|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA TEXT.
1 Sidhaṁ raño Gotamiputasa sâmi-Siriyaña-Sâtakaṇisa saṁvachhare (1) sâtame
7 hematâṇa pakhe tatiye 3
REMARKS. (1) G. and AS. savachhaº.─ (2) G. padhame ; AS. paṭhame. The central dot of tha seems certain on the back.─ (3) AS. ºsenâpatiniya.─ (4) G. and AS. ºmâṇas paº ; AS. ºyavesita º.─ (5) G. and AS. payavasâne.─ (6) G. nîte. TRANSLATION. “ Success ! On the first day of the third─ 3rd─ fortnight of winter, in the seventh─ 7th─ year of the king, the lord Śrîyaña-Sâtakaṇi, son of Gotamî, the Mahâsênâpatnî Vâsu, wife of the Mahâsênâpati Bhavagopa, of the Kauśika family, has completed and given, as an abode to the universal Saṁgha of monks, this cave which had been excavated for many years, but, after having been created by the ascetic Bopaki, had remained uncompleted.”
Bühler gave up the interpretation of the third line, and Bhagwanlal’s tentative translation was only arrived at by unaccountable devices. I think it absolutely necessary to co-ordinate the different links ºsujamâne, º samâne, ukute, nito, the combination of neuters (e = aṁ) and masculines (supposing the reading to be certain) being here in no way surprising. The different epithets express with precision and in the most satisfactory manner the succession of events which concern the cave. The initial date cannot refer to anything but the finishing and consecration of the cave ; it follows that the whole epigraph must be construed as a single sentence, which ends with the present donation after having enumerated the successive circumstances which explain it. The reading apaya instead of sapaya is important for understanding the passage. It is well known how similar the initial a and the s are in this script. We have here one more instance in the fact that Bühler wavers so much between the transcriptions tisuja and tiaja. The necessary antithesis between payavasâṇa nito and apayavasitaº seems to place my correction above all doubt. The reading ºjamâṇe also appears to be better supported by the traces visible on the estampage. It is after all of little importance, as the function and meaning of the word would in either case be just the same. The function is stated by what has been said above. As to the meaning, the matter seems more Vopaki (compare Vôpadêva). But sṛijati means ‘ to create, to produce ’ only in a half philosophical acceptation, and, it must be owned, such a use of the word here does not look very likely. As for ukute, I take it not = utkṛita which gives no good meaning, but = utkṛitta, ‘ cut, hewn,’ i.e. ‘ excavated.’ No. 25, Plate vi. (Ksh. 15). On the front wall of an unfinished cave beyond Cave No. 23. TEXT.
1 Sidhaṁ raño Vâsiṭhiputasa sâmi-Siri-Pulu-
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|