|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA No. 21, Plate iii. (Ksh. 3). Above the image of a Yaksha in Cave No. 18. TEXT. . . . . . bena cha (1) . . . ni . . . . . yâva (2) Nadâsiriyâva (3) cha veikâ (4) yakho cha kâritâ (5). REMARKS. (1) The traces preceding be make one think of a ṭ. Is it the rest of kuṭuṁbena ? Above the traces of this hypothetical ṭ, the rest of sidhaṁ, which began the epigraph, are still discernible in the preceding line.─ (2) AS. ºni . e . . . y⺠; G. ºyâcha.─ (3) G. Nadsiº.─ (4) G. veyikâ.─ (5) G. kâritô. TRANSLATION. “ . . . . . and by Nadâsirî the rail pattern and the Yaksha have been caused to be made.” No. 22, Plate vi. (Ksh. 1.) On the upper sill of the right window in Cave No. 19.
TEXT.
1 Sâdavâhanakule (1) Kanhe râjini Nâsikakena
REMARKS. (1) AS. ºkula.─ (2) G. kâritaṁ. TRANSLATION. “ Under king Kṛishṇa of the Sâtavâhana family this cave has been caused to be made by the officer in charge of the Śramaṇas at Nâsik.” I can hardly believe that the apparent readings º kakena, ºmaṇena, ºteṇa can all be correct. Samaṇa as a proper noun seems little likely, the more so as in our epigraphs the adjective expressing the origin or the town of the donor is generally placed after his name. I consider it easier to admit that, for instance, samaṇena ought really to be read samaṇânaṁ, and that the functionary here meant─ conformably to the precedent with the Aśôka, of which Bhagwanlal reminds us in connection with this very text,─ was entrusted with the inspection of the monks in the Nâsik district. Hence my proposed translation, which is of course hypothetical. No. 23, Plate v. (N. 9). Over the doorway of the last cell in Cave No. 20. TEXT.
1 Deyadharmmo yaṁ upâsi-
TRANSLATION. “ This gift, a cave, of the lay devotee Mammâ.” No. 24, Plate i. (Ksh. 22). On the back wall of the veranda in Cave No. 20. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|