South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

now be added after attention has been invited to this point. Of course the unsatisfactory explanation of raṇaśiraḥ = sênâgra, having once been suggested, may have contributed to enlarge the use of the word. Anyhow I consider that here samaraśirasi means no more than samarê or samarêshu.

Kelâsapavatasikhara being perfectly certain, vimâna ought not to be interpreted as an unspecified ‘ palace,’ but as one of the heavenly mansions of the gods residing on Kailâsa. The Prâkṛit Tiraṇhu must, notwithstanding its irregular form, be = Sanskṛit Triraśmi. The meaning of raśanâ is partially identical with raśmi ; this circumstance may have favoured the transition, especially the substitution of n for m. Besides, local names are subject to dialectic accidents, of which it is often difficult to state the origin and fix the measure. Of Bhadâvanîya the etymologically correct form is that which we shall find in the next epigraph, viz. Bhadâyaniya (-ka). Regarding that sect, a subdivision of the Sthaviras, comp. Rhys Davids in J. R. As. Soc., N. S., 1891, p. 411 ff., an 1892, pp. 5-7. As to the relation between the three genitives at the end of line 10 of the text, I may refer to my remarks on K. 13 above.

Chitaṇanimita is translated : ‘ to allow (this cave) to be taken care of ’ by Bühler, who reads chitanâ and takes it to mean chintana ; and : ‘ for painting (the cave)’ by Bhagvanlal, who reads chitaṇa and derives the word from chitrayati. This etymology, which is recommended by the ṇ, seems to me to be the only acceptable one, although Bhagwanlal probably limits the meaning too closely. Chitray may as well be taken in the general sense of ‘ ornamentation, embellishment.’ Bühler seems to have been influenced by the comparison of leṇasa paṭisatharaṇe which, in the next inscription, sums up the object of the present donation. To be sure, the two expressions cannot contradict each other ; but nothing requires a priori that they should be exactly synonymous. Chintana has the very definite and abstract meaning of ‘ thought ;’ it is not easy to introduce it here without some violence. We shall see on the other hand that the explanation ‘ for the repairs of the cave,’ proposed for paṭisaṁtharaṇe in N. 3, is far from being certain.

The restoration ṇa[tâ . . . . Dakhiṇâ]paṭhisaro is as probable as the translation of pitupatiyo proposed by Bühler is inadmissible. Dharmasêtu, in religious phraseology, especially that of inscriptions till a rather recent period (above, Vol. III. p. 343 ; Vol. IV. p. 207, etc.), denotes figuratively a foundation as ‘ a bridge, a dam of merit,’ which enable its author to get over the ocean of saṁsâra. The way in which the word is used in ll. 12-13 of the next inscription could lead us to fancy that it is here transformed into a proper name, attached to that cave which has been dug out by the king’s grandmother. Such a name, however, would be very vague and little significant. I admit that dhamasetu must be taken in its ordinary meaning, as an apposition to leṇa either expressed or understood, to mean ‘ the pious foundation ’ of the queen. I cannot account for the curious idea of Bhagwanlal, who sees in it the personal name of some ‘ manager of the cave.’ As to pitupatiyo, he transcribes it by paitṛipitṛikaḥ. He evidently thought of the analogy of pitṛipaitâmaha ; but the two are in no way identical. It might be admitted that they are equivalent, and that pitṛipitṛi= ‘ father and (father’s) father.’ The insuperable difficulty lies in the reading. The stone does not bear pitupitiyo or pitupetiyo, but pitupatiyo. The i-vowel after the second p is decidedly excluded by the tail of the r in the preceding line, and no trace of an e-vowel can be discovered. It is pitupatiyo and nothing else that has to be explained. Patti in the Buddhist Pâli, i.e. prâpti, is a technical term denoting the application to another of the merit acquired by good works, by a gift, by a foundation (Childers, s.v.). It is probably through the intermediate meaning ‘ a part, participation,’ that the word has come to be used in that way. Thus pitupattiyo or ºttiko means ‘ who is applying to his father the merit of his donations.’ The king speaks of his father only because his father alone is dead, and he begins by alluding to his mother, proclaiming his donation to be inspired by his veneration towards her and his wish to share in her views. It is therefore just as if he had said, with an idiom more familiar to the language of inscriptions, pitaram uddiśya. From this case I am inclined to conclude, without