|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
term. I have no doubt that, at the end of l. 2 as well as in ll. 3 and 4, the text had originally
gâma[ṁ] Karajak[e], in which Karajake is the accusative plural. If the text had read the
locative gâme, we would also have Karajakesu, which I have stated to be inadmissible. Besides,
this is the reading which I find with certainly in the continuation of the line as in apposition to bhikhuhala[ṁ]. But even if we had the locative, we should arrive by a round-about way to the
same meaning : “ the bhikhuhala in the village of Karajaka.” It is because the donation
embraces the whole village, that no limit is stipulated and that the whole village is included
in the immunities promised, while the contrary holds good in Nâsik Nos. 4 and 5.
Afteretesa[ṁ] l read tu. Perhaps cha has to be read ; but this does not matter. In any case
we have two co-ordinate sentences. I do not understand how Bühler analysed the final verb of
the first sentence, which he read papahi and which I read without hesitation pâpehi[ṁ], which
is the first singular aorist of the causative prâpayâmi, and for which we shall find in the
sequel the distinct parallels pariharehi[ṁ], and niba[ṁ]dhâpehi[ṁ]. Dêyaṁ prâpayitum means ‘to cause to obtain, to confer, a gift.’ I believe that bhikhuhala is not compounded with deya, but must be understood as in apposition to gâmaṁ Karajake. I conclude this from
a passage in Nâsik No. 3, where we shall find the same expression without bhikhuhala. The
meaning of both constructions would, however, be exactly the same. Without pretending to
trace with certainty the reasons why the first singular and the first plural were both employed in
the same phrase, I should like to suggest that the singular may have been used here in order to
give a personal and deliberate turn to the affirmation or order. In the same way, the desire
of accentuation the idea more strongly has caused the employment of the causative pâpehiṁ after the simple dadâma. The king is not content to give ; he wants to state that he has issued
the necessary orders for realising his intention. I may quote here the expression used by
Vijayabuddhavarman, to which I shall return presently : savaparihârehi pariharatha pariharâpetha (this is the actual reading ;[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 101, l. 10). Compare also the grant
of Śivaskandavarman, l. 36 : pariharitavaṁ parihâpetavva cha, etc. The subsequent passage is
clear ; and one can see now why the donor uses the two symmetrical propositions. It is because
he has assigned the village to the monks, that he grants to it the immunities of church-land.
Parihâra has, I think, been well explained by Professor Leumann (Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 484).
The original meaning,─ ‘exception, immunity,’ quite naturally leads to the more general one.─
‘privilege, privileged position.â
The cognate inscriptions leave no doubt as to the privileges which were expressly mentioned
here ; we have to restore : a[nomasaṁ aloṇakhâdakaṁ araṭhasaṁvinayikaṁ savajâta] pârihârikaṁ. The translation is less certain than the reading. Regarding apâvesa, in Sanskṛit aprâvêśyam, it is sufficient to refer to Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 98, note. Anomasa represents anavamṛiśyam ; its certain equivalent in the later terminology, namely s a m a s t a r & a c i r c; j a k îyâṇâm ahastaprakshêpaṇîyam, etc. (ibid. p. 171, note), seems to imply that the royal officers were prohibited from taking possession of anything belonging to the village. For aloṇakhâdaka the later
inscriptions offer several equivalents,─ alavaṇakrêṇikhanaka, which Bühler (p. 104) has already
quoted (Dr. Fleet’s No. 55, l. 28, and No. 56) ; aloṇagulachchhobha in l. 32 of the plates of Śivaskandavarman (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 6) ; salôhalavaṇâkara in l. 17 of the plates of Gôvindachandra (above, Vol. IV. p. 101). These words are far from clear ; but if we remember the
fact that the production of salt is a royal monopoly (Bühler in Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 9, note), and
the details quoted by Bhagwanlal (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 556 and p. 179) regarding
the manner of digging the soil for salt which prevails in the very region of our inscriptions, it
seems to me that the explanation proposed by Bhagwanlal, viz., alavaṇakhâtaka with the Prâkṛit
softening of t into d, is quite satisfactory. The object of this immunity would thus be to deny to
the representatives of the king the right of digging pits for extracting salt.
_________________
[1] [Compare above, Vol. VI. p. 88, note 10.─ E. H.]
|
