South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

REMARKS.

(1) The first â of ºkâṭâ in AS. is surely only a clerical mistake.─ (2) The final anusvâra seems to me perfectly visible.

TRANSLATION.

“ (This) pillar (is) the gift of the Yavana Sihadhaya from Dhênukâkaṭa.”

For the combination of the singular Yavanasa with the plural Sihadhayâna[ṁ] compare No. 3, where the plural therânaṁ is followed by the singular Iṁdadevasa.

No. 8, Plate iii. (K. 8).
Chaitya cave. On the fifth pillar ; left row.

TEXT. (1)
1 Sopârakâ bhayatânaṁ Dhamutari- (2)
2 yâna sa nathasa (3) therasa (4)
3 bha . . sa (5) aṁtevâsisa bhâna-
4 kasa Na . pat . sa (6) Sâtimitasa
5 saha . . . t[i]hi (7) [tha]bho dânamukha (8).

REMARKS.

(1) The inscription is much defaced, perhaps intentionally, as Bühler thinks, in order to be replaced by the following one (No. 9). Hence all statements referring to it will have to be made with special caution.─ (2) AS. and CTI. read ºtâna and ºtaraº. I consider the anusvâra and the i of ri comparatively certain.─ (3) CTI. and, with hesitation, AS. read samânathaº. A single letter seems to be lost ; but which ? The m does not seem to me more probable than any other.─ (4) CTI. reads ma and AS. a as the last letter which I am unable to make out.─ (5) AS. and CTI. read ºtulasa. The first letter appears to be certainly a bh ; compare the t of aṁtevâsisa. And I have no doubt that two letters have to be supplied between this letter and the final sa.─ (6) AS. Nadipatisa ; CTI. Nadâputisa. Dâ or di are possible, but neither is certain. I do not discover any trace of an u below the p ; but, after all. ºputasa is a priori so probable that I can hardly doubt that this was the original reading of the stone.─ (7) AS. . . . tiya ; CTI. [matapi]tuya. The i above the t is more probable than the u below, and the reading hi is, thought not at first sight, at least as admissible graphically as ya. This gives, with the possible restoration matapi, a completely satisfactory form. The reading tuya, permitting the restoration [ . . . dha]tuya, would seem to be recommended by the expression sasariro in the following inscription (No. 9), which seems to have been intended to replace the present one. But why this substitution ? Was it only in order to avoid the mention of the master of Sâtimita ? Or perhaps for inserting the mention of the relics, which would have been passed over in silence in the first redaction and added ultimately by the donor ?─ (8) The th is quite indistinct, but nevertheless certain. The final letter, read la by CTI. and left undetermined by AS., must be kh, which gives us the excellent reading dânamukha[ṁ]. The form of kh is not quite usual. But it seems to be so nearly allied to certain variants of the same letter as to make this interpretation probable, which also gives a good sense. To judge from the form of kh in No. 13, the shape of this letter seems to have been particularly changeable and undetermined.

TRANSLATION.

“(This) pillar (is) the gift of the preacher Sâtimita, the son of Nanda (?) (and) the disciple of the Sthavira . . . . , . . . . of the venerable Dhaṁmutariyas (Dharmôttarîyas), from Sopâraka, together with [his father and mother ?].”