Old Bramhi Inscriptions In Udaygiri And Khandagiri

SR No.: 020516
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Benimadhab Barua
Publisher: University of Calcutta
Publication Year: 1929
Total Pages: 354
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 182

154
OLD BRĀHMI INSCRIPTIONS
5. JAYASWAL'S FIVE CORRECTED READINGS
The third instalment of corrections published by Mr. Jayaswal in JBORS, Vol. XIV, Part I, pp. 150-1, goes to show that he keeps yet an open mind as to the reading of the text of Kbāravela's inscription. The fact that he has so far revolved like a weather-cock at every gust of wind is indicative of pothing but his indecision. We shall consider below five of the corrected readings which he has offered and see whether and how far they bear scrutiny.
First, he proposes to read Māhāmeghavāhana, instead of Mahāmeghavāhana, as a common patronymical epithet of King Khāravela and King Kadampa-Kudepa in the old Brāhmi inscriptions Nos. I and III. He seems to think that the patronymic Māhāmeghavāhana implies that Mahämeghavāhana wag the personal name of Kbāravela's grandfather. Even if his reading be correct, we do not see how his conclusion is correct. There are numerous instances in the Brāhmi inscriptions where for a we have the use of ā, e.g., Brhāsvāti for Brhaspati in Yasamata's Brick-tablet inscription. Even supposing that in Māhāmeghavāhana, a has not been represented by ā, where is the evidence to prove that Khāravela's grandfather was succeeded by his father and that his father was succeeded by him? Seeing that, whether as Māhāmeghavāhana or as Mahāmeghavāhana, it occurs as a common epithet of two kings of the same Kalinga royal family, we may say without much fear of contradiction that Mahāmeghavāhana was a common epithet of King Kbāravela and King Kadampa-Kudepa, as well as that of their predecessors. But here his reading itself is open to dispute. As bad luck would have it, exactly that portion of the inscribed surface of the rock is fissured which contains the letters inscribing the epithet. So far as No. I is concerned, the choice lies not only between ma and mā, but also between mă and mo. As regards No. III, the ā-stroke is not where it should be. A similar apparition can be noticed in the inscription of Kusuma (No. XIV) inducing one to read Kusumasa as Kusumāsa. We do not see much use making fuss over ma and mä.
Secondly, he proposes to read in 1. 9 sa-b(i)ta-senavāhano vipamumcitum Madhuram apayāto, correcting samb(i)ta his previous correction to sa-b(i)ta, and to translate sa-bita-senavāhano: “ with his army and transport having lost their morale.” He thinks that bita is the same word as vīta, which has a technical military sigpificance,