South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

the epic legend locates the death of Kṛishṇa. In connection with the ‘gift of wives to Brâhmaṇas,’ Bhagwanlal Indraji (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 571) aptly quotes a passages in the Aphsaḍ inscription of Âdityasêna.^[1] If kanyâs are there referred to, while here the donor speaks of bhâryâs, the position is in the main identical. Only, it is in the first case considered from the point of view of the Brâhmaṇas who were the fathers of the young women, and in the second case from that of the Brâhmaṇas who became their husbands. There is nothing in this variation to justify the unlikely interpretation which Bhagwanlal (from an argument which in my opinion could be turned against him) has tried to substitute for the true one, viz. that Ṛishabhadatta boasts of having given wives to eight Brâhmaṇas by exempting eight young women of the Brâhmaṇa caste from all the expenses which are involved by the costly ceremonial of Hindû marriages and the acquisition of the ornaments which in a certain way represent the dowry.^[2]

Pi tu are two particles. Bühler’s translation ‘for the sake of his father’ presupposes in the text pitaraṁ uddissa. Besides, independently of the omission of the ‘mother,’ which would be surprising and contrary to custom, the mention would be curiously placed here in a brief recapitulation ; it is certainly missing in the parallel passage in Nâsik No. 14.

Valûraka seems to designate Kârlê ; compare the following inscriptions. The plural is used frequently in the case of village names. It remains to ascertain in what manner have to be construed all the genitives leṇavâsinaṁ pavajitânaṁ châtudisasa saghasa. We may compare several analogous formulas. In No. 19, l.1 f. we find : leṇesu Vâlurakesu vâthavâna pavajitâna bhikhuna nikâyasa Mahâsaghiyâna yâpanâya . . . . . . . . gâma . . . . . . dadama ; in Nâsik No. 2, l. 10 : leṇa mahâdevi . . . . . . . . . . . . dadâti nikâyasa Bhadâvaniyânaṁ bhikhusaghasa ; in Nâsik No. 3, l.12 : gâmo . . . . . . . . bhikhuhi devileṇavâsehi nikâyena Bhadâyaniyehi patiga[h]ya dato ; and ibid. l. 13 : gâma . . . . . . bhikhuhi devilena[vâsehi nikâ]yena Bhadâyaniyehi patigayha . . . . . . . dato. The passage in No. 19 was intentionally copied from the present inscription and has therefore no independent value. In both cases one might be tempted to separate the two genitives and to let the first depend on dadâti, the second on yâpanâya or yâpaṇatha. But the long distance from the verb would be little favourable to this hypothesis. And in Nâsik No. 2, where yâpanâya has no equivalent, it is quite excluded. Besides, in Nâsik No. , where a different case is used, both terms are, just as here, in the same case. Hence we must conclude that in all these instance the terms bhikhu or saṁgha, nikâya, and Mahâsaṁghiya or Bhadâyaniya are co-ordinate. Thus the donation is made here “for the support of the universal Saṁgha in the person of the monks residing in the caves at Valûraka ;” in No. 19 “for the support of the brotherhood constituted by the Mahâsâṁghikas in the person of the monks (of this community) residing in the caves at Valûraka”; in Nâsik No. 2, “ to the Saṁgha of the monks in the person of the brotherhood constituted by the Bhadâyaniyas ;” and so on. We shall see in due time how the change of the case in Nâsik No. 3 is to be explained. Here I would only remark that in the two passages of that inscription we find both nikâya and Bhadâyaniya in the instrumental case and are thus prohibited in No. 19 to construe, as would seem natural, Mahâsaṁghiyâna as dependent on nikâya,─ ‘the brotherhood of the Mahâsâṁghikas.’

This point being established, we shall have to fix more clearly than seems to have been tried hitherto the meaning which our inscriptions assign to the expression châtudisa saṁgha. In my opinion châtudisa is not a kind of epitheton ornans, a common-place formula. The expression has an intentional meaning ; it signifies the clergy of every origin, i.e. the clergy in its universality
_____________________

^[1] Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 203, l. 9.
^[2] Hêmâdri in his Chaturvargachintâmaṇi (I. 9, p. 678) has collected a certain number of kanyâddânas by which, according to the epic, certain kings conferred on Brâhmaṇas women over whom they had authority. But these are at least exceptional, if not absolutely fictitious cases, from which an analogy could not, I think, be invoked for explaining gifts of an ordinary kind, which were frequently repeated.