhēṁ(dhi)m=avayam=niyuº. about the middle and vishayaṁ bhūtēna at the end of line 4 ; dvārē phusantu sivam=uttama[ṁ] at the end of line 5 ; and sādhu sādhū ti | in the last line. The first two lines of Inscription No. 1 contains the stanza Yē dharmmāº, etc. The language of the remaining three lines (lines 3-5) is corrupt ; but the sentence covering them appears to say that the stone bearing the inscription, apparently meaning the object or structure to which it belonged, was the gift (dēyya-dharmma) of the param-ōpāsikā named Sāvītāṁ-Chandraśriyā who was the queen (dēvī) of the illustrious Nītichandra. The letters in the king’s name are damaged ; but the reading is certain. Whether the anusvāra in the name Sāvītāṁ is unnecessarily added cannot be determined. There is an epithet applied to the king’s or queen’s name, which seems to read chandravat-parchhīnāsya and is unintelligible unless the reading is amended. The purpose of the gift is quoted as ‘ the anuka(or kta)ma. . . . of all beings,’ there being no space for more than two or three letters after anukama or anuktama at the end of the line (line 5), although the expression expected here is anuttama-jñān-āvāptayē[3]. The letters anuka(kta?)ma in our record possibly stand for anuttama with the letters jñānāya lost at the end of the line. The two stanzas is Anushṭubh in Inscription No. 2 state that the illustrious Vīrachandradēva constructed a hundred Buddha-stūpas, out of his love for the Satya-dharma, with his own money. The expression Buddha-stūpa appears to mean Stūpas built on the relics of the Buddha while Satya-dharma or the true faith refers to the Buddhist religion usually called the Sad-dharma by its followers.[4] One of the epithets of the king says that he obtained his kingdom or sovereignty ________________________________________________
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
