South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

me of this, is the parallelism existing between the phraseology of our inscription and that of No. 19 ; thus-

The close similarity proves that this parallelism was intentional, and it is all the more significant that the second donor, who was probably filled with a particular sympathy for the Mahâsâṁghika, restricts the benefit of the donation to the monks of this sect alone. If the identification is well founded, it localises the village in question in the Mâwal subdivision, west-north-west of Poona.

No. 14, Plate ii. (Ksh. 17).
Chaitya cave. On the upper frieze to the left of the central door.

TEXT.
1 Raño Vâsiṭhiputasa (1) Sâmisirip . . . . s . (2) savachhare satame 7 [g]imhapakhe pachame 5
2 [d]ivase pathame 1 etâya puvâya Okhaḷakiyâna Mahârathisa (3) Kosikiputasa Mitadevasa putena
3 hârathinâ Vâsiṭhiputena Somadevena gâmo dato Valuraka-saghasa (4) Valuraka-lenâna (5) sakarukaro (6) sadeya-
4 meyo.

REMARKS.

(1) AS. Vasiº. The long â is certain.─ (2) From the traces, the restoration Puḷumâyisa can hardly be called conjectural.─ (3) CTI. ºraṭhisa ; but the central dot of the th can still be recognised and the certain reading ºrathiº in the following line leaves no reasonable doubt regarding the transcription.─(4) AS. ºrakâsaṁghasa.─ (5) AS. Valûrakalenana. I do not share the opinion of Bühler who considered that the long û is certain. In my opinion it would be less improbable in the preceding word, were it not that the condition of the stone deprives certain apparent but accidental strokes of any real significance.─ (6) CTI. sakarâ[ra]karo[ra]. The transcription of AS., which is ours, seems to me certain.

TRANSLATION.

“In the seventh─ 7th ─year of the king lord Siri-Puḷumâyi, son of Vâsiṭhî, in the fifth─ 5th─fortnight of summer, on the first─ 1st─day, on the above, by the Mahâraṭhi Sômadêva son of Vâsiṭhî, the son of the Mahâraṭhi Mitadeva son of Kosikî, of the Okhaḷakiyas, there was gives to the community of Valûraka, of the Valûraka caves, a village with its taxes ordinary and extraordinary, with its income fixed or proportional.”

I have stated on p. 50 why the genitive Okhaḷakiyânaṁ must be connected with Somadevena and cannot depend on Mahârathisa. It is the geographical name of a country, or rather of a tribe. Bühler (AS.) has pointed out the name of a district, Ukhaḍa, from which it may be derived. The end of the inscription presents a difficulty which has not yet been solved satisfactorily. Bhagwanlal read sakarâkarosa deyameyo, which he transcribed in Sanskṛit as saṁskârakâraṇâya dêya êshaḥ. I can hardly believe that Bühler could have approved of such an explanation ; but, though he read sakarukaº,─ a reading which seems to be warranted by an examination of the back of the estampage,.─ he adopted the same translation as Bhagwanlal in CTI., viz., “this gift is in order to keep the Valûraka caves in repairs.” As in his translation (AS.) he separates