|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA and by the European. Large and round limbs were considered characteristics of a mahâpurusha.[1] and every traveller in India will get the impression that this is the case even now. Most probably the third word in both inscriptions indicates the caste or clan of the person mentioned. Among the meaning assigned to the word mêda by the St. Petersburg Dictionary there is that of ‘a certain mixed caste.’ But this explanation would have to be abandoned, if with Cunningham we read mâdaṁgisya. It is true that the â-stroke is ordinarily attached to the right, not to the left leg of the m ; but, on the other hand, we never find the e-stroke turned to the right. Comparing the manner in which the â-stroke is attached to p, s and h, we must consider Cunningham’s reading correct. Unfortunately mâdaṁgisya is as difficult to explain as medaṁgisya. If we ignore the i in the penultimate syllable, it would correspond to the Sanskṛit Mêtaṅgasya ; but that a member of this caste would be the owner of a garden and bear the name of Kṛishṇayaśas is scarcely admissible. It was sated above that one of the two maṅgalas added to the Brâhmî legend is the svastika. The other Cunningham interpreted as an abbreviation of the syllable ôṁ. This, however, does not seem very probable considering that that sacred syllable is always found at the beginning, never at the close of a sentence. But when we compare the two inscriptions in this respect, we discover a remarkable resemblance between the two maṅgalas also. The mystic sign of the Kanhiâra inscription appears to be nothing but an ornamental development of the foot-print. It would be hazardous to draw from these signs any conclusions with regard to the creed of the authors. It is true that the foot-print and the svastika are favourite signs of good omen with the Buddhists ; but it should be borne in mind that they are equally honoured by the Hindûs in general and probably were so even in pre-Buddhistic times.
One point still remains to be discussed,─ the language. In the older inscription it is Prâkṛit or Middle-Indian of the Śaurasênî-Mahârâshṭrî, not of the Mâgadhî type, as appears from the r in pukkhariṇî.[2] In the Kanhiâra inscription there is a difference of language in the two legends. The Kharôshṭhî legend is written in a Prâkṛit of which the distinction made between the three sibilants is a remarkable feature. The language of the Brâhmî legend would best be characterised as Sanskṛitised Prâkṛit, such as came into vogue among the Northern Buddhists with the rise of the Mahâyâna system. Thus linguistic evidence also would assign to this inscription the same time of origin as was found probable in view of palæographic considerations. That Cunningham was wrong in calling the language simply Sanskṛit scarcely needs to be demonstrated. _____________________ _______________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
