|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA clear. That of the two first, tacha, is at least very probable. The cha, then, invites us almost irresistibly to join sahata and to find in it some participle co-ordinate with niṭhito. Unfortunately, none of the restorations which suggest themselves,─ sahito, saṁhito, and saṁhato,─ furnish us a decisive meaning, or a construction with which the following word me could be easily connected. Further, to which substantive do niṭhito and the other hypothetical participle refer ? Apparently to the maṇḍapa whose donation is mentioned before. With Budharakhitasa a new sentence must begin ; it would be contrary to all the habits of the style of these epigraphs that the object of the donation, before being mentioned, should be enveloped in such long circumlocutions. Perhaps we should see clearer if this object were well defined, which unfortunately it is not. I have noted it elsewhere only in a single case at Kuḍâ (No. 31 of CTI. and No. 28 of AS.), where we seem to read pâṭho deyo. If any point is certain, it is that there as well as here the dental th is excluded. This circumstance alone would suffice to condemn the translation ‘passage,’ proposed by Bhagwanlal and adopted, without conviction, by Bühler. I have no more probable conjecture to substitute for it. Whatever the meaning is, we seem to be confronted by the same term at Kuḍâ and here. Now, at Kuḍâ the part of the sentence in question begins with the characters saha, which seem to be followed immediately by the characters tasa at the beginning of the next line. Neither the testimony of the editors nor the fac-similes enable us to decide whether the break between the second sa and the initial pâ of pâṭho is real or only apparent. In any case, one cannot help comparing this instance with our sahata or saheta, and consequently asking whether here also this word opens the sentence of which pâṭho is the subject, while ekaviṁse saṁvachhare niṭhito would refers only to maṇḍapo. I have stated why a priori a full stop seems to be indicated before Budharakhitasa ; without being absolute, this objection seems to me much stronger than the coincidence which I have just quoted against it, and which is extremely vague and perhaps altogether illusory. Another doubtful point has to be referred to. Between the letter which Bühler transcribes â, while I read sya in accordance with Bhagwanlal, and the pâ of pâsikâya, there is room for three characters ; but the previous editors read simply u without admitting a break. They seem to interpret thus the character which follows the group sya. Hence they must have assumed that the distinct traces immediately before pâ are not the remains of a letter, probably of an u, but accidental flaws in the stone. An inspection of the original could alone decide if another character has disappeared. The distance between the letters certainly suggests this, and it is a priori probable that the title upâsikâ, attributed to Budharakhita’s mother, should be accompanied by her name as in other cases. Thus I incline towards believing that the letter which comes after sya, and which may be d or u, formed the first syllable of this name, the second syllable of which is lost in the break, and that the traces which follow represent the initial n of upâsikâ.
No. 21, Plate iv. (K. 18). North of the chaitya cave. On two sides of a semicircular cistern in a vihâra.
REMARKS. (1) CTI. and AS. supply savachhare, which is not doubtful, but of which only the last character has left any traces.─ (2) CTI. and AS. hemâtâṇa pakhe. The kh is not doubtful, but I | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
