South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

in this way it is easy to understand why they do not note many details which could not fail to appear in the official deeds themselves.

Though it is general inadvisable to have recourse to the correction of supposed errors of the engraver, it is difficult not to agree with Bühler when he corrects paṭihârarakhiya. For other details see K. 19 and N. 3.

No. 6, Plate iii. (N. 8.)

On the back wall of the veranda in Cave No. 6.

TEXT.

1 Sidhaṁ Viragahapatisa nyegamaṁsa (1) leṇaṁ (2)
2 deyadhama kuṭumbiṇiya (3) chasa Naṁdasiriya (4) ovarako duhutu-
3 ya chasa Purisadatâva ovarako eva leṇaṁ chatugabhaṁ
4 ṇiyuta (5) bhikhusaṁghasa châtudisasa ṇiyâchitaṁ.

REMARKS.

(1) AS. ºgamasa ; the anusvâra, although faulty, seems perfectly clear.─ (2) G. and AS. leṇa.─ (3) G. ºbiniya.─ (4) AS. ºdasarâya. The reading siri seems sure. ─ (5) G. niyuta.

TRANSLATION.

“ Success ! This cave, a pious gift of the householder Vîra, a merchant, a cell of his wife Nandasiri, and a cell of his daughter Purisadattâ ; the cave thus completed to four cells has been bequeathed to the universal Saṅgha.”

I do not think gahapati ought to be taken as a part of the proper name, any more than in Naṁdagahapatinâ at Śailarwadi (CTI. p. 38, text l. 5). At Junnar (CTI. and AS. No. 4) we meet again with a donor Vîraseṇakasa gahapatipamughasa dhaṁmanigamasa. In spite of the close resemblance of the epithets, the writing of the two documents does not seem ─ unless, what is very possible, the difference be more local than chronological, ─ to entitle us to identify both. Anyhow it follows from the comparison that gahapati, just as negama, is a title. Besides, it may perhaps be concluded from it that Vîra is only an abridgment of the real name which has to be completed by a second member like sena. Negama need not be explained ; but it may be remarked en passant that its use here favours the opinions I have formerly stated, and which I must maintain against the doubts that have been raised by a learned opponent (Fick, Sociale Gliederung zu Buddha’s Zeit, p. 164), viz. that gṛihapati is, in the Buddhist language, specially restricted to people of various castes, who are included in the large class of Vaiśyas.

The writing nye = ne is the more noteworthy because we find afterwards niyâchita = niyâtita. It looks as if this engraver had felt some peculiar inclination towards the palatalizing of dentals.

Niyuta was translated by Bühler in various ways : ‘ allotted, given,’ and often, as now, ‘ dedicated.’ The inscription No. 1 at Mahâḍ reads . . . . . leṇa chetiyaghara ovarakâ cha atha ti kamaṁ niyuataṁ . . . . . . and seems to settle the exact bearing of the word, viz. ‘ executed, completed,’ implying the notion of a plan, of an appropriation to some use or some object, which is conveyed by the verb niyuj. Nijuta is therefore not ordinarily construed with a dative ; it is generally followed by another participle, as here by niyâtita, pointing to the donation which takes place after the work has been completed. It is needless to observe that when niyuta is accompanied by a dative (or a genitive fulfilling the functions thereof), as at Junnar No. 15 (where we have to read niyutaka), this fact is no way irreconcilable with the translation I am advocating : ‘ made for the Saṅgha (residing) at Kapichitâ.’