South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

an instrumental, in one case ºsamanehi (followed by the relative proposition ya . . . which determines it more particularly, and the essentials of which have disappeared in the lacuna), on the other, aïrakena ; secondly another word which we read odena is the second case, and the last syllable of which, na, alone has been preserved in the first. Unfortunately both mahaaïraka and odena are of doubtful meaning. One point is proved by the very difference between the two phrases : they must have referred respectively to each of the villages in question and must have contained some determination, whatever may have been its exact bearing, concerning not the nature or the application of the gift, but its object, which alone differs in the two, being in the first sentence the Sudisaṇa village, and the village of Sâmalipada in the second. Bühler took odena to be an instrumental qualifying aïrakena. Besides the fact tha this view has led him to a most unlikely translation, the circumstance of [ode]na being in line 12 associated with samanehi seems to bear evidence to his error. To all appearance it is the instrumental, samanehi or aïrakena, which must be understood as dependant on odena or odâna, whichever may be the true reading. As to this word ─ either a substantive or, more probably, a participle ─ it cannot well be anything but a nominative or accusative, agreeing with the preceding pronoun, ya or eta. The last inscription, which informs us of the original gift for which this one is substituted, makes no allusion to the monks of Dhanakaṭa ; as to the Mahaaïraka, the part the monks are playing in the first sentence seems to point to the name being that of a religious personage. Even admitting that the title araka given to Yañasiri-Sâtakaṇi by an inscription (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 96) be really = âryaka, that would in no way prevent this epithet, which is commonly used with reference to Buddhist monks, being applied to some religious functionary. I am the more inclined to think so, because I find the similar title Chûḷa-ârya conferred on the Ârya Buddharakshita, who is styled Arhat (Burgess’ Buddhist Stûpas of Amarâvatî, Plate lix. No. 39, p. 104), What in any case appears to me above all doubt is that, contrary to the conjecture of Bühler, the title cannot be Puḷumâyi’s. I refer

>

to the observations on the title Mahâsvâmika, which follow the next inscription.

As to the letters which, besides ode, are comprised in the lacuna, no parallel passage helps us to fill them up with confidence. The writing is not regular enough to enable us to ascertain even the number of characters which have disappeared. Probably from seven to nine are missing. The two first, ṇhumhi, and the two last, ode, being known, it may at least be imagined that vasaṁti or pativasaṁti would fill up the gap conveniently, and that the monks ‘ who dwell on mount Triraśmi ’ were meant here. On Dhanakaṭa or Dhanaṁkaṭa we have no other information than what has been collected by Dr. Bhandarkar (p. 349). Of course I cannot venture to hold my own against those who worked from the stone itself ; I must own, however, that, considering the general similarity of b and dh, it seems very tempting to suppose that our Dhanakaṭa is not different from the Benâkaṭaka in the following epigraph. Of the two, the reading Benâkaṭaka seems to me to be the better secured one. I should incline to introduce it here. In No. 10, l. 2, we shall find a river Karabeṇâ. Several Beṇâs are known Benâkaṭaka is therefore quite satisfactory. As to the hypothetical Dhanakaṭaka, it could in no case be identified (as postulated by Bhandarkar) with the proper name (equivalent to Dharaṇikôṭ or not) which we find again at Amarâvatî, as it has there the form Dhaṁñakaṭaka (Burgess’s Buddhist Stûpas of Amarâvatî, No. 53, p. 90).

I think I can explain with certainty one word at least which has led astray my predecessors. The comparison of the two passages establishes the form patigayha, i.e. pratigṛihya, and the preceding instrumental, as it cannot be construed with dato, can only be governed by this word, which is therefore the future passive participle ─ here pratigṛihyaḥ, and below pratigṛihyaṁ. It will be observed that the word is intimately connected with the expression parigraha which I have explained in K. 19, and that it is in the same way applied to a property assigned to a special …ct. The close etymological relationship of the two terms