South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Sivakhadaguta (Śivaskandagupta) in the year 14, on the 1st day of the 4th fortnight of the rainy season.”

There is no means of deciding whether this inscription emanates from Vâsishṭhîputra Puḷumâyi like Nâsik No. 3, or from Gautamîputra Sâtakarṇi like Kârlê Nos. 4 and 5. I incline however towards the first hypothesis. The phraseology is quite identical in Nâsik No. 3 and in the present inscription, and the break which, to our regret, we find here, could be filled exactly by what precedes ânapayati in Nâsik No. 3.─ Mâmâla or Mamâla has been identified (AS. p. 24) with the modern Mâwal or Mâul along the Ghauts. Regarding âhâra, compare Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 173, note. The final u of par . gata . masu and the e of lenesa and Vâlurakesa seem to prove that we have to read in each case the locative plural in éshu, and that the three words are connected, the first being only an epithet of the second. I propose to restore it as parigatadhamesu, which might be a proper epithet of these places, ‘wholly devoted to religion.’ It is quite clear on the other hand that the analogy of the parallel passages (Nasik Nos. 3 ; 2 ; 4, 2) would make us expect in this place the proper name of the officer. It is only out of despair, and especially under the influence of the final su, that I have recourse to this hypothesis. The phrase has to be explained by comparing Kârlê No. 13, l. 4, from which an additional argument in favour of the reading Vâlurakesu is derived, and Nâsik No. 3, l. 12 f : bhikhuthi . . . . nikâyana Bhadâyaniyehi. The 13th edict of Aśoka (Khâlsi, l. 38) already employs nikâya in the particular meaning of ‘religious corporation.’ Though pavajita and bhikhu are equivalent in meaning, we find the two words combined elsewhere, e.g. in Nâsik No. 5, l. 8. As regards the construction and the details of the translation, I refer to the remarks on Kârlê No. 14, of which I have stated that our text intentionally imitates the wording. I will only add here that the construction of Mahâsaghiyâna as in apposition to nikâyasa, which is forced on us by the comparison of Nâsik No. 3, but which is a little puzzling to us, has at least one analogy, which the genitive gâmasa Karajakâna (l. 4) makes obvious, in the frequent construction of grâma with a proper noun, the occurrence of which in the plural seems to indicate that originally it designated less the locality than its inhabitants.

Bühler (p. 111) proposed to take maga (mârga) as the name of a territorial division, which is not found in other documents. He quoted the analogy of pathaka which occurs elsewhere in a similar sense. We have to wait for fresh facts to confirm this conjecture ; but even in its current meaning uttara mârga, ‘ the northern road,’ ‘the northern direction,’ gives a sufficiently good sense.

Whatever may be the cause of the erroneous form bhikhuhalela, it can only be meant for bhikhuhalaṁ. Unfortunately the meaning of this expression, which occurs not only here, but also in Nâsik No. 3, is far from district. Hala designates in certain cases a measures of land (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 8, note), the extent of which varies according to the word which precedes and determines hala ; see dharnahala, Hâritasmṛiti quoted by Kullûka on Manu, VII. 119 ; vṛihaddhala, inscription of Harsha (Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 125), etc. But hala has also the meaning of ‘cultivated field,’ as in dêvabhôgahala ;^[1] compare brâhmaṇânâṁ halakshêtra in the Uruvupalli plates (Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 52, text line 23), etc. With these expressions we may certainly compare that of our text. In the Buddhist language, bhikhuhala is the equivalent of those religious donations which in the Brâhmaṇical phraseology are termed dêvabhôgahala, dêvadâya (above, Vol. III. p. 274, l. 60) and brahmadêya, and convey like the bhikhuhala (here and Nâsik No. 3, etc.), certain privileges,─ parihâra,^[2] which the Mâliyâ copper-plates (Dr, Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 167) sum up by the formula uchitâ brahmadêyasthitiḥ. There, as here, the king grants not only a certain portion of land, but the village itself is given away by him as bhikhuhala and participates in its entirety of the immunities implied by this
_________________________

^[1] Above, Vol. III, p. 146, l. 13 f. Admitting that the authenticity of this donation is doubtful, it would he nevertheless certain that it borrows its phraseology from genuine documents. Above, Vol. III. p. 146 : sarvaparihârôpêtadêvabhôgahalaº.