Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela and Bhabru Edict of Asoka

Author(s): Shashi Kant
Publisher: D K Print World
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006726/1

Page #1

The Hāthīgumphā Inscription
of Khāravela
and The Bhabru Edict of Aśoka
CA
RE
EU
ARAB SERDE DE DE
SHASHI KANT

Page #2

ver since its discovery in AD 1825, Khāravela’s Hāthīgumphā Inscription
has had a fascinating course. It is not a royal panegyric merely; it is an epitome of history, specially of the so-called dark period - unveiling, as it does, the political and cultural conditions that prevailed in India during the three centuries before Christ's birth. And yet more significantly, it is the only hitherto-known document to tell the saga of its heroic author: the first historical king from India's eastern coast to lead extensive campaigns in different directions. But for this inscription, Mahāmeghavāhana Khāravela could never have been resurrected from oblivion. Likewise personal in character is Asoka's Bhabru Edict, considered as the earliest written record of Buddhist scripture and monastic organisation. For the history of Buddhism, this little document is as important as the Khāravela's Hāthīgumphā Inscription is for that of Jainism. Shashi Kant's study examines afresh these inscriptions: not just for their thematic similarity, but essentially for their crucial historicity. Going into their tenor and context, it is the first ever decipherment/interpretation of the two rare documents, with the whole Jaina and Buddhist traditions in the background. The author demolishes myths, addresses controversies and, these besides, offers convincing theories that are authenticated by recent archaeological findings. Acclaimed and favourably reviewed in India and elsewhere alike, this epigraphic study is now in its second, enlarged edition — including a whole new section on the genesis of the Prākrt languages and the ancient Indian scripts. Together with the original epigraphs, their romanised transliteration and English translation, it holds out immense appeal to the scholars of ancient Indian history, epigraphy, archaeology, and Buddhist-and-Jaina studies.

www a
lfary.ge

Page #3

The Hathigumphā Inscription of Khāravela
and
The Bhabru Edict of Aśoka

Page #4

Page #5

The Hathigumpha Inscription of Khāravela and
The Bhabru Edict of Aśoka - A Critical Study -

Shashi Kant
R
D.K.Printworld (P) Ltd.
NEW DELHI - 110 015

Page #6

Cataloging in Publication Data -- DK Shashi Kant, 1932 -
The Häthigumphä inscription of Khāravela and the Bhabru Edict of Asoka.
Includes bibliographical references (p.). Includes index.
1. India – History --- 324 BC -- 1000 AD — Sources. 2. Khāravela, King of Kalinga. 3. Asoka, King of Magadha, fl. 272 BC — 232 BC 4. Inscriptions, Prakrit. 5. Buddhism - India - History - Sources. I. Title.
First Edition 1971 Second Revised Edition 2000 © Author ISBN 81-246-0139-9
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.
Published and printed by: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. Regd. office : 'Sri Kunj', F-52, Bali Nagar New Delhi-110015 Phones : (011) 545-3975, 546-6019; Fax : (011) 546-5926 E-mail: dkprint@4mis.com

Page #7

To those who are interested in digging up
the past

Page #8

Page #9

Foreword
The Häthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela is one of the few significant sources available for the dark period in the history of India between the fall of the Mauryan dynasty and the rise of the Guptas. Composed as it is in a very obscure Prakrit, and its characters badly weathered by centuries of exposure to the elements and in places quite illegible, this inscription has long been the subject of a great controversy among historians and palaeographers. Many uncertainties and ambiguities still remain. The date of the inscription is as yet not finally settled, and opinions vary over a period of about two hundred years. Certain scholars believe that it is a little later than the inscriptions of Asoka, while others would date it not long before the beginning of the Christian era.
The new edition and translation of this inscription by Dr. Shashi Kant marks a great step in our understanding of this very difficult historical document. In many particulars the fresh interpretation presented here is an obvious improvement over those of previous students of the subject. After reading Dr. Kant's typescript, I find myself in agreement with him in most particulars, though I must record my doubts as to his views on the chronology of the inscription. The style of the script suggests to me a date in the first century BC, and I would prefer to interpret the obscure chronological data in the inscription itself as referring to a period 300 years after the Nanda King, and not 103. But authorities may differ, and in general I would heartily recommend this interpretation to all students of Indian history.
With this is included a further study of one of Asoka's most obscure inscriptions, the Bhabru Edict. This little document is

Page #10

viii
The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
as important for the history of Buddhism as the Khāravela's Hāthīgumphā Inscription is for that of Jainism, and it arouses many questions as to the correct interpretation of the passages of scripture referred to and the relations of church and state under Asoka's regime. Here, too, Dr. Shashi Kant has produced new theories of great importance and I recommend them to all students of Indian history and religions.
January, 1971
A.L. Basham
Ph. D., D.Litt. Professor of Oriental Civilisation The Australian National University
Canberra (Australia)

Page #11

Preface to the Second Edition
It is indeed gratifying that the book has attracted notice of reputed scholars in the field. It has been extensively reviewed both in India and outside. It has also found a place in the curriculum of several universities. The compliments of Prof. Jes P. Asmussen that it is a fine piece of work, of Prof. A.L. Basham that he found it a very impressive study, of Prof. N.S. Ramaswami that it is a lucidly argued and fairly presented attempt to set out the problems and to find the answers, of Dr. Krishna Deva that the book is indeed very well written and documented, and of Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharan that the book for the first time tackles some of the very complicated problems of Indian history from every conceivable angle, as well as the appreciation by the learned reviewers, are highly encouraging. I am grateful to all these savants for having bestowed so much thought on my book and for making some valuable suggestions, as also the editors and publishers of the Journals for sparing space for the reviews.
To make the work more useful, I have added further annotations, as also Section III on the genesis of the Prakrit languages and the ancient Indian scripts. Some controversial issues, e.g., the Himavanta-Theravali, the era of dates given by Khāravela, the dates of the Buddha's parinirvana and Mahavira's nirvana, identification of Asikanagara and Kamhabemna, interpretation of coyatha, and problems relating to Satakamni and Bahasatimita, Kalinga Jina, Schism and Khāravela, the Schism, Kalinga and Jainism, Nandas and Jainism, and Aśoka and Kalinga, have been discussed in Appendix III. The bibliography has been updated.

Page #12

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
In orthography, textual words and ancient names have been rendered into the Roman script with appropriate diacritical marks; the place names have been spelt as in The Oxford School Atlas (29th edn., 1997). Locations have been updated according to current geography.
X
The photo-plates of the Hathigumpha Inscription are being published by courtesy of the Patna Museum, Patna, that of the Bhabru Edict by courtesy of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, and the other photographs by courtesy of the Archaeological Survey of India.
It would be ungrateful of me if I fail to put on record now that the insight to probe into the mysteries of epigraphy is a byproduct of the method of teaching Epigraphy by the late Prof. C.D. Chatterji of Lucknow University. And it would be callous on my part if I do not mention my wife Manjari who bears with me to let me burn night-light in the rough-and-tough of my literary, journalistic and research pursuits
I am thankful to Mr. Susheel K. Mittal, Director, D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd., for bringing out the second revised edition.
Jyoti Nikunj, Charbagh Lucknow 226004
Nov. 7, 1999

Shashi Kant

Page #13

Preface to the First Edition
THE Hāthīgumphā Inscription is the only extant record about a forgotten epoch in Indian history. It is highly personal and that makes it all the more important for the history of its author. It is unique inasmuch as it gives the dates of earlier events, records the doings of its author in a chronological sequence regnal yearwise, and presents the earliest written exposition of Jain terminology and corroboration of the Jain scriptural tradition.
The Bhabru Edict is earlier in date. It is also personal in character. The significant thing about this epigraph is that it provides the earliest written record of the Buddhist scripture and monastic organisation.
The studies of these inscriptions, presented here, are independent but they have been combined as they have thematic similarity. Their interpretations suffered in the past for want of correct appreciation of the Jain and Buddhist traditions. Fresh attempt has been made here to read these inscriptions keeping in view the tenor and context, and to correlate and interpret the data with reference to relevant traditions and more recent archaeological finds.
For the studies presented here I owe a debt of deep gratitude to all those savants whose patient researches enabled me to know something of our heritage. A great many of them are no longer with us, but the fruits of their toil inspire us and sustain us in the uphill task of exploring new data and appraising the known data so that the missing links in our history may be found and the coming generations may be better informed about their history and culture.

Page #14

xii The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Prof. A. L. Basham, Prof. R.K. Dikshit and Prof. K.D. Bajpai have been kind enough to go through the typescript and I am thankful to them for their appreciation. These studies would not haye taken a shape but for the encouragement I received from my father Dr. Jyoti Prasad Jain. The credit for getting it into print goes to the Prints India. Lucknow
Shashi Kant December, 1971

Page #15

Contents
Foreword Preface to the Second Edition Preface to the First Edition Critique Abbreviations Transliteration Chart List of Plates Maps
The Empire of Asoka Maurya Dominions and Campaigns of Khāravela
xxiii
xxiv
SECTIONI The Häthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela 1. The Inscription
Introductory Decipherment Site Text
Translation 2. The Date of the Inscription and its Author 3. Khāravela
Personal history Campaigns Dominions

Page #16

xiv The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
4. Socio-Political Conditions 5. Jainism 6. Epilogue
SECTION II
The Bhabru Edict of Asoka 1. Discovery, Text and Translation 2. Māgadhe or Māgadham 3. Identification of Scripture 4. Buddhism and Asoka
SECTION III
Prakrit and Brāhmi
1. Genesis of the Prakrit Languages 2. Tradition of writing, and scripts, in Ancient India 105
111
115
APPENDICES I. Reconstituted texts in Nāgarī characters II. Translation in Hindi III. Additional Notes IV. Chronology
V. Transcription Chart of Brāhmi Script VI. Symbols in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription
119
129
131
136
137
Plates Bibliography Index
153 161

Page #17

Critique
The empire of Khāravela was short-lived, but he evidently was as important for the history of Jainism as Asoka was for that of Buddhism. The documents most important for the history of
religion are the object of Dr. Kant's penetrating study. His book · certainly marks a great step in our understanding of these difficult
historical texts, a fact sharply stressed by the careful text edition, the sound translation and the illuminating remarks on Jainism, Buddhism and Asoka, and the personal history of Khāravela.
PROF. JES P. ASMUSSEN University of Copenhagen, Denmark
(Acta Orientalia, XXXVI)
Dr. Kant sums up the earlier research and gives his own translation with copious notes on other authors' views. His work gives many original suggestions.
PROF. J. VACEK Academia Praha,
Czechoslovakia (Archiv Orientalini, XLII)
Dr. Shashi Kant's monograph is useful in understanding not only the problems, but also because of the light it throws on the brilliant career of its author, Khăravela. It will be of much help to the students

Page #18

xvi The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict of ancient Indian culture because of the various readings of both the records which have been given by the author together with a comparative palaeographical chart and an exhaustive bibliography.
Dr. M.K. DHAVALIKAR
Deccan College, Pune (Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, LIII)
An account of the socio-political conditions in Khāravela's time, describing fairs and festivals, polygamy, four-fold army, navy and political alliances or confederacies has been carefully incorporated. Two maps showing (1) the extent of Khāravela's empire and his wide military expeditions and (2) Asoka Maurya's empire, and a bibliography have added no doubt to the value of the book.
Dr. B.K. MAJUMDAR Calcutta University
(Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, IX, 4)
Patient and diligent decipherment and intelligent interpretation of a controversial record, may reveal the past in newer and newer perspectives. Dr. Shashi Kant's book under review is an example thereof. His present study of the epigraph helps understanding this very difficult historical document better than before. A fresh meaning and interpretation of the Bhabru edict, based on relevant Buddhist traditions, is also thought provoking.
DR. DEVENDRA HANDA Punjab University, Chandigarh (Vishveshvaranand Indological
Journal, X)

Page #19

Critique
xvii Reproduction of original epigraphs and the palaeographic chart have greatly enhanced the usefulness of the work.
Prof. M.C. CHOUDHURY Kurukshetra University
(Prāci-Jyoti, VIII)
The book, written in lucid and simple style, is a very useful and helpful contribution to the literature on the subject.
Dr. M.L. SHARMA
Jaipur (Journal of the Rajasthan Institute of Historical Research, IX, 3)
Dr. Shashi Kant's monograph is a lucidly argued and fairly presented attempt to set out the problems and to find the answers. Nothing is more probable than that Khāravela, a pious Jaina, should have dated the events in his epigraph in the Mahāvīra Era which it is believed, began on the day of the nirvāņa of Mahāvira, October 15, 527 BC.
The Tamil Sangam poems refer to the Nandas. There is an old tradition of the south's contacts with them, though these might be less intense than those with their successors, the Mauryas, of whom Bindusāra is said to have invaded the region.
The Hāthigumphā epigraph is also important in Jaina theological history. Dr. Shashi Kant seems to break new ground in explaining its significance.
The Bhabru edict mentions many Buddhist scriptures, the identification of which has caused some difficulties. Dr. Shashi Kant suggests many identifications of the sacred texts mentioned in his immaculate edition of the edict.

Page #20

xviii The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
This book provides much of the critical apparatus needed for each scholar to judge for himself. Dr. Shashi Kant brings to his task a profound knowledge of Jaina and Buddhist religions, the keen sense of the epigraphical scholar, and a willingness to accept the latest archaeological findings.
PROF. N.S. RAMASWAMI
Madras University (Journal of Oriental Research,
XXXVIII, Pt. I-IV)
Although one may not agree with all that Dr. Shashi Kant says about the chronology of Khăravela, his interpretation of the .unique record is highly critical, refreshing and sparkles with originality and his reconstruction of the social, cultural and religious life from the data furnished by the epigraphy is indeed brilliant. His interpretation of the Bhabru Edict of Asoka also breaks new ground and provides a scintillating approach to a difficult and knotty epigraph. The book is indeed very well written and documented and marks a valuable contribution to Indological studies.
DR. KRISHNA DEVA Archaeological Survey of India
(Purātattva, No. 6)
The new edition and translation of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela by Dr. Shashi Kant marks a great step forward in our understanding of this very difficult historical document. In many particulars the fresh interpretation presented here is an obvious improvement over those of previous students of the subject.
The Bhabru Edict of Asoka is as important for the history

Page #21

Critique
xix of Buddhism as the Khāravela's Hāthīgumphā Inscription is for that of Jainism and it arouses many questions as to the correct interpretation of the passages of scripture referred to and the relations of church and state under Asoka's regime. Here, too, Dr. Shashi Kant has produced new theories of great importance.
DR. A.L. BASHAM The Australian National
University, Canberra
Dr. Shashi Kant has made an unbiased study of the two important inscriptions. His approach is new and critical.
DR. RAM KUMAR DIKSHIT
Lucknow University
Dr. Shashi Kant has studied these two important inscriptions critically. The book will go a long way in dispelling several wrong conceptions pertaining to the subject.
PROF. KRISHNA DUTT BAJPAI Dr. H.S. Gaur University, Sagar
The approach is scholarly but Dr. Shashi Kant's deep understanding of the subject has made the contents intelligible even to the average reader.
DR. GANGA RAM GARG Gurukul Kangri Vishvavidyalaya,
Haridwar

Page #22

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict No better book has come to light so far on the subject.
ITIHASA-MANIŞI DR. JYOTI PRASAD JAIN Eminent Jainologist
XX
The book for the first time tackles some of the very complicated problems of Indian history from every conceivable angle, and will serve as a guideline both for the post-graduate scholars and the advanced researchers in the field.
DR. MAHESH KUMAR SHARAN Magadh University, Bodh Gaya
Your book is a marvellous work, many a times giving new readings and fresh interpretations.

DR. M.D. VASANTHARAJ Mysore University

Page #23

Abbreviations
A.B.O.R.I.
:
A.S.I.
AD
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Archaeological Survey of India Christian Era Appendix Dr. B.M. Barua in I.H.Q., XIV Before Christ
: : :
App.
circa
Cunn.
:
e.g.
ed.
i
edn.
EJ.
I.A.
: :
compare Sir Alexander Cunningham for example editor edition Epigraphia Indica and the following footnote Indian Antiquary Indian Archaeology - A Review that is Indian Historical Quarterly the same Introduction K.P. Jayaswal & R.D. Banerji in E.I., XX Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society
L.A.R.
:
i.e. 1.H.Q. ibid. Intro.
: :
J.B.O.R.S.

Page #24

XX11
J.D.L.
J.O.R.
J.R.A.S.
J.U.P.H.S.
K.R.E.
L
lit.
M.A.S.B.
M.E.
M.P.E.
M.R.E.
op. cit.
opp.
p./pp.
pl.
pt.
R.
R.E.
ref.
S
S.B.E.
S.I.
sec.
Skt.
tr., trans.
V.
vide
viz.
vol.
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
: Journal of the Deptt. of Letters
Journal of the Oriental Research
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
: Journal of the U.P. Historical Society
: Kalinga Rock Edict
Line
literally
Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
Mahavira Era

:
:
:
:
1:
:
: Minor Pillar Edict
Minor Rock Edict
The work cited
:
:
:
:
plate
part
River
Rock Edict
reference
D.C. Sircar in S.I.
: Sacred Books of the East
: Select Inscriptions by D.C. Sircar
section
Sanskrit
translation, translator
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
opposite
page/pages
:
verse
see
: namely
Volume

Page #25

Transliteration Chart
-
a अ
à i I
आ इ ई If १
u उ
ū ऊ
e ए
ai ऐ
0 ओ
au
औ ।
5.
Bo F
gh
-
- 15' om
¢
dh
o
how
।
1 थ् ph फ्
d द् b ब्
dh ध् bh भ्
प्
m म्
र ल व् $ Sh
ks

Page #26

List of Plates
I. The Bhabru Edict of Asoka L 1-12 II. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela (first part) L 1-12 III. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela (first part) L 5-17 IV. The Häthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela (second part) L 1-12
V. The Häthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela (second part) L 5-17 VI. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela (third part) L 1-12 VII. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela (third part) L 5-17 VIII. The Häthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela (fourth part) L 1-12
(concluded) IX. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela (fourth part) L 5-17
(concluded) X. The Hāthīgumphā XI. The Hāthīgumphā and other caves on the Udayagiri XII. The remains of the apsidal structure overlying the Häthigumphà XIII. Sketch of the apsidal structure XIV. The Mañcapuri and Svargapuri
XV. Worship scene on a frieze in the Mañcapuri XVI. The Pãtālapuri XVII. The Rāni Gumphā XVIII. Friezes in the Rāni Gumphã
(a) Hunting scene (b) Merry-making scene

Page #27

SECTIONI THE HATHĪGUMPHA INSCRIPTION OF KHĀRAVELA

Page #28

Page #29

1
The Inscription
Introductory
THE Hathigumpha Inscription of Mahämeghavahana Khāravela has had a fascinating course since its discovery in AD 1825. It is not a royal panegyric merely; it is an epitome of history. Such chronological narration of events in a matter-of-fact manner is yet to be found on rock, pillar or stone of an ancient date. It has an order and a sequence not met so far in any other inscription of comparable date and that makes it much more valuable as a historical document. Moreover, it forms the only source of information about its author and subject.
The inscriptions of Devanāmpriya Priyadarsi Aśoka, definitely earlier than this epigraph of Kharavela, give very little information of political nature and read more like sermons incised on stone. More or less contemporary Nanaghat Inscription and the later Nasik Cave Inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas, as also the Girnar Inscription of Rudradaman, present little as a chronological record. They, as well as the later prasastis, or eulogistic inscriptions, as they are so aptly called, generally seem to make vague claims and assertions for their royal authors or patrons through praiseful epithets.

In fact, such a historically potent epigraph is yet to be discovered elsewhere in the contemporary world. In India, the place which is assigned to Kalhaṇa's Rajatarangiņi among ancient historical writings, is well deserved by this inscription in the realm of epigraphy and it betrays well-informed historical

Page #30

The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict consciousness among the Indians more than two thousand years ago.
To use the terminology of Kautilya, it is a Prajñāpana Lekha (Public Notification) engraved for the purpose of narrating (ākhyānam) the principal events of the life and reign of King Khāravela, and is endowed with all the six qualities of arthakrama (proper arrangement), sambandha (relevancy), paripūrņatā (completeness), mādhuryam (sweetness), audāryam (dignity) and spastatvam (lucidity), that make a good composition.
Decipherment No wonder therefore that this inscription has been engaging the attention of the Indologists and claiming their best labours for the last nearly one-and-a-half century. The story of its decipherment is on that account no less fascinating. It was first noticed by Stirling in AD 1825 who gave an account of it in the Asiatic Researches, XV (pp. 313ff.), and was first published by Prinsep from an eye-copy prepared by Kittoe in 1837, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, VI (pp. 1075-91, plate LVIII). A tracing of the inscription was published by Cunningham in the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, I (pl. XVIII, pp. 27f, 98-101, 132ff.), in 1877, and a version of it, by Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra in the Antiquities of Orissa, II (pp. 16 ff.), in 1880. The same year a cast was also taken to the Indian Museum, Calcutta.
It was, however, only in 1885 that the first reliable version was given by Dr. Bhagwan Lal Indraji in the Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes (pt. III, sec. 2, pp. 15277). He also made out the name as Khāravela. Bühler suggested certain corrections in 1895 and 1898. The first inked impression was taken in 1906 by Dr. T. Bloch and was sent to Prof. Keilhorn
1. Arthasāstra, X (trans. R. Shamasastry, fourth edn., pp. 71-75). 2. "Origin of Indian Brāhmi Alphabet, Indian Studies, No. III, p. 13.

Page #31

The Inscription who passed it on to Dr. J.F. Fleet. In 1910 Fleet published certain corrections in Line 161 and Lüders also published a summary.2 In 1913 Prof. R.D. Banerji examined certain portions and in 1917 two inked impressions were again taken, one of which was published in the Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, III, 4 (pl. I), and the other was sent to Dr. F.W. Thomas. Dr. K.P. Jayaswal discussed and read it on the basis of that impression in J.B.O.R.S., III, 4 (pp. 425ff.), and the next year he published a revised text of his reading after checking it from the rock itself.4 In 1919 Jayaswal and Banerji examined the inscription on the spot and H. Panday of the Archaeological Survey Department prepared a cast of which two paper impressions were also taken. “It is as successful a copy as the present condition of the original allowed it to be." It was published in 1927 in J.B.O.R.S., XIII. The cast and the paper impressions are preserved in the Patna Museum. In 1924, Jayaswal and Banerji went over the corrections and in 1927 and 1928 the former published the results of his further studies.5 In 1929 Dr. B.M. Barua also edited this inscription at No. 1 in his Old Brāhmi Inscriptions in the Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves. Sten Konow,6 Thomas, Muni Jina Vijaya and R.P. Chanda also added some useful information.
A somewhat definitive stage in decipherment was marked by a fuller discussion of its palaeography by Banerji in the Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, X (pp. 133ff.), as also
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
J.R.A.S, 1910, pp. 242ff, 824ff. E.I., X, App., pp. 160-61 (No. 1345). Banerji's Note is on pp. 486ff. therein. J.B.O.R.S., IV, pp. 364ff. J.B.O.R.S., XIII, pp. 221ff. ; XIV, pp. 150ff. Acta Orientalia, I, pp. 12ff. J.R.A.S., 1922, pp. 83-84. Quoted in E.1., XX; also his letter in Anekânta, 1, 6-7, p. 351. I.H.Q., 1929, p. 395f., 595.

Page #32

The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict by a joint edition of the text by Jayaswal and Banerji in 192930 in the Epigraphia Indica, XX (pp. 71-89, No. 7). The latter also on that basis reconstructed the history of Khāravela in his History of Orissa, I (pp. 71-92). Barua did not agree with them and so he published his revised edition in 1938 in the Indian Historical Quarterly, XIV, 3 (pp. 459-85). In 1942 Dr. D.C. Sircar published his readings and annotations in the Select Inscriptions, I (pp. 206-13, No. 91). Perhaps no other single epigraph has been the subject of so much research and controversy. And yet it leaves much to be desired.
Site
Some three miles to the north and north-east of Bhubaneshwar in the Puri district of Orissa is situated a low range of hills called the Khandagiri and Udayagiri. These hills preserve some of the early specimens of rock-cut architecture in eastern India. The excavations are known in the local parlance as the gumphā, or cave. The two-storeyed Rāņi Gumphā on the Udayagiri represents the Orissan rock-cut cave architecture at its best.? To the west of it is the Badā Hāthīgumphā (Big Elephant Cave), “a natural cavern, very little improved and enlarged by art”, on the southern face of the Udayagiri.
On the overhanging brow of this Hāthīgumphā is engraved the precious record of the doings of King Khāravela of Kalinga,
1.
Among further notable contributions may be added : Sircar in The History and Culture of the Indian People, II, pp. 211ff; Balchandra Jain's Kalinga-Cakravarti (in Hindi); Dr. N.K. Sahu's Khāravela, and also in A History of Orissa, pp. 327-30; Jagannath in A Comprehensive History of India, II, pp. 111-15; Dr. L.N. Sahu - Udisă mein Jaina Dharma (Hindi tr.), pp. 39-73; and Dr. J.P. Jain - Bharatiya Itihasa: Eka Dysti (in Hindi), pp. 180-90. For fuller account, see Percy Brown - Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods), (fourth edn., 1959), pp. 28-30. There are two Hāthigumphās on the same hill. To distinguish between the two, one is called Chotă (Small) Hāthigumph, and the other, merely Hāthigumphā or Badā (Big) Hāthigumphā.
a
co

Page #33

The Inscription otherwise little known to history, in seventeen lines covering an area 15 feet 1 inch in length and 5 feet 6 inches in height. "The inscription begins on the southern face and is continued up to a place where the stone has actually become the roof of the cave. The last eight or nine lines occur on a sloping surface where it is difficult either to read or copy them. Below the inscription the walls of the natural cavern have been chiselled straight and at places are as beautifully polished as those of the Barabar caves. Near the floor there are sundry rock-cut partitions which do not appear to have been regular walls as they do not go up to the roof. In the dressed and polished portion of the side or the wall of the cave there are a number of later inscriptions (of about the tenth or eleventh century AD)' many of which contain proper names which are not of any historical interest. They prove, however, that the cave was visited by pilgrims up to the tenth century AD and therefore it must have been considered some sort of a sacred shrine. The bed of the cave is full of sand in front and unless it is excavated its original form cannot be determined. The Hāthigumphā stands at right angles to Svargapuri and Mañcapuri on its left and the Sarpa cave on its right. There are several small and large excavations on the top of the boulder which forms the roof of the cave.”2
Although the entire record appears to have been very carefully inscribed, it has suffered greatly from Nature's fury. The record as it is now, is very much weather-beaten and shows signs of progressive natural decay. Three main problems confronting the epigraphists in deciphering it are: firstly, the different forms of a few letters, secondly, the misleading chiselmarks, and thirdly, the changes wrought by natural decay and weather conditions. As early as 1917 it was observed that “the rock was roughly dressed on the right-hand side. The chiselmarks of the dressing are misleading; they tend to produce
1.
See, Annual Report of Achaeological Survey of India, 1922-23, p. 130. Jayaswal and Banerji (E.I., XX, p. 72).
2.

Page #34

The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict misreadings. These long and irregular marks left by the original dressing, are not the only pitfalls. Rain-water which trickles down the roof of the cave has cut into the letters and produced a few letter-like marks. Natural decay produced by time has given misleading turns to numerous letters. Even hornets like to take liberty with the record of the Emperor Khāravela with perfect impunity and have added a few irregular marks on it.”
On the basis of the plates published in J.B.O.R.S., III and XIII, and I.H.Q., XIV,2 the inscription may be read as follows. Variants as well as my reasons for accepting a particular reading or restoration are given in the notes below. Punctuation marks have been indicated within brackets. The particles and characters which are not quite distinct but are most probably there, have also been shown within brackets. Components of compound words have been separated by hyphens where feasible.
Text
Line 1 Namo Arahamtānaṁ (.) Namo sava-Sidhānam (..)
1.
J.B.O.R.S., III, 4, p. 430. B.V. Nath, Superintendent of Archaeology and Museums, Orissa, had informed that an inpression was also taken by Dr. B. Ch. Chhabra in 1954. It has not been published. It may also be added that due to the progressive decay of the original the later impressions are likely to miss some characters, hence not much help can be derived from them. (Below, J stands for Jayaswal and Banerji in E.I., B for Barua in I.H.Q., and S for Sircar in S.I.) J - Ar(i)hamtānam B - Araha(m)tānam Since the medial i is doubtful, it would be better to read Arahamtānam.
3.

Page #35

The Inscription
9 Airena' Mahārājena Mahāmeghavāhanena? Cetirājava(m)sa-vadhanena Pasatha-subhalakhanena4 Caturamta-luthaņa-guna-upetenas
Kalimgādhipatinā-Siri-Khāravelena Line 2 paṁdarasa-vasāni siri-kadāra-sarīra-vatā kiditā
Kumāra-kidikā (.) Tato Lekha-rūpā-gananā-vavahāravidhi-visāradena Sava-vijāvadātena nava-vasāni Yovaraja(m) pasāsitamé (.) Sampuna-catuvisati-vaso
tadāni vadhamāna-sesa-yovanābhivijayo? tatiye -- Line 3 Kalimga-rājavaṁse-purisayuge Mahārājābhisecanaṁ8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
J & B - Airena S- Airena Since throughout the inscription na, and not na, has been used in the third case, it should be Airena. J & B - Māhāmeghavāhanena S-Mahāmeghavahanena J – vasa B — va(m)sa Vasa gives no sense here as it has been used in the meaning of 'year' throughout the inscription. J — lakhanena B - lakha(n)ena J – luthita-gun-opahitena B - luthana-guna-upetena S-Lutha(na)-guna-upitena Chanda was the first to make out guna-upetena correctly. J – pasāsitam B — va sāsitam, or, pasāsitam Va säsitam gives no meaning. J-vadhamāna-sesayo Ven-ābhivijayo B -- vadha(māna) (sesa)yovanäbhivijayo S.-vadhamānasesayovenābhivijayo J - Māhārajābhisecanam B - Mahārājābhisecanam
6.
7.
8.

Page #36

10
The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict pāpunāti (.) Abhisitamato ca padhame vase vātavihata' gopura-pākāra-nivesanaṁ pațisamkhārayati Kalimganagari-Khibiramo sitala-tadāga-pädiyo ca
baṁdhāpayati savāyāna-pațisaṁthapanaṁ ca Line 4 kårayati panatisāhi-sata-sahasehi (,) pakatiyo ca
ramjayati (.) Dutiye ca vase acitayitā Sātakamnimo pacima-disaṁ haya-gaja-nara-radha-bahulamdamdam pathāpayati Kaṁhabeṁnā6-gatāya ca
senāya vitāsiti? Asika-nagaraṁ (.) Tatiye puna vase Line 5 Gamdhava-veda-budho dapa-nata-gita-vādita
samdamsanāhio usava-samāja-kārāpanāhi ca
1.
2.
5.
J – vāta-vihita - B-vāta-vihata - J - Kalimga-nagari-Khibira —
- Kalimga-nagari-Khi(b)ira(m), or, Khi(pira(m), (,) S- Kalimganagari Khibi(ram) J - isi-tāla - B -- sitalaJ - Sātakarnim B - Sātakanim J - pathāpayati
- pathāpayati J - Kañha-beṁnā - B - Kanhabernam J— vitāsitam B-vitāsiti The context also warrants a finite verb. J -- M(u)sika-nagaram B - Asikanagaram The character is more clearly a than mu. J-samdaṁsanāhi B - samdasanāhi
7.
8.
9.

Page #37

11
The Inscription
kidapayatil nagarim (.) Tathā cavuthe vase Vijādharādhivāsaṁ ahata-puva-Kalimga-puvarāja n(i)v(e)s(i)t(i)2 – vitadha-makuța-sabila(dhi)te ca*
nikhita-chata Line 6 bhimgāre hita-ratana-sāpateye sava-Rathika-Bhojake
pāde vamdāpayati (.) Paṁcame ca dānió vase Namdarāja-tivasasata-oghāțitam Tanasuliyavāțā
1.
2.
3.
J - ca kidapayati B- kidāpayati Ca is also necessary to connect the two padas (compound words). J - (nivesitam) B-n(ivesitam) Indraji - namamsitam The letters na va sa ta are sufficiently clear. Since a finite verb is needed to make the meaning of the passage sensible, these letters seem to form nivesiti. Most probably there is nothing to read between nivesiti and vitadha. This space was either left out by the scribe due to roughness of the rock or some omission was made by him which necessitated the rubbing of the rock. J-- sabilaṁ(dhi)te B - (sabipravaji)te The characters sa bi la te are legible enough. Between la and te is a character which is more likely dhi. They seem to form sabiladhite which can mean 'caparisoned horse'. Horse was also considered to be an important insignia of royalty. It has, therefore, been bracketted with makuta (crown). This is the last component of the word beginning with vitadha. As in the following two words nikhita and hita govern the remaining components, here vitadha governs makuta and sabiladhite. J reads ca while B does not. It is distinct, as well as necessary for connecting the two principal clauses here. J - ca dāni B-cedāni
5.

Page #38

12 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
paņādim Nagaram pavesayati sa ....? (.) Abhisito ca.
...? rājaseyamo samdasayamto sava-kara-vana4. Line 7 anugaha-anekāni sata-sahasāni visajati pora
jānapadam (.) Satame ca vase pasāsato Vajiragharavati-ghusita-gharini s(ā) matuku-pada pumn(o)...ta pā...?(.) Athame ca vase mahatā-senāya
1.
2.
3.
J - pavesa(ya)ti (1) So...... B - pavesa(yati) so....... (.) Khāravela has given the cost of all of his public works. The mutilated portion ought to contain the cost incurred on the instant work. The sentence would naturally end after mutilation. Since only the initial character is distinct, it is not possible to restore the mutilation and make out the expenses. J- ......bhisito ca B - Abhisito (ca).... Barua has correctly suggested that the mutilation contained chathe vase. J - Rājas(ū)ya(m) B & Indraji – rājaseyam The following saídasayamto determines the choice. J-- vanań B -- vana - J – Poraṁ Jānapadam B – pora-janapadam J-Satamam ca vasam B - Satame ca vase All the regnal years in this inscription are given in the form given by Barua. There is no reason for making a departure from the usual practice here. J - pasāsato Vajiraghara-vati-ghusita-gharini sa matukapadapumne.......(Ku)ma.....) B - (a)sasata-vajiraghara-Khatiya-sata-ghatani Samataka-padasarna samtipada??....(.) Prinsep & Cunningham - savata-khadapana narapa savitaka
4.
5.
6.
7.

Page #39

13
The Inscription
(apati)hata-(bhi)ti-Goradhagirim Line 8 ghātāpayita Rajagaha-napa(n) pidapayatio (.) Etinam
ca kammapadāna-panāṁdenasambita-senavāhane vipamu(m)citu Madhuram apayāto Yamanā
padajhăna-sammatipada.)
The characters are not so obliterated as to permit such different readings. Only vati-ghusita can be alternately read as Khatiy(ā)-Sat(i) and by that the meaning retains sense.
1.
In the mutilated portion beyond pumno, two letters are fairly distinct. They are ta and pa. The context suggests restoration puñn(odayā)ta pā punāti). J-sen(ā). ...Goradhagirim B- senāya (apati)hata-(bhiti-Goradhagirim J – Rajagaharm upapidậpayati B- Rajagaha(m) upapidapayati Indraji - Rājagaha-napam pidāpayati Prinsep ---- Rājagabham upapidapayati Cunningham - Rajagambhu upapidapayati Konow also read napa which is clear enough. J --- Etin(ā) B-etinam J - sa(m)nádena B - panādena J - saṁb(i)ta -- B- pabamta - Prinsep – pambāta
4.
5.

Page #40

14 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
(nadim)'...? (.) Palavabhāra3 Line 9 kaparukhao haya-gaja-radha-saha yamte sava
gharāvās(i)-pūji. - Th(ū). —.. ya Sava-gahanaṁ ca
1.
J - Yavana-rāj(ā) D(i)mi(ta)... B - Yavana-rājā? mi??sa?(ā)mo, Since Konow made out Dimita the readings of this passage have been generally based on the presumption that it contains a reference to Demetrius, the Greek King. This presumption is, however, not well founded. What has hitherto been supposed to read Yavanaräjā, actually reads Yamanānadim. The letters beyond it are indistinct. Barua also thought that Dimita could not be definitely made out. Yamanā-nadim also fits more appropriately in the context. The verb apayāto definitely suggests a geographical point and discounts the possibility of a reference to any person. J - ... yachati. ... B-dati???....sava(ra)-(rā)jāna ca...ga(cha)ti The passage is very badly mutilated and it is difficult to make out any reading. It should contain words to indicate the direction of the Yamuna river from Kalinga or to indicate that the river lay in the Madhya-desa or something else to qualify it. Thereafter there may also be a reference to Khāravela's marching in procession attended by the satellite kings, as is suggested by the reading made out by Barua - savara-rājāna ca .... gachati. This reading is, however, not free from doubt and can be taken as only a probable. J – palava. .. B - palavabhāra J - kapa-rukhe B - kapa-rukha – J - sava-gharāvāsa-parivasane aginathiyā B - sava-gharāvāsa-pa???? ya Prinsep - sava-gharavasapa Cunn. – sava-gharavasaya-anatikagavaya Indraji — sava-gharavasadham The letters after gharäväsa are not quite legible. The syallables pū ji tha and ya can alone be read with some certainty. The space is generally taken to contain 6 to 11 letters.
3.

Page #41

15
The Inscription
kārayituṁ Bamaņānam jātim parihāram dadāti? (,)
Arahata ca. ..2 (.). ... suvijaya Line 10 te ubhaya-Prāci-tate rāja-nivāsam4 Mahāvijaya
It is now known that an important Jain Stüpa existed in Mathura in the few centuries preceding the Christian era. A gateway was added to it in the second century Bc. By the beginning of the second century AD people started referring to it as 'deva-nirmite' ('made by gods”) due to its long antiquity. It is quite likely that Khāravela worshipped at this Stūpa during his visit to Mathura and also made a note of it in his inscription. The passage may be restored as follows:
sava-gharāvāsi-pūjita-Țhūpa-pūjaya i.e., 'to worship the stūpa worshipped by all the house-holders'. J - Baṁhanānam jātim parihāram dadāti B -- bramhanānam ja(y)a-parihāram dadāti The reading mha is very doubtful. The character is more clearly ma. J - Arahato (va)... B . Arahata .....(.) Ca can be read after Arahata. The mutilated portion should supply a verb to govern Arahata. The context warrants the following restoration: Arhata ca pūjati (.) i.e., 'and worships the Arahat. For this purpose obviously he should have gone to the stūpa. Here also ends the record of the 8th year. J- (gi)ya(to) B - .... va suvijaya The event of making successful expedition as far as the Yamuna should have been of great significance for Khāravela and therefore he called it suvijaya. The mutilated portion before suvijaya should have contained the words: Navame ca vase. Khāravela has recorded the events year-wise and a reference to year is necessary here. J- ... k.i. mānā(ti)rāja-samnivasam Mahāvijayam păsādań B-te ubhaya-Prāci-tate(rāja)nivāsam Mahāvijaya-pasadam
(Prāci-tate may also be read as Puti-tate or Puri tate.) River Prachi still flows in that region. Therefore the reading Prāci can be better relied upon.
3.
4.

Page #42

16
The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict pāsādam kārayati athatisāya-sata-sahasehi ( .) Dasame ca vase Damda-samdhi-sā(ma)mayo1 Bharadavasa-pathānam mah(i)-jayanam .... kārāpayati_ (.)....p(ā)yātānam maniratanāni-saha
yātio: Line 11 - (mamdam) ca Ava-rāja-nivesitamá Pithudam
gadabhanagalena kāsayati ( , ) janapada-bhāvanam?
1.
J— damda-samdhi-sā(mayo) B-dada-ni?dhita(bhisa)mayo J - mah(i)-jayanam. . kārăpayati B - ?hi..?yanaṁ. . . .kārāpayati The sentence ends at kārāpayati. The mutilated portion before kārāpayati should have contained some word to mean “preparations' which were caused to be made by Khāravela. J- .... pāyātānam ca B- ????? tanam The mutilated portion before payātānam should have contained
Ekadasame ca vase. Ca after payātānam is obscure as well as redundant. J - upalabhate B - saha-yāti J-(mamdam) ca Ava-rāja-nivesitam B - ?? puvarāja-nivesitam The initial part of Lines 11-17 has been obliterated. That much space in Lines 1-10 contains 10-12 letters. The best that can now be done to restore the lost text is to make a suggestion in keeping with the context and the size of the space. The record of the second year seems to indicate Khāravela's style of describing his expeditions with reference to cardinal points in relation to his dominions. If so, the obliteration here could have contained dakhina disam, to mean "in the southern direction". The not-so-distinct characters after obliteration strongly suggest mamdam, which also seems to fit in the context. J - Pithumdam gadabha-namgalena kāsayati B -- Pithuda gadabha Nagale nekāsayati J-janasa dabhāvanam (janapada-bhāvanam?) B -- janapada-bhāvanam

Page #43

The Inscription
17 ca terasavasa-sata-katam bhimdati Tamira-dahasamghātam (.) Bārasame ca vase . . . . sa(ha)sehi
vitāsayato? Utarāpadha-rājāno Line 123 Māgadhānam ca vipulam bhayam janeto hathasam
Gamgāya4 pāyayati (,) Māgadha(m) ca rājānam Baha(sa)timitam pāde vaṁdāpayati (,) Namdarājanītam ca Kālimga-Jinaṁ saṁnives(e)...5(,)... (gaha)rata(nā)n(i) padihārehi Amga-Magadha-vasum ca neyātie (.)
J- terasa vasa-satikam ābhi(m)dati T(r)amiradesa-samghātam B-terasa vasa sata-katam bhidati tamiradaha-samghātam Konow -- terasavasa-sata-kata bh(i)dati -- Indraji -- - Tamara-deha samghātam J-.... hasa ke (saha)-sehi vitāsayati B-?s(i)kä(nam) sa(ha)-sehi vitāsayamto (or, vitāsayato) The only legible characters are sahasehi vitāsayato. The mutilated portion before that seems to indicate the agency through which Khāravela struck terror into the hearts of the kings of Uttarāpatha. It could be some feudatory tribe or his own army consisting of thousands of brave warriors. Since he was himself marching at the head of the army and there is also the word sahasehi, the latter seems to be more probable. Restoration beyond this suggestion is not feasible. The obliteration could have contained words to mean "while going northwards". J-hathi Sugamgiya(m) B & Cunn. -- hathasam Gamgāya Prinsep -- hathasam Gamgasa J – Namda rāja-nitam ca Kā(li)mga-Jinam samnive(sa)... B - Nadarāja-jita-Kalimga-jana-sam(n)i(ve)sam...?(sasa)ti Samnivesa should be more correctly read as samnivese. The mutilated portion thereafter should contain the verb pūjayati. The composition suggests this restoration. J - ...(gaha)-rata(nä)na(m) padihārehi Amga-Magadha-vasum ca
neyati
4.
6.

Page #44

18 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Line 13 - k(e)tu(ṁ) jațhara-lakhila-(go)purāni2-siharāni
nivesayati sata-visikānam parihārehi? (.) Abhutamachariyam ca hathi-nāva-nītaṁ pariharatio .... haya-hathi-ratana-mānikos Pamda-rājā (cedāni anekāni) muta-maņi-ratanāni āharāpayati idha satasa....?
2.
3.
4.
B -- Kitava-naya-nipu(n)ehi Aga-Magadha-vasum neyati Indraji - gaha-ratana-parihārehi The mutilated portion before gaha should contain kosäta, meaning ‘from the Royal Treasury'. The description of the campaign ends in the preceeding line. The mutilation before ketu should contain words to mean "On returning home'. The following activities relate to the capital. J - Katu(m) jathara-1(i)khila barāni B - tu(m)ja(tha)ra-lakhila-(go)purāni J-sata-visikanaṁ (pa)rihārehi B-sata-visikāna(m) parihārena J - hathi-nivā(sa)-parisaram
(earlier reading - hathi-nāvana) B-hathi-nāvatam pariharati Prinsep - hathi-nāvana Cunn. – hathi-navena J - .... haya-hathi-ratana-(mānikam) B - timha-haya-hathi-ratana-măniko The characters before haya are indistinct. The context suggests that the mutilation should supply either a commodity which Khāravela should have seized along with horses, etc., enumerated thereafter or an adverb modifying the verb pariharati to mean'with little difficulty' or 'with great difficulty'. J-C=edāni anekāni B - (ābharanam) J - sat(a).... B -sata-sa.... (restored as sata-sahasāni) The restoration of Barua is acceptable.
5.

Page #45

The Inscription
Line 14-sino1 vasikaroti (.) Terasame ca vase supavata-Vijayacake-Kumāri-pavate Arahate2 Pakhina-samsitehi Kāya-nisidiyāy(ā)3 yāpujavakehi Rāja-bhatin(a) Cinavatan (a) Vasa-sitān(ā)5 Pūjānurata -uvāsagaKhāravela-sirinā Jīva-deha-(siritā) parikhātā? (.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Report of the campaign against the Pandya King continues. The mutilation should have at least contained pamda janpadavă. It can be restored as Pamḍa-janapada-vasino, i.e., 'the people of the Pandya country'.
J - arahayate
Barahate
J-kaya-nisidiyāya
B-kayya-nisidiyāya
Jyapa-ñāvakehi
(earlier reading-yāpujavakehi) Byāpujavakehi, or, yāpuravakehi Prinsep-yapuhavakehi
Cunn. yāpujakehi
19
J-rāja-bhitini cina-vatani väs(a)-s(i)tāni
Bräja-bhitini cina-vatāni vāsāsitāni
The endings of these three words are determined by the following sirina. They are the epithets of Khāravela.
J- pūj-anurata
B -- pūjāya-rata —
J-jiva-deha-(siri)kā parikhitā
B-jiva-deha-??kā.... tā (restored as-jiva-deha-sayika-parikhātā)

Page #46

20
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Line 15-sukata2-samaṇa-suvihitānam ca sava-disānam3 ñaninam tapasi-isinam samghayanam1 Arahatanisidiyā samipe pābhāre varākāra-samuthāpitāhi aneka-yojanāhitāhi .... silāhi Simhapatha-rañiSimdhulaya nisayāni (.)
Line 166 paṭalake catare ca veḍuriya-gabhe-thabhe
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The missing portion before sukata should contain words to mean 'On being invited by King Sri Khāravela'. It might be: Nimamtitena (or, ahutena) rājā-Siri-Khāravelena.
Jsukat(ā)
B-? sakata
J & B
Sircar
sata-disānam
sava-disānam
J-ñan(i)nam tapas(i)-is(i) nam samghayanam
B-ñā?nam (sama)pasi(nam) bhi??-samgh(i)yana(m)
J pa si.o.... silāhi Simhapatha-rañi-Si(m) dhulāya nisayāni
-
B pakva-sisehi (or, panata-sisehi) sata-(sahasa)hi silāhi sipajathabha-(ni)vadha-sayanā(sa)nām va
Prinsep
-(sapapatha)-dhara-si dhasaya
The reading of J from silahi to nisayani is highly probable and I accept it as it is also supported by extraneous evidence.
The mutilated portion between yojanahitahi and silahi should supply the verb to mean 'assemble'. It may also contain words to show the number of the monks assembled.
Though it is not free from doubt, panatisatehi can be made out after yojanahitähi. It would mean '3500' and may well indicate the total number of monks who assembled.
The mutilation before patalake should have contained words to mean 'In front of the the Assembly Hall'.
J-Patalako caturo B-patalake catare Indraji & Cunn. — paṭālake
-
J
veḍüriya-gabhe-thambhe
B-veduriya-gabhe-thabhe

Page #47

21
The Inscription
patithāpayati (,) pānatariya-satha-sata-(va)sehi? mukhiya-kala-vochinam ca coyatha-Amgań samtikamo turiyam upādayati (.) Khema-rājā sa vadha-rājā4 sa bhikhu-rājās dhama-rājā pasaṁto sunamto anubhavamto Kalāņāni (.).
2.
3.
It appears to be the traditional Mānastambha (Pride-melting Pillar) which was set up in front of the Samavasarana (Preaching Hall) of a Jain Tirthankara. Such pillars are set up in front of Jain temples, particularly in sacred places. Since it was an assembly of monks, it could be appropriately set up in front of the place of assembly. This clue helps restoration before patalake. J - pānatarīya sata-sahase(hi) B -- panatariya-(sata-sahasehi) The characters other than va are fairly readable. There is a little space between ta and se, and va can be restored. J - Muriya-Kāla-vochinam B ---(ma) khiya-kala-vochine Cunn. - . . . . ya-kala Indraji — Muriya-kala J - coyath(i) Amga-satikam B – coyatha-amge satikam Prinsep -- coyatha agi satika Cunn. --- coyatha age satika Indraji - coyatha age satiku J – Vadha-rājā B --vadha-rājā J-Bhikhu-rājā B- bhikhu-rājā sa (,) J - pasamt(o) sunat(o) anubhavat(o) B - pasamto sunato anubhavamto M in sunamto is determined by the other two words immediately preceding and following it.
4.

Page #48

22 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Line 17 - Guņa-visesa-kusalo Sava-pāsamda-pūjako Sava
devāyatana-samkhārakārako? Apatihata-cakavāhana-balo3 Caka-dharo Guta-cako4 Pavata-cako Rājasi-vamsa-kula-vinisito5 Mahāvijayo RājāKhāravela-Siri (.)
The style of the epigraph strongly suggests that this mutilation should have contained the date of this record. It is the beginning of the concluding line and what follows the mutilation is the name of the king with his many epithets, apparently with no other purpose except as if he had put his signatures at the end of the notification. Khåravela is very particular in giving dates. He has noted the events of his reign regnal-year-wise. He has also given the dates of some of the major historical events like the founding of the Tamila Confederacy, the opening of the Tanasuliyavātā Canal and the decline of the Principal Scripture. He could certainly not leave his record incomplete by omitting the date of its recording. This date should have been in the same era in which he has given the dates of other major historical events. But unfortunately we cannot make out the recorded date due to the vagaries of Nature. The space could have contained 12-13 syllables which could make Pänatariya-panatisata-vasa', to mean the year 355' in M.E. which, as we shall see below, can be deduced as the date of this epigraph. J - sava-de(v-āya)tana-samkhārakārako B - sava-devāyatana sa(m)kārakarako J ---(a)patihata-caki-vāhini-balo B --- apatihata-caka-vāhana-balo J– Caka-dhura-guta-cako B - Caka-dharo guta-cako J—rājasi-Vasū-kula-viniírito B - räjisi-vamsa-kula-vini(sr)ito, or, vini(g)ito In vinisito the character is more clearly si than anything else. It is neither sri nor gi.
2.
4.

Page #49

The Inscription
Translation On the basis of the above reading and proposed restorations it should be rendered into English as follows.* The restorations have been shown within ( ) and the explanatories within ( ).
"Obeisance to the Arahamtas! Obeisance to all the Siddhas!!
By the Hon'ble King, Mahāmeghavāhana, His Majesty Khāravela, the Lord of Kalinga, the Increaser of Ceti Royal House, (the Owner of) glorifying auspicious marks, (and) the Possessor of virtues (the fame of which has) reached the farthest limits of the four quarters, were played for fifteen years, with a
Jayaswal and Banerji (E.I., XX, pp. 86-89) and Barua (I.H.Q., XIV, 3, pp. 470—82) give different renderings. Below, J stands for
Jayaswal & Banerji, and B for Barua. J - Ll Salutation to the Arhats (Arihats lit. 'Conquerors of Enemies', i.e., Jinas).
Salutation to all the Siddhas. By illustrious Khāravela, the Aira (Aila), the Great King, the descendant of Mahāmeghavāhana, the increaser (of the glory) of the Ceti (Cēdi) dynasty, (endowed) with excellent and auspicious marks and features, possessed of virtues which have reached
(the ends of) four quarters, overlord of Kalinga, L2 for fifteen years, with a body ruddy and handsome were played youthsome
sports; after that (by him who) had mastered (royal) correspondence, currency, finance, civil and religious laws (and) who had become wellversed in all (branches of learning, for nine years (the office of) Yuvarāja (heir-apparent) was administered. Having completed the twenty-fourth
B
"Obeisance to Arhats, the Exalted Ones, obeisance to all Siddhas, the Perfect Saints. By His Graceful Majesty Khāravela, the great Aira king, the Sovereign lord of Kalinga, the scion of the Mahāmegha family, the increaser of the

Page #50

24 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict body handsome and tawny in colour, sports (worthy of) Prince.
Thereafter by the Adept in Correspondence, Currency, Accountancy, State Regulations and Laws, (and) the Clearheaded in all Sciences, (the kingdom) was administered for nine years as Crown Prince.
Then on completing the twenty-fourth year, to make the remainder of his youth prosperous by conquests, being the third in descent in the Royal House of Kalinga, (he) gets anointed as Great King.
And, having been anointed, in the first year (of his reign), (he) causes in the capital of Kalinga, (verily) the Abode of the Brave, the gates, ramparts and buildings, which had been
year, at that time, (he) who had been prosperous (vardhamāna) since his infancy (?) and who (was destined) to have wide conquests as those of
Vena, L3 then in the state of manhood, obtains the imperial (māhārājya) coronation
in the third dynasty of Kalinga.
Ceti Royal House, who is possessed of the noble and auspicious marks, who is gifted with the attributes (of one capable) of subduing the earth extending as far as the four seas, were played for fifteen years the sports befitting the young age of the prince with a handsome body of 'fair brown complexion'. Thereafter, for nine years, just the office of a Crown Prince was administered by (His Royal Highness) who was well-versed in (matters relating to) writing, coinage, accounting, procedure, and approved principle of action, whose self was purified by proficiency in all (Indian)
polite learning'. Having then completed twenty-four years, he who, as he waxed great, passed the rest of his manhood in making notable conquests, gained the high state implied by the coronation of a great king in the third royal dynasty of Kalinga, in regular linear succession. And as soon as he was anointed, in the very first year, (His Majesty) caused the Kalinga-city Khibira in which the gates, walls and residential houses were damaged by stormy wind, to be repaired, and caused the

Page #51

25
The Inscription damaged by storm, to be repaired, and the embankments of the cool reservoir to be strengthened, and all the parks to be renovated, by (spending) thirty-five hundred thousands; and (he) makes (his) subjects happy.
And in the second year (of his reign), paying no heed to (King) Śātakarni (he) sends in the western direction a multitudinous army (consisting of) cavalry, elephants, infantry and chariots, and with his army having reached the (river) Krşnaveņā, strikes terror into the capital of the Asikas.
Again, in the third year (of his reign), the Master of the Science of Music makes (the citizens of) the capital enjoy themselves by causing the performance of folk dances, (classical) dances, songs and instrumental music, and the celebration of festivals and fairs.
Likewise, in the fourth year (of his reign), (he) dwells in the Dwellings of the Vidyādharas (which) no former king of Kalinga had ever scathed, and makes all the Rathikas and Bhojakas (whose) crown and caparisoned horse have been dashed to
L4
As soon as he is anointed, in the first (regnal) year (he) causes repairs of the gates, the walls and the buildings (of the city), (which had been) damaged by storm; in the city of Kalinga (he) causes the erection of the embankments of the lake (called after) Khibira Rși, (and) of (other) tanks and cisterns, (also) the restoration of all the gardens (he) causes to be done at the cost of thirty-five hundred thousands, and, (he) gratifies the People. And in the second year (he), disregarding Sātakamni, despatches to the western regions an army strong in cavalry, elephants, infantry (nara) and chariots (ratha) and by that army having reached the Kanhaberņā, (he) throws the city of the Musikas into consternation. Again in the third year, embankments of the cool tanks to be made and also) caused the work of restoration of all the gardens to be done at the cost of thirty-five hundred thousand (pieces of the standard coin), and thereby) pleased the subjects.
B

Page #52

26 The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict pieces, umbrella and golden pitcher have been removed and jewels and fortune have been seized, to bow down at (his) feet.
And, in the fifth bountiful year (of his reign), (he) causes the Tanasuliyavāțā Canal (which was) opened out by the Nanda king in the year 103, to be brought into the capital [by spending ... thousands).
And, having been anointed (for six years), to display (his) royal opulence (he) bestows all taxes, grants and many (other) favours (worth) hundreds and thousands upon the townsmen and villagers.
J-L 5 (he) versed in the science of the Gandharvas (i.e., music), entertains the
capital with the exhibition of dapa, dancing, singing and instrumental music and by causing to be held festivities and assemblies (samājas); similarly in the fourth year, 'the Abode of Vidyādharas' built by the former Kalinga king(s), which had not been damaged before .... with their coronets rendered meaningless, with their helmets(?) (bilma) cut in twain
(?), and with their umbrellas and L6 bhingāras cast away, deprived of their jewels (i.e., ratana, Skt. ratna,
precious objects) all the Rathikas and Bhojakas (he) causes to bow down at his feet. Now in the fifth year he brings into the capital from the road of Tanasuliya the canal excavated in the year one-hundred-and-three of
B
And in the second year, not (at all) bringing Sātakarņi into (his) thought, (His Majesty) caused a multitudinous army (consisting of) horses, elephants, foot-men and chariots to march in a western direction, and with the aid of the army that reached (the bank of) the Krşnaveņā (river), struck terror into the city of Asika (Musika?). Again, in the third year, (His Majesty) who was a master of the science of music -- the Gandharva lore, caused the capital to be entertained by the display of combats, dancing, singing and instrumental music, and (no less) by the arrangements made for festivities and convivial gatherings. Likewise, in the fourth year, (His Majesty caused to be done his duty to) the home of the Vidyādharas, founded by the former kings of Kalinga, which was not invaded before, compelled all the Rathikas and Bhojakas,

Page #53

27
The Inscription
And, while reigning in the seventh year, she, (that is, his) wife named Vajiragharavati, (obtains) the dignity of mother (due to accumulated merit.
And, in the eighth year (of his reign), having stormed the invulnerable Gorathagiri (fortress) with a big army (he) oppresses the king of Rājagyha. And sounding aloud this act of prowess (he), along with (his) army and entourage, marches to the river Yamuna (lying in the...) having liberated (the city of) Mathura. (And (he) moves with satellite kings. (?)] (Here), with a Wish-fulfilling Tree burdened with foliage, and along with (his) cavalry, elephants and chariots, (he) goes (to worship the Stūpa] reverenced by all householders and, having performed the
King Nanda. . . . Having been (re-)anointed (he while) celebrating the
Rājasūya, remits all tithes and cesses, L7 bestows many privileges (amounting to hundreds of thousands on the
City-Corporation and the Realm-Corporation. In the seventh year of his reign, his famous wife of Vajiraghara obtained the dignity of auspicious motherhood. ... Then in the eighth year (he) with a large army having
sacked Goradhagiri, L8 causes pressure on Rājagaha (Rājagsha). On account of the loud report
of this act of valour, the Yavana (Greek) King Dimi(ta) retreated to Mathura having extricated his demoralised army and transport.... (He)
gives .... with foliage, L9 Kalpa (Wish-fulfilling) trees, elephants, chariots with their drivers,
houses, residences and rest-houses. And to make all these acceptable
B
who were deprived of their wealth and jewels, whose royal insignia consisting of umbrellas and vases had been cast away, who were abandoned by good Brahmins(?), and whose crowns were rendered meaningless, to bow down at (his) feet. And then in the fifth year, (His Majesty) caused the canal opened out by King Nanda three hundred (or 103) years back to be brought into the capital from the Tanasuliya road.... And in the sixth year, (His Majesty) while displaying his royal prosperity, bestowed (unprecedented) favours on the inhabitants of towns and

Page #54

28 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Sarva-grahaņa (ceremony), gives the community of Brahmins gifts and (worships) the Arahaṁta.
After the well (accomplished campaign of) conquest, (în the ninth year (of his reign)], (he) builds the royal abode named Mahāvijayaprāsāda on both the banks of the (river) Prachi by (spending) thirty-eight hundred thousands.
And, in the tenth year (of his reign), the Dispenser of War and Peace causes to be made (preparations) (for) marching forth in Bhāratavarşa to conquer the (whole) land.
J- (he) gives at a fire Sacrifice (?) exemption (from taxes) to the caste of
Brāhmaṇas. Of Arhat.... L 10... (He) causes to be built ... a royal residence (called) the Palace of
Great Victory (Mahāvijaya) at the cost of thirty-eight hundred thousands. And in the tenth year (he), following (the three-fold policy) of chastisement, alliance and conciliation sends out an expedition against Bharatavasa (and) brings about the conquest of the land (or, country)... and obtains jewels and precious things of the (kings) attacked.
B
districts by remitting all taxes and duties amounting to many hundred thousands (pieces of the standard coin). And in the seventh year, (His Majesty caused) compact groups of hundreds of horses, (portable) diamond chambers' and warriors (to proceed to) the tranquil spot adjoining the foot of the Samataka (hill) (?).
And in the eight year, having stormed with a mighty army (the fortress of) Gorathagiri of invulnerable wall, (His Majesty) brought a pressure to bear upon Rājagsha, and the Yavana King? mi???? retreated to Mathura in order to release the troops and vehicles restlessly moving on account of the uproar of reprisal on his (Majesty's) part.... returned (to Kalinga), marched back with Kalpavrksha, the Wishing Tree, burdened with foliage, and (the troops) of horses, elephants and chariots, (did something for) all householders, and to captivate all (he) offered the gift of victory to the Brahmins, (offered something to) the Arhata (recluses)....

Page #55

29
The Inscription
[And, in the eleventh year (of his reign)), (carrying) with (him) gems and jewels (he) moves in the southern direction) in a slow procession and causes Pithunda, the abode of Ava kings, to be ploughed by ploughs drawn by asses, and for the wellbeing of (his) realm, breaks the confederacy of Tamila countries (which had been) formed in the year 113.
And, in the twelfth year (of his reign), (marching at the head of) thousands (of brave warriors), (he) strikes terror into (the hearts of) the kings of Uttarāpatha (while going northward), and engendering great fear into (the hearts of) the people of Magadha, causes (his) elephants and horses to drink (water) in the (river) Ganga, and makes the king of Magadha, (named) Bahasatimita, to bow down at (his) feet, and (worships) in the temple (enshrining the image) of Jina from Kalinga (which had been) taken away (from there) by the Nanda king, and having seized the family-jewels (from the treasury), carries away the riches of Anga and Magadha.
J - L 11. .... And the market-town(?) Pithumda founded by the Ava King he
ploughs down with a plough of asses; and (he) thoroughly breaks up the confederacy of the T(r)amira (Dramira) countries of one hundred and thirteen years, which has been a source of danger to (his) Country (Janapada). And in the twelfth year he terrifies the kings of the Uttarāpatha
with .... thousands of L 12 .... And causing panic amongst the people of Magadha (he) drives (his)
elephants into the Sugamgiya (Palace) and (he) makes the king of Magadha, Bahasatimita, bow at his feet. And (he) sets up (the image) "the Jina of Kalinga' which had been taken away by King Nanda ... and causes to be brought home the riches of Anga and Magadha along with
the keepers of the family jewels of.... B- And in the ninth year, (His Majesty) caused the royal residence
Mahāvijaya-prāsāda, the "Great Victory Palace", to be built on both the banks of Prācī at the cost of thirty-eight hundred thousand (pieces of the standard coin). And in the tenth year, well-read and experienced in the principles of policy, (His Majesty) proceeded on a campaign for the conquest of countries in Bhāratavarsa ....(?)

Page #56

30 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
(On returning home), (he) causes banners to be fixed on all the firm pinnacles of the gates (of the capital) by spending two thousand. And (it is) portentous marvel (that) leading (a force of) elephants and boats (he) seizes (with little difficulty] horses, elephants, jewels and rubies from the king of the Pāndyas and at this moment fetches many pearls, gems and jewels (worth) hundreds and (thousands), and subjugates (the people of the Pāndya kingdom).
And, in the thirteenth year (of his reign), by the Royal Worshipper (who has) performed the vows (and is) resplendent with (supernatural) powers, the Lay Devotee (who is) addicted to worship, His Majesty Khāravela (whose) soul is dependent on body, is caused to be excavated for purposes of worship the Relic Memorial (in honour of) the Arahaṁtas (who have) cast off transmigration, on Mount Kumāri, the auspicious mountain in Vijaya circle.
[On being invited by the King, His majesty Khāravela), the Reverend Áramaņas (who are) self-possessed and the Jñānis, Tapasvi-Rșis and leaders of Samghas from all directions, (coming from) many yojanas, (numbering thirty-five hundred, assemble]
J - L 13.....(He) builds excellent towers with carved interiors and creates a
settlement of a hundred masons, giving them exemption from land revenue. And wonderful and marvellous enclosure of stockade for driving in the elephants (he)... and horses, elephants, jewels and rubies as well as numerous pearls in hundreds (he) causes to be brought here from the
Pāņdya King. L 14 .... (he) subjugates. In the thirteenth year, on the Kumāri Hill where the
wheel of Conquest had been well-revolved (i.e., the religion of Jina had B- And in the eleventh year, (His Majesty). ...went in procession with
jewels and gems.... caused the grassy overgrowth of Pșthudaka, founded by a former king, to be let out into the Lāngala (river) and destroyed the accumulation of dark swamps that grew up in thirteen-and-hundred years (and) became a cause of anxiety to the country. And in the twelfth year, .... with the aid of thousands of the Sivis(?), (His Majesty) produced consternation among the rulers of Uttarāpatha,

Page #57

31
The Inscription in the well-laid out quadrangle near the shrine of the Arahamta on the top of the hill, on the stone (platform adjacent to) the shrine (dedicated by) Queen Sindhula (hailing from) Simhapatha.
[In front of the Assembly Hall] (he) causes to be set up a pale red and quadrilateral pillar inlaid with beryl, and causes to be read expeditiously the peace-giving Principal Scripture,
been preached), (he) offers respectfully royal maintenances, China clothes (silks) and white clothes to the monks) who (by their austerities) have extinguished the round of lives, the preachers on the religious life and conduct at the Relic Memorial. By Khāravela, the illustrious, as a layman
devoted to worship, is realised (the nature of) jiva and deha. L 15 ... bringing about a Council of the wise ascetics and sages, from hundred
(i.e., all) quarters, the monks (Samaņas) of good deeds and who have fully followed (the injunctions) .... near the Relic Depository of the
B
while generating an immense fear among the people of Magadha, caused the elephants and horses to drink in the Ganges, and compelled Brhaspatimitra, the king of the Magadha people, to bow down at his feet, (did something in connection with) the settlements of the Kalinga people subjugated by King Nanda .... carried the wealth of Anga and Magadha with the aid of persons skilled in clever tactics,.... caused to be erected towering temples and gates with figures of the goddess of luck in their niches, procured at the cost of a hundred višas (of gold) the rare and wonderful trappings of elephants, the King of Pandya, rich in mettled horses, elephants and jewels and gems supplied here hundreds and thousands of apparel(?), pearls, gems and jewels, .... subdued (some people). And in the thirteenth year, on the Kumāri hill in the well-founded realm of Victory, were excavated the jīvadehasrayikās by His Graceful Majesty Khāravela, devoted to the worship of those who depended on royal patronage, those who had fulfilled their religious) vows, (and) those who sought shelter during the rains for use as comfortable resting places by the Arhata (recluses), the cause of whose future gliding in the course of transmigration had been greatly extenuated (and) who were (there) for fulfilling the Yāpa (Rainy Season Vow).

Page #58

32 The Hāthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict (that is, the Twelve Angas, (which has been) gradually declining (in volume) since the year 165. He (is a) peaceful king, he (is a) wise king, (a) mendicant king (and a) righteous king (who) questions about, listens to (and) meditates upon the wellmeaning scriptures.
J- Arhat, on the top of the hill,.... with stones... brought from many miles
(yojanas) quarried from excellent mines (he builds) shelters for the
Simhapatha Queeen Sindhulā.... L 16 .... Patalaka(?)....(he) sets up four columns inlaid with beryl... at the
cost of seventy-five hundred thousands; (he) causes to be compiled expeditiously the (text) of the seven-fold Aṁgas of the sixty-four (letters). He is the King of Peace, the King of Prosperity, the King of Monks (bhikṣus), the King of Religion (Dharma), who has been seeing, hearing, and realising blessings (Kalyanas) -
For the honoured recluses of well-established reputation and the Jñātskas (?) viewing all things alike (and) the monks(?) belonging to (different) orders (and) coming from a hundred directions, with hundreds and thousands of stones quarried out of excellent quarries (and) collected from an area extending over) many yojanas by expert heads, (His Majesty caused) indeed (to be made) sleeping-and-sitting accommodations fitted with artistic pillars(?) on a slope near the Arhata resting place, and caused the columns to be set up in a beryl-set hali with an ornamental courtyard at the cost of seventy-five hundred thousand (pieces of the standard coin), and in sixty-four panels, intersected with sculptures, caused to be produced the scenes of) peaceful music. The king of severity was he, the king of prosperity, the king of renunciation, the righteous king, (capable) of perceiving, hearing and

Page #59

33
The Inscription
[The year...] The Expert in extraordinary excellences, the Worshipper of all religions, the Embellisher of all temples, the (Possesser of the) might of irresistible army and entourage, the Bearer of the Wheel (of conquest), the Protector of the realm, (the One) whose wheel rolls on unimpeded, the Support of princely houses and families, the Great Conqueror, His Majesty Khāravela the King."
J-L.17.... accomplished in extra-ordinary virtues, respector of every sect, the
repairer of all temples, one whose chariot and army are irresistible, one whose empire is protected by the chief of the empire (himself), descended from the family of the Royal Sage Vasū, the Great Conqueror, the King, the illustrious Khāravela."
experiencing things that are conducive to welfare was His Graceful Majesty Khāravela, the mighty conqueror, the upholder of the realm of royal command, the protector of the realm of royal command, the repairer of all abodes of the gods, the worshipper of all sects, accomplished by virtue of the possession of certain special qualities."

Page #60

Page #61

The Date of the Inscription
and its Author
An analysis of the data presented in this epigraph gives us much valuable information not only about the personality and achievements of Khāravela, but also about the political and social conditions of the times in which he lived. The most baffling problem about him is, however, his date.
This is the earliest known inscription which mentions dates of past historical events. The Tanasuliyavātā canal is stated to have been opened by the Nanda King in ti-vasa-sata or the year 103, the Tamila Confederacy is stated to have been formed in terasa-vasa-sata or the year 113, and the Principal Scripture of the Jains is stated to be declining in volume since pānatariyasatha-sata-vasa or the year 165. The question arises — in what era are these dates mentioned?
The circumstance that the inscription was incised on the occasion of a religious ceremony, lends the clue that the era of reckoning may be one connected with the religion to which the ceremony related. It leads us to assume that these dates are in the Mahāvīra Era which has been as much popular among the Jains as the Anno Domini among the Christians or the Anno Hegira among the Muslims. The M.E. is said to have started from October 15,527 BC, the date of nirvāņa or demise, the last memorable event in the life of Mahāvīra, the last of the twentyfour Tirtharkaras reverenced by the Jains.
1.
For a discussion of the date of Mahāvira's nirvana, see Jain, Dr. J.P.,

Page #62

36 The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Taken in M.E. the above three events would fall in 424 BC, 414 BC, and 362 BC, respectively.
The extant literary traditions of both the Digambaras and the Svetāmbaras, the principal sects among the Jains, seem to confirm that the date for gradual decline of the canonical knowledge may be M.E. 165. According to the Digambaras as well as the Svetāmbaras eight pontiffs after Mahāvīra possessed full canonical knowledge and the last of them was Bhadrabāhu I. The Digambaras assign a period of 162 years to these eight pontiffs, while the Svetāmbaras assign 178 years.' It is possible that the period was actually 165 years since the tradition recorded in this inscription is closer to the event than any of the available literary traditions.
As for placing the event of the opening of the Tanasuliyavāļā canal in M.E. 103 or 424 BC, it is necessary to consider the chronology of Nanda. Nanda is twice mentioned in this inscription: he opened the canal in the year 103 and he took away the image of Jina from Kalinga to Magadha. It means that this Nanda was the King of Magadha. The Jain tradition unanimously places the Nandas 60 years after Mahāvīra and assigns them a rule of 155 or 150 years. This is with reference to Ujjayini” and indicates that the Nanda kings of Magadha had annexed Ujjayini in 467 BC. The expression Naṁda-rāja used in the inscription also seems to indicate that it does not refer to a particular King Nanda; it more correctly refers to a Nanda king, i.e., a king of the Nanda dynasty. The Nandas continued to rule in Ujjayini till 312 or 317 BC, when the Mauryas dislodged them. Candragupta Maurya's coup in Magadha is dated in circa 324 Bc. He may have taken some time to
The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India, pp. 32-54; also Appendix III infra. A Tirtharkara is a religious pioneer and deified saint. J.P. Jain, op. cit., pp. 262-65 (Pontifical Genealogy of Mahāvira's Successors). Ibid., pp. 255-61, (Dynastic Chronology from Mahāvira's nirvana to M.E. 1000).

Page #63

The Date of the Inscription and its Author
37 consolidate his position in Magadha and may have been able to extend his sway over Ujjayini a few years later. The Maurya chronology does not cause any hindrance in assuming that the Nandas ruled over Ujjayini for 155 or 150 years after 60 years from the demise of Mahāvīra.
As for reconciling this period with the history of Magadha, the seat of the Nanda imperial authority, it is significant that the Brahmanical Purāṇas assign a total of 143 years to Mahānandin, and Mahāpadma and his eight sons. On the basis of Candragupta Maurya's accession in 324 BC, the Nanda dynasty's rule in Magadha ended in that year and the accession of Mahānandin took place in 467 Bc. Since the Jain and Brahmanical traditions converge on this point, Mahānandin may be taken to be the founder of the Nanda dynasty.
The Buddhist tradition is firm on the point that the Buddha's death took place in the eighth year of Ajātasatru's reign. It also assigns a total of 80 years to Ajātasatru and his successors, i.e., a total of 72 years after the Buddha. The Brahmanical tradition assigns a total of 83 years to them. The traditional date of the Buddha's demise is 544 BC.? On that basis Ajātaśatru's line
The total period of 143 years for the Nanda rule in Magadha seems to be correctly represented by Mahānandin (43 years), Mahāpadma (88 years) and Mahäpadma's 8 sons (12 years). Nandivardhana (40 years) is said to have preceded Mahānandin and he is also said to have founded the Nanda line. It, however, appears that Nandivardhana and Mahānandin are identical, the latter ('the Great Nanda') being a title of the former. Al-Beruni mentions an Indian era with the initial year 458 BC, which goes back to the time of the first Nanda king (see Sachau, E.C., Al-Beruni's India, II, pp. 5-7). This also seems to suggest that the Nanda take-over in Magadha might be in 467 BC. The era might have been founded a decade later to commemorate the assumption of imperial status. This is according to the oldest tradition among the Buddhists. Geiger places the event in 483 BC on the basis of a late Cantonese tradition. It is worth noticing that while the historians have generally placed implicit reliance on the Sri Lankanese Buddhist traditions for the

Page #64

38 The Hathigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict should come to an end in 472 or 469 BC. It also brings us nearer 467 Bc for the beginning of the Nanda rule.
It appears that there was an interregnum of 3 to 5 years before Mahānandin could firmly establish himself in Magadha and soon after he launched Magadha on an ambitious career of conquest. In 424 BC Mahāpadma succeeded him and he appears to have led the victorious arms of Magadha into Kalinga and further south. The inauguration of one's reign with a campaign of conquest, has been a popular practice with ambitious monarchs throughout the world. It is also reflected in Khāravela's desire at the time of his coronation to make the remainder of his youth prosperous by making conquests’.
In the very first year of his reign, in 424 BC, Mahāpadma conquered Kalinga, opened the Tanasuliyavātā canal there, and took away the image of Jina from Kalinga to Magadha. He may have marched further south and subjugated the Tamila kingdoms of the far south. This must have been quite unexpected for them and so the idea of forming a confederacy should have dawned upon them. According to the instant inscription this confederacy was formed in 414 BC, ten years after Mahāpadma Nanda's campaign in Kalinga.
This confederacy arrested the southward expansion of the Magadha empire under the Nandas and after them, under the Mauryas. On the basis of the evidence afforded by the
chronological build-up of Magadha from Bimbisăra to Asoka, they have rejected the same for the date of the Buddha himself. This has been done on the basis of Sandrokottos-Candragupta Maurya synchronism and by computing the dates from Candragupta's accession to and fro. Perhaps it would be better to reconcile the points of general agreement in the different sets of traditions (Jain, Buddhist and Brahmanical) on the basis of certain firm points in those traditions. When worked on that method, a reasonable chronology can be drawn out for ancient India. I am inclined to support the traditional dates of the Buddha and Mahāvira as preserved in the respective Buddhist and Jain traditions since they would hardly make a mistake on that point. Also see Appendix III infra.

Page #65

The Date of the Inscription and its Author
39 inscriptions of Asoka Maurya it can be assumed that the Magadha empire had extended as far south as the Godavari and the Krishna rivers. This region appears to have been brought under the Magadha empire by the Nandas, most probably Mahāpadma whose depredations led the Tamilas to form a confederacy. Reference to the Nandas in the early Sangam literature, the oldest Tamil literature, lends support to this assumption.
In Rock Edicts II and XIII Asoka lists the Colas, the Pāndyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras and the Tāmraparniyas (Sri Lankanese) as living to the south of his empire. They seem to represent the members of the Tamila Confederacy. The Confederacy not only held its own against the Magadha imperialism under the Nandas and Mauryas, but in course of time itself became a danger to its neighbours. This is suggested by Khāravela's motive in breaking it in his eleventh regnal year. He did it ‘for the well-being of his realm'. And he could think of marching against the Pandya king in the twelfth year only after he had broken the Confederacy in the previous year, probably through diplomatic means.
The above discussion strongly suggests that the dates mentioned in the instant inscription are in M.E.
Unfortunately the date of the epigraph itself is missing. It has already been suggested in fn. 1 on p. 22 ante that the mutilation at the beginning of L 17 should have, in all probability, contained it. Under the existing circumstances, however, we have to ascertain it on the basis of the contemporary data available in the inscription.
Names of two contemporaries are mentioned: Sātakaṁnim in the western direction, and Bahasatimitam, the king of Magadha; the former with reference to an event in the second year of his reign, and the latter, to that in the twelfth year. Added to this is the fact that Khāravela was the third ruler of his dynasty, the Cedi-rāja-vamsa.
1. Sastri, K.A.N., A History of South India, (2nd edn., 1958), pp. 85-86.

Page #66

40 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
It is generally accepted now that the Maurya Empire disintegrated soon after the death of Asoka in c. 235-234 BC. His grandsons Dasaratha, Samprati and Vigatāśoka seem to have divided the empire among themselves with their centres respectively in Magadha, Ujjayini and Gandhāra. Jalauka, a son of Asoka, also seems to have become independent in Kashmir. Taking advantage of the internecine feuds among the successors of Asoka, some of his servants also appear to have carved out independent principalities. The examples seem to be furnished by the founder of the Sātavāhana line in the Nasik region and the founder of the Cedi line in the Kalinga region.
According to Prof. K.A.N. Sastri, 'the exact date of the foundation of Sātavāhana power cannot be determined, but the puranic lists suggest that the first king, Simuka, probably began to reign about 230 Bc'.' Dr. K. Gopalachari more surely places the event soon after Asoka's death in c. 235 BC.?
The Sātvāhanas have been referred to as 'Andhrabhrtya' which further suggests that the founder of the line was a servant of the Maurya emperors, perhaps of the rank of a Mahāmātra (member of the Imperial Service) and holding a Commissioner's or Governor's charge in the region where he proclaimed his independence, and that he originally belonged to the Andhra region. In no other way the Sātavāhanas appear to be connected with Andhra; all their possessions were confined to the western coast and only a very late epigraph of the 24th or 26th ruler is
1. 2.
Op. cit., p. 89. A Comprehensive History of India, II, pp. 293-328. Gurty Venkat Rao's view placing Simuka in 271 bc is highly improbable. No such thing could be thought of in the hey-day of Maurya imperial power under Asoka. The political geography available in
hs also discounts such a hypothesis. (Rao in The Early History of the Deccan, pt. I-VI, pp. 90ff.). Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya has discussed the controversy as regards the home of the Sātavāhanas in the Journal of Indian History, XLI, 3, (December 1963), pp. 749-55. He also holds that the Sātavāhanas were migrants to the Maharashtra region.
in The Early

Page #67

The Date of the Inscription and its Author
the earliest Satavahana record so far known from the Krishna district in Andhra Pradesh on the eastern coast.
The founder of the Satavahana line was Simuka who is assigned a reign of 23 years. He was succeeded by his younger brother Kṛṣṇa (Kanha) who reigned for 18 years. Then came Śrī Satakarni whose exploits are recorded in the Nanaghat inscriptions of his queen Nāgānikā. He reigned for ten years (c. 194-184 BC). He is said to have been a very powerful king who performed many sacrifices including the Rajasūya and the Asvamedha which proclaim political supremacy and ascendancy.
41
Two facts strongly suggest that this Satakarni should be the Satakamnim of the instant epigraph. The passage acitayitaSātakamnim indicates that Satakarni was a powerful ruler with considerable influence to the west of Kalinga and it was really a matter of great courage not to pay any heed to him and send troops in the western direction. On the basis of the available evidence Śrī Śātakarni appears to have possessed such influence and power, but his namesake, the sixth ruler of the line who came 36 years after him, is not credited with any military or political exploits. The tenor of the inscription suggests that Khāravela was a man of action himself and would not have referred to anybody in such a rather deferential tone unless he was convinced of his superiority as a man of action. The event relates to the second year of Khäravela's reign. A year later he himself marches into the Vindhyas and subdues the Rathikas and Bhojakas, the feudatory chiefs most probably owing allegiance to the Satavahanas and at least under their influence. This seems to indicate that the power of the Satavahanas had rather suddenly declined by that time. Khāravela did not come into direct conflict with the Satavahanas most probably because they were remote from his dominions. This discussion leads us to the conclusion that the 2nd regnal year of Khāravela should coincide with the 10th or 9th year of Satakarni's reign, i.e., 184 or 185 BC.
The other fact supporting this synchronism is that a total

Page #68

42 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict of 50 years had elapsed by then since the founding of the Sātavāhana and Cedi lines. The latter was founded by the grandfather of Khāravela and that much period is not improbable for the two reigns, of his grandfather and father. If this Šātakarņi is taken to be the sixth (instead of the third) ruler of the Sātavāhana line, the beginning of whose reign is placed 18 or 36 years later, the intervening period between Khāravela's accession and the founding of the line by his grandfather would be at least 68 years or 86 years even if the 2nd year of his reign is supposed to be the very first year of that Śātakarņi's reign. The fact that Khāravela himself was coronated at the age of 24, however, lends support to the assumption that the total period of the reigns of his grandfather and father could not have been greater than 50 years.
We may conclude that the coronation of Khāravela took place 50 years after the disintegration of the Maurya Empire at the death of Asoka, that the first Śātakarni, the third ruler of the Sātavāhana dynasty, was his contemporary, and that this Śātakarņi's reign came to an end before Khāravela launched his successful campaign in the Vindhyas in his 4th regnal year. It would mean that Khāravela's reign began in c. 185 BC and the date of the instant inscription, which was recorded in the 13th regnal year of Khāravela, should be c. 172 BC or ME 355.1 Since there is no further record of Khāravela it is possible that his reign might have come to an end in that year. The palaeographic similarities of the instant inscription with the Nanaghat inscriptions of Sri Sātakarņi's queen Nāgānikā, may be cited as a further supporting evidence for the above view.
But the identification of Bahasatimitaṁ presents a more complicated problem. Twice Khāravela went to Magadha. In the 8th year he stormed the fortress of Gorathagirī, lying a few miles to the west of Rājagrha, the ancient capital of Magadha,
1.
It is significant that the obliteration at the beginning of L 17 is sufficient to contain Pânatariya-panatisata-vasa (= The year 355), (ref. p. 22 fn. 1, supra).

Page #69

The Date of the Inscription and its Author
but did not go further north or east. The term Rājagrha-nrpa used in this context appears to be synonymous with the 'King of Magadha', whose name was not mentioned here since no direct contact took place with him at that time. This time Khāravela perhaps had no intention of waging a war against Magadha, and the fortress was stormed most probably as a part of strategy for securing his communications in his onward march to Mathura. But the next time, in his twelfth year, he marched into Magadha and then he came into direct contact with its king, Bahasatimitam, whom he made to bow down at his feet.
Literary traditions are silent about any Bahasatimita (Bphaspatimitra). Numismatic evidence shows that there was a king of this name about that time. Cast coins bearing the legend 'Bahasatimitasa' have been discovered at Kosam, the site of Kaušāmbi." The script is Asokan Brāhmi and is supposed to be of the same style as that of an inscription found at Mora in the Mathura district which also mentions ‘Brhasvātimitra'.? On stratigraphic grounds these coins are assigned to circa 185115 BC.Struck coins of Bahasatimita have also been found at Kosam and they are also assigned to second century BC.4 Their palaeography is said to be similar to that of the Pabhosa Cave inscriptions which also mention ‘Bahasatimitra”.5
This evidence put together indicates that there was a king named Bahasatimita in eastern India in the first quarter of the second century BC, his dominions extended as far as the Vatsa region, his mother Gopālī was the daughter of King Tevaniputra
1. Jagannath in A Comprehensive History of India, II, p. 107. 2. J.R.A.S., 1912, p. 120. 3. Sharma, G. R., The Excavations at Kausāmbi (1957-59), pp. 19, 80-85. 4. Jagannath, op. cit.; also, Allan, J., British Museum Catalogue of Coins
of Ancient India, p. xcviii. 5. E.I., II, pp. 240-43.
The problem of dismemberment of the Maurya Empire has been discussed in detail in my Political and Cultural History of Mid-North India.

Page #70

44 The Hāthīgumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Bhāgavata of Ahicchatrā, and his daughter Yasamātā lived at Mathura. King Tevaņiputra Bhāgavata was the son of King Sonakāyanaputra Vamgapāla who appears to have founded his independent kingdom in Ahicchatrā in similar circumstances as did Simuka and Khāravela's grandfather but about two decades later on the death of Samprati. If so, Tevaņiputra Bhāgavata's daughter's son could be a contemporary of Khāravela and could be his adversary in his twelfth year in c. 173 BC.
The instant inscription makes Bahasatimita the king of Magadha and it also seems to indicate that his territory included Anga to the east. An examination of the evidence afforded by the Yugapurāņa of the Gārgi-saṁhitā and its correlation with the information supplied by the Pabhosa Cave Inscriptions, also suggest that the Maurya dynasty in Magadha was put to an end by the confederacy of the newly formed kingdoms of Mathura and Ahicchatrā and that Bahasatimita who was a prince of the Mathura house but was also the daughter's son of the then King of Ahicchatrā, was installed as King of Magadha in c. 206 BC under the regency of an Ahicchatrā prince.
It is believed that in c. 187 Bc. Brhadratha, the last of the Mauryas, was killed by Pusymitra Sunga in Magadha and the latter founded the Sunga dynasty. On this account K.P.Jayaswal identified Bahasatimita with Pusyamitra Sunga, saying that Puşya was a star in the Brhaspati constellation. This identification has, however, not been accepted. It is to be noted that no coins of Pușyamitra Sunga have been discovered at least in
1.
The tradition contained in the Yugapurāna seems to suggest that the confederate forces of the Yavanas, Pañcālas and Mathuras put an end to the Maurya rule in Magadha (ref. D.R. Mankad, 'A critically edited text of the Yugapurāna', J.U.P.H.S., XX, pp. 32-64). These Yavanas are, however, not to be confused with the hordes of Demetrius because till c. 200 BC the Seleucids were still strong and Bactria was yet a satry. They could at best be the mercenaries employed by the kings of Mathura and Ahicchatrā. The problem of Bahasatimita has been examined at length in my work cited above.

Page #71

45
The Date of the Inscription and its Author Magadha. No inscription of his or referring to him, has also been found in Magadha. In fact, no Šunga inscription has been found in that region.
On one point the Jain and the Brahmanical puranic traditions converge that Pusyamitra came after the Mauryas. According to the former he ruled for 30 or 35 years and according to the latter, for 36 years. The Jain traditions relate to Ujjayini. The puranic traditions cannot be definitely located. The story of the Mālvikāgnimitra' suggests that the headquarters of the Senāpati (=Pusyamitra Sunga) were at Vidisha, and those of the Saciva, in Vidarbha. This indicates that the event should relate to the Ujjayini branch of the Mauryas. On epigraphic evidence the eastern-most limit of the Sunga dominions appears to be Bharhut, near Nagod in the Satna district. Possibly the dominions of the Sungas, and at least of Pusyamitra, included only Malwa (Ujjayini and Vidisha) and Bundelkhand regions in central India. The mere finding of an inscription of Dhana who claims to be the sixth in descent from Senāpati Pusyamitra, at Ayodhya is no conclusive evidence of Pusyamitra's sway in that region, more so since it does not mention that the findspot was included in his or in the Sunga dominions. He had an encounter with the Greeks but that took place on the Kali Sindh in central India; this also lends support to the above view. According to the Jain tradition, Pusyamitra should have ruled in Ujjayini from 204 to 174 or 169 BC. The lower limit of his reign appears to be 169 Bc since it would be in accord with the puranic tradition assigning him a reign of 36 years. The encounter with the Greeks appears to have taken place towards the close of his reign in view of two facts, firstly that his forces were commanded by his grandson Vasumitraand secondly that according to Justin,
1. 2.
A play in classical Sanskrit by Kālidāsa. Dhanabhūti's record on the eastern gateway mentions Suganam raje (in the kingdom of the Sungas'). (Majumdar, N.G., A Guide to the Sculptures in the Indian Museum, I, p. 95.) Vide, Mālavikāgnimitra.
3.

Page #72

46
The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Demetrius is placed in c. 171-136 Bc. Khāravela does not mention him as he did not come into any contact with him in the course of any of his campaigns. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that although Pusyamitra Sunga was also a contemporary of Khāravela, he was different from Bahasatimita of Magadha.
Thus, it is possible to deduce that Khāravela should have ruled in Kalinga from c. 185 BC to c. 172 BC and that since our record does not record any event after the thirteenth year of his reign, it should have been inscribed in c. 172 BC.
1.
Justin says that Demetrius was 'king of Indians' when Eucratides was the king of Bactria and Mithridates was that of Parthia. The last named is placed in c. 171-136 BC.

Page #73

Khāravela
Personal History The readings and constructions leave little scope for speculation about the lineage of Khāravela, yet attempts have been made to find references to the puranic Aila, Cedi, Vena and Vasū in the inscription. It has also been said that he belonged to the third dynasty of Kalinga.
The passage tatiye-Kalimga-räjavaṁse-purisa-yuge clearly indicates that he was the third in descent in the royal family of Kalinga. Purisa-yuga = puruşa-yuga, means 'generation', and the governing tatiye settles that his was the third generation. He does not mention the names of his father and grandfather, and otherwise also we do not know anything about them, except the inference from this very passage that the grandfather founded the line in Kalinga.
The name Khāravela has been mentioned thrice in the inscription: in L 1, L 14 and L 17. At all the three places it is preceded by appropriate titles and epithets, as was the custom. The construction suggests that Airena ( = Āryena = by the high
1.
The term occurs in the Sukhabodha commentary by Devendraganin on the Uttarajhayana Sutta while describing the episode of the breaking down of nine spokes of Candragupta's chariot as the Nanda's daughter stepped into it. Cāņakya dispelled Candragupta's fear of a bad omen by saying that it signified that his dynasty would last nine generations (Nava-purisa-jugāni tujjham vamsam holi). Hemacandra also uses purusa-yugāni in the same sense in the Parisistaparvan (VIII, v. 326). Both these sources are Jain.

Page #74

48
The Hathīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
born, noble, honourable) is a mere honorific and its equation with Ailena, i.e., 'descendent of Ila or Ila, father or mother of the Pururavas', is not possible. A royal honorific was necessary at the beginning of the description of the king and this purpose could not be served by Aila. Arya has been used in the meaning of 'noble, honourable, high-born' in ancient literature usually and it was also the usual form of address in the sense of 'Sir, My Lord, Your Majesty'. The word has no pretensions to the Aryan race, the way it has been used in literature.
If we leave out the epithets, the name complete with honorifics and titles would be 'Arya Mahārāja Mahāmeghavahana Kalingadhipati Śrī Khāravela' in L 1, ‘Śrī Kharavela' in L 14 and 'Rājā Śrī Khāravela' in L 17. Mahāmeghavahana (lit. Indra, or 'the rider of elephant') appears to be a royal title of the kings of Kalinga which they assumed or earned due to the preponderance of elephants in that region. The same honorifics and titles as Khāravela's in L 1 are borne by Kudepa whose inscription has been found in the nearby Pātālapura cave.1
Khāravela is the proper name. It can be equated with Sanskrit Kṣāra-vella, meaning 'moving sharp as the wind' or 'the very cyclone'. His career as depicted in this epigraph is true to his name.
He mentions the name of his family as Cedi-rāja-vamsa which signifies that it originally belonged to the Cedi region. There is no indication for connecting it with the puranic Cedis. As already observed, the founder hailed from the Cedi (Bundelkhand) region, was posted in Kalinga, and took advantage of the weakness of the Maurya authority like Simuka who was posted near Nasik. Such migrations were always possible.
The passage vadhamāna-sesa-yovanābhivijayo in L 2 simply means 'to make the remainder of his youth (seṣa yauvana)
1.
Airasa Mahārājasa Kalimgadhipatino Maha(megha)vaha(na)sa Küdepa-sirino lenam. (I.H.Q., XIV, 1, p. 160).

Page #75

Khāravela
49
prosperous (vardhamana) by conquests (abhivijayo), and there is apparently no allusion to Vena or his son Prthu. It also appears from the instant record that Khāravela never lost sight of this objective and almost every alternate year he led a campaign of conquest.
The passage Rajasi-vamsa-kula-vinisito in L 17 also does not contain any reference to the puranic king Rājarṣi Vasū. This epithet describes Khāravela as the 'Support or Refuge of the princely houses and families', and there is nothing unusual in it when we know of his successful expeditions against several princely houses and families.
By its very nature the record is very personal and the author does not mention even the names of any of his predecessors. The possibility of mentioning any legendary heroes is thus precluded. Literal meanings convey reasonable sense and there is no need or scope for assuming references.
An issue was born to him in the seventh regnal year. His name is not mentioned in this epigraph. The Mañcapuri cave, in front and to the south-east of Hathigumpha, contains three inscriptions respectively in the upper storey (Svargapuri), lower storey (Pātālapura) and a side wing of the lower storey (Yamapura), recording the dedications of the Agamahisi (Chief Queen) of Kalinga-Cakravarti Śrī Khāravela,' of Arya Mahārāja Kalingadhipati Mahāmeghavāhana Śri Kūdepa, and of Kumāra Vaḍukha.2 This cave appears to have been reserved exclusively for the members of the royal family. The issue born in the seventh year might be either Vaḍukha or Kūdepa, and it is also possible that Vaḍukha might be his childhood name and Kudepa, the proper name which he assumed on his succession. Such instances are not unusual.
Khāravela had at least two wives, namely, Vajiragharavati
1.
2.
Arahamta-pasādām Kāliṁgānaṁ-Samananam-leṇam kārito (,) Rājino Lalakasa Hathis(i)ha-sampanatasa dhutună KaligaCa(kavatino Siri-Khara)velasa Agamahisinä käritam. (Ibid., p. 159). Kumaro-Vaḍukhasa leṇam. (Ibid., p. 161).

Page #76

50 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict who bore him a child in the seventh year (L 7) and Queen Sindhulă of Simhapatha (L 15). Since the latter is mentioned with the title of Queen, she appears to be identical with Agamahisi of the Svargapuri record. The location of Svargapuri is in accord with the description of Sindhulā's shrine given in our inscription and this seems to confirm the identification. We thus gather that the Chief Queen of Khāravela was named Sindhulā, she hailed from Simhapatha, she was the daughter of King Lalāka Hathisiha, and she followed the religion of her husband. Khāravela refers to her dedication of a shrine, which appears to be confirmed by her own Svargapuri record wherein she is said to have built Arahamta-prāsādam, i.e., a shrine in the honour of Arahaṁta for worship-purpose, as well as leņań, i.e., cave-dwelling for Sramaņas (ascetics).
The opening of the epigraph with the Jain hymn of obeisance, makes its author definitely a follower of Jainism. It is also confirmed by the fact that the dates mentioned are in M.E., as we have seen above. He calls himself pūjānurata-uvāsaga, i.e., ‘a lay devotee addicted to worship’. The four-fold Jain congregation consists of monks, nuns, male lay devotees and female lay devotees, and his description of himself is thus in accord with the traditional concept. The description of the assembly is also essentially Jain.
But he was not intolerant or fanatic. Nowhere does he disparage, criticise or show disrespect to other religions. In fact, he takes pride in calling himself as Sava-pāsaņda-pūjako (worshipper of all sects) and sava-devāyatana-saṁkhārakārako (embellisher of all temples) (L 17); and at the Savagahanań ceremony in Mathura he worshipped the Arahasta and at the same time gave gifts to the Brahmins (L 9). This catholicity of
The terms Arahamta and Sramana have distinct connotation. Arahamta is the reverenced (pujya) deity who has cast off transmigration and is no longer a mortal; Šramana is a revered recluse or ascetic who is a mortal like us but deserves respect for going homeless in pursuit of spiritual attainment. B.M. Barua confused the two terms in his translation cited on p. 31 supra.

Page #77

Khāravela
51
outlook and broad liberalism was the characteristic trait of nearly all the successful Indian rulers. It is also a fact that all his expeditions were purely political and military campaigns and none of them was guided by any religious motive. N.K. Sahu's suggestion that Kharavela was a Jain by birth, i.e., Jainism was his family religion,' appears to be acceptable.
Considerable care appears to have been bestowed upon his education. He was given training not only in Correspondence,2 Currency, Accountancy, State Regulations and Laws," but was also taught music and was given a liberal education covering other sciences, so as to make him an accomplished and cultivated king. He was associated with administration at the age of fifteen when he was made the Yuvaraja (Crown Prince) and for full nine years he was given practical training in administration. No epigraphic record of such meticulous training of a prince has so far come to light.
At the age of twenty-four he became the king. Being a yuvarāja already, there would not have been any difficulty in succession. The word papunāti seems to suggest some trouble, but the context does not support such a suggestion and it
appears
1. A History of Orissa, ed. N.K. Sahu, (1st edn., 1956, Susil Gupta), vol. II, p. 329.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lekha stands for official correspondence. Kautilya has dealt with the subject at considerable length (Arthasästra, trans. R. Shamasastry, 4th edn., pp. 71-75). A manual named Lekha-paddhati was also written in the time of the Calukyas of Anahilapāṭana.
Buddhaghosa, (S.B.E., XIII, p. 201), and Kautilya, (op. cit., p. 95), have also used rupa in the sense of coins or currency. It broadly covers the science dealing with public finance.
Gaṇană stands for accountancy and broadly covers the science dealing with public accounts.
Vavahara and Vidhi stand for laws. Vavahara (= vyavahāra) stands for the law as defined by practice and seems to cover the mass of precedents, State Regulations and customary laws.
Vidhi denotes the positive injunctions - the laws as they were.
For effective dispensation of justice, knowledge of both the Code and the Regulations (which supplement the former) is essential.

Page #78

52 The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict to be a matter of style only. The event of his father's death has been ignored altogether, most probably because the record is too personal. Our record closes in his thirteenth regnal year when he was only 37 years old. Nothing is known about him after that year.
Campaigns He led six campaigns in all, one in the second year, one in the fourth year, one in the eighth year, one in the eleventh year and two in the twelfth year. They appear to be merely campaigns of conquest and no annexations appear to have been made except in one case. They, however, help in determining the extent of Khāravela's Kalinga.
The first campaign was in the western direction up to the capital of the Asikas on the R. Kamhabemā (Krsnavenā). The direction suggests that the Krsnvenā should be identified with the Wainganga.Its identification with the Krishna which flows to the south of Kalinga and not to the west, is incorrect. It is not possible to locate Asikanagara which probably lay across the Wainganga. In fact, his army reached only the river and does not appear to have sacked or entered the town itself. Presence and manoeuvres of his army on his side of the river were sufficient to cause alarm to the people across the river. The object of the campaign appears to be exploratory in the main and it seems to indicate that the Wainganga formed the western boundary of the kingdom of Kalinga.
The next expedition, in the fourth year, was a campaign of conquest. It was also in the western direction and was personally
1.
It joins the Pranhita at Seoni, which, in its turn, joins the Godavari near Sironcha, both in the Chandrapur district, Maharashtra. Barua supports this identification on the ground that the main tributary of the Wainganga is the Kanhan which joins it in the Bhandara district (I.H.Q., XIV, 3, p. 475 fn. 166), suggesting thereby that it might be known as Kanha-Wainā or Krsnā-veņā. I am inclined to agree with him.

Page #79

1.
Khāravela
led by him. He crossed into the Vindhyas1 and defeated the Rathikas and Bhojakas. These Rathikas and Bhojakas bore all the insignia of royalty, namely, crown, caparisoned horse, umbrella and golden pitcher. In the inscriptions of Aśoka the Ristikas and Bhojas are listed among the aparātās or the people living in western India. They appear to have been autonomous tribes under the protectorate of the Maurya Empire. The Satavahanas coveted their friendship and did not interfere with them. Queen Nāgānika was the daughter of a Mahārathi. They seem to have been knit together in a loose confederation, enjoying all the rights and prerogatives of sovereignty, and in alliance with the Satavahanas. Their territories seem to be interspersed in the central and western Deccan in the hilly tracts and lay between Kalinga and Nasik. Their confederate forces appear to have been defeated by Khāravela. It is, however, not known where the battle was actually fought. The battle was decisive and his western flank was fully secured as we do not hear of any further expedition in that direction. As the context shows, it should have been fought somewhere in the Vindhyas, not very far from Kalinga, across the Wainganga and below the Narmada. There does not appear to be any exaggeration in his statement that the former kings of Kalinga did not go as far as the Vindhyas, and he also did not cross the Vindhyas into Malwa so as to come into contact with the Sungas, or go very deep into the Vindhyas westward so as to come into direct contact with the Satavahanas. No annexations are claimed; he was satisfied by making his adversaries submit to him and by seizing their jewels and fortune.
The third expedition, in the eighth year, is northward. He
33333
53
The Vindhyas have been referred to in the inscription as Vijādharādhivasam (Vidyadhara+adhivasam) poetically. In the Jain puranic lore these ranges are generally referred to as the abode of the Vidyadharas.

Jagannath's suggestion that it refers to some sacred place of the Jains and its violation by the Rathikas and Bhojakas was the immediate cause of war, (op. cit., pp. 113-14), is not acceptable in the context. It is a geographical term pure and simple.

Page #80

54 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict first mentions the storming of Gorathagiri, near Rājagặha. It seems to indicate that to the north the boundaries of Kalinga were nearly contiguous with those of Magadha. Gorathagiri was a hill fortress, serving as a defence for Rājagyha, the ancient capital of Magadha, and it lay in the Barabar Hills, some six miles to the west of Vaibhar Hill in Rajgir in the Nalanda district of south Bihar. Its situation in the southern part of Magadha suggests the contiguity of the southern boundaries of Magadha and the northern boundaries of Kalinga. Khāravela did not go further into Magadha and seems to have turned westward to Mathura. The storming of this fortress was merely a strategic measure to secure his communications in the rear in his onward march.
Since he claims to have reached the Yamuna river after liberating the city of Mathura, he appears to have marched through the tract lying below the Ganga and Yamuna. It was not intractable. A battle appears to have been fought near Mathura. It is suggested by vipamuñcitu (having liberated). But the name of the adversary, who appears to have been an aggressor, is not mentioned. It has been sought to read Yavanarāja Dimita and to identify him with Demetrius. In the note on the text it has already been indicated that this reading is highly doubtful and the reading more appropriately appears to be Yamanā-nadim. The event took place in c. 178 BC and if Justin is to be believed. Demetrius should have come at least seven years later. It may be that there was some depredation from the north or from any of the neighbouring kingdoms and Mathura was temporarily occupied by the aggressor, and Khāravela drove out the aggressor and restored Mathura to its legitimate ruler. It was a mere act of chivalry. Mathura was not annexed, and therefore on liberation it should have been
1.
If the Yuga-Purāna tradition carries any historical background, there is a strong suggesion that the Greek mercenaries who followed in the train of the confederate armies of Mathura and Ahicchatră to Pataliputra, turned hostile and on their way back, seized Mathura itself either to claim their dues or to satiate their greed for plunder or both. In all probability, Khāravela had liberated Mathura from these Greek mercenaries turned hostile.

Page #81

55
Khāravela returned to its rightful owner. His further activities in Mathura were confined to performing religious ceremonies.
The real campaigns of conquest were yet to follow, and preparations for these were made in the tenth year. For the next two years he remained busy in these campaigns, marching to the south, then to the north, and again to the south. His ambition was to conquer the whole country and live up to the ideal of a Cakravartin. This is the earliest epigraphic record mentioning the name of the country as Bhāratavarşa (Bharadavasa).
Having made the necessary preparations in the tenth year, he first marches to the south, in the eleventh year, and sacks Pithunda, the metropolis of Ava kings. Pithunda can be identified with Pityndra, mentioned by Ptolemy as the metropolis of Maisolia and the Arvarnoi." It lay in the interior of Maisolia, the coast between the rivers Godavari and Krishna. It has been suggested that possibly it did not lie very far from Vijayapuri (of the Nagarjunikonda Inscription), Amaravati and Vijayawada, in the heart of ancient Andhrapatha. Exact location is not
i.e.. supreme over-lord. This ideal is common to all the Indian traditions. According to the Jain tradition, there have been 12 Cakravartins who had conquered the whole earth, and the first among them was Bharata, the son of Rsabha, the first Tirtharkara. (See Mahāpuranam, Trisastišalákāpurusacarita). In the Jain tradition Bharata, the son of Rsabha, is credited with giving the country this name, while in the Brahmanical tradition Bharata, the son of Dusyanta and Sakuntalā immortalised in the Abhijñāna-Sakuntalam of Kālidāsa, is also credited with it. Thus, in essence, both the Jain and Brahmanical traditions are unanimous as regards the name Bhäratavarsa for the geographical entity now known as India. However, the Buddhist tradition calls it Jambūdipa, and in his M.R.E. I Asoka mentions Jambūdipa in that sense - perhaps the only epigraphic mention known so far. Ptolemy's Ancient India, ed. by S.N. Majumdar, pp. 67-68, 185. H.C. Raychaudhuri in The Early History of the Deccan, Pt. I-VI, p. 56. It is also identified with Pihunda mentioned in the Uttarādhyayanasūtra, which, however, does not help in locating it.
3. 4.

Page #82

56 The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict known. The Arvarnoi of Ptolemy may be identical with the Ava people, or else Ava is a misreading for Ardha, meaning the Andhra kings in the context, which is not quite impossible.
The southern boundary of Kalinga appears to be the Godavari. The manner in which Khāravela marches to Pithunda, shows that it could not be very far from Kalinga and must be somewhere near the southern border across the Godavari. The way in which it was sacked, seems to indicate that the Pithunda kingdom was annexed and the southern boundary was extended as far as the Krishna. Khāravela was now face to face with the Tamila Confederacy which he set out to break for the well-being of his realm'. He claims to have broken the Confederacy, but does not mention to have marched further south and it indicates that the Confederacy was broken through diplomacy rather than warfare. The Colas? were probably the northern-most member of the Confederacy, whose territory lay between the Pithunda and the Pāņdya kingdoms. They seem to have been won over and he was thus enabled to march forth to the Pāndya kingdom the following year.
In the twelfth year he led two expeditions: one to the north and the other to the south. He marched forth into Magadha up to the Ganga’ and obtained the submission of the Magadha king Bahasatimita. Although the name of Pătaliputra is not mentioned the reference is evidently to that city which lay on the Ganga, and had continued to be the capital of Magadha at least since the days of the Nandas. The fact that he worshipped
1.
Asoka mentions the Pandyas after the Colas. The Pandyas have also been associated with Madurai on the R. Vaigai from very ancient times, while the Colas have been associated with Thanjavur on the R. Kaveri, which lies to the north of Madurai. The reading is hathasam Gamgaya pāyayati, i.e., he makes his elephants and horses (hathasaṁ =hasti +asvam) drink in the Ganga. There is no reference to the Sugängiya palace, as supposed by Jayaswal and Banerji (E.I., XX, p. 88 fn. 8). This name of the palace of Candragupta Maurya is mentioned only in a very late work of fiction, the Mudrārāksasa, and it is not mentioned in any of the traditional accounts or epigraphic records.

Page #83

Khāravela
57
in the temple which enshrined the image taken away by the Nanda king from Kalinga, seems to indicate it.
He simply claims to have struck terror into the hearts of the kings of Uttarapatha (Utarapadha), which means that he did not come into contact with any other king of north India and did not go beyond Magadha. Here Uttarapatha has been used in the common sense of the term, meaning North India. Two broad divisions of the country have been Uttarapatha and Dakṣiṇāpatha, the former referring to the region lying to the north of the Vindhyas and the latter, to that lying to the south of the Vindhyas.1 An inference to the north-western region beyond Prthudaka (near Thanesar), cannot be drawn from Uttarapatha here as the context does not at all support it.2
After the successful expedition against Magadha in the north, he marched against the Pandyas, perhaps the most powerful member of the Tamila Confederacy, in the south. He calls his victory against the Pandyas 'a portentous marvel',3 and this seems to indicate the power of the Pandyas. The operation against the Pandyas appears to have been two-fold, i.e., military as well as naval. Elephants formed the task-force on land and boats were used on the sea. This is the earliest epigraphic reference to the use of boats for war purposes, and it seems to
1.
2.
3.
More correctly the dividing line is the R. Narmada.
Jagannath (op. cit., p. 114, fn.3), also takes it to have been used in a general way for North India. Uttarapatha finds the earliest epigraphic mention here.
A seminar was held at Bhubaneshwar on January 16-18, 1999, at a stupendous cost of Rs. 7 lakh, they say, to put scholars' seal on Acharya Vidyanandji's highly imaginative discovery that Khāravela went on campaign to Takṣasila (Taxila in Rawalpindi district, Pakistan) on the basis of the mention of Utarapadha in his inscription. And, adbhutam asacaryam it was that by spending Rs. 37000 per scholar, as they say, strenuous publicity could be given to this myth to overshadow history.
Abhutamachariyam adbhutam + aścaryam, or abhūtam + ascaryam. In both the cases the meaning remains the same.

Page #84

58 The Hathigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict confirm the overseas activities of the Kalinga people. Khāravela is, however, not known to have led any overseas expedition although he maintained a fleet of war-ships.
Dominions
The kingdom of Kalinga as inherited by Khāravela appears to have comprised the entire territory known as Tri-Kalinga, including Utkala, Tosala and Kalinga.? It was bounded on the north by the R. Damodara, beyond which lay Magadha; on the west by the R. Wainganga, beyond which lived the Asikas and the Rathikas and Bhojakas; on the south by the R. Godavari, beyond which lay the Pithunda kingdom and the Tamila countries; and on the east by the Bay of Bengal. Khāravela appears to have annexed the Pithunda kingdom. The total annihilation of Pithunda signified by its being ploughed by ploughs drawn by asses, seems to suggest annexation. The boundaries were thus extended up to the R. Krishna in the south. All other expeditions of his were aimed at obtaining formal submission and allegiance so as to secure his frontiers.
The capital of Kalinga (Kalimga-nagari) should lie somewhere on the R. Prachi on both banks of which Khăravela built the Mahāvijayaprāsāda. It should not be very far from the sea coast since it is stated to have been ravaged by a cyclone. The name of the city does not appear to have been mentioned. Khibiram is merely its adjective, meaning 'the Abode of the Brave' (Kși: dim. of kșiti: + viram). It appears to have been a
See Mazumdar, B.C., Orissa in the Making, and Gerini, Researches on Ptolemy, pp. 119-39. “Kalinga had built up a great overseas empire and spread her colonies as far as Philippine islands in the east and far south into the islands of the Indian Archipelago" (Sahu, N.K., ed., A History of Orissa, vol. I, p. 62). Utkala lay between the rivers Damodar and Brahmani, Uttara Tosala between the Brahmani and the Mahanadi, Daksina Tosala or Kongoda between the Mahanadi and the Vansadhara, and Kalinga between the Vansadhara and the Godavari (vide, Banerji, R.D., History of Orissa, vol. I, map opp. p. 49).
2.

Page #85

Khāravela
59
custom in Kalinga and the neighbouring region to name the capital after the name of the people, region or kingdom, e.g., the capital of the Asikas was called Asikanagara, the principal city in the Tosala region was called Tosali, and similarly the capital of the Kalinga kingdom was called Kalinganagarī.
It has been sought to identify it with either Dhauli or Śiśupālagarh.' Dhauli lies in the Puri district, on the metalled road from Cuttack to Puri, a little distant from the R. Prachi. A set of Aśoka's Rock Edicts, including the Kalinga Edicts addressed to the Mahāmātras of Tosali and Samäpä, has been found inscribed on a low hill there and near that there is an open stretch of land of ancient habitation extending up to the river. It represents the site of Tosali since Tosali can be phonetically corrupted into Dhauli, and also because it lies in the Tosala region which covered the Mahanadi delta and extended up to the R. Vansadhara to the south. It is possible that Khāravela's grandfather was the Mahāmātra of Tosali. There seems to be strong indication that Tosali was not adopted as the capital of the newly founded kingdom, but a site nearby, which was just on the banks of the river, was chosen for the new capital. The exact location of the Tansauliyavāță canal is not known, but the context seems to suggest that it was brought into the capital from a nearby place, most probably from the old town of Tosali into the new capital.
Sisupālagarh lies 11⁄2 miles east-southwest of Bhubaneshwar and six miles to its west-northwest are the KhandagiriUdayagiri hills. According to B.B. Lal, a presumption is raised in favour of its being identical with Kharavela's Kalinganagari on the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: no fortified town of comparable date except Sisupälagarh is known to exist near about the Khandagiri-Udayagiri hills, and the excavations did reveal a collapse and subsequent repair of the southern gateway-flank of the fortifications which seems to confirm
1. The suggestion that it might be Kalingapatnam in the Srikakulam district (E.I., XX, p. 83 fn. 19), is not worth considering since it does not answer to the description given in the inscription.

Page #86

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Khāravela's statement that he got repaired the gateway and fortification-wall which had been damaged by a storm.1 The upper limit of the site is placed at c. 300 BC, its Early Period being 300-200 BC, Early Middle Period 200 BC-AD 100, Late Middle Period AD 100-200 and Late Period AD 200-350. It is difficult to support this presumption in view of the fact that Kalinganagari must be on the Prachi and Siśupālagarh does not fulfil that condition. Its proximity with the Khandagiri-Udayagiri is not so relevant in the context. The fortress may have served the same defence purposes for the old town of Tosali as well as the new capital, as were served by Gorathagiri for Rajagṛha.
60
The new capital was a walled town, with gateways having pinnacles on which were flown the royal banners. It had cool reservoir and parks. It probably suffered from scarcity of water and so Khāravela brought the Tanasuliyavăță canal into it. He also added to its beauty by building the Mahāvijayaprāsāda on both banks of the Prachi river at a cost of 38 lakhs.2 The two portions of the palace appear to have been linked through bridges. It should have been a beautiful thing and a marvel of engineering for those times but in the absence of any physical remains, as also any reference in literature, it is not possible to catch a glimpse of it.
1. 'An early historical fort in Eastern India', Ancient India, No. 5, (January 1949), pp. 66-67.
2.
The plural ending of sahasehi (sahasrani) clearly points to the cost as 'thirty-eight hundred thousands'. There is, however, no information as to the name or value of the standard in which this amount has been denoted. The finding of a silver punch-marked coin from the filling forming the terrace in front of the Hathigumpha (I.A.R., 196162, p. 37), might suggest that the costs were mentioned in terms of silver coin current in those days.

Page #87

Socio-Political Conditions
LITERARY prescriptions about the education, training and accomplishments of princes in ancient India are amply confirmed by this epigraph. Sports, Correspondence, Currency, Accountancy, State Regulations and Laws, Music, Diplomacy and War, appear to have been the compulsory subjects of study. General education was also imparted to cover other subjects. Practical training in administration was also imparted through active association before the reins of government were actually handed over.
The two objects of kings appear to have been to make conquests and to make their subjects happy. The numerous literary references to the duties of kings are hereby confirmed through epigraphic evidence.
4
The traditional four-fold division of army into cavalry, elephants, infantry and chariots, was in vogue. Navy was also maintained by the coastal kingdoms.
Crown, caparisoned horse, umbrella and golden pitcher1 were the accepted insignia of royalty, and the kings were believed to possess auspicious marks.
1.
These have been mentioned in connection with the Rathikas and Bhojakas. Makuta (mukuta) is crown, chata (chatra) is umbrella, and bhimgara (bhṛngāra) is golden pitcher. Sabiladhite seems to stand for 'caparisoned horse'. Bila means Indra's horse Ucchaiḥśravas in particular, and horse in general. With sa (= su = well) and dhite (= dhrte = maintained), it would mean 'well maintained horse', and in the context it may be translated as 'caparisoned horse'.

Page #88

62 The Häthigumphá Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Works of public welfare were executed by the state. At least two irrigation projects of ancient India are definitely known: the Tanasuliyavātā canal in Kalinga and the Sudarsana lake in Saurāstra. The former was carved out by the Nanda king (in 424 Bc) and extended by Khāravela 244 years later (in c. 180 BC), while the latter was executed by Candragupta Maurya (in 312 BC), about 127 years prior to Khāravela, in west India and it has a recorded history of additions and alterations by successive rulers for about 700 years. We do not know anything about the Kalinga project after Khāravela, yet it has a history of more than 250 years.
Festivals and fairs' were organised by the state to entertain the people. Performances of folk dances, classical dances, songs and instrumental musicwere also organised.
It also appears to have been customary to show off royal opulence and on that occasion to remit taxes, bestow grants and sanction other favours to the people. Khāravela did it in his sixth regnal year.
Some distinction between the townsmen and the villagers appears to have subsisted in the matter of taxes, etc. It also
Usava (= utsava = festival) and samāja (an assemblage for merrymaking, melā, convivial gathering, fair) have been used in a secular sense. The former was accompanied by public feasting while the latter, by various items of amusement. Numerous references to samāja are found in the Mahābhārata and the Buddhist literature. Asoka also refers to it in his R.E. I. From the Sigālovādasutta we learn that naccam (dances), gitam (songs), văditaṁ (music), akkhānam (dramatics), pänisaram (cymbals) and kumbhathūnaṁ (pitcherdances), used to take place in the samájas. Khāravela mentions the performances of dapa, nata (nrtya), gita and vadita. The last two stand for music, vocal and instrumental respectively. Likewise, the first two stand for dances, folk and classical respectively. The context does not allow the interpretation of dapa as acrobatics or combats. All the four should relate to the gandharvavidya. rājaseyam = räjasriyam.
3.

Page #89

Socio-Political Conditions
63
appears that Kalinga in the time of Kharavela contained several towns.
Polygamy was in vogue. The title of Agamahisi (Agramahişi) for one of his queens clearly indicates that Khāravela had more than one wife. The wife who bore children appears to have been given added honour or endearment, as may be inferred from the way in which the event of the seventh year is mentioned. Kharavela endearingly calls her Gharini (Grhini), i.e., 'housewife'.1
The ploughing of a metropolis by ploughs drawn by asses appears to have been the sign of complete annihilation of its ruler.2
Political alliances in the form of confederacies were in vogue, e.g., the confederacy of the Tamila countries, as also that of the Rathikas and Bhojakas.
It was customary to give the Brahmins gifts on ceremonial occasions.
Image-worship was in vogue and temples were built at least in Kalinga and Magadha in Kharavela's times.
The land of the Pandyas was rich in jewels, gems, pearls and rubies. Beryl was known.
No precise information is available as regards the administrative set up under Khāravela. The dedicatory inscriptions in the nearby caves,3 which are palaeographically
1. The alternative reading Vajiraghara-khatiya-sati-gharini would mean 'faithful wife Vajiraghara Kṣatriya'. In the adopted reading the meaning is 'wife named (ghusita - Vghush) Vajiragharavati'.
2. According to Haribhadra (Avasyakavṛtti) and Hemacandra, Kunika (Ajātaśatru) also ploughed Vaisali with ploughs drawn by asses after defeating the Licchavis. (J.B.O.R.S., XIII, p. 231).
3.
See E.I., XIII, and I.H.Q., XIV, 1, pp. 161-66. In these inscriptions lena has been used in the meaning of cave-dwelling excavated for the residence of the Śramanas, pasada (prasāda) in that of shrine for worship purposes, and koṭhājeya in that of circumambulatory path around the pasada.

Page #90

64
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
of the same age, seem to contain the names of some of his officers. They are: Nagara-akhadamsa Bhuti (Vyaghra-gumphā), Kamma Halakhina (Sarpa-gumphā), Culakama (Sarpa-gumphā and Pavana-gumphā), Mahamada (= Mahāmātra) Bāriyāya Nākiya (Jambesvara-gumphā), Atasukhapradinaka (Choṭā Hathigumphā), and Pādamulika Kusuma (Tattva-gumphā No. II). It appears that at least two classes of officers, viz., Mahāmātra and Nagara-viyohälaka (Nagara-akhadamsa) of the Maurya set up continued under the new kingdom of Kalinga.
1.
All these caves except the last named are on the Udayagiri. The Tattvagumpha No. II is on the Khandagiri.

Page #91

Jainism
The significance which the Bhabru Edict of Asoka has for Buddhism, the Hāthigumphā Inscription of Khāravela has for Jainism, perhaps even more since it seems to preserve and confirm traditions and does not merely serve to demostrate that its author was a follower of Jainism.
The Pañca-namaskāra, or the Five-fold Obeisance, hymn of the Jains reads:
Namo Arahaṁtānam, Ņamo Siddhānam, Ņamo Āiriyānam,
Namo Uvajjhāyāṇam, Ņamo loe savva Sāhūņam. Its antiquity is lost into oblivion. It is found in the most ancient Jain literature available, and appears to have had the same significance for the Jains as 'Buddham saranam gacchämi, Dhammam saranam gacchāmi, Samgham saranam gacchāmi' has had for the Buddhists. Our inscription begins with Namo Arahaṁtānam Namo sava Sidhānam and serves as the earliest preserved record for this hymn in its traditional form.
1.
Arahaṁta (who has cast off transmigration), siddha (the Released, i.e., the perfect soul in the stage after nirvana), Acārya (master of spiritual knowledge), upadhyāya (teacher of spiritual knowledge) and sådhu (ascetic), are recognised as deserving supreme veneration (paramesthi). Among the Jains, arahaṁta is not the common term for ascetics. The ascetics are called samana (sramana), sāhū (sādhu), or, muni. It is amply clear from this inscription and the inscriptions in the nearby caves that shrines were built in the honour of the Arahamta, while cave-dwellings were excavated for the use of the Sramanas. Also ref. fn. 1 on p. 50 supra.

Page #92

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
The term Arahamta has been explained in 14 and this is also the earliest preserved record of such an explanation. Arahamta are they who have cast off transmigration (pakhinasamsitehi = Skt. prakṣipta samsṛtāḥ). Kunda-kunda, reputed to be one of the earliest Jain authors whose works have been handed down to the posterity and assigned to the early part of the first century AD, defines Arahamta as follows:
66
Jara-vahi-jamma-maranam ca-u-ga-i-gamanam ca punṇapavam ca.
Hamtūna dosakamme huu ṇāṇamayam ca Arahamto.1 Kunda-kunda appears merely to elucidate what Khāravela has explained.
The Jain congregation is four-fold, consisting of monks, nuns, male lay devotees (uvāsaga = Skt. upāsaka, srāvaka) and female lay devotees. The uvasaga should, according to Khāravela, perform the vows and be addicted to worship. Twelve vows are prescribed in the Scripture for the uvasaga or sravaka, and here again our inscription seems to corroborate the textual lore. The belief that the performance of the prescribed vows makes one resplendent with supernatural powers,2 was not unnatural.
1.
2.
Kunda-kunda Prabhṛta Samgraha, ed. K.C. Shastri, p. 90. It means: The Arahamta is he who has attained enlightenment, having destroyed the evils of old age, disease, birth, death, transmigration, merit and sin, and the karmas.
The terms raja-bhatina (raja-bhaktinaḥ) and cina-vatanā (cirnavratanaḥ), occurring in L 14, help in determining the sense of the following vasa-sitänä. Literally it would be vas (= grow bright) - sita (white), and in the context it seems to suggest 'resplendent with supernatural powers'.
+
Jayaswal and Banerji have inferred offering of China clothes (silks) and white clothes to the monks from cina-vatani and väsä-sitāni (ref. p. 31 supra). Silk is made from silk worms and is, therefore, not acceptable to a Jain monk of any denomination. The rhythmic second part would also not thus mean 'white clothes'.
N.K. Sahu has suggested that Khāravela was the worshipper of the monks who clad in fine cloth (cinavatānam = skt. jhina vāstrāṇām)

→→

Page #93

Jainism
67
There is also a reference to duality of soul (jiva) and matter (deha) in the passage jiva-deha-siritā. The Jains recognise two categories as jīva (soul) and ajiva (non-soul). Soul is independent, with a separate entity altogether, and is not to be identified with the body (deha), a form of matter (pudgala which is ajiva), in which it is contained for the time being. Khāravela's statement that his soul is dependent (siritā = Skt. asrita) upon body, is quite in accord with the Jain concept.
He also defines Śramana as suvihita or self-possessed. Šramana is the general term for Jain monks. Kunda-kunda defined a Jain monk in the following terms:
Dehādisamgarahio māņakasäehiṁ sayalaparichatto
Appă appammi rao sa bhāvaliṁgi have sāhū.? . It is again an amplification of Khāravela's definition.
The order of the monks appears to have consisted of different grades which are mentioned in a descending order. First come the Šramaņas who appear to have been quite unconcerned with all mundane affairs, then come the Jñānis who appear to have been masters of the Scripture, next come the Tapasvi-Rşis who appear to have laid more stress on penance, and lastly come the Saṁghayanas, or the leaders of the Samghas, who by the very nature of their work were concerned with organisational matters more particularly, and therefore were the less detached
observed the rainy season retreat (vāsäsitānam), and surmised, “this probably indicates that Khăravela was an advocate of the Svetāmbara form of Jainism and the monks of that sect were receiving royal endowment (räjabhitinam)", (vide, Khāravela, pp. 87-88). This surmise is wide off the mark because the sect of the white-robed was yet to formalize (see App. III infra). Op. cit., p. 125. It means: Only he is an ascetic in reality who does not possess any physical belongings, has completely cast off ego or pride, and is totally absorbed in his self (soul, appă = ātmā).

Page #94

68
The Hāthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
from mundane affairs as compared to the other three. This is the earliest recorded evidence of the existence of different Samghas of the Jain monks.
In his thirteenth regnal year in c. 172 BC Khăravela convened a Council of Jain monks. No mention of it is found in the literature of either the Digambara or the Svetāmbara sect of the Jains possibly because it relates to a period till when the schism had not been finalised and the main object of its meeting was to avert the schism and attempt reconciliation. Since it was not palatable to the later protagonists of the two sects they thought it better to ignore and forget it. While disagreeing on the fundamentals, they seem to have agreed on this piece of practical wisdom. There was a school in Mathura which tried to keep away from schismatic tendencies till the first few centuries of the Christian era, and it might have preserved the memory of this Council, but no literature of this school has come to light. It seems to have been represented by the Ārātiya yatis or the Yāpaniyas.
The Council met on the Mt. Kumāri (the Udayagiri hill, the findspot of the instant record near Bhubaneshwar), which was
1.
The Samghayana of the record recalls the Acārya of the traditional parlance, while Jñāni represents the Upadhyāya and Tapasvi-Rşi, the Sāhū (Sadhu). The heirachical order given here places Ācārya below Sāhū, but in the Panca-Namaskara current now, Ācārya has superceded the Upadhyāya and Sahū. It was obviously a later manipulation by some ambitious Samghayana to invest him with authority and power over both the house-holder and the house-leaving adherents, and since it was a matter of common advantage, leaders of all the Samghas acquiesced in it irrespective of doctrinal or denominational differences. The earliest literary mention of the current namokära does not go beyond the close of the 1st century AD among the Digambaras (vide, Satkhandāgama) and 5th century AD among the Svetāmbaras (ref. Vallabhi Vācanā). The Yāpaniya sect formally came into existence towards the middle of the second century AD. It was a reversion to the austere, and also an effort to bridge up the gap between the Svetāmbara and Digambara modes and doctrines. It has, all the same, no relation to yäpujavakehi in L 14 of our inscription.
2.

Page #95

Jainism
69
somehow considered auspicious and lay in the Vijaya district. It appears to have been a well-attended assembly in which 3500 monks from all directions joined. The site of the assembly was the quadrangle near the shrine of the Arahaṁta on the top of the hill. This shrine was on the roof of the Hāthīgumphā on the face of which our record is inscribed. The quadrangle consisted of the stone platform adjacent to the shrine dedicated by Queen Sindhulā. As we have already seen above, Sindhulä's shrine was the upper storey of the Mañcapuri which lies in front and to the south-east of the Hāthīgumphā, and seems to fully fit in the description.
In front of the Assembly Hall was set up a pale-red and quadrilateral pillar inlaid with beryl, apparently to serve as a replica of the Mānastambha, in accord with the traditional description of Samavasarana (the Preaching Hall of Tirtharkara). At the Council the Principal Scripture was given a reading. This is again in accord with the traditional description of Jain Councils as vācanā (Reading), found in literature.
The excavations have revealed the remains of an apsidal structure just overlying the Hāthīgumphā. It has an axial length of 78 feet 1 inch and a basal width of 46 feet. It was built of large laterite blocks, 8 courses of which were visible. The circular structure towards the apse might be a stūpa or just a round platform on which the object of worship was placed. All this is in perfect accord with what the inscription says about the Relic Memorial (Kāya-Nisidiyā) excavated by Khāravela.
Further, the excavations have also revealed an ancient imposing ramp built of laterite blocks. It is 3 metre wide, rises from the foot of the hill and reaches the terrace of the Hāthīgumphā, and is supported on either side by retaining walls. It is wedge-shaped in plan, showing greater width near the head than at the tail. This ramp seems to represent the quadrilateral pillar mentioned in the inscription. 1. In L 14 supavata (susdim. subhal + parvata) is an adjective of Kumāri
Pavata (Parvata). The locative endings of cake and pavate settle the meaning

Page #96

70 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
At a certain distance from the bottom of the ramp there are two walls at right angles to support the filling below terrace in front of the Hāthīgumphã in sandstone and laterite. The dexter wall is of sandstone and is prominently battered; it is discernible up to the original steps leading to the cave which contains the inscription of the Chief Queen. Carved stone railings and upper part of a female statue in sandstone have been found near the steps. The railings might have embellished Sindhulā's shrine.
The archaeological evidence put together suggests that the shrine over the Hāthigumphā, the ramp in front of it and the cave to which the dexter wall leads, were the product of a single building activity. It thus confirms the epigraphic evidence as interpreted above about the location of the shrines of Khāravela and Sindhulā as well as of the site for the assembly of monks.
The Jain tradition is firm on the point that the Principal Scripture consisted of Twelve argas. It is generally referred to as the Dvādasānga-Śruta in literature. This is also tacitly confirmed by Khāravela who calls it Coyatha Añgas, i.e., 4+8 = 12 Angas. He also records that the Principal Scripture? had been gradually declining in volume since M.E. 165. This is also in accord with the tradition as already discussed above. The object of the Council was apparently to collect and preserve the remaining canon. Such an attempt had already been made a few decades ago by the Buddhists under the patronage of Asoka in Magadha.
The institution of worship was present among the Jains. Four types of structures appear to have been built for purposes 1. Indian Archaeology - A Review, 1958-59, pp. 38-40, and 1961-62, pp.
36-37. 2. Mukhiya-kala = Mukhya-kala = Principal Utterance, i.e., the Principal
Scripture as uttered by the last Tirthankara Kevalin Mahāvira. It is also called Sruta, i.e., the knowledge as heard from the Tirthankara Kevalin. Dr. J.P. Jain traces the origin of the Sarasvati Movement, i.e., the movement for the redaction of the canonical knowledge among the Jains, to this Council convened by Khāravela (op. cit., p. 117).

Page #97

Jainism
71
of worship: Kāya-Nisidiyā or Relic Memorial in the honour of the Arahamtas (one was excavated by Khāravela himself), Nisiyā or Caitya-type structure forming part of monastery (one dedicated by Sindhulā), Thüpa or Stūpa (worshipped by Khāravela in Mathura), and Samniveśa or temple housing an image of Jina or Tirtharkara (where he worshipped while in Magadha in the twelfth year).'
The data recorded in the inscription also suggests that image worship was prevalent among the Jains in Kalinga in 424 BC when the image of Jina was taken away by the Nanda king, that Jainism was the personal faith of the king of Kalinga and his family, whom the Nanda king had defeated, and that the Nanda king was himself a follower of Jainism since otherwise he would not have taken away the image and installed it in a temple in his capital.?
Mathura appears to have been a centre of Jainism in those days and there existed the age-old Stūpa, as suggested in the note on the text. Here Khāravela performed the Savagahanań ceremony, which was preceded by a procession along with the Kalpa-Vrksa (Wish-fulfilling Tree) and was followed by gifts to the Brahmins and worship of the Arahasta. No such ceremony appears to be mentioned in literature. Sava-gahanaṁ = Skt. Sarva-grahanam can mean both 'All acquisition' and 'All eclipse'. The latter appears to fit more appropriately into the context. It
1.
Two torsos of naked Jain images were recovered from Lohanipur near Bankipur, Patna. These images might have been installed in that shrine. The Mauryan polish on the larger torso seems to refer to its origin in the Maurya period. The smaller torso, though identical in appearance, style and material, does not have the Mauryan polish, and thus may be earlier in date and possibly represent the Jina image brought from Kalinga in the pre-Maurya period. Jayaswal thought that a silver punch-marked coin found together with the torsos on the same level, was of variety that preceded the Mauryan coinage (J.B.O.R.S., XXII, pp. 130-32). If so, it would indicate that the shrine where these images were installed, was a pre-Mauryan structure. Ref. App. III, pp. 127-28 infra.
2.

Page #98

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
seems to suggest that for a time, however short, till the ceremony lasted, he voluntarily eclipsed and withdrew from mundane affairs.
72
The inscription also contains four symbols; one to the left of L 1-2, the second to the left of L 3-5, the third at the end of L 3, and the fourth at the end of L 16-17. The second and third symbols are respectively Svastika and Nandipada or Nandyavarta.' They are counted among the eight auspicious things required at the time of worship among the Jains. As for the first and fourth symbols which are respectively placed at the beginning and the end of the record, they do not appear to be religious symbols and perhaps represent the royal style of beginning and closing a record by appropriate sealings. Taken in that light the first symbol is probably a replica of crown and the fourth, that of royal standard.
The custom of excavating caves for the use of monks was also prevalent among the Jains, as is evident from the inscriptions in the nearby caves.
2. Svastika and Nandyavarta have been found portrayed on many Jain Ayagapaṭṭas of about the beginning of the Christian era, found from Mathura and other sites. See Shah, U.P., Studies in Jaina Art, pp.
109-12.

Page #99

Epilogue
BEFORE we conclude, it may be added that Khāravela has not mentioned the Mauryas simply because there was no occasion for it and no inferences can be drawn from this omission. He has mentioned the others only in a context where it was found absolutely necessary to do so since his purpose was not to give a detailed chronological history of Kalinga or even of his own dynasty.
The language of the record is Prakrit and the script is Brāhmi. When compared with the records of the Sātavāhanas and other contemporary records, a very curious fact is revealed that 2200 years ago there was no linguistic or scribal controversy in India. This is also the earliest record written in the kāvya style so far discovered.
The variety of information preserved in this record gives it a unique place among the sources of history. Such synchronistic, corroborative and authentic information is yet to be found in an epigraph. The evidence preserved in it may help in clearing quite a few of the historical myths created during the last few decades.
Khāravela is firmly and surely placed on the historical map of India. He was the first historical king from the eastern coast to lead such extensive campaigns, and appears to be a more rightful claimant to the glory that has hitherto been given to Samudragupta who came more than 500 yeas after him, in disregard or ignorance of the data preserved in this record.

Page #100

Page #101

SECTION II THE BHABRU EDICT OF ASOKA

Page #102

Page #103

Discovery, Text and Translation
THE Bhabru Edict of Asoka was a chance discovery of one Captain Burt of the late East India Company. It was found inscribed on a detached boulder on the top of the Bījak Pahār on the back of the town of Bairat on the Delhi-Jaipur road, lying 41 miles north of Jaipur, 25 miles west of Alwar and 8 miles and-a-half east “as the crow flies from Bhabru”, in Rajasthan. The edict was so named after a camping station at Bhābru or Bhābrā, lying “6 kos" to the west of Bairat on the old route from Delhi to Jaipur. It has since been removed to the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal at Calcutta.
Since this edict specifically mentions certain passages of the sacred Buddhist literature, the mode of addressing the Samgha and of showing reverence and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Samgha, used by Asoka are typically Buddhist, and references to the Buddha and his religion as Bhagavatā Budhena bhāsite save se subhāsite and Sadhaṁme chilathitike hosatiti have been traced in the Buddhist Suttas,it forms one of the most important documents for the history of the Buddhist Church and canonical literature, as also for the personal history of Asoka, and therefore it has engaged much attention of the Indologists. It was discovered in ad 1840, and the same year Capt. Kittoe and Pt. Kamalā Kānta attempted to decipher it in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, IX. A systematic 1. Woolner, A.C., Asoka — Text and Glossary, Pt. I, Intro. p. xiv.
Mookerji, R.K., Asoka (2nd rev. edn., 1955), p. 117 fn. 1. The expressions have been traced in the Anguttara and the Mahāvyutpatti.
2.

Page #104

78 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict study of this edict began early in the nineties of the nineteenth century and over a dozen scholars have since laboured on it.
This edict is one of the most well-preserved epigraphs and is contained in eight lines as follows: Li Piyadasi' Lājā Māgadhe i Samgham abhivādanami āhā
apābādhatař ca phāsu vihālataṁ cā. L2 Vidite ve bhamte āvatake hamā Budhasi Dhammasi
Samghasīti galaveicam pasāde" ca. E kemchi bhamte L3 Bhagavatā Budhena bhāsite savevi se subhāsite vā e cu
kho bhaste hamiyāye diseyāvii hevam Sadhamme cilathitike hosatīti alahāṁ hakaṁ tam vataveviii Imām
bhaste dhammapaliyāyāni Vinayasamukase L5 Aliyavasāni Anāgatabhayāni Munigăthā Moneyasūte
Upatisapasine e ce LāghuloL6 văde musāvādam adhigicya Bhagavatā Budhena
bhāsite. Etāṁ bhamte dhammapaliyāyāni ichāmi L7 kimti bahuke bhikhupāye cā bhikhuniye că abhikhinam
sunayu' cā upadhāleyeyu ca L8 hevamevā upāsakā cā upāsikā cā. Etem bhamte imam
likhāpayāmi abhihetam ma jānamta ti*.
1.
For text, ref. Woolner, op.cit., p. 32; Hultzsch, E., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, I, p. 172ff.; Mookerji, op.cit., pp. 212-13; Sircar, D.C., Select Inscriptions, I, p. 77; E. Senart, 1.A., XX, p. 165ff; B.M. Barua, I.H.Q., II, p. 88. Alternate readings Senart -- ii. Māgadham Hultzsch - i. Priyadasi ii. Māgadhe iii. abhivadetūnam iv. gälave v. prasāde vi. sarve viii, vātave ix. suneyu x. abhipretam me jānamtü ti. Barua - vii. diseyo viii. vitave

Page #105

Discovery, Text and Translation
This may be rendered into English in the following way:
"Priyadarsi, the King of Magadha, saluting the Samgha, and wishing them all health and happiness, thus speaks:
Known is to you, Reverend Sirs, to what extent is my reverence and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Samgha.
Whatsoever has been said, Reverend Sirs, by the Lord Buddha, all that has, of course, been well said. But of such, Reverend Sirs, what occurs to me (to be the best) I state that so that the Saddharma (i.e., the religion preached by the Buddha) may be everlasting.
79
Reverend Sirs, these passages of the scripture as told by the Lord Buddha are the Vinayasamukase (the Buddha's teaching par excellence, i.e., the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta), the Aliyavasani (the Ariyavamsa Sutta), the Anāgatabhayāni (the Anagatabhayāni Sutta), the Munigāthā (the Muni Sutta), the Moneyasute (the Nalaka Sutta), the Upatisapasine (the Săriputta Sutta), and the Laghulovade (the Rahulovada Sutta) on falsehood.
These passages of the scripture, Reverend Sirs, I desire that most of the monks and nuns should repeatedly listen to and meditate upon, and in the same way the lay disciples, male as well female, (should act).
For this reason, Reverend Sirs, am I causing this to be inscribed that they may know of my intention."1
1.
Dr. B.M. Barua and Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji (op. cit., pp. 116-18) translated it as follows:
"His Gracious Majesty, King of Magadha, saluting the Samgha and wishing them all health and happiness, addresses them as follows: Known is to you, Reverend Sirs, to what extent is my reverence as well as faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Samgha.
Whatsoever has been said, Reverend Sirs, by the Lord Buddha, all that has of course been well said. But of such, what has been selected by me that the true Dharma may be everlasting I may be privileged to state.

Page #106

80 The Hãthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Bhagavatā Budhena bhāsite occurring after adhigicya in L 6 should not be taken to qualify only the Lāghulovāde musāvādam adhigicya. It appears to qualify dhaṁmapaliyāyāni in L4 since all the texts cited are from the sayings of the Buddha as already stated in lines 2-4 of the edict. It would, therefore, be more appropriate to read Bhagavatā Budhena bhāsite with imāṁ bhaṁte dhaṁmapaliyāyāni and translate the passage as “Reverend Sirs, these passages of the scripture as told by the Lord Buddha are".
The following, Reverend Sirs, are the passages of the scripture: 1. The excellent treatise on Moral Discipline. 2. The course of conduct followed by the Sages- modes of ideal life. 3. Fear of what may come about in future (Danger threatening the
Samgha and the doctrine). 4. Poem on "who is an hermit?” 5. Discourse on Quietism. 6. The questions of Upatisya. 7. The sermon to Rāhula beginning with the sermon on falsehood,
as delivered by the Lord Buddha. These sections of the Dharma, Reverend Sirs, I desire that most of the reverend monks and nuns should repeatedly listen to and meditate, and in the same way, the lay disciples, male as well as female, (should
act).
For this reason, Reverend Sirs, am I causing this to be inscribed that they may know of my intention."

Page #107

Magadhe or Māgadhaṁ
THE variants in reading do not make any difference in meaning except in the case of Magadhe or Magadham in L 1. Hultzsch read Magadhe and treated it to be qualifying Priyadasi lājā.1 According to him, the whole expression would be translated as "Priyadarsi, the king of Magadha". Senart read Magadham and thought that it qualified Samgham.2
The reading Magadham Samgham, to mean 'the Samgha of Magadha', has been generally rejected as the findspot of this edict in far off Rajasthan outside Magadha which traditionally comprised the Patna, Nalanda, Gaya, Rohtas and Bojpur districts of modern Bihar Pradesh, does not bear out the possibility of addressing the Samgha as the 'Samgha of Magadha'. Since the edict is inscribed on a detached boulder which can be easily transported, it is, however, not quite improbable that it might have been originally placed in a monastery in Magadha and later transplanted in its present findspot in Rajasthan, probably by a mere accident, as there is no evidence to show that a Buddhist monastery existed in the neighbourhood of Bairat in the Mauryan times or immediately afterwards. The presence of Asoka's Minor Rock Edict I in its neighbourhood does not conclusively associate the place with Buddhism as the other places where recensions of M.R.E. I have been found are not generally sought to be identifed with any
1. Hultzsch, ibid.
2.
Senart, ibid.
3. Mookerji, op. cit., p. 116 fn. 5.
2

Page #108

82 The Häthigumphả Inscription and the Bhabru Edict centres of Buddhism. The presence of M.R.E. there simply denotes that Bairat (the ancient Virățanagara) was an important place in those days. Its historicity is also borne out from its references in the Mahābhārata. The three Schism Edicts, also known as the Minor Pillar Edicts, were rightly set up at Kausāmbi, Sarnath and Sanchi, which are reputed to be great centres of Buddhism from very early times. The Bhabru Edict should also have been originally instituted at a place which was a great centre of Buddhism and the right place for its setting up would have been the monastery itself as it is addressed directly to the Samgha. The isolated evidence of the finding of this edict at the present site is, however, not quite sufficient to make this site a centre of Buddhism in the absence of any other evidence.
But in the absence of any definite proof the theory of transplantation recedes into the realm of mere probabilities. More convincing appears the suggestion of Dr. J.P. Jain that till the promulgation of this edict the Buddhist Samgha was still known as the “Māgadha Samgha’This suggestion of Dr. Jain finds corroboration in Dr. Bhandarkar's view that the Buddhist Samgha was undivided till the time of Asoka.? It further leads to the suggestion that by the time of Asoka the Buddhist Saṁgha was small and was more of local importance and that the real credit for transforming a local sect into a world religion is due to Asoka, as is also acknowledged by the Buddhists themselves. The inexplicability of Asoka's styling himself as the 'King of Magadha' in this particularly isolated instance, also tends to support this view. This discussion would make a strong presumption in favour of Māgadham Samgham.
1.
Other findspots are Ahraura, Sasaram, Rupnath, Gujarra, Maski, Gavimadh, Palkigundu, Siddapur, Brahmagiri, Jating-Rameshwar, Yerragudi, Rajula-Mandagiri and Delhi. Ahraura appears to be the only place connected with Buddhism, the findspot being the probable site of the Bhesakalăvana where the Buddha spent one rainy season during his visit to the country of the Bhaggas. Bhandarkar, D.R., Asoka (3rd edn., 1955), p. 87.
2.

Page #109

Māgadhe or Māgadań
On the other hand, those favouring Piyadasi lājā Māgadhe, seek corroboration in this edict of the Buddhist tradition about the holding of the Buddhist Council (Saṁgiti) under Asoka. Bhandarkar thought that Asoka should have felt the necessity of introducing himself as 'King of Magadha' as the Council might have been attended by many a Bhikkhu who did not belong to his empire." But this is a mere conjecture” in the absence of any reference to the Council in the edict itself. Asoka has mentioned several events in his edicts and there is no reason to believe that he would not have mentioned such an important event as the convening of the Council, had the edict been promulgated on that occasion. Moreover, the Council met at Pātaliputra while the edict has been found hundreds of kilometres away at Bairat.
The extensive distribution of the Asokan edicts in the different parts of the country also leaves little scope for an inference that the findspot of the edict was outside the empire of Asoka and hence he introduced himself as 'King of Magadha'. The extreme points are Shar-i-kuna near Kandahar in Afghanistan, Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra near Peshawar and Taxila near Rawalpindi in Pakistan, Kalsi near Dehra Dun in Uttar Pradesh, Rummindei in Nepal, Yerragudi in the Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh, and Şiddapur, Brahmagiri and JatingRameshwar in the Chitradurga district in Karnataka Pradesh.
It can be explained better with reference to the administrative divisions under Asoka. The empire under Asoka appears to have been divided into five provinces: Magadha directly ruled by the Emperor with headquarters at Pāțaliputra, and the other provinces of Uttarāpatha with headquarters at Takşaśilā, Avantiratha with headquarters at Ujjayini, Dakşiņāpatha with headquarters at Suvarnagiri, and Kalinga with headquarters at Tosali, ruled by him through Kumāras or Āryaputras, i.e., the princes of blood royal, acting as his Viceroys.
1. 2.
Bhandarkar, op. cit., p. 90. V.A. Smith also thinks that it is not addressed to the Council. (Asoka, p. 142 fn. 2).

Page #110

84
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict The Magadha province seems to have comprised the erstwhile janapadas of Anga, Magadha, Kāśī, Kośala, Vajji, Malla, Vatsa, Cedi, Kuru, Pañcala, Śūrasena and Matsya, its grid being roughly demarcated by the findspots of the Pillar Edicts of Aśoka.1 Bairat, the traditional capital of Matsya Janapada, fell within the Magadha Province, and since this province was under the direct rule of Aśoka, it was not unnatural for him to style himself as 'King of Magadha' or Magadha-raja in an edict promulgated in that province.
It is also significant that nearer home, in the Barabar Cave Inscriptions, he styles himself as Piyadasi lajā and not as Devanampiya Piyadasi lajā. Devanampiya has been used as a synonym of rājā in the different versions of R.E. VIII and K.R.E. II and has also been used as an honorific by his son Dasaratha in his inscriptions. It means that though literally it carries the sense 'beloved of the gods', it was a royal honorific equivalent to 'His Majesty', probably made current during the reign of Aśoka. Piyadasi, meaning 'One whose sight is pleasing', was possibly his personal title, and was generally used with the honorific Devanampiya, but in his home province he sometimes styled himself simply as Piyadasi lajā. The name Asoka appears twice in his edicts, with the appellation of Devanampiya only in the Maski recension of his M.R.E. I and complete with Devanampiya Piyadasi in the Gujarra recension of the same edict.2 This seems to settle that both Devanampiya and Piyadasi were royal honorifics or titles.
In the light of the above discussion the reading Magadhe and the interpretation 'Priyadarsi, the King of Magadha', would appear to be more justified.
1.
2.
The recensions of P.E. were found at Lauriya-Araraj, Nandangarh and Rampurva in the Champaran district in Bihar, at Kausāmbi and Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, and at Topra near Ambala in Haryana. The Schism Edicts or Minor P.E. were found at Kausambi and Sarnath in Uttar Pradesh and at Sanchi in Madhya Pradesh, and the Commemorative Pillar Edicts, at Rummindei and Nigliva in South Nepal.
Maski Edict Gujarra Edict

-
Devanampiyasa Asokasa
Devanampiyasa Piyadasino Asokarājasa
-

Page #111

Identification of Scripture
OF the passages of the Buddhist scripture, referred to by Asoka, the Aliyavasāni has been identified with the Ariyavaṁsa Sutta contained in the Arguttara Catukkanipāta.' The Buddha tells in this Sutta that a recluse should not grumble about cloth, food and resting place but should be contented with whatever cloth and food he gets easily and should enjoy meditation.
The Anāgatabhayāni has been identified with the Anāgatabhayāni Sutta contained in the Anguttara Pañcakanipāta. Here the Buddha exhorts the bhikkhus to exert all the time lest old age, disease, famine, rebellion or schism should disturb them by creating unfavourable conditions.
The Munigāthā is the Munisutta of the Suttanipāta. Here the Buddha defines a hermit as one who is homeless, detached, lonely, contented, fearless, above praise or blame, restrained, above sex, and scrupulous about non-killing of and non-injury to living beings and who lives on begging.
The Moneyasüte is the Nālaka Sutta of the Suttanipāta. 4 This is mainly a sermon on how a bhikkhu should behave. It prescribes a code of conduct for the bhikkhus when they go to
1.
2. 3. 4.
Dharmanand Kosambi, I.A., 1912, pp. 37-40. Earlier Dr. T.W. Rhys Davids sought to identify it with the Sargāti Sutta (J.R.A.S., 1898, p. 639 ff; Dialogues of the Buddha, p. xiii). Kosambi, ibid. Rhys Davids, ibid. Kosambi, ibid.

Page #112

86 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict the villages and asks them mainly to restrain their tongue.
The Upatisapasine has been identified with the Sāriputta Sutta of the Suttanipāta.' Here again the Buddha prescribes a code of behaviour for the bhikkhus and forewarns them of the difficulties of their path.
The Lāghulovāde has been identified with the Rāhulovāda Sutta, also known as the Cūla Rāhulovāda or the Ambalathika Rāhulovāda, of the Majjhima Nikāya (Sutta No. 61). Musāvādam adhigicya helps in identification. Adhigicya has been equated with Sanskrit adhikrtya and is taken to mean 'beginning with or ‘regarding'. Asoka has not indicated the subject-matter of any other passage and it is difficult to comprehend the necessity that should have occurred to him for indicating the subject-matter in this case. It may be that in his time there were several Suttas known as Rāhuloväda and, therefore, a distinction had to be made by indicating its subjectmatter. The sermon begins with a denunciation of falsehood in every conceivable form. The Buddha exhorts Rāhula not to tell a lie even in joke. Thereafter he emphasises the need for critical examination of all bodily, vocal and mental acts.
The identification of Vinayasamukase has, however, been a matter of controversy. Smith and Senart4 identified it with the First Sermon of the Buddha, better known as the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. A.J. Edmunds also was of the same view as he discovered in the Udāna, iii, that sämukkaṁsikā was used as an adjective of dhammadesanā. Kosambi was also later of the same view as he thought that perhaps vinaya could also mean‘instruction' and that the First Sermon could have hardly been ignored by Asoka.
1. Kosambi, ibid., Rhys Davids sought to identify it with certain passages
of the Vinaya, I. 2. Senart, ibid. 3. Smith, V.A., Oxford History of India, p. 109. 4. J.R.A.S., 1931, p. 387. 5. Kosambi, Dharmanand, Bhagavān Buddha, (Hindi, 1956), pp. 7-8.

Page #113

Identification of Scripture
87 But Barua and other scholars were guided by Vinaya in its traditional meaning in their identification of this passage. Barua identified it with the Sigalovāda Suttanta of the Digha Nikāya which, according to the commentary of Buddhaghosa, contains Gihivinaya and thus applies to the house-holders as well. The Suttanta further deals with Ariyasavinaya or the Vinayasamukase in Asokan parlance which is nothing but the 'Ideal Discipline'. It also thus applies to all classes, to monks and nuns as well as to lay disciples, for whose study Asoka intended it.' S.N. Mitra, however, identified it with the Sappurisa Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya as the words vinayadhara and 'attāna ukkasseti' (= sämukaso) occur in that passage.? C.D. Chatterji traced the clue to the identification of the various passages mentioned by Aśoka in a story narrated by Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga. It depicts an ideal monk who followed the code of conduct prescribed by the Buddha in the Rathavinīta Sutta, the Nalaka Sutta, the Mahā Ariyavaṁsa and the Tuvațaka Sutta, the first three, according to Chatterji, being the same as the Upatisapasine, the Moneyasūte and the Aliyavasāni of Asoka. He equates the Tuvataka Sutta in which the Buddha discourses on pāțipăda, pātimokkha, and samādhi, with the Vinayasamukase of Asoka as these discourses may well make up the cream of Vinaya, and he feels, what Buddhaghosa selected as the most important and representative for a bhikkhu might well have been cited by Asoka too.3
The edict is, in fact, meant for the monks and nuns as well as the lay disciples. The other passages besides laying down the code for clergy, are also meant for the laity. The main object of Asoka in asking the laity to read and meditate upon these passages appears to be simply to enjoin on the laity the duty to see that the clergy did not degenerate. This duty could be
1. 2.
J.R.A.S., 1915, p. 809. 1.A.,1919, pp. 8-11. Mookerji, op. cit., pp. 117-18 fn. 8. D.C. Sircar identified the first text with the Atthavasavagga contained in the Anguttara (J.D.L., XX).

Page #114

88 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict discharged efficiently only if the laity knew the standards by which to judge a monk or nun.
It would thus be wrong to surmise that Asoka was laying down the rules of conduct for monks and nuns alone. It also passes comprehension that Asoka should have ignored the first sermon which forms the very basis of the entire Buddhist philosophy, the sära of the Buddha's teachings in Asokan parlance. The first sermon really deserved the first place and was rightly mentioned first by Aśoka as Vinayasamukase.
Root ni with prefix vi has been used in the meaning of 'to instruct, to educate, to direct in the Mahābhārata, and the word vinaya itself has been used to mean “education, discipline, control, leading, guidance, training (moral)' in the same Epic. 1 In the Pāli canon also ni with prefix vi has been used in the meaning of to teach'.2
Although in the Pāli canon samukkaṁsa does not appear in the meaning of 'teachings of the Buddha', the expression sämukkaṁsika occurs at several places as comprising the Four Noble Truths, namely, Dukkham, Samudayaṁ, Nirodhaṁ and Maggaṁ, expounded in the First Sermon.
In the light of the above discussion it would be only logical to interpret Vinayasamukase (Skt. Vinaya-samut-karśaḥ =the Vinaya par excellence) as the Buddha's teaching par excellence and identify it with the First Sermon or the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. It is just possible that in the days of Asoka that sermon was actually known as named by him.
1. 2.
Monier-Willams, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, p. 971. For example, Arguttara, IV, Sutta 111, and Majjhima, Suttas 107 and 147, cited by Kosambi, op. cit., p. 7. Ref. the Upāli Sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya and the Ambattha Sutta in the Digha Nikāya. The concluding portion of the Ambattha Sutta: Yadā bhagavā aññāsi brahmanam Pokkharasatim kallacittam muducittam vinivaranacittam udaggacittam pasantacittam atha yā Buddhānam sămukkamsikā dhammadesanā tam pakāsesi dukkham samudayam nirodham maggam.

Page #115

Buddhism and Asoka
SENART has pointed out that it is strange that if the Buddhist canon was defined and closed by the time of Asoka, as stated in the southern legends, he should select for indicating the Buddha's lessons pieces so little characteristic, so short and so devoid of dogmatic importance as those which he cites appear to be, and that, too, without even alluding to the great collection of which the title alone would have been infinitely more significant and to which it would be so natural to appeal when addressing the Samgha. Several of the Buddhist scholars have also since expressed doubts about the correctness of the southern legends.Three of the seven passages mentioned by Asoka have been traced in the Suttanipāta of the Khuddaka Nikāya of the Suttapitaka. They are in verse. Of the remaining passages, two have been traced in the Anguttara Nikāya and one in the Majjhima Nikāya of the same pitaka. It is difficult to draw any inference from this but it may be said that the Suttanipāta perhaps represents the oldest collection of the Buddha's teachings and perhaps also the verse portions are older than others. It is just possible that the Vinayapitaka as it is known today, did not exist then and perhaps only a very contracted version of the Suttapițaka represented the teachings of the Buddha.
The Southern legends only hint towards an attempt at consolidating the teachings of the Buddha in the time of Asoka.
1. 2.
Senart, E., Les Inscriptiones de Piyadasi. Kosambi, op. cit., pp. 6-7.

Page #116

90 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict It would be wrong to assume that the whole canon was defined and closed then. It was, in fact, in a process of evolution and this process continued at least till the first century of the Christian Era. Additions and alterations must have been continuously made suiting to the exigencis of time and land. This tendency is more clearly exhibited in the development of the various schools.
The evidence afforded within the inscriptions of Asoka suggests that he did not cause any edict to be incised on rocks and pillars earlier than his twelfth regnal year. The earliest of his records are R.E. I-IV, M.R.E. I-II, and the two Barabar Cave Inscriptions, of the Year 12. In M.R.E. I he declares his association with the Samgha for the first time. He refers to his visit to the Samgha and to the installation of the Buddha's relics, as also to his setting out on pilgrimage, in this edict. His visit to the Samgha referred to therein could not have been the occasion for giving instructions to the Samgha. The position of the Schism Edict on the Allahabad Pillar just below P.E. I-VI suggests that the Schism Edicts were issued in the Year 26 simultaneously with P.E. I-VI. Asoka assumes the role of the mentor of the Samgha in the Schism Edicts. He also ordains the laity to be mindful of the conduct of the monks and nuns so that they may not violate his orders. This was also the occasion when he should have thought it fit to prescribe compulsory study of certain passages of the scripture so that all members of the congregation might be reminded of the fundamentals of the Buddha's teachings as well as of the ideal conduct prescribed for the bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇis. The Bhabru Edict thus appears to have been issued at the same time as the Schism Edicts. Possibly there were more recensions of this edict, supplied to all the important monastic establishments, but unfortunately only one recension is now available. It is not addressed to a particularly local Samgha but it is addressed to the Samgha generally. By its very nature it appears to be supplementing the Schism Edicts and seems to confirm the assumption of mentor's role by Aśoka vis-a-vis the Samgha in his later days.

Page #117

Budhism and Asoka
91 The schismatic tendencies in the Buddhist Samgha had made their ugly appearance during the life-time of the Buddha himself. After Asoka had extended royal patronage to Buddhism, made a serious attempt to consolidate the Buddha's teachings by convening a Buddhist Council and planned systematic programme for propagating them not only within his empire but also in foreign lands by sending missionaries, it was only natural for him to deal with such tendencies with a firm hand. The action appears to have been two-fold: educative as in the Bhabru Edict and punitive as in the Schism Edicts.
Asoka has spoken of his diligence in several edicts. The Bhabru Edict is an example of his diligence; it not only settles the controversy about his conversion to Buddhism but it also portrays him as a diligent Buddhist who had studied the scripture and obtained such mastery of the religious tenets that he could recommend even to the Samgha what it should specially read.
He was, however, not a bigot. Buddhism was his personal faith and although he did much for its propagation, he was tolerant of the different creeds and gave patronage to all alike as a king. This tradition of secularism was followed by all the great kings of ancient India. Khāravela, coming fifty years after Asoka, was a follower of Jainism and his services to Jainism were also comparable to those of Asoka to Buddhism, but he took pride in styling himself as 'the embellisher of all temples' and as the worshipper of all religions'.

Page #118

Page #119

SECTION III PRAKRIT AND BRAHMİ

Page #120

Page #121

Genesis of the Prakrit Languages
NAMISĀDHU seems to have struck the right note when he explains the word prakṛta as derived from prakṛti in the sense of natural speech free from the rules of grammarians.1 He wrote it in AD 1068 when the literary forms of Prakrit had already been fossilised. The other explanation offered by him, deriving it from prāk kṛta, to mean 'created of old',2 is in consonance with his faith that the language of the Arṣa canon, Ardha-Māgadhi, is the language of the gods, and is not very relevant to a philological discussion.
In the sixties of the nineteenth century E.B. Cowell brought out Vararuci's Prākṛta-Prakasa with the Manoramā commentary of Bhamaha, and thenceforth Prakrit has engaged the attention of many linguists and Indologists. The pioneers in the field are Hermann Jacobi, Richard Pischel, A.F.R. Hoernle, George Bühler, Sten Konow, A.C. Woolner, Muni Jina Vijaya, Banarasi Das Jain and A.N. Upadhye. The linguistic survey of George Grierson, the philological deliberations of Suniti Kumar Chatterji, the volumes of Maurice Winternitz on the history of Indian literature, the discovery of Prakrit and Sanskrit texts, and an in-depth study of the Pāli, Prakrit, Apabhramśa and Sanskrit works, as also of the epigraphic and numismatic material, during the last one-hundred-thirty years or so, have
1
1. Vide Namisādhu's commentary on Rudraṭa's Kāvyālaṁkāra, 2, 12.
2.
Ibid.
3.
Arisa-vayane siddham devāṇam Addhamāgahā vāṇī.

Page #122

96
The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
expanded and elaborated the problem of the linguistic bases of the Indian panorama.
During all this effort a bias was assiduously tilted towards finding some remote ancestry to link the Indian intelligentsia with the Eruo-Anglican rulers, to build up the myth that India was a no-man's land and it was filled by the Dāsa (Dravidians). Nişāda (Austrics), Kirāta (Mongoloids) and Arya (Nordics, the vast Indo-European community, branching off to the IndoIranian from which shot out the Indo-Aryans who composed the Vedas in the Sapta-Sindhu), and lastly, to consign the entire literary effort, nay the speech effort itself, to the Indo-Aryan genius as if whoever preceded them were a mute people. The fallacy of this stupendous task is obvious but the emotional strains ingrained therein dissuade from an objective appraisal.
To put it briefly, the Indian linguistic history has been built up on the premise that there are three strata of language development in India, firstly the Old Indo-Aryan representing successively the Vedic, the Brāhmaṇa and the classical Sanskrit (developed out of the Udicya or northern dialect of the Vedic Aryans and codified by Pāṇini); secondly, the Middle Indo-Aryan, representing the Prakrits developing out of the Madhyadesīya and Prācya dialects of the Vedic Aryans, and the Apabhramsa, a further debasement of the Devabhāsā; and lastly, the New Indo-Aryan representing different vibhāṣā which finally emerged as the present-day vernaculars
Three potent factors have been kept out of sight in projecting this development. One such factor is that Sanskrit was confined to a small minority which assiduously maintained its aloofness from the masses; the masses spoke different tongues which were the so many patois hardly related to Sanskrit. The second important factor is that there is specific evidence on record that a lingua franca was in vogue throughout the sub-continent as far north-west as the Kabul valley, as far north as the Nepalese Tarai, as far east as the Bengal coast, as far south as the North Penner and as far west as Saurāṣtra, which was intelligible to

Page #123

Genesis of the Prakrit Languages
97 and used by the people in general with slight phonetic variations, and was written and read in a common script throughout the land to the south and east of the Sutlej, much in the same way as Hindi written in Devanagari is intelligible to all Indians today except when they take a stance like the Sanskrit-nistha Brahmins of Asoka Maurya's days, e.g., the Urdu protagonists, or get worked up with regional chauvinism fanned for political ends. And the third substantial factor is that out of the numerous dialects only one becomes the koine or literary norm, just as Khadi-boli is the koine of Hindi language and Meridian dialect is the koine of English language and that grammar follows, and does not precede, the language. The people's language is represented by the Asokan edicts and the numerous records of the Sātavāhanas, Sungas and Kalingas, as also of the Greeks, Sakas and Kuşāņas, up to the second century AD. What has come down to us as the Prakrit literature, be it Pāli of the Buddhists, Mahārāstri and Sauraseni as well as Ardha-Măgadhi of the Jains, or Māgadhi, Mahārāştri, Sauraseni and Paisāci Prakrit of the Sanskrit dramatists, at the time of its redaction the literary form had already been fossilised and, if not never, it seldom represented the popular medium. Although Vararuci, who wrote Vārttikas on Pāṇini and lived probably in fifth century AD, is the first to give a grammar for Prakrit, and Bhāmaha (assigned to the seventh century AD) wrote commentary on it, the most important of the Prakrit grammars is the chapter VIII of the Siddha-Hemacandra of Hemacandra Sūri (AD 1088-1172) and interestingly all these grammarians were Sanskritists who added only a chapter on Prakrit in their work on Sanskrit grammar. This can explain that the literary Prakrit as extant now was systematised, and the works were possibly cleansed of colloqualisms by the learned pundits to bring them in tune with the grammatical codes and at par with the language of the sista (urbanised, in essence, an adept in the use of chaste Sanskrit) of the day.
The language used by Aśoka Maurya (272-236 BC) in his inscriptions provides us with a window on the language of the

Page #124

98
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
masses in the first millennium before Christ. According to the phonetic variations, four groups are indicated:
1. The region to the west of the Sutlej, falling within the Viceroyalty of Takṣasila, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra. Besides the Indian language written in the Kharoṣṭhi script, the Greek and Aramaic languages written in their respective scripts were also in use, mostly beyond the Khyber and Bolan passes.
2. The region to the east and south of the Sutlej, covering the entire Gangetic basin, with centre at Pāțaliputra, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Kalsi, Dhauli and Jaugad, Pillar Edicts in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the Minor Rock and Pillar Edicts in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar - all written in Prakrit but in the Brahmi script.
――――
3. The region controlled by the Viceroyalty of Ujjayini, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Girnar and Sopara, written in Prakrit in the Brahmi script.
4.
The region controlled by the Viceroyalty at Suvarnagiri, and represented by the Edicts in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka Pradesh, written in Prakrit in the Brahmi script.
The same form of language and script continued for about 500 years after Aśoka when it was supplanted by panegyrics and eulogies in classical Sanskrit of the kavya style. The earliest of the inscriptions in Sanskrit is the Sudarsana Lake Inscription of Rudradaman dated in AD 150 and the most important of the lucid panegyrics (prasasti) is that of Harişena composed for Samudragupta and inscribed on the Asokan pillar at Allahabad in c. AD 360. Incidentally, both the above records are preserved on the same sites which contain Aśoka's records. Earlier to Rudradāman's records, there are only three pieces in Sanskrit: one is a small inscription of one Dhana claiming to be sixth in

Page #125

Genesis of the Prakrit Languages
descent from Puşyamitra who had performed two Horsesacrifices, and is from Ayodhya; the other two are known as the Ghoshundi and Hathiwara grants and their provenance is near Jaipur; they cannot be pushed beyond the beginning of the Christian Era. It is curious to note that despite the projected zeal of the Sungas for the revival of Brahmanical ritualism and reinstatement of Sanskrit scholarship, all the Sunga records known so far are in Prakrit, and a Greek, Heliodorus by name, who consecrated a Garuda-dhvaja to propitiate Visņu in the kingdom of Sunga Bhagbhadra at Vidisha, possibly the capital, also made his record in Prakrit in the Brahmi script. The best narrative record from the historical point of view is that of Khāravela who got it recorded in c. 172 BC on the Hāthigumphā on the Udayagiri near Bhubaneshwar in Orissa, in Prakrit in the Brahmi script, continuing the tradition of the Mauryan administration. This tradition was also continued by the Sātavāhanas in the Narmada-Godavari valley, whence they carried it down to Kanchipuram where they created the Thondimandalam and founded the Pallava Kingdom with Prakrit as the court language.1 The dynasty of Khāravela as well as that of the Satavahanas or Andhra-bhṛtyas, were founded by the servants, possibly of the Mahāmātra rank, of the Maurya Empire.
Just as inscriptions in Sanskrit were rare before AD 150 so were inscriptions in Prakrit rare after the Gupta period, say AD 500 onwards. A notable example is provided by the record of Kakkuka, found near Ghatayala in Jodhpur District, dated in Samvat 918 (AD 861). It is in kavya style, composed in chaste Jain Mahārāṣṭri, and contains 23 verses, recording the founding of a Jain temple, establishing of a market and erecting of two pillars, and inter alia mentions the curious fact that he had descended from a Brahmin father and a Kṣatriya mother.2
1.
2.
99
Ref. A. Chakravartinayanar's Historical Introduction to Pañcāstikäyasāra, pp. ix-xii.
J.R.A.S., 1855, Vol: 27, p. 513; Woolner, A.C., Introduction to Prakrit, pp. 146-51.

Page #126

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
The Jains and the Buddhists maintain that Mahavira and the Buddha had preached in the people's language. Among the Jains, the Svetambara Āgamas are in Ardha-Magadhi and the early Digambara works in Jain Sauraseni. The Theravada Buddhist canon is in Pāli. The area of both Mahavira and the Buddha was the same, namely, eastern Uttar Pradesh and north and central Bihar. Therefore the language of the two teachers ought to be the same because they wandered among the same people. But then why this divergence is there, has been a baffling question.
100
A key to this riddle is provided by the language of the Aśokan edicts, especially his Calcutta-Bairat inscription where he quotes certain passages from the scripture. It postulates that there must have been some collection from which he drew upon and it was possibly in the Magadhi as spoken in that region (Region No. 2 above). The discovery of Asvaghosa's plays in Khotan further indicated that they were in a Prakrit not akin to Pāli,1 and hence it would not be pertinent to suppose that the Buddha spoke Pāli. Woolner notes, "Pāli originally meaning a 'boundary, limit, or line' was applied to the canon of the Hinayana Buddhists. Thence it is used of the language of that canon, found also in some canonical books: all being preserved in what were originally the missionary churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam." He also notes that Pali is not Magadhi. It has been supposed that it might be the language of Ujjain whence Mahendra took the sacred Canon to Ceylon, or it might be the language of the Kalinga country because of certain resemblances with the language of Khāravela's record, or it might be from some place near the Vindhyas because of some points of resemblance with Paiśācī, or it might be an old form of Śauraseni. Woolner concludes, "Whatever may be the exact truth of the matter, it is clear that Pali contains several different strands in its composition and that it varies also according to its age. The
1. Woolner, op. cit., p. 74; Lüders, Bruchstucke Buddhstischer Dramen. 2. Woolner, op. cit., p. 71.

Page #127

Genesis of the Prakrit Languages
101
oldest type is seen in the Gathās, then come the prose portions of the Canon followed by non-canonical literature and finally still later layers. The development of Pāli has been influenced by Sanskrit.”
Similarly as the Brahmins detested the Vrātyas who did not owe allegiance to the Vedic fire-cult and the Brahmanic social and religous organisation and called the Präcyas or Easterners as being ăsuriya or demoniac, i.e., barbarian and hostile in nature, so the Prācya Vrātya thinkers boycotted Sanskrit and discarded the Brahmanic concept of social discrimination. The Buddha accordingly bade his followers to learn his teachings in their own language, and thus the ground was prepared where the original teachings could be redacted in different dialects.
The Theravāda Canon was reduced to writing in the first century BC. Winternitz aptly notes that 'the monks of Ceylon were bent on preserving and passing on the texts written in the language once established for them in India. In all probability these monks were just as conscientious regarding the contents as regarding the language, and preserved and handed down to us the texts of the Tipitaka which was written down in the Pāli language, with rare fidelity during the last two thousand years."4
1. 2:
Woolner, op.cit., pp. 72-73. Chatterji, S.K., Indo-Aryan and Hindi, pp. 60-61. Ibid., p. 64. When two Brahmin disciples of the Buddha suggested that his teachings should be translated into the learned man's tongue (Sanskrit) from the very debased vernacular of the East (Prācya dialect), he refused to accept the suggestion and, instead, recommended that men should study his word 'each in his own language' (sakāya niruttiyā). (vide, Culla-vagga, v 33; cf. Majjhima-Nikāya 139). Also refer Winternitz, W., A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, pp. 60105. Winterntz, op. cit., p. 14.
4.

Page #128

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
The redaction of the Jain Canon followed a more devious route. There is a tradition that there was a twelve-year famine in Magadha about 150 years after the nirvana of Mahavira when a portion of the Samgha migrated to South India under the leadership of Bhadrabahu I, the last of the Śruta-kevalins. After the famine a Council was convened by the members of the Samgha who had stayed behind in the north, for the restoration of the sacred canon, as so many monks who were the repositories of the sacred lore, had been dead. The representatives from the south did not join it, nor they accepted the Canon so compiled by the ascetics of the north who had become slack in ascetic practices to some extent due to the exigencies of famine. Thus followed the Schism as the Digambaras and the Svetāmbaras. The Svetambaras finally redacted the Canon as preserved with them at the Paṭaliputra Council, under Devardhigani at Vallabhi in M.E. 983 (AD 456).1 In course of time, as passed through word of mouth it was affected by the regional dialects to some extent, but in essence retained an archaic character in language. This was termed as Ardha-Magadhi. It appears to be the Magadhi which was largely influenced by Śauraseni. The Samgha that travelled to South India, redacted their procanonical literature in the Prakrit that they had brought with them. A.N. Upadhye calls it Jain Sauraseni.2 He has traced common verses in the South Indian Digambara pro-canonical literature and the Svetambara Ardha-Magadhi Agama literature, and has concluded that it proves their common heritage. The redaction of the Digambara literature started with Kunda-kunda who succeeded to pontificate in 8 BC. He wrote in Prakrit (Jain Śauraseni) 84 Pahuḍas.4 The Svetāmbaras took
102
1. A.N. Upadhye's Introduction to Pravacanasara, p. 177; Winternitz, op. cit., pp. 431-35.
Upadhye, op. cit., pp. 115-17.
Ibid., pp. 113-15, 123.
Jain, J.P., The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India, pp. 12026.
2.
3.
4.

Page #129

Genesis of the Prakrit Languages
103
to writing some 450 years after Kunda-kunda. Their centre had shifted from Magadha to Ujjayini, and later on to Vallabhi, which factor contributed to their taking to Mahārāṣṭri Prakrit for their pro-canonical literature. Distinct from the literary Prakrit used in Sanskrit dramas, the Mahārāṣṭri Prakrit was the lingua franca of the region and was used as vehicle for their compositions by the Svetambara Jains particularly, so it came to be identified as the Jain Mahārāṣṭri. The material point to be noted here is that as the Pali survived in a form in which it reached Sri Lanka, so the Ardha-Magadhi, Jain Śauraseni and Jain Mahārāṣṭri survived in a form in which they were once adopted by the two sects of the Jains, and this survival was possible for two reasons one was the seclusion and removal from the centre of their origin, and the other was the sanctity imposed on the scripture as Arṣa, hence not subject to interference prima facie.
-
It is inferred from Hathigumpha Inscription of Khāravela of Kalinga that a Council of monks for the recitation of the Canon was convened 355 years after Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa, i.e., in 172 BC. There is no mention of this Council either in the Svetāmbara or in the Digambara literature. There is a possibility that an attempt was then made to reconcile the Schism, or it might have been simply a congregation of the Digambara monks, but nothing definite can be said.
The foregoing discussion postulates a review of our approach to the study of Prakrit languages and to tracing the linguistic developments in India in an objective manner, taking Prakrit as prakṛta and Sanskrit as samskṛta modes of expression and basing it on the Indian scene first of all.

Page #130

Page #131

Tradition of Writing, and Scripts, in
Ancient India
The discovery of a script on seals belonging to the chalcolithic civilisation of the Indus Valley, has established the tradition of writing in India as far back as 3500 BC at least and has belied the speculations of the import' theory enthusiasts. Its points of resemblance with the Egyptian, the Sumerian and the ProtoElamite scripts have been analysed by G.R. Hunter:
The entire body of anthropomorphic signs have Egyptian equivalents which are virtually exact; these signs have no parallels in the Sumerian or the Proto-Elamite. There are many of the signs that are exactly paralleled in the Proto-Elamite and Jemdet-Nasr tablets; they have no conceivable morphological equivalent in the Egyptian. There is a considerable proportion of signs that are common to all the three scripts, such as the signs for tree, bird, fish. The less obvious and more conventionalised ideograms, especially those that are so conventionalised that their pictographic origin is hardly determinable, show a marked correspondence, and in a lesser degree, as in the Proto-Elamite, where easily recognisable picto
graphs show the same variations. He concludes that “it is possible that all three had a common ancestry, and that the Egyptian element in our script alone was

Page #132

106 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict borrowed. It is even possible that all four scripts may have had a common origin.” It is accepted by all savants who have worked on the ancient civilisations in the Nile, Euphrates and Indus valleys, that there was intercommunication. There is not much evidence to support the hypothesis that these civilisations had a common ancestry. In the present state of our knowledge, as borne out by the analysis of Hunter as well, the safe surmise would be that the three civilisations developed independently and the scripts they gave were products of indigenous effort, but in course of time they benefitted and enriched by mutual intercourse. Such instances of mutual communion are known throughout the known course of history to date among the developed peoples.
The Indus Valley script appears to consist of ideographs, morphographs and phonographs. Efforts at its decipherment are eluding because of one basic factor that a narrative inscription has yet to be discovered. The specimens have been found on seals, mainly clay tablets, the specific purpose of which is yet to be determined. They, however, prove the fundamental that the art of writing or redacting thoughts morphologically, was invented in the Indus Valley not later than any other civilised community hitherto known.
The common writing material has always been perishable media. If today, despite all the scientific and technological advancement, we are unable to create paper which would last longer than a few hundred years with all the best care, we should not wonder if manuscripts on bhurja-patra (birch-bark) or tādapatra (palm-leaf) or some variety of paper or wood are not found
1.
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its connection with other scripts, pp. 45-47. K.N. Dikshit (Prehistoric Civilisation of the Indus Valley, p. 40) and R.B. Pandey (Indian Palaeography, pp. 34-35) would have us believe that the Nile and Euphrates civilisations were also the product of the Aryan genius of Indian origin. David Diringer (The Alphabet, p. 85) is on the other extreme and finds it hard to believe that script could originate in the Indus Valley.

Page #133

Tradition of Writing, and Scripts, in Ancient India 107 beyond a millennium. Inscribed copper or silver carries us only as far as the beginning of the Christian Era. The best preserved specimens are on stone, and a few on clay, that take us as far back as the middle of the sixth century Bc. But they provide positive evidence that writing was a common-place thing at that time. Moulding in clay and incision in stone could follow only after the draft had been written down on a common medium. Moulders and engravers would be more usually copyists though in some cases they could be calligraphists as well. This discussion leads us to the suggestion that there could not have been a void between the known specimens of the Indus Valley script, at the lower limit dating back to the second millennium BC, and the Piprahwa Vase Inscription which records the dedication of a relic casket of the Buddha by his Sākya brethren presumably immediately after his parinirvāṇa in 544 BC. This is also indicated by the mass of literature in the form of Vedic Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas and Upanişads, and Sramanic philosophies, besides grammar which Pāṇini, in c. eighth century BC, stylised and codified quoting earlier authorities. The grammar of Pāṇini presupposes the morphology of aksara or letter; the roots path (to read) and likh (to write) are positive indications.
The extant specimens of earliest Indian scripts fall into two categories. One set is called the Brāhmi Script which was written from left to right and was in use throughout the vast expanse of the Indian subcontinent to the east of the R. Sutlej. It is possible to trace the development of modern Indian scripts from the Brāhmi from sixth century BC onwards. It was a fully developed script in the sixth century BC, with letters divided into vowels and consonants and with medials and phonetics.
The other set is called the Kharosti script which was written from right to left. It was in use to the west of the R. Sutlej, mainly around Taxila in the Sindhu-Jhelum Doab and the Swat
1.
Sukitibhatinam Sabhaginikanam saputadalanam Iyaṁ salilanidhane Budhasa bhagavate Sakiyānam
- I.A., XXXVI, p. 17ff. Piprahwa is in the Siddharthnagar district of Uttar Pradesh.

Page #134

108
The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
valley during third ceutury BC to fourth century AD. To the east of the Sutlej it was brought to Mathura on the western bank of the R.Yamuna by the Saka Satraps who preceded the Kuşānas, in the first century Bc. The Sakas, however, did not carry it to Saurāṣtra and Ujjayini where they used the Brāhmi in vogue there. It has only short vowels and short medials, and lesser number of letters as compared to the Brāhmi. Its currency in India to the west of the Sutlej also ceased by the fourth century AD and traces of any developmental sequence as in the case of the Brāhmi, are also not available.
The decipherment of the Brāhmi and Kharosti characters was a long and arduous task. It took nearly a century to complete the job. Contributions of James Prinsep, George Bühler and Alexander Cunningham are significant. Nomenclature was made easy by the Fa-Wan-Shu-Lin, the Chinese Encyclopaedia composed in AD 668. It records that the invention of writing was made by three divine powers: the first of these was Fan (Brahmā), who invented the Brāhmi script, which runs from the left to the right; the second divine power was Kia-lu (Kharosta) who invented Kharosti, which runs from the right to the left; and the third and the least important was Tsam-ki, the script invented by whom runs from the up to the down. It also informs that the first two divine powers were born in India and the third in China.1
The Edicts of Asoka in both Brāhmi and Kharosti scripts provide positive evidence that both these scripts were in use in the third century BC. Rare manuscripts of the Dhammapada and other Buddhist works have been found in Khotan beyond the Karakoram in Central Asia which show that though the Kharosti script was forgotten in the land of its birth, it continued to be in use beyond its borders through the missionaries of Buddhism and could claim a place of honour in the Chinese Encyclopaedia in the seventh century AD.
Babylonian and Oriental Records, I. 59; Pandey, R.B., Indian Palaeography, p. 25.

Page #135

Tradition of Writing, and Scripts, in Ancient India
109
It is a strange fact that the names of these scripts are not found in the Brahmanical literature. Panini also mentions only the Yavanani-lipi as an illustration.1 Aśoka also ignores to give the name of the scripts used by him when he enumerates so many other things in his Pillar Edict VII. The Lalitavistara, biography of the Buddha in Sanskrit, dateable in the secondthird century AD which had been translated into the Chinese in AD 308, gives a list of 64 scripts. The list begins with Brahmi and Kharoşti, and includes such regional scripts as Puskarasāri (of Puşkalāvati), Anga, Vanga, Magadha, Dravida, Kanāri, Dakṣina, Uparagauḍa and Purvavideha, besides tribal scripts such as Śakāri, Darada, Khasya, Nāga, Yakṣa, Gandharva, Kinnara and Garuda, and foreign scripts named Cina, Hūņa, Asura and Uttarakurudvipa. The remaining names seem to suggest styles and are not of any help in identifying the scripts. The list does not mention the Yavana or Greek script, possibly because by the time of its composition the Greek script had ceased to be in use in India.
According to the Jain tradition, Rṣabhanatha, the first Tirthankara, had taught his two daughters Brahmi and Sundari respectively the alphabets and numerals, and hence the script was called after Brahmi and came to be known as the Brahmi. The Bhagavatisūtra makes salutation to the Brahmi script (Namo Bambhiye liviye). The Pannavanasūtra and the Samavāyāṁgasūtra give a list of 18 scripts. The list begins with Bambhi and places Kharoṭṭhi at No. 4. It includes regional scripts such as Dosapuriya, Pukkharasariya, Bhogavaigā, Paharaiya and Damili, and tribal scripts named Gamdhavva and Polimdi. The only foreign script named is Javanāli or Javanāliya (Greek) and it is mentioned at No. 2; this suggests that the list is older than the Lalitavistara list; the Greek script was in use in the Seleucid Provinces ceded by Seleukos to Candragupta Maurya, was used by the Indo-Greeks, IndoParthians, Indo-Scythians and the Kuṣaṇas in the Upper Indus (now in Pakistan), and Vasudeva (AD 139-170) of the House of
1. Aṣṭādhyayi, III.2.21.

Page #136

110
The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Kaniska was the last ruler to use it on his coins. Names common to the lists of the Lalitavistara and the Jain Sūtras are Brāhmi and Kharosti, the regional Puskarasāri and Dravida, and the tribal Gandharva.
The first positive evidence of the prevalence of different scripts is provided by the widespread inscriptions of Asoka. To the east of the R. Sutlej all his inscriptions are only in one script
- the Brāhmi, but to the west of the Sutlej his inscriptions have been found in three scripts - the Kharosti, the Aramaic and the Greek. Inscriptions in the Aramaic script and language have been discovered at Taxila (Rawalpindi district, Pakistan), Pule-Darunt (Laghman, near Jalalabad, Afghanistan) and Shari-Kuna (near Kandahar, Afghanistan). The Shar-i-Kuna record is bilingual and it has a recension in the Greek script and language as well. A record only in the Greek script and language has also been found at Kandahar. Two recensions of Asoka's 14 Rock Edicts have been found incised in the Kharosti script and Prakrit language at Mansehra (Hazara district) and Shahbazgarhi (near Charsadda, Peshawar district) in NorthWest Pakistan.
In interpreting the palaeographic evidence two factors should also be kept in view, namely the scribe's hand and the material on which the matter is inscribed. Change in general contours of letters takes a long time to take effect. In that light the stages in the development of Brāhmi script would be AsokanBrāhmi, Kuşāņa-Brāhmi and Gupta-Brāhmi. Whereas the Asokan-Brāhmi is plain, the Kuşāņa-Brāhmi develops angularities and the Gupta-Brāhmi develops curvatures. Inscriptions dating prior to the Christian Era are in the AsokanBrāhmi, those of first to third century AD are in the KuşāņaBrāhmi and those of fourth to sixth century AD are in the GuptaBrāhmi. In adducing the date of a record it would not be proper only to compare its style of scribing with some record found at a distant site. The internal evidence of the record itself should also be looked into to determine its date.

Page #137

{उन भग्नांशों के पाठ जो पढ़े जा सकते हैं ( ) में दिये गये हैं तथा उन भग्नांशों के संभावित एवं प्रस्तावित पाठ जो मिट चुके हैं [ ] में दिये गये हैं। }
पंक्ति १ नमो अरहंतानं ( । ) नमो सव - सिधानं ( 11 ) ऐरेन महाराजेन महामेघवाहनेन चेति-स - राजव ( 1) स-वधनेन पसथ-सुभ- लखनेन चतुरंत - लुठण-गुण- उपेतेन कलिंगाधिपतिना सिरि-खारवेलेन
२. पंदरस - वसानि सिरि-कडार - सरीर-वता कीडिता कुमार कीडिका ( । ) ततो लेख - रूप- गणना - ववहार - विधि-विसारदेन सव-विजावदातेन नव-वसानि योवरज
Appendix I
खारवेल के हाथीगुम्फा लेख के संशोधित पाठ की नागरी लिपि में अनुकृति
४
(
) पसासितं ( । ) संपुण - चतुवीसति - वसो तदानि वधमानसेस- योवनाभिविजयो ततिये
-
३ कलिंग - राजवंसे- पुरिसयुगे महाराजाभिसेचनं पापुनाति (1) अभिसितमतो च पधमे वसे वात- विहत-गोपुर- पाकार-निवेसनं पटिसंखारयति कलिंग नगरि - खिबीरं सितल - तडाग - पाडियो च बंधायति सवूयान- पटिसंथपनं च
कारयति पनतीसाहि-सत - सहसेहि (, ) पकतियो च रंजयति ( । ) दुतिये च वसे अचितयिता सातकनिं पछिम दिसं हय-गज - नर- रध बहुलं दंड पठापयति कहना - गताय च सेनाय वितासिति असिक-नगरं ( । ) ततिये पुन वसे
५ गंधव - वेद- बुधो दप- नत-गीत-वादित - संदंसनाहि उसव- समाज - कारापनाहि च कीडयति नगरि ( 1 ) तथा चकुथे वसे विजाधराधिवासं अहत - पुव-कलिंग-पुवराज (f) aa (`) (f) (f) a... वितध-मकुट-सबिल (धि) ते च निखित-छत
६ भिंगारे हित - रतन-सापतेये सव-रठिक-भोजके पादे वंदापयति ( 1 ) पंचमे च दानी से नंदराज - ति-वस-सत ओघाटितं तनुसुलियवाटा -पणाडिं नगरं पवेसयति . ( 1 ) अभिसितो च [छठे वसे] राजसेयं संदसयंतो सवकर-वण
स

Page #138

112
The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
७ अनुगह-अनेकानि सत-सहसानि विसजति पोर-जानपदं ( 1 ) सतमे च
वसे पसासतो वजिरघरवति-घुसित-घरिनि* स(I) मतुक-पद पुंन दिया । त पा| पुनाति | ( 1 ) अठमे च वसे महता-सेनाय (अपति)हत-(भि)ति
गोरधगिरि ८ धातापयिता राजगह-नप( - ) पीडपयति ( 1 ) एतिनं च कंमपदान-पनादेन
संबित-सेनावाहने विपमु( -- चितु मधुरं अपयातो यमना-[नदी] . . .
सवर-राजान च] . . . . गछति) ( 1 ) पलवभार९ कपरुख-हय गज-रध-सह यंते सव-घरावास( 1 )-पूजित]-ठ ( . ) [प]
(पूजा)य सव-गहनं च कारयितुं बमणानं जातिं परिहारं ददाति ( , ) अरहत
च [पूजति ( । ) नवमे च वसे] सुविजय १० ते उभय-प्राची तटे राज-निवासं महाविजय-पासादं कारयति अठतिसाय-सत-सहसेहि
( 1 ) दसमे च वसे दंड-संधी-सा(म)मयो भरदवस-पठानं मही)-जयनं . . .
कारापयति ( 1 ) [ एकदसमे च वसे] प(I)यातानं मनि-रतनानि-सह याति ११ दखिन दिस] (मंद) च अव-राज-निवेसितं पिथुडं गदभ-नगलेन कासयति
( . ) जनपद-भावनं च तेरस-वस-सत-कतं भिंदति तमिर-दह-संघातं ( 1 ) बारसमे च वसे . . . . स(ह)सेहि वितासयतो उतरापध-राजानो . . . मागधानं च विपुलं भयं जनेतो हथसं गंगाय पाययति ( , ) मागध (-) च राजानं बह(स)तिमितं पादे वंदापयति ( , ) नंदराज-नीतं च कालिंग-जिनं संनिवेस (') पूजयति| ( , ) [ कोसात ] (गह)-रत (ना ) न पडीहारेहि
अंग-मगध-वसुं च नेयाति ( 1 ) १३ ......क( )तु ( - ) जठर-लखिल-(गो)पुरानि-सिहरानि निवेसयति सत-विसिकानं
परिहारेहि ( । ) अभुतमछरियं च हथि-नाव-नीतं परिहरति...... हय-हथि-रतन-मानिको पंड-राजा (चेदानि अनेकानि) मुत-मणि-रतनानि
आहरापयति इध सत-स[हसानि १४ [पंड-जनपद-वासिनो वसीकरोति । । ) ते र समे च वसे
सुपवत-विजय-चके-कुमारी-पवते अरहते पखिण-संसितेहि काय-निसीदीयाय (1) यापुजवकेहि राज-गतिन (1) चिन-वतान(I) वस-सितान(I)
पूजानुरत-उवासग-खारवेल-सिरिना जीव-देह-(सिरिता) परिखाता (1) १५. निमंतितेन राजा सिरि-खारवेलेन] सुकत-समण-सुविहितानं च सवदिसान
जनिन तपसि-इसिनं संघयनं अरहत-निसीदीया समीपे पाभारे वराकार-समुथापिताहि अनेक-योजनाहिताहि पनतिसतेहि] . . . सिलाहि सिंहपथ-रजी-सिंधुलाय निसयानि (।)
૧૨
अथवा, "वजिरघर-खतिया)-सति-घरिनि"

Page #139

Appendix I
113 . . . पटलके चतरे च वेरिय-गभे-थभे पतिठापयति ( , ) पानतरिय-सठ-सत(व)सेहि मुखिय-कल-वोछिनं च चोयठ-अंगं सतिकं तुरियं उपादयति ( 1 ) खेम-राजा स वध-राजा स भिखु-राजा धम-राजा पसंतो सुनंतो अनुभवंतो
कलाणानि ( ।) १७ [ पानतरिय-पनतिसत-वस । ] गुण-विसेस-कुसलो सव-पासंड-पूजको
सव-देवायतन-संखारकारको अपतिहत-चक-वाहन-बलो चक-धरो गुत-चको पवत-चको राजसि-वंस-कुल-विनिशितो महाविजयो राजा-खारवेल-सिरि ( 1 )
अशोक के भाबू लेख के अनुमोदित पाठ की
___ नागरी लिपि में अनुकृति पंक्ति १ पियदसि लाजा मागधे संघं अभिवादन
___ आहा अपाबाधतं च फासु विहालतं चा ( 1 ) २ विदिते वे भंते आवतके हमा बुधसि
धमसि संघसीति गलवे चं पसादे च ( । )
ए केंचि भंते ३ भगवता बुधेन भासिते सवे से सुभासिते
वा ए चु खो भंते हमियाये दिसेया हेवं
सधमे ४ चिलठितीके होसतीति अलहां हकं तं वतवे ( । )
इमां भंते धंमपलियायानि विनयसमुकसे ५ अलियवसानि अनागतभयानि मुनिगाथा
मोनेयसूते उपतिसपसिने ए चे लाघुलो६ वादे मुसावादं अधिगिच्य भगवता बुधेन
भासिते ( । ) एतां भंते धंमपलियायानि इछामि ७ किति बहुके भिखुपाये चा भिखुनिये चा
अभिखिनं सुनयु चा उपधालेयेयु च ८ हेवमेवा उपासका चा उपासिका चा ( । )
एतें भंते इमं लिखापयामि अभिहेत म जानंत ति ( 1 )

Page #140

Page #141

Appendix II
हाथीगुम्फा लेख के संशोधित पाठ का हिन्दी रूपान्तर
__कोष्ठक ( ) में पूरक शब्द हैं और
[ ] में संभावित पाठों के अर्थ हैं।
"अरहंतों को नमस्कार हो।
सब सिद्धों को नमस्कार हो । कलिंग के अधिपति, चेति राजवंश की कीर्ति को बढ़ाने वाले, प्रशस्त शुभ लक्षणों से भूषित और चारों दिगन्तों में विख्यात गुणों से अलंकृत आर्य महाराज महामेघवाहन श्री खारवेल द्वारा पन्द्रह वर्ष तक, जबकि उनका शरीर सुन्दर और कडार वर्ण का था, राजकुमारों के उपयुक्त क्रीड़ायें की गई ।
तत्पश्चात् राजकीय लेख पद्धति, मुद्रा शास्त्र, लेखा शास्त्र, प्रशासकीय नियमों और अधिनियमों में निष्णात होकर और विद्या के सभी अंगों का ज्ञान प्राप्त करके उनके द्वारा नौ वर्ष तक युवराज के पद से शासन किया गया।
तब चौबीस वर्ष की अवस्था पूर्ण करने पर कलिंग के राजवंश की तीसरी पीढ़ी में, वह अपना महाराज्याभिषेक कराते हैं ताकि अपने शेष यौवन को विजयों द्वारा समृद्ध कर सकें।
और राज्याभिषेक होने के बाद प्रथम वर्ष में पैंतीस लाख (मुद्रा) व्यय करके वह कलिंग की राजधानी में तूफान से क्षतिग्रस्त गोपुरों, प्राकारों और निवासों की मरम्मत कराते हैं, शीतल तड़ाग के बाँध को सुद्दढ़ कराते हैं और सब ही उद्यानों का प्रति-संस्थापन कराते हैं, और प्रजा का रंजन करते हैं।
और द्वितीय वर्ष में शातकर्णि की चिन्ता न करके वह अश्वारोही, हाथी, पदाति और रथ से समन्वित विपुल सैन्य पश्चिम दिशा में पठाते हैं और सेना के कृष्णवेणा नदी पर पहुँच जाने पर असिकों की राजधानी को त्रस्त करते हैं।
फिर तृतीय वर्ष में गंधर्व विद्या में प्रबुद्ध वह लोक-नृत्य, शास्त्रीय नृत्य, सुगम संगीत और वाद्य संगीत के कार्यक्रम कराके और विविध उत्सव और मेले कराके नगरवासियों का मनोविनोद करते हैं।

Page #142

The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict एवं चतुर्थ वर्ष में वह विद्याधरों के आवास ( = विंध्याचल ) में, जिसे कलिंग का कोइ भूतपूर्व राजा आहत न कर सका था, निवास करते हैं और सभी रठिकों और भोजकों से जिनके मुकुट और अलंकृत अश्व नष्ट कर दिये गये, छत्र और भृंगार निक्षिप्त कर दिये गये और रत्न एवं धन अपहृत कर लिये गये, अपने चरणों की वंदना कराते हैं।
116
और पंचम शुभ वर्ष में १०३ वें वर्ष में राजा नन्द द्वारा उद्घाटित तनसुलियवाटा -प्रणाली ( = नहर ) को..... सहस्र (मुद्रा) व्यय करके वह राजधानी में प्रवेश कराते हैं।
तथा राज्याभिषेक के छठे वर्ष में राज्य के ऐश्वर्य के प्रदर्शन हेतु वह सभी राज्य कर माफ कर देते हैं और नगर एवं ग्राम निवासियों पर लाखों मुद्राओं के मूल्य के अन्य अनेकों अनुग्रह विसर्जित करते हैं।
और जब वह सप्तम वर्ष में शासन कर रहे थे तो [ पुण्य के उदय से उनकी वजिरघरवती नाम की ग्रहिणी ने माता का पद प्राप्त किया।
एवं अष्टम वर्ष में अप्रतिहत भित्ति वाले गोरथगिरि का घात करके राजगृह के राजा को वह पीड़ा पहुँचाते हैं। और इस पराक्रम के कार्य की परम्परा में मथुरा को विमुक्त कराते हुए वह अपने सैन्य वाहन सहित..... यमुना [ नदी] पहुँच जाते हैं । [तथा सभी अधीनस्थ राजाओं को साथ लेकर चलते हैं] पल्लवभार से युक्त कल्पवृक्ष, अश्व - सैन्य, गज- सैन्य और रथ- सैन्य के साथ वह सब गृहस्थों द्वारा पूजित स्तूप की पूजा करने के लिए जाते हैं एवं सर्वग्रहण अनुष्ठान करने के लिए ब्राह्मणों की जाति को दान देते हैं, और अरहंत की पूजा करते हैं ] ।
[ तथा नवम वर्ष में] इस उत्तम विजय की (स्मृति हेतु) प्राची नदी के दोनों तटों पर वह महाविजय - प्रासाद नाम के राजमहल का अड़तीस लाख (मुद्रा) की लागत से निर्माण कराते हैं।
और दसवें वर्ष में दंड और संधि के स्वामी वह सम्पूर्ण पृथ्वी की विजय हेतु भारतवर्ष में प्रस्थान के लिए (तैयारी ) कराते हैं।
[ एवं ग्यारहवें वर्ष में वह मणि और रत्नों के साथ दक्षिण दिशा में मंद गति से प्रयाण करते हैं और अव (आन्ध ? ) राजाओं के निवास पिथंड नगर में गदहों के हल चलवाते हैं; तथा अपने राज्य के कल्याण की दृष्टि से ११३ वें वर्ष में बने तमिल देशों के संघ को भेदते हैं।
और बारहवें वर्ष में सहस्रों (वीरों की सेना के साथ) [ उत्तर की ओर प्रयाण करते हुए ] वह उत्तरापथ के राजाओं को त्रस्त करते हैं और मगध वासियों के हृदय में विपुल भय पैदा करते हुए अपने हाथियों और घोड़ों को गंगा में पानी पिलाते हैं, तथा मगध के राजा वृहस्पतिमित्र से अपने चरणों की वंदना कराते हैं, नंद-राज द्वारा कलिंग से लायी गयी जिनेन्द्र की प्रतिमा की मन्दिर में पूजा करते हैं, और राज

Page #143

Appendix II
117
कोष से गृह-रत्नों का अपहरण करके अंग और मगध का धन ले आते हैं। वापस लौटने पर दो सहस्र (मुद्रा) व्यय करके वह गोपुरों के सभी सुद्दढ़ शिखरों पर केतु लगवाते हैं और अद्भुत आश्चर्य का विषय है कि हाथी-सैन्य और नाव-सैन्य भेजकर वह पांइय राजा के घोड़े, हाथी, रत्न और माणिक्य . . . ले लेते हैं और वहाँ लाखों के मूल्य के अनेक मुक्ता, मणि और रत्नों का भी अपहरण करते हैं एवं [पांड्य जनपद के निवासियों को वश में करते हैं।
तथा तेरहवें वर्ष में राजसी भक्त जिसने व्रतों का पालन किया है, जो देवी शक्ति से सम्पन्न है और जिसका पूजा में अनुराग है ऐसे उपासक श्री खारवेल द्वारा, जिनका जीव अभी देहाश्रित है, विजय मंडल में स्थित कुमारी पर्वत नामक शुभ पर्वत पर पूजा के हेतु संसार-मुक्त अरहंतों की काय-निषिद्या का उत्खनन कराया गया।
राजा श्री खारवेल के आमंत्रण पर सब दिशाओं से आने वाले सुकृत और सुविहित श्रमण, ज्ञानी, तपस्वी- ऋषि और सभी संघों के नेता जिनकी संख्या ३५00 थी], सिंहपथ वाली रानी सिंधुला की निसिया के पास शिला पर पर्वत शिखर पर अरहंत की निषिद्या के समीप वराकार में एकत्र होते हैं।
और [सभामण्डप के सामने] वह (अर्थात् खारवेल) वैडूर्य गर्भित चौमुखे स्तंभ की प्रतिष्ठा कराते हैं, एवं १६५वें वर्ष से व्युच्छिन्न होती हुई मुख्य ध्वनि के शान्तिदायी द्वादश अंगों का शीघ्र पाठ कराते हैं। ऐसे क्षमाशील, बुद्धिमान, भिक्षुवृत्ति और धार्मिक राजा कल्याणों (= कल्याणकारी श्रुत) से संबंधित प्रश्न करते हैं, उनका श्रवण करते हैं और उनका मनन करते हैं।
[३५५वाँ वर्ष।] विशेष गुणों में कुशल, सब धर्मों को पूजने वाले, सब देवमन्दिरों का संस्कार करने वाले, अप्रतिहत चक्रवाहिनी के स्वामी, विजय-चक्र को धारण करने वाले, राज्य के रक्षक, प्रवृत्त-चक्र के स्वामी, राजवंशों और कुलों के आश्रय, महाविजयी, राजा श्री खारवेल।"
__ भाबू लेख का हिन्दी रुपान्तर “मगध-राज प्रियदर्शि संघ को अभिवादन करके और उनके स्वास्थ्य एवं कुशलता की कामना करके ऐसा कहते हैं :
मंते, आपको विदित है कि बुद्ध, धर्म और संघ में हमारा कितना आदर एवं श्रद्धा है।
भंते, भगवान बुद्ध ने जो कुछ कहा है वह सभी सुभाषित है परन्तु भंते, सद्धर्म के चिरस्थायी होने के उद्देश्य से हम वह बताते हैं जो कुछ हमने (उनके वचनों में उत्कृष्ट) देखा है।

Page #144

118
The Hathigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
भंते, भगवान बुद्ध द्वारा कहे हुए ये धर्म वचन विनयसमुकसे (= धम्मचक्क-पवत्तन सुत्त), अलियवसानि (= अरियवंस सुत्त), अनागतभयानि (= अनागतभयानि सुत्त), मुनिगाथा (= मुनि सुत्त), मोनेयसूते (= नालक सुत्त), उपतिसपसिने (= सारिपुत्त सुत्त), तथा भूठ बोलने के सम्बन्ध में लाघुलोवाद (= राहुलोवाद सुत्त) हैं।
भंते, मैं चाहता हूँ कि ये धर्म वचन अधिकांश भिक्षु एवं भिक्षुणी बार-बार सुनें और (उनका) मनन करें तथा उसी प्रकार उपासक एवं उपासिका भी (करें)।
भंते, मैं इसे इसीलिये लिखा रहा हूँ कि वे (उक्त भिक्षु, भिक्षुणी, उपासक एवं उपासिका) मेरा अभिप्राय जान लें।"

Page #145

Appendix III
Additional Notes
Himavanta-Therāvali - Era of the dates - Date of the Buddha's parinirvana – Date of Mahavira's nirvana - Asikanagara and Kamhabemna-Coyatha-Satakamnim and Bahasatimita-Kalimga Jina - Schism and Khāravela - The Schism-Kalinga and Jainism-Nandas and Jainism -Asoka and Kalinga
Himavanta-Therāvali In his letter dated 12-4-1930, published in the Anekānta, I, 6-7 (p. 351), Muni Jina Vijaya categorically stated that on a very careful reading he found the entire Himavanta-Therāvali to be a work of fiction. It would be relevant to quote him in extenso:
यह थेरावली अहमदाबाद में पण्डित–प्रवर श्री सुखलाल जी के प्रबन्ध से हमारे पास आ गई थी और उसका हमने खूब सूक्ष्मता के साथ वाचन किया। पढ़ने के साथ ही हमें वह सारा ही ग्रन्थ बनावटी मालूम हो गया और किसने और कब यह गढ़ डाला उसका भी कुछ हाल मालूम हो गया। इन बातों के विशेष उल्लेख की मैं अभी आवश्यकता नहीं समझता। सिर्फ इतना ही कह देना उचित होगा कि हिमवन्त-थेरावली के कल्पक ने, खारवेल के लेख वाली जो किताब हमारी (प्राचीन जैनलेखसंग्रह, प्रथम भाग) छपाई हुई है और जिसमें पं भगवानलाल इन्द्रजी के पढ़े हुए लेख का पाठ और विवरण दिया गया है उसी किताब को पढ़कर, उस पर से यह थेरावली का वर्णन बना लिया है। उस कल्पक को श्री जायसवाल जी के पाठ की कोई कल्पना नहीं हुई थी इसलिये उस कल्पक की थेरावली अप-टु-डेट नहीं बन सकी। खैर । ऐसी रीति हमारे

Page #146

120
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict यहाँ बहुत प्राचीन काल से चली आ रही है इससे इसमें हमें कोई आश्चर्य पाने की बात नहीं ।
[This Theravali was received by me through the good offices of Pandit-pravar Sri Sukhlal ji in Ahmedabad and I went through it very thoroughly. On reading it I found the entire book to be a work of fiction and also came to know of something as to who invented it and when. I do not deem it necessary now to specially mention that. Only this much would be proper to say that the fictionist of the Himavanta-Theravali invented the narrative of the Theravali on reading the Khāravela's inscription in my book Präcina Jaina Lekha Samgraha, part I, wherein is given the text of the inscription as read by Pt. Bhagwanlal Indraji. The Theravali of that fictionist could not be made up-to-date as he could not divine the reading of Sri Jayaswal ji. Anyway. There is nothing to wonder in it because this practice is continuing with us from very old times.]
Pt. Sukhlal was an eminent Śvetämbara scholar. Muni Jina Vijaya was himself a Svetämbara Muni but he was also an unbiased scholar and an eminent archaeologist who would not be influenced by sectarian prejudice and be a party to distorting the source material. He had himself worked on the Hathīgumphā Inscription with K.P. Jayaswal.
On Muni Jina Vijaya's finding that the HimavantaTheravali was not an authentic work, the scholars (Jayaswal, Banerji, Barua and Sircar) who had worked so hard on this inscription, did not take any notice of it. Muni Kalyana Vijaya and Muni Punya Vijaya had tried to project it as a valuable source, but they did not pursue the matter after the categorical finding given by Muni Jina Vijaya.
After some 45 years Acharya Śrī Hastimala ji Maharaja revived this Theravali as an important source in his Jainadharma kā Maulika Itihasa. It is now creating confusion and misleading the scholars who are not aware of Muni Jina Vijaya's finding.

Page #147

Appendix III
121
A curious fact about this Therāvali has been noted by Dr. Sagarmal Jain as late as 1994 that its original has not been available since its translation into Gujarati and its Gujarati translation by Pt. Hiralal Hansraj of Jamnagar is the only evidence of its existence (Sāgara Jaina-Vidyā Bhārati, pt. I, p. 267 fn. 36). Hastimala ji seems to have used the original manuscript because he quotes the Prakrit text and gives the source as Himavanta Sthavirāvali hastalikhita (op. cit., pt. II, pp. 476-94). It is to be specially noted that the impugned text has never been published and possibly it does not exist now.
Era of the dates Sten Konow also thought that the dates given in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription were connected with the Mahāvīra Era (Acta Orientalia, I). N.S. Ramaswami also upholds this view (J.O.R., XXXVIII, p. 36).
Date of the Buddha's parinirvāņa M. Winternitz also notes that “all the seemingly convincing evidence which we thought we had acquired in favour of various dates between 477 and 487 BC, has in every case proved to be uncertain and doubtful” (History of Indian Literature, II, p. 597).
A.B. Keith also finds the usual dating 487-477 BC uncertain and says that “the case against the traditional date is insufficient to justify its rejection out and out” (Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, p. 32).
Even as late as April 1988 it emerged at a symposium held at the Academie der Wissenschaften (Gottingen, Germany) that the general agreement among scholars that the Buddha died within a few years of 480 BC, had become a thing of the past (ref. When did the Buddha Live?, ed. Heinz Bechert, 1995).
V.A. Smith, E.J. Thomas, G.P. Malasekhara, Mrs. Rhys Davids, Radha Kumud Mookerji and K.P. Jayaswal already support the traditional date of 544 bc for the Buddha's parinirvāņa (demise).

Page #148

122 The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Date of Mahāvīra's nirvāņa An entirely new chronological build-up is being suggested by some scholars and it has been summarised in a way in The Mahāvīra Era supplement appended to the Tulsi Prajñā, XVIII, 4 (28 February, 1993). It has been edited by Dr. Parmeshwar Solanki who himself pushes the date of Mahāvīra's nirvāņa back to 1761 BC and includes an article by Upendra Nath Roy who pushes the date further back to 1834 BC. They respectively place the demise of the Buddha in 1738 BC and 1890 BC. They substantiate their view by an amalgam of Kalki myth of the Jains, Saptarsi (Seven Star) constellation, and the lore in the Vāyu, Matsya and Vişnu Purāṇas. In their zeal to press their point, Roy would dismiss the epigraphic evidence dateable in 396 Bc affirming the 544 Bc date of the Buddha's demise (ref. Dr. S. Parana Vitana: 'New Light on the Buddhist Era in Ceylon and Early Simhalese Chronology, University of Ceylon Review, XVIII, 1960, pp. 19-55), while Solanki would invent dasame ca vase Kalimga răjavasane tatiyayuge sagāvasāne Kalimgayuvarājanaṁ vāsakāram kārāpayati as the tenth line of the Hāthīgumphä Inscription of Khāravela. All this pushes the chronology of the historical period of Ancient India also into a mythological haze, and these dates ought not to be taken seriously therefore.
Similarly, some scholars insist on 467 BC as the date of Mahāvira's nirvāṇa (demise) on the basis of some Svetāmbara Pattāvalis including the Himavanta-Theravali and the error made by Hemacandra Sūri in placing Candragupta 155 years after Mahāvīra's nirvāņa. Dr. Sagarmal Jain admits that the authenticity of the dates of pontiffs given in the Pattāvalis is suspect and there is no basis to reconcile the discrepencies, but all the same he would insist on 467 BC (vide, Sāgara Jaina-Vidyā Bhārati, pt. I, pp. 254-68). It is to be noted that the error of Hemacandra was detected by Merutunga in his Vicārasreni, and that Hemacandra himself did not have any doubt about 527 BC as the date of Mahāvira's nirvāna since he says in his

Page #149

Appendix III
123 Trişastisalākāpuruşacarita, X.12.45-46, that Kumārapāla will be the king 1669 years after the nirvāṇa, i.e., in AD 1142, the otherwise well-known date of Kumārapāla's accession.
Asikanagaram and Karhabeỉnā in L 4 Dr. M.K. Dhavalikar prefers Musikanagaraṁ to Asikanagaraṁ and identifies it with Maski in Raichur district (A.B.O.R.I, LIII, p. 289). Dr. V.V. Mirashi, however, points out that Asika is mentioned with Asmaka in the list of territories in the Nasik Cave Inscription of Year 19 of the Sātavāhana Vāśişthiputra Pulumāvi and that the Asika region seems to be identical with Khandesh which is in accord with the geographical direction given by Khāravela. (Sātavāhanon aur Pascimi Kșatrapon kā Itihāsa, p. 78).
N.S. Ramaswami prefers to identify Kaṁhabeṁnā with the R. Krishna particularly in the light of the Guntupille Inscription (J.O.R., XXXVIII, p. 36). But the difficulty in this identification is that the Krishna flows to the south of the Kalinga and not to its west.
Coyatha in L 16 The reading has been consistently coyatha but it has been sought to be equated with cosatha to mean ‘sixty-four'. This equation is not sustainable because neither in this inscription nor otherwise in Prakrit ya is interchangeable with sa. “Four Eight appears to be a poetic way of saying 'twelve' (dvādaśa) instead of using the prosaic bärasa. Bārasa is used for '12' in L 11.
Sātakamniñ and Bahasatimita Dr. V.V. Mirashi also holds that Sātakaṁnim, the powerful adversary of Khāravela, was Śātakarņi, the third king of the Sātavāhana dynasty who ruled for 10 years after 41 years of the founding of the dynasty by Simuka (op. cit., pp. 80-81).
He also thinks that when Khāravela invaded Magadha, no Śunga king ruled there but Byhaspatimitra of the Mitra dynasty

Page #150

124
The Hāthīgumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
ruled. He is also of the view that there is no basis for holding the view that the Sunga, Kanva and Andhra (Sātavāhana) kings ruled from Paṭaliputra (op. cit.,
pp. 75-78). This, in essence, supports my discussion.
Kalimga Jina
The anthropomorphic image of the deity evolved in about first century BC and it took about 500 years to fully develop at Mathura as evidenced by the finds there. But the torsos found at Lohanipur, one of which may be the Kalimga Jina, indicate that there was a school of sculpture in eastern India also where the anthropomorphic image emerged independently and earlier, too. However, not much is known about this school in the absence of any finds besides the lone torsos from Lohanipur.
It is evident from the text of the inscription that the image was taken as a war trophy, but not without reverence, by the Nanda king to his capital Paṭaliputra where he installed it in a temple, and that Khāravela had worshipped it in that temple. There is no mention that he carried it back to Kalinga. In fact, as a worshipful lay-devotee he would not think of desecrating the temple where the image was already being worshipped.
It is to be noted that the early anthropomorphic nudes from Mathura, as well as from eastern India, represented the Arahamta Jina and did not signify any particular of the 24 Tirthankaras unless the name was mentioned in the inscription on the pedestal. The distinguishing lañchanas (symbols), and other iconographic details, developed much later from the 5th century AD onwards. Therefore, it would be just hazardous to say that the Kalinga Jina, or either of the torsos, is an icon of Rṣabhanātha, Šītalanātha or Mahāvīra, respectively the 1st, 10th and 24th Tirthankara.
Schism and Khāravela
The Buddhist tradition is candid in admitting that Gautama

Page #151

Appendix III
125
the Buddha had to face dissidence in his life-time; his cousin Devadatta and his own disciples in the Ghositārāma at Kausāmbi were the trouble shooters. Among the Jains the Digambara tradition does not refer to any dissidence in the life time of Mahāvīra, but the Svetāmbara tradition refers to the emergence of dissidence in the fourteenth and sixteenth years of his ministry. However, the final schism into the Digambara and Svetāmbara was finalised some 600 years after Mahāvira (ref. Dr. Hiralal Jain: Bhāratiya Samskriti mein Jaina Dharma kā Yogadāna, pp. 30-31).
There is nothing in the inscription of Khāravela to suggest that he supported any of the dissident factions that may have existed in his time. The term Saṁghayana seems to suggest that there were several groups of monks under their respective leaders. The purpose of the Council was obviously to consolidate the extant canonical knowledge as might have been preserved by the different samghas or groups of monks. Nothing beyond that can be inferred from the text of the inscription.
The Schism The schism in Jainism was formalised in circa AD 79-82 as the Digambara and the Svetāmbara. The major doctrinal differences can be summed up as Stri-mukti and Kevali-bhukti, and the patent appearence of the monks as nude and covered. The Digambara doctrine would not allow a woman to attain salvation and, also, would not think it necessary to take food after attaining the Supreme Knowledge (kaivalya). The Svetāmbara doctrine does not object to either and proclaims that Malli, the 19th Tīrthankara, was a woman. Further, Mahāvīra of the Svetāmbaras preaches by word of mouth, but he of the Digambaras utters only a sound (divya dhvani) which is interpreted by the Ganadharas, all the 11 of whom were Brahmins.
When the two factions parted company finally towards the close of the first century AD, some 600 years after the demise of

Page #152

126 The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Mahavira, the monks donning white robe got the nomenclature Śvetāmbara (the White Robed); later on some other colours were also added.
In course of time the sectarian differences became so prominent that the Digambaras declared the first 11 Angas as lost because the Svetambaras claimed to preserve them, and vice versa the Śvetāmbaras treated the 12th Anga as lost because the Digambaras claimed to preserve its knowledge. Further, they made different life stories of the Tirthankaras so-much-so as altering the fact and place of birth, time and place of First Sermon and even the timing and spot of nirvāņa of Mahāvira; began spelling the names of holy places differently (e.g., Sammed-Shikharji and Sammet-Shikharji); started observing the parva (holy days) on different days and in different ways; and rendered even the mangala-sloka differently: the Digambara saying -
Mangalam Bhagavan Viro, Mangalam Gautamo Gani. Mangalam Kundakundādyā, Jainadharmostu mangalam. while the Svetambara would say
Mangalam Bhagavan Viro, Mangalam Gautamo Prabhuḥ. Mangalam Sthūlibhadrādyā, Jainadharmostu mangalam.
Kalinga and Jainism
According to the Jain puranic tradition, Rṣabhadeva, the first Tirthankara, is said to have named a region Kalinga after the name of one of his 100 sons to whom that region was bequeathed. But it is not possible to infer the geographical situation of that Kalinga.
The coastal tract along the Bay of Bengal between the rivers Damodar and Godavari, has been known as Kalinga in the historical times. Its association with Jainism dates back to nearly 28 centuries. Karakandu, originally a prince of Campă (in Bihar) and later a king of Kalinga, is said to have been a follower of Pārsvanatha (nirvāņa circa 777 BC), the 23rd Tīrthankara. Thereafter, a sister of Siddhartha, the father of

Page #153

Appendix III
127
Mahavira (the 24th Tirthankara), is said to have been married to Jitaśatru, King of Kalinga. Jitaśatru is also said to have offered the hand of his daughter Yasoda to Prince Mahavira. The Digambara tradition denies marriage, but the Svetambara tradition makes Mahavira not only marry Yasoda but also to beget a daughter, Priyadarśanā by name, who was to marry Jamāli. Jamāli joined Mahāvīra's Order and, incidentally, he happened to be the first dissenter in the 14th year of Mahavira's ministry.
Jitaśatru was in all probability a follower of Jainism as his close relationship with Mahavira seems to indicate. It cannot be said that at the time of Nanda King's invasion of Kalinga, a hundred years later, the king was a descendent of Jitasatru. But this much is confirmed by Khāravela's inscription that the personal faith of that royal family of Kalinga was Jainism because the Nanda King took away the Kalinga Jina (the image of Jina, Arahamta or Tirthankara, which was specially revered in Kalinga) as a war trophy.
Nandas and Jainism
The Nanda King took away the Kalinga Jina to Magadha and installed it in a temple where Khāravela himself worshipped it in his 12th regnal year (ref. L 12, p. 17 fn. 5, supra). It indicates that the Nanda King may have been an adherent of Jainism, otherwise he could have desecrated or destroyed the image. But his personal faith did not come in his way when dealing with statecraft, and he invaded and humiliated the Jain king of Kalinga for building up the Magadhan Empire
The tradition writers do not, however, appear to have done justice to the Nandas. The Brahmins made them Śūdra and the Buddhists called them napita (low caste of barber), because the Nandas did not subscribe to Brahmanism and Buddhism
Surprisingly the Jain tradition also does not call the Nandas, noble Kṣatriya, most probably because when the tradition was redacted it had been long forgotten that they were adherents of

Page #154

128 The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Jainism and the general Brahmanical bias infected the Jain writers also.
Asoka and Kalinga Asoka has himself left an account of his conquest of Kalinga in the eighth year of his reign in his Rock Edict XIII. His two Kalinga Edicts also bear on his concern for the conquered people of Kalinga. There is nothing to suggest that this conquest was to punish a king or people following a different religion. It was a conquest to annex Kalinga and thus extend the borders of his empire to the eastern coast. The difference between the campaigns of Nandarāja and Asoka appears to be that while the former was a campaign of conquest and annexation, the latter was to bring it back under the imperial administration.
Asoka adopted Buddhism as his personal faith more than a year after the conquest of Kalinga, and, therefore, it cannot be connected with his persecuting zeal for Buddhism. In the twelfth and nineteenth years of his reign he donated cave dwellings for the Ajīvakas. In all his edicts he mentions the Brahmins and the Sramaņas together and in his Pillar Edict VII, recorded in the year 27 of his reign, he specifically mentions his concern for the welfare of the Buddhist Samgha, the Brahmins, the Ājivakas and the Nirgranthas (i.e., the Jain monks and their followers). The dharma or the code of conduct prescribed in his edicts is based on the moral principles for individual and social conduct aimed at harmony and tolerance among his subjects and with his neighbours.

Page #155

544 BC
527 BC
467 BC (ME 60)
424 BC (ME 103)
414 BC (ME 113) 362 BC (ME 165) 324 BC
317 or 312 BC (ME 210 or 215)
300 BC
272 BC
260 BC
259 BC
253 BC
252 BC
246 BC
245 BC
236 BC

Appendix IV
Chronology
Parinirvana of the Buddha; commencement of the Buddha Era
Nirvana of Mahavira; commencement of the Mahavira Era
Commencement of the Nanda rule in Magadha and Ujjayini
Accession of Mahāpadma Nanda; conquest of Kalinga and inauguration of the Tanasuliyavāṭā canal by him Formation of the Tamila Confederacy
Decline of the Principal Scripture of the Jains Accession of Candragupta Maurya in Magadha
End of the Nanda rule and commencement of the Maurya rule in Ujjayini; construction of the Sudarsana lake near Girnar
Accession of Bindusära
Accession of Asoka
Promulgation of R.E. I-IV, M.R.E. I-II, and Barabar Cave Inscriptions of the Year 12
Promulgation of R.E. V-XIV and K.R.E. I-II
Barabar Cave Inscription of the Year 19
Rummindei and Nigliva records
P.E. I-VI, Schism Edicts, Queen's Edict and Bhabru Edict P.E. VII
Death of Aśoka and disintegration of the Maurya Empire; founding of the Satavahana kingdom near Nasik

Page #156

130
The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
219 BC
209 BC 206 BC
206-172 BC 204-169 BC
194-184 BC 194 BC 185 BC 185-172 BC 185-184 BC 184-183 BC 183-182 BC 182-181 BC
and of the Cedi kingdom in Kalinga Death of Samprati and further dismemberment of the Maurya Empire; founding of independent kingdoms in Mathura, Ahicchatră, and Kausāmbi Birth of Khāravela End of the Maurya rule in Magadha and installation of Bahasatimita as the King of Magadha Bahasatimita in Magadha and Kausāmbi Pusyamitra Sunga in Vidiśā and Ujjayini Śri Śätakarņi, third ruler of the Sātavāhana dynasty Khāravela associated in administration as yuvarāja Coronation of Khāravela as the King of Kalinga Khāravela in Kalinga Renovation of the capital Expedition in the west up to the R. Kyşnaveņā Musical parties, festivals and fairs in the capital Expedition in the Vindhyas and subjugation of the Rathikas and Bhojakas Tanasuliyavāțā canal brought into the capital Display of opulence by remitting taxes and bestowing favours A child is born to Queen Vajiragharavati Storming of Gorathagiri and liberation of Mathura; worship of the stüpa and performance of the Sarvagrahaņa ceremony at Mathura Building of the Mahāvijayaprāsāda on the R. Prāci Preparations for the campaign of conquest Annihilation of Pithunda and breaking of the Tamila Confederacy Conquest of Magadha; worship of the Kalinga-Jina; fixing of pinnacles on the gates of the capital; and subjugation of the Pāņdya kingdom Excavation of the Relic Memorial on the Mt. Kumāri and convening of the Jain Council near that shrine Incising of the Hāthigumphā Inscription
181-180 BC 180-179 BC
179-178 BC 178-177 BC
177-176 BC 176-175 BC 175-174 BC
174-173 BC
173-172 BC
172 BC (ME 355)

Page #157

Nagari
VOWELS
3T
3TT
इ
3
bརྫཆར
ओ
अं
CONSONANTS
Is bi
क
ख
Appendix V
Transcription Chart of Brahmi Script
ग
घ
ङ
च

Roman
a
168
ā
i
u
e
ai
0
m
ka
kha
ga
gha
na
ca

Brahmi
4,H
4,4
•
L
4,D
x 25
2,2
Z
+
7,6
^,0
u,w
ĥ
d.d

Page #158

132
छ
ज
55 5
झ
ञ
ट
10
ड
ढ
ण
5 10 2
त
थ
द
ย
J6 D
न
प
फ
Sto
ब
at
ਸ
य
र
ल
व
श
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
db, do
ε

cha
ja
jha
ña
ţa
tha
da
dha
na
ta
tha
da
dha
na
pa
pha
ba
bha
ma
ya
ra
la
va
śa

h
cuoñor
I
1,6
0
ל,ל
4,0,0,4
1
Ն,Լ
6
ᄆ
ત
४, ४, ४
بلول
1,\,/
ป,ป
6
λ

Page #159

Appendix V
133
ل,ل ,ک
6,
MEDIALS
का
fix.
ko kam
م
khā
ع
)
khi khu khe kho
ی
س
ا
ے
ا
ه
ا
ا
ر

Page #160

The Häthigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
du
ņā ņo thā thi thi thu the tho dim du dhi
WHY O O O O O O
nu
no to obno do Da op *
bu bhim
mā
mu
me
mo
Уu
بل, مل

Page #161

Appendix V
135
ع ع
FHZA-
4
lim
MIXED CONSONANTS च्य
cya pra
J

Page #162

Appendix VI
Symbols in the Hāthigumphā Inscription
Mukuța
Svāstika
蝠>
XT/
Nandipada
Dhvaja

Page #163

PPER
97:9 TERUSETRI
De String Y
DEUR
I. The Bhabru Edict of Asoka L 1-12
SHEZ
137

Page #164

micron ASILIA aresztul an ecleside City
II. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(first part) L 1-12
138

Page #165

~ 4062300 SUNARE 25
TATC MERIQUANCHIE JAG TILAUKOGUDE
ا نام اما المسلمة .
YOURDIELEC

Kak
III. The Hathīgumpha Inscription of Khāravela (first part) L 5-17
139
AL

bretta

Page #166

DIALOEDDIGITAL LIFE
IV. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(second part) L 1-12
140

Page #167

V. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(second part) L 5-17
141

Page #168

2012
+Jalata dr de d
Liisavalt
Fre
VI. The Hathīgumpha Inscription of Kharavela (third part) L 1-12

AFACIL
142

Page #169

VII. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(third part) L 5-17
143

Page #170

VIII. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(fourth part) L 1-12 (concluded)
144

Page #171

IX. The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela
(fourth part) L 5-17 (concluded)
145

Page #172

X. The Hāthīgumphā
XI. The Hāthīgumphā and other caves on the Udayagiri
146

Page #173

XII. The remains of the apsidal structure overlying the Hathīgumphā

147

Page #174

APSIDAL STRUCTURE, UDAYAGIRI
10
H&
4METRES
POST HOLES BED-ROCK.

BED-ROCK
BED- O ROCK
148
ORAIN
BED
ROCK

O
CL
XIII. Sketch of the apsidal structure
FEET
LATEST PLATFORM
EARUEST STRUCTURE APSIDAL STRUCTURE LATER ADDITIONS

Page #175

XIV. The Mañcapurī and Svargapurī
XV. Worship scene on a frieze in the Mañcapurī
149

Page #176

XVI. The Pātālapurī
150

Page #177

XVII. The Rāṇī Gumphā
151

Page #178

339333
XVIII. Friezes in the Rāṇī Gumphā (above) Hunting scene (below) Merry-making scene
152

Page #179

Bibliography
I. ANCIENT LITERATURE
A. Sanskrit Abhijñāna-Sakuntalam of Kālidāsa Amarakosah of Amarasimha Aștādhyāyi of Pāņini Āvasyakavrtti of Haribhadra Bhāvasamgraha of Devasena Harivamsapurāna of Jinasena Punnāta Kauțiliyam Arthasõstram (ed. R. Shama Sastri) Kavyālamkāra of Rudrata with commentary of Namisādhu Lalitavistara Lekha-paddhati Mahābhārata Mahāpurāņam of Guņabhadrācārya Malavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa Mudrārākşasa of Visākhadatta Natyaśāstra of Bharata (Kavyamālă edn.) Parisistaparvan (Sthavirāvalicarita) of Hemacandra (ed. H. Jacobi) Prākrta-Prakasa of Vararuci (with com. of Bhāmaha) Rājatarangini of Kalhaņa (ed. M.A. Stein) Siddha-Hemacandra of Hemacandra Trisastisalākāpurusacarita of Hemacandra Vicārasreni of Merutunga Viracarita of Hemacandra
Visesa Avasyaka Bhasya Yugapurānam of the Gārgi-samhita (ed. D.R. Mankad)

Page #180

154
The Hāthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
B. Prakrit
Bhagavati Sutra Damsanasāra (Darsanasāra) of Devasena Kunda-kunda Prabhrta Samgraha (ed. K.C. Shastri) Pannavanā Sūtra Samavāyāṁga Sutra Satkhandāgamaḥ (Chakkhamdagama), ed. H.L. Jain & A.N. Upadhye,
1973 Sukhabodha commentary of Devendragaṇin on the Uttarajhayaņa Tapāgaccha Pattavali Thānānga (Sthānānga Sutra) Uttarajhayana (Uttarādhyayana Sūtra)
C. Pali
Anguttara Nikaya Cullavagga Digha Nikaya Itivuttaka Jätaka, ed. V. Fausholl, III (Kumbhakāra Jätaka) Mahāvyutpatti Majjhima Nikāya Sigalovādasutta Suttanipāta Udāna Vinaya-pitakam Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa
D. Apabhramsa Karakamdacariu, ed. H.L. Jain
II. MODERN WORKS
A. General Histories A Comprehensive History of India, Vol. II —

Page #181

131
Bibliography
155 The Muryas and Sātavāhanas — 325 BC-AD 300, ed. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri,
1957 Babylonion and Oriental Records, I Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, ed. E.J. Rapson (Indian reprint, 1955) The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ed. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, 1952 The Early History of the Deccan, Pt. I-VI, ed. G. Yazdani, 1960 The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. II -- The Age of Imperial
Unity, ed. R.C. Majumdar & A.D. Pusalker (2nd edn., 1953)
B. Books and authors Aiyanger, S.K., Ancient India and South Indian History and Culture, I Allan, John, British Museum Catalogue of Coins of Ancient India, 1936 Bali, Chandrakant, Khāravela Prasasti, Punarmūlyāṁkana (Hindi) Banerji, R.D., History of Orissa, I, 1930 - The Palaeography of the Häthigumphā and Nánaghat Inscriptions
(M.A.S.B., X) Barua, Dr. B.M., Asoka and His Inscriptions, pt. I-II, 1946 -,Old Brāhmi Inscriptions in the Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves,
1929 Bechert, Heinz (ed.), When did the Buddha Live? The Controversy of the
Dating of the Historical Buddha, 1995 Bhandarkar, D.R., Asoka, 3rd edn. 1955 Bhatt, Janardan, Asoka ke Dharmalekha, Hindi, 1923 Bhattacharya, V., Buddhist Texts recommended by Asoka, 1945 Brahmappa,
G., Samrāta Khāravela, Kannad, fiction, 1964 Brown, Percy, Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods), 4th edn.,
1959 Bühler, G., On the Origin of the Indian Brāhmi Alphabet, 2nd edn., 1898 Chakravartinayanar, A., Pañcāstikāyasāra (Intro., trans.), -- -, The Religion of Ahimsa (The Essence of Jaina Philosophy and
Ethics), 1957 Chatterji, S.K., Indo-Aryan and Hindi Cunningham, A., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. I, 1877 Dani, A.H., Indian Palaeography Dikshit, K.N., Prehistoric Civilization of the Indus Valley Diringer, David, The Alphabet

Page #182

156
The Hathīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Dutt, N., & Bajpai, K.D., Development of Buddhism in Uttar Pradesh,
1956
Eggermont, P.H.L., The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya, 1956 Eliot, Charles, Hindusim and Buddhism, 1921
Gerini, Researches on Ptolemy
Gode, P.K., and Karve, C.G., The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary,
1959
Gokhale, B.G., Buddhism and Asoka, 1948
Geiger, Wilhelm, The Mahāvamsa, (tr.), 1912
Hardy, E., Asoka
Hastimalaji Acharya, Jainadharma Kā Maulika Itihasa, I-II, Hindi, 1974 Hultzsch, E., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I — Asokan Inscriptions (2nd edn., 1925)
Hunter, G.R., The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its connection with other scripts
Hunter, W.W., Stirling, A., Beams, J., and Sahu, N.K., A History of Orissa, ed. N.K. Sahu, vol. I-II, 1956
Jain, Balchandra, Kalinga Cakravarti, Hindi, 1954
Jain, Hiralal, Bhāratiya Samsakriti mein Jaina Dharma kā Yogadāna, Hindi, 1962
Jain, Jyoti Prasad, Bharatiya Itihasa: Eka Drsti, Hindi, 2nd edn., 1966 Pramukha Aitihasika Jaina Puruşa aur Mahilayen, Hindi, 1974 The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India, 1964
Jain, Nirmal Kumar, The Cloud-carrier of Kalinga (Meghavahana Kharavela), fiction, 1982
Jain, Sagarmal, Sagara Jaina-Vidya Bharati, I, 1994
Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Polity
Jina Vijaya, Muni, Pracina Jaina Lekha Samgraha, I, 1917 Keith, A.B., Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, 1923 Kern, H., Manual of Indian Buddhism, 1896
Kosambi, Dharmanand, Bhagavan Buddha, (Hindi trans. Sripad Joshi),
1956
Kuraishi, M.H., List of Ancient Monuments protected under Act VII of 1904 in the Bihar and Orissa Provinces, 1938
La Vallée Poussin, L. de, Bouddhisme Etudes et Materiaux, 1898 Lamotte, E., Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, 1958

Page #183

Bibliography
157
Law, B.C., Historical Geography of Ancient India, 1954 Lüders, H., Bruckstucke Buddhistischer Dramen, 1911
---, Die Sakischen Mura, BSB, 1919, pp. 734-66 Mahtab, H.K., History of Orissa, Oriya Majumdar, N.G., A Guide to the Scluptures in the Indian Museum, pt. I Majumdar. S.N., ed., Ptolemy's Ancient India Malalasekara, G.P., The Pāli Literature of Ceylon, 1928 Mazumdar, B.C., Orissa in the Making Mehendale, M.A., Bibliographical Study of Asokan Inscriptions,
-, Historical Grammar of Inscriptional Prakrits, 1948 Minayeff, I.P., Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, 1894 Mirashi, V.V., Sātavāhanon aur Paścimi Kșatrapon kā Itihāsa aur
Abhilekha, Hindi, 1982 Mitra, Smt. Debala, Udayagiri and Khandagiri, 1959 Mitra, Raja Rajendra Lala, Antiquities of Orissa, II, 1880 Mittal, A.C., An Early History of Orissa, 1962 Monier-Williams, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1951 Mookerji, R.K., Asoka, 2nd rev. edn., 1955 Nagraj, Muni, The Contemporaneity and Chronology of Mahāvīra and
Buddha, 1970 Neumann, K.E., Reden Gotamo Buddhos, I Ojha, Gaurishankar Hirachand, Bhāratiya Prācina Lipimālā, Hindi, 1918 Oldenberg, H., Pātimokkha, (Trans.), S.B.E., XIII Oldenberg, H. & Rhys Davids, T.W., Vinayapiţakam, Vol. I, Introduction,
1879 Pandey, Rajbali., Asoka ke Dharmalekha, Hindi, 1957
- Indian Palaeagraphy Pt. I, 2nd edn., 1957 Panigrahi, K.C., Archaeological Remains at Bhubaneswar, 1961 Patoria, Kusum, Yāpaniya aur unkā Sāhitya, Hindi, 1988 Rai, Suresh Chandra, Sungarājavaṁsa evaņ unka kāla, Hindi, 1989 Rajguru, S.N., The Inscriptions of Orissa, 1959 Ray, N.R., Maurya and Sunga Art, 1945 Rhys Davids, Mrs., Sakya or Buddhist Origins, 1931 Rhys Davds, T.W., Dialogues of the Buddha Sachau, Edward C., Al-Beruni's India, II, 1910

Page #184

158 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Sahu, L.N., Udisă mein Jaina Dharma, Hindi tr. Muni Shubhkaran, 1974 Sahu, N.K., Khāravela, 1984 Sastri, K.A.N., A History of South India, 2nd edn., 1958 Scharfe, H., The Maurya Dynasty and the Seleucids, 1971 Schumacher, Wolfgang, Die Edikte das Kaisers Asoka, 1948 Senart, E., Les Inscriptiones de Piyadasi, 1881 Shah, C.J., Jainism in North India, 1931, Hindi translation, 1990 Shah, Umakant P., Studies in Jaina Art, 1955 Shamasastry, R., Kautilya's Arthasāstra, trans., 4th edn., 1951 Sharma, G.R., The Excavations at Kausāmbi, (1957-59), – The Defences
and the Syenaciti of the Puruşamedha, 1960 Shashi Kant, Kausâmbi, Hindi, 1965
-, Political and Cultural History of Mid-North India, 1987 Shastri, Nemichandra, Tirtharkara Mahavira aur unki Ācārya Parampară,
I-II, Hindi, 1974 Sircar, D.C., Select Inscriptions, Vol. I, 1942, 2nd edn., 1965 Smith, V.A., Asoka, Early History of India, 4th edn. --- , Oxford History of India, 1920 Tarn, W.W., Greeks in Bactria and India, 1939, 2nd edn., 1951 Thapar, Romila, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, 1961 Thomas, E.J., The Life of Buddha Tiwary, B.K., History of Jainism in Bihar, 1996 Upadhye, A.N., Pravacanasāra (Pavayaņasāra), Introduction, 3rd edn.,
1964 Upasak, C.S., The History and Palaeography of Mauryan Brāhmi Script Vasantharaj, M.D., Correlation of the Ages of Bhagavān Mahāveera and
Bhagavān Gautama Buddha, 1997 Vijaymurti, Jaina Śilālekha Samgraha, II, Hindi, 1952 Walleser, Max, Das Edict von Bhabra (Materalien zur Kunde des
Buddhismus, I, 1923) -, Nochmals das Edikt von Bhabra, ibid., IX, 1925 Winternitz, Maurice, A History of Indian Literature, I and II, 2nd edn.,
1972 Woolner, A.C., Asoka — Text and Glossary, Pt.I, 1924
— Introduction to Prakrit

Page #185

159
Bibliography III. Journals and Reports, etc. Acta Orientalia, I, XXXVI (1974) (Copenhagen) Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, pt. III, sec. 2,
1885 Ancient India (Bulletin of A.S.I.), No. 5 (Jan. 1949) Anekānta, Hindi, I (1930) Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, LIII (1972) (Pune) Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1922-23 Archiv Orientalini, XLII (1974) (Prague) Asia Major, 5 (1930) Asiatic Researches, XV B.C. Law Volume, I Babu Chhotelal Jain Memorial Volume, 1967 Bhārat Itihās Samsodhak Mandal Traimāsik, 52 (1973), Marathi Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 36, 2 (1973)
(University of London). East and West, New Series, XXII, 3-4 (Rome) Encyclopaedia Jainica - Jaina Visva-kosa. Epigraphia Indica, II, VIII, X App., XIII, XX Grierson Commemoration Volume, 1933 Guru Gopaldas Varaiya Smriti Granth, Hindi, 1967 Indian Antiquary, XX (1891), XXXVI, XL, XLI (1912), XLVII (1918), XLVIII
(1919), XLIX (1920). Indian Archaeology -- A Review, 1958-59, 1961-62 Indian Historical Quarterly, II, V, XIV, XXVII Indian Studies, No. III Indo-Iranian Journal, XVII, 3-4 (1975) (Leiden) Jain Hitaishi, Hindi, XV, 5, (March, 1921) Jain Journal, III, 4 Jaina Antiquary, XIX, 2 Jaina Sandesa Sodhänka, Hindi, VI, VII, XXXI (28-12-1972) Jaina Siddhānta Bhaskara, Hindi, VI, 1, XV, 2, XVI, 1-2 Journal Asiatique, 1884, 1885, 1887, 1896, 1953 Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society, II

Page #186

160 The Häthigumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, III, IV, VI, XIII, XIV, XV,
XVI, XXII, XXIII, XXVIII Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95.2 (Philadelphia) Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, VI, IX Journal of Indian History, XLI, 3 Journal of Oriental Research, XXXVIII (Madras University) Journal of the Deptt. of Letters, XX (Calcutta University) Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 1896 Journal of the Rajasthan Institute of Historical Research, IX (1972), (Jaipur) Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1855 (Vol. 27) 1898, 1901, 1909, 1910,
1911, 1912, 1913, 1915, 1919, 1922, 1963 Journal of the U.P. Historical Society, XX Mayurbhanj Gazette, IV, 4 Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, X Nägari, Hindi, VIII Parisasvāda (4): Jain Vidyā evam Prakrit (Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University) Prāci-Jyoti (Digest of Indological Studies), VIII Prakrit-Vidya, Hindi, April-June, 1999 Proceedings of 2nd All India Oriental Conference, Calcutta, 1922 Puratattva (Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society), No. 6 (1972-73) Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, IX, 4 (1972-73) (Calcutta) Rşabha Saurabh, 1999 Sacred Books of the East, XIII Šodhdarsa, Hindi, 36 Svasti Śri (Dr. B.Ch. Chhabra Felicitation Vol.) 1984 The Orissa Historical Resarch Journal, VI, 1 The Oxford School Atlas, 29th edn., 1997 Tulsi Prajñā, XVIII, 4 (28-2-1993) University of Ceylon Review, XVIII (1960) Vishveshvarananda Indological Journal, V, X (Hoshiarpur)

Page #187

Index
65, 70, 77-9, 81-91, 97-8, 100, 108-10,
113, 117, 128 Asura, 109 Ašvaghosa, 100 Asvamedha, 41 Atasukhapradinaka, 64 Austric, 96 Ava-räja, 16, 29, 55-6, 112, 116 Avantiratha, 83 Ayodhyā, 45, 99
Acārya, 65-6 Afghanistan, 83, 110 Ahicchatra, 44, 54 Ahmedabad, 119-20 Ahraura, 82 Aila, 47-8 Ajātasatru (Kuņika), 37,63 Ājivaka, 128 Al-Beruni, 37 Allāhābād, 90, 98 Allan, J. 43 Alwar, 77 Amarāvati, 55 Ambālā, 84 Anahilapātana, 51 Andhra, 40-1, 56, 83, 98, 116, 124 Andhrabhrtya, 40, 99 Andhrapatha, 55 Anga (country) 17, 29, 31, 44, 83, 109, 112, 117 Anga (scripture), 21, 32, 70, 113, 117, 126 Apabhramsa, 95-6 Arahamta, 8, 15, 19-20, 23, 28, 30-2, 49-50,
65-6, 69, 71, 111-2, 116-7, 124-7 Armaic, 98, 110 Arātiya Yati, 68 Ardha-Māgadhi, 95, 97, 100, 102-3 Arvarnoi, 55-6 Aryan, 48, 96, 106 Asika, 10, 25-6, 52, 58-9, 111, 115, 123 Asmaka, 123 Asmussen, J.P., ix, xv Asoka (Piyadasi), 3, 38-40, 42, 53, 55-6, 59, 62,
Bactria, 42, 46 Bahasatimita (Brhaspatimitra), 17, 29, 31, 39,
42-6, 56, 112, 116, 123 Bairat (Virātanagara), 81-4, 100 Bajpai, K.D., xii, xix Banerji, R.D., 5-33, 56, 58, 66, 120 Bankipur, 7 Barăbar Hills, 54, 84, 90 Bāriyāya Nākiya, 64 Barua, B.M., 5-6, 8-33, 50, 52, 78-9, 87, 120 Basham, A.L., viii, ix, xii, xix Bechert, H., 121 Bengal, 58, 96, 126 Bhabru, 65, 77, 82,90-1, 113, 117 Bhadrabahu I, 36, 102 Bhăgabhadra, 99 Bhagga, 82 Bhāmaha, 95, 97 Bhandāra, 52 Bhandarkar, D.R., 82-3 Bharata, 55

Page #188

162
The Hāthīgumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Bharatavarsa (Bharadavasa) 16,28-9,55, 112,
116 Bhārhüt, 45 Bhesakalāvana, 82 Bhogavaigă, 109 Bhojaka, 11, 25-6, 41, 53, 58, 61, 63, 111, 116 Bhojpur, 81 Bhubaneśvara, 6, 57, 59, 68, 99 Bhūti, 64 Bihar, 54, 81, 84, 98, 100, 126 Bijak Pahār, 77 Bimbisāra, 38 Bloch, T., 4 Bolan Pass, 98 Brahmagiri, 82-3 Brahmani (R),58 Brāhmanical, 37-8, 45, 55, 99-101, 127 Brāhmi, 43, 73, 98-9, 107-10 Brāhmaṇa, 15, 27-8, 50, 63, 71, 97, 99, 125,
127 Byhadratha, 44 Brown, P., 6 Buddha, 37-8, 65, 77-80, 82, 85-91, 100, 101,
107, 109, 113, 117-18, 121-2, 125 Buddhaghosa, 51, 87. Buddhism, 65, 81-2, 89, 91, 108, 127-8 Buddhist, 37-8, 55, 62, 65, 70, 77, 82-3, 85, 88
91, 97, 100, 108, 124-7 Bühler, G., 4, 95, 108 Bundelkhanda, 45, 48 Burma, 100 Burt, Capt., 77
Chakravartinayanar, A., 99 Campărana, 84 Chanda, R.P., 5,9 Chandrapur, 52 Charsadda, 110 Chatterji, C.D., x, 87 Chatterji, S.K., 95, 101 Chattopadhyaya, S., 40 Chhabra, B.Ch., 8 Chinese, 108-9 Chitradurg, 83 Choudhury, M.C., xvii Christ, 98 Christian, 15, 35, 68, 72, 90, 99, 107, 110 Cina (China), 31, 108-9 Cola, 39, 56 Cowell, E.B., 95 Coyatha, 21, 123 Culakamma, 64 Cunningham, A., 4, 12-14, 17-21, 108 Cuttack, 59
Dakşina, 109 Daksināpatha, 57, 83 Damodar (R), 58, 126 Darada, 109 Dasaratha, 40, 84 Dehra Dun, 83 Delhi, 77, 82 Demetrius (Dimita), 14, 27-8, 44, 46, 54 Devadatta, 125 Devanăgari, 97 Devendraganin, 47 Dhamma, 65, 77-80, 113, 117-18, 128 Dhana, 45, 98 Dhanabhūti, 45 Dhauli, 59, 98 Dhavalikar, M.K., xvi, 123 Digambara, 36, 68, 100, 102-3, 125-7 Dikshit, K.N., 106 Dikshit, R.K., xii, xix
Cakravartin, 55 Calcutta, 4, 77, 100 Călukya, 51 Campā, 126 Candragupta Maurya, 36-8, 47, 56, 62, 109,
122 Cantonese, 37 Central Asia, 108 Ceti (Cedi), 9, 23-4, 40, 42, 47-8, 84, 111, 115

Page #189

Inder
163
Guntupille, 123 Gupta, 99, 100, 110
Diringer, D., 106 Dosapuriya, 109 Dravida, 109-10 Dravidian, 96 Dusyanta, 55
East India Company, 77 Edmunds, A.J., 86 Egyptian, 105 English, 97 Eucratides, 46 Euphrates (R), 106 European, 96
Handa, D., xvi Haribhadra, 63 Harişeņa, 98 Haryana, 84, 98 Hastimala, Acharya, 120-1 Hāthigumphā, 3, 6-7, 49, 60, 65, 69-70, 99, 103,
111, 115, 120-2 Hathiwara, 99 Hazārā, 110 Heliodorus, 99 Hemacandra, 47, 63, 97, 122 Himavanta-Therävali, 119-22 Hinayāna, 100 Hindi, 97 Hiralal Hansraj, Pt. 121 Hoernle, A.F.R.,95 Hultzsch, E., 78, 81 Hüņa, 109 Hunter, G.R., 105-6
Fleet, J.F., 5 Fa-Wan-Shu-Lin, 108
Ganadhara, 125 Gandhāra, 40 Gandharva, 10, 26, 62, 109-11, 115 Gangă (R), 17, 29, 31, 54, 56, 112, 116 Garg, G.R., xix Garuda, 99, 109 Gavimath, 82 Gautama, 126 Gaya, 81 Geiger, W., 37 Gerini, 58 Ghatayala, 99 Ghośundi, 99 Ghositārāma, 125 Girnār, 3, 98 Godāvari (R), 39, 55-6, 58, 99, 126 Gopalachari, K., 40 Gopāli, 44 Gorathagiri (Goradhagiri), 13, 27, 42, 54, 60,
112, 116 Greek (Yavana), 14, 27-8, 44-5, 54, 97-9, 109
10 Grierson, G., 95 Gajarra, 82, 84
Ila (Iļā), 48 India, 3, 55-7, 62, 73, 96, 102-3, 105, 108-9,
122, 124 Indian 46, 95-7, 103, 106-7 Indian Archipelago, 58 Indra, 61 Indraji, B.L., 4, 11-14, 17, 18, 20-1, 119-20 Indus, 105-7, 109
Jacobi, H., 95 Jagannath, 6, 43, 53, 57 Jain, 15, 21, 35-8, 45, 47, 50-1, 53, 55, 65-8,
70-2, 97, 99-100, 102-3, 109-10, 122, 125,
127 Jain, B.C., 6 Jain, B.D., 95 Jain, H.L., 125 Jain, J.P., xii, xx, 6, 35-6, 70, 82, 102 Jain, S.M., 121-2

Page #190

164
The Hathigumpha Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Kanva, 124
Karakandu, 126
Karakoram, 108
Karnataka, 83, 98
Kashmir, 40
Käsi, 84
Kausǎmbi (Kosam), 43, 82, 84, 88, 125 Kautilya (Caṇakya), 4, 47, 51
Kaveri (R), 56
Keilhorn, 4
Keith, A.B., 121
Keralaputra, 39
Khadi-boli, 97
Jainism, 50-1, 67, 71, 91, 125-8
Jaipur, 77, 99
Jalālābād, 110
Jalauka, 40
Jämäli, 127
Jambesvaragumphǎ, 64 Jambudipa, 55
Jating-Ramesvara, 82-3
Jaugaḍ (Samāpā), 59, 98
Jayaswal, K.P., 5-33, 44, 56, 66, 71, 119-21
Jamdet-Nasr, 105
Jina Vijaya, Muni, 5, 95, 119-20
Jitasatru, 127
Jiva, 19, 31, 67
Jodhpur, 99
Justin, 45-6, 54
Kabul, 96
Kakkuka, 99
Kalhana, 3
Kali Sindh (R), 45
Kalidasa, 45, 55
Kalinga, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 23-6, 31, 36, 38, 40-1, 46-9, 52-4, 56-9, 62-4, 71, 73, 83, 97, 100, 103, 111-12, 115-16, 123-4, 126-8
Kalinga-Jina, 17, 29, 36, 38, 71, 112, 116, 124,
127
Kalinga-Nagari, 10, 58-60, 111, 115
Kalingapatnam, 59
Kalki, 122
Kalpa-urkṣa, 14, 71, 112, 116
Kalsi, 83, 98
Kalyan Vijaya, Muni, 120
Kamalā Kānta, 77
Kamhabemna (Kṛṣṇavenä) (R), 10, 25-6, 52,
111, 115, 123
Kamma Halakhina, 59
Kanari, 109
Kāñcipuram, 99
Kanḍāhār, 83, 110
Kanhan (R), 52 Kaniska, 110

Khandagiri-Udayagiri, 6, 59, 60, 64, 68, 99 Khandesh, 123
Khāravela, 3-9, 12, 14-20, 22-3, 30-1, 35, 38-9, 41-4, 46-54, 56-60, 62-3, 65-6, 68-71, 73, 91, 99, 100, 103, 111-13, 115-17, 119-20, 122-5
Kharosthi, 98, 107-10
Khasya, 109
Khibira, 10, 24-5, 58
Khotan, 100, 108
Khyber Pass, 98
Kinnara, 109
Kittoe, Capt., 4, 77
Kongoda, 58
Konow, S., 5, 13, 14, 17, 95, 121
Kosala, 84
Kosambi, D., 85-6, 89
Krishna (district), 41
Krishna (R), 39, 52, 55, 56, 58, 123
Krishna Deva, ix, xviii
Kṛṣṇa (Kanha), 41
Kṣatriya, 99, 127
Kūdepa, 48-9
Kumārapǎla, 123
Kumāri (Mt), 19, 30-1, 68-9, 112, 117 Kunda-Kunda, 66-7, 102-3, 126
Kurnool, 83
Kuru, 84
Kusana, 97, 108-10

Page #191

Index
165
Laghman, 110 Lal, B.B., 59 Lalāka Hathisiha, 49-50 Lalitavistara, 109-10 Lāngala, R., 30 Lauriya Araraj, 84 Licchavi, 63 Lohānipur, 71, 124 Lüders, 5, 100
Matsya, 84 Maurya, 36-40, 42-5, 48, 53, 64, 71, 73, 81, 99 Mazumdar, B.C., 58 Meerut, 84 Meridian, 97 Merutunga, 122 Mirashi, V.V., 123 Mithridates, 46 Mitra, 123 Mitra, R.L., 4 Mitra, S.N., 87 Mongoloid, 96 Mookerji, R.K., 77-9, 81, 87, 121 Mora, 3 Mukhiya-kāla (Principal Scripture) 21-2, 40,
59, 64, 70, 99, 113, 117 Muriya-kāla, 21 Musika, 10, 25-6, 123 Muslim, 35
Madhya-desa, 14, 96 Madhya Pradesh, 84,98 Madurai, 56 Magadha, 17, 29-31, 36-9, 42-6,54-8, 63, 70-1,
78-9, 81-4, 102-3, 109, 112, 116-7, 123,
127
Magadhi, 97, 100, 102 Mahămātra, 31, 35, 70, 99 Mahānadi (R), 58-9 Mahảnandin, 37-8 Mahāpadma, 37-9 Mahārastra, 40,52 Mahārāştri, 97, 99, 103 Mahăvijayaprāsāda, 15, 28-9,58, 60, 112, 116 Mahavira, 35-8, 70, 100, 102-3, 122, 124-7 Mahävira Era (M.E.), 22, 35-6, 39, 50, 70, 121.
Mahendra, 100 Maisolia, 55 Malasekhara, G.P., 121 Malla, 84 Malli, 125 Malwa, 45, 53 Majumdar, B.K., xvi Majumdar, N.G., 45 Mānastambha, 21, 69 Mañcapuri, 7, 49, 69 Mankad, D.R., 44 Mansehrā, 83-4, 110 Maski, 82, 84, 123 Mathurā (Madhura), 13-15, 27-9, 43-4, 54-5,
68, 71-2, 112, 116, 124
Năga, 109 Nāgānikā, 41-2, 53 Nāgåra-Akhadamsa (Viyohālaka), 64 Nāgārjunikonda, 55 Nagod, 55 Nalanda, 54, 81 Namisādhu, 95 Nānāghật, 3, 41-2 Nanda, 11, 17, 26-9, 31, 35-9, 47, 56-7, 62, 71,
111-12, 116, 124, 127-8 Nandangarh, 84 Nandipada (Nandyavarta), 72 Nandivardhana, 37 Narmadā (R), 53, 57, 99 Näsik, 3, 40, 45, 48, 53, 123 Nath, B.V., 8 Nepal, 83-4, 96 Nigliva, 84 Nile (R), 106 Nirgrantha, 128 Nisidiyā, 19-20, 69, 71, 112, 117 Nisiyā (caitya), 71, 113, 117

Page #192

166
The Hāthīgumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Nordic, 96 North Penner (R), 96
Orissa, 6,99
Pșthu, 49 Prthudaka, 30, 57 Ptolemy, 55-6 Pule-Darunt, 110 Punya Vijaya, Muni, 120 Puri, 6, 15,59 Pururavas, 48 Pūrvavideha, 109 Puskalāvati, 109 Puskarasări, 109-10 Pusyamitra Sunga, 44-6, 99
Pabhosa, 43-4 Padamulika Kusuma, 64 Pahāriyā, 109 Paiśāci, 97, 100 Pakistan, 57, 83, 109-10 Pali, 88, 95, 97, 100-1, 103 Palkigundu, 82 Pallava, 99 Panca-Namaskāra (Namokāra), 65, 68 Pancāla, 44, 84 Pandey, H., 5 Pandey, R.B., 106, 108 Pandya 18-19, 30-1, 39, 56-7, 63, 112, 117 Pāṇini, 96-7, 107, 109 Parana Vitana, S., 122 Pārsvanātha, 126 Pārthiā, 46, 109 Pātālapura, 48-9 Pātaliputra (Patnã), 5, 54-6, 71, 81, 83, 98, 102,
124 Pāvanagumphā, 48-9 Peshawar, 83, 110 Philippine Islands, 58 Pihunda, 55 Piprahwā, 107 Pischel, R., 95 Pithunda, 16, 29, 55-6, 58, 112, 116 Pityndra, 55 Polimdi, 109 Prāci (R), 15, 28-9, 58-60, 112, 116 Prácya, 101 Prakrit, 73, 95, 97-100, 102-3, 123 Prāṇhita (R), 52 Prinsep, J., 4, 12-14, 17-21, 108 Priyadarśană, 127 Proto-Elanite, 105
Rahula, 86 Raichur, 123 Rajagrha (Rājgir), 13, 27-8, 42-3, 54, 60, 112,
116 Rajasthan, 71, 81,98 Rájasūya, 12, 27, 41 Rājula-Mandagiri, 82 Ramaswami, N.S., ix, xviii, 121, 123 Rămpūrvă, 84 Răni Gumpha, 6 Rao, G.V., 40 Rathika, 11, 25, 41, 53, 58, 61, 63, 111, 116 Rāwalpindi, 57, 83, 110 Raychoudhari, H.C., 55 Rhys Davids, Mrs., 121 Rhys Davids, T.W., 85-6 Rohtas, 81 Ray, U.N., 122 Rsabha, 55, 109, 124, 126 Rudradāman, 3,98 Rudrata, 95 Rummindei, 83-4 Rūpnāth, 82
Sadhu (Sähū), 65, 68 Sahu, L.N., 6 Sahu, N.K., 6, 51, 58, 66 Śaka, 97, 108-9 Sakari, 109

Page #193

Index
167
Śakuntală, 55 Sākya, 107 Samāpă, (Jaugad), 59 Samataka (hill), 28 Samavasarana, 21, 69 Saṁgha, 65, 68, 77-9, 81-2, 89-91, 113, 117,
125, 128 Samghayāna, 20, 67-8, 112, 117, 125 Samgiti (Buddhist Council), 83, 91 Sammed- (Sammet-) Shikharji, 126 Samniveśa, 17, 71, 112, 116 Samprati, 40, 44 Samudragupta, 73, 98 Sāñci, 82, 84 Sandrokottos, 38 Sanskrit, 95-9, 101, 103, 109 Sapta-Sindhu, 96 Sarasvati Movement, 70 Sārnāth, 82, 84 Sarpagumphā, 7, 64 Sāsārām, 82 Sastri, K.A.N., 39-40 Śátakamnim (Sātakarni), 10, 25-6, 39, 41-2,
111, 115, 123 Sātavāhana, 3, 40-2, 53, 73, 97, 99, 123-4 Satiyaputra, 39 Satană, 45 Sauraseni, 97, 100, 102-3 Saurāsţra, 62, 96, 108 Savagahanam, 14, 28, 50, 71, 112, 116 Schism, 68, 82, 90-1, 102-3, 124-5 Seleucids, 44, 109 Seleucos, 109 Senart, E., 78, 81, 86, 89 Seoni, 52 Shah, U.P., 72 Shahbazgarhi, 83, 98, 110 Sharan, M.K., ix, xx Shar-i-Kuna, 83, 110 Sharma, G.R., 43 Sharma, M.L., xvii
Siam, 100 Siddhapura, 82-3 Siddha, 8, 23, 65, 111, 115 Siddhārtha, 126 Siddharthnagar, 107 Simhapatha, 20, 31-2, 50, 113, 117 Śimuka, 40-1, 44, 48, 123 Sindhu-Jhelum (R), 107 Sindhulā (Simdhulā), 20, 31-2, 50, 69-70, 113,
117 Sircar, D.C., 6, 8-10, 20, 78, 87, 120 Sironcha, 52 Śiśupālagarh, 59-60 Sitalanātha, 124 Śivi, 30 Smith, V.A., 83, 86, 121 Solanki, P., 122 Šonakāyanaputra, Vamgapāla, 44 Sopäră, 98 Sramana (Samana), 20, 30-1, 49-50, 63, 65, 67,
112, 117, 128 Sri Lanka (Ceylon), 37, 100-1, 103 Srikakulam, 59 Sthūlibhadra, 126 Stirling, A., 4 Stūpa (Thüpa), 14-15, 27, 71, 112, 116 Sudarśana Lake, 62, 68, 98 Sugămgiya, 29, 56 Sukhlal, Pt., 119-20 Sumerian, 105 Sundari, 109 Sunga, 44-5, 53, 97, 99, 123-4 Sūrasena, 84 Sutlej (R), 97-8, 107-8, 110 Suvarnagiri, 83,98 Svargapuri, 7, 49-50 Svastika, 72 Svetāmbara, 36, 67-8, 100, 102-3, 120, 122,
125-7 Swat, 107

Page #194

168
The Hāthīgumphā Inscription and the Bhabru Edict
Taksasilă (Taxila), 57, 83, 98, 107, 110 Tamila (Tamira), 17, 22, 29, 35, 38-9,56-8, 63,
112, 116 Tāmraparniya, 39 Tanasuliyavätā, 11, 22, 26-7, 35-6, 38, 59-60,
62, 111, 116 Tattvagumphà, 64 Tevaniputra Bhāgavata, 43-4 Thanesar, 57 Thañjāvur, 56 Theravada, 100-1 Thomas, E.J., 121 Thomas, F.W., 5 Thondimandalam, 99 Tipitaka, 101 Tirthamkara, 21, 35-6, 55, 69-71, 109, 124-7 Topra, 84 Toşala, 58-9 Toşali, 59-60, 83 Tri-Kalinga, 58
Vaigai, R., 56 Vaisāli, 63 Vajiragharavati, 12, 27, 49, 63, 112, 116 Vaji, 84 Vallabhi, 102-3 Vanga, 109 Vansadhāră (R), 58-9 Vararuci, 95, 97 Vasantharaj, M.D., xx Vāsisthiputra Pulumăvi, 123 Vasu, 22, 33, 47, 49 Vasumitra, 45 Vatsa, 43, 84 Vedic, 96, 101 Vena, 9, 24, 47, 49 Vidarbha, 45 Vidiśă, 45, 99 Vidyadhara (Vijādhara), 11, 25-6,53, 111, 116 Vidyananda, Acārya, 57 Vigatāsoka, 40 Vijaya cakra, 19, 30, 69, 112, 117 Vijayapuri, 55 Vijayawadā, 55 Vindhyas, 41-2, 57, 100, 116 Visnu, 99 Vrátya, 101 Vyāghragumphā, 64
Ucchaihíravas, 61 Udicya, 96 Ujjayini (Ujjain) 36-7, 40, 45, 83, 98, 100, 103,
108 Upādhyāya, 65, 68 Upadhye, A.N., 95, 102 Uparagauda, 109 Upåsaka, Upăsikā, 78, 113, 118 Urdu, 97 Utkala, 58 Uttar Pradesh, 83-4, 98, 100, 107 Uttarakurudvipa, 109 Uttarāpatha (Utarăpadha), 17, 29-30, 57, 83,
112, 116 Uvåsaga (Śrăvaka), 19, 66, 112, 117
Waingangă, 52-3, 58 Winternitz, M., 95, 101, 121 Woolner, A.C., 77-8, 95, 99-101
Yaksa, 109 Yamapura, 49 Yamuna (R), 13-15, 27, 54, 108, 112, 116 Yapaniya, 68 Yaśamātā, 44 Yasodá, 127 Yerragudi, 82-3 Yugapurāna, 44, 54
Vacană (Jain Council), 31, 68-70, 102-3, 125 Vacek, J., xv Vadukha, 49 Vaibhar Hill, 54

Page #195

Tal R
Shashi Kant, Lucknow University's Ph.D., is a brilliant scholar of history, untiring researcher and recipient of several academic awards — including the Uttar Pradesh Government's state honour. Besides numerous articles on varied themes from Indian history and culture, he has authored Political and Cultural History of Mid-North India: From the Earliest Times to AD 1248 – a work which, approved for publication by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), appeared in print in 1987. And like his Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela and Bhabru Edict of Asoka, is ready for its second updated edition. He is also editor of a research journal, entitled Sodhādarśa. Professionally a bureaucrat, Dr. Shashi Kant retired as Special Secretary to the Uttar Pradesh Government
With a Foreword by A.L. Basham
2000, xxiv, 168 p.; includes 19 b/w photographs; 2 Folded Maps; Appendices; Bibliography; Index; 23 cm.
ISBN 81-246-0139-9
Rs. 295
Jain Education Internation

Page #196
D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. 'Sri Kuni F-52 Bali Nagar, NEW DELHI - 110 015 Phs.: (011) 545 3975, 546 6019; Fax: (011) 546 5926 E-mail: dkprint@4mis.com