North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN

TRANSLATION

..Success! Hail! When seven hundred and ninety-nine−in figures799−years of the era of the Śaka king had passed (and) during the increasingly victorious reign of the Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara, the illustrious Amōghavarsha (I), (and) during the prosperous rule of the illustrious Kapardin (II), the Mahāsāmanta and the lord of Kōṅkaṇa graciously granted by him (i.e. Amōghavarsha I), the respectable Vēva [5] has made over a hundred drammas to the Venerable Community dwelling in the Mahāvihāra on the famous (hill of ) Kṛishṇagiri, and has thereby established a room [6] suitable for meditation together with the clothing and other gifts (to be made the monks). This endowment should, out of compassion for the venerable monks, be preserved as long as the moon, the sun and other (luminaries) shine. He who will not preserve this endowment shall be guilty of the five sins which result in immediate retribution and shall suffer great pain in the Avīchi and other (hells).

..(Lines 4-6) [7] − This deed has been approved in the presence of the Community of the Āchāryas and has been confirmed (by it) and has been caused to be written. Witnesses of this are the Āchārya Dharmākaramitra, the Gōmin Avighnākara and Pattiyānayoga.

..Fortune, earth and so forth are obtained by (one’s) religious merit.

No. 4 : PLATES VII AND VIII
PRINCE OF WALES MUSEUM PLATES OF CHHADVAIDĒVA

THE grant on these plates was first brought to notice by R.D. Banerji in the Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, For 1919-20, pp. 55-56. Its find-spot is not known, but it was in the collection of George Da Gunha and was purchased by the Trustees of the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay, in 1919. Banerjee has given a brief and, in some respects, incorrect account of the grant in the aforementioned Report. [8]
_________________________

[1] Kielhorn read पुरतो, but there si no mātrā of the medial ō on ta and the incomplete vertical stroke after the letter appears accidental.
[2] Kielhorn read पत्तिया[णक]योग: on the strength of the reading पत्तियाणकयोगनामा in line 5 of No. 2. But here the name appears to be पत्तियानयोग:. Some space was left between या and न owing to the defect of the wall surface.
[3] Kielhorn read पुण्येन निरमेति [श्री] which makes no sense. From the estampage the aksharas appear to be damaged.
[4] The visarga after इति is superfluous. The aksharas are read West’s eye-copy. They are engraved on the capital of a column’. J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. VI, p. 10.
[5] Kielhorn read Vishṇu as the name of the person who made this endowment evidently in view of the occurrence of that name in line 3 of No. 1. But it is doubtful if Vishṇugupta who made that endowment 34 years before was living at the time when this inscription was incised. The letters do not admit of that reading.
[6] Kielhorn, who read Kōlhivēśmikā here, took it to mean ‘a hall-mansion’, but the reading here as in a similar context in No. 2 is Kōlivēśmikā. I am not certain about its meaning, but it may have denoted ‘a room’.
[7] Kielhorn has not translation the words in line 6.
[8] See Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVI, pp. 282 f. Altekar also cited two passages from it and discussed some historical information in it in his Rāshṭrakūṭas and Their Times, (1934), pp. 106 and 109, but he did not include it in his list of Śilāhāra Inscriptions in Ind. Cult., Vol. II, pp. 430 f.