Indian Antiquary Vol 47

SR No.: 032539
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 386
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 162

152
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JUNE, 1918
mother of Satakarņi and grand-mother of Puļumávi. The inscription, it is worthy of note, refers itself to the reign of Pulumávi and not Satakarni, and is dated the 13th day of the second fortnight of summer of the 19th regnal year of the former. On the same day the village of Sudagana in the Govardhana district was granted for the maintenance of the Cave (Inscription No. 3) by the lord of Dhanaṁkata, 17 who must be Gautamiputra Sátakarņi and the village of Pisajipadaka by Puļumâvi for painting it (Inscription No. 2). In the 22nd year, however, in lieu of Sudasaņa the village of Samalipada in the same district was given, not by Satakarni but by Puļumávi (Inscription No. 3). It seems that before this cave, i.e. Cave No. 3 at Nâsik, was excavated the Bhadrayaniya mendicants were living in some of the caves already existing on the hill which in the inscriptions is called Trirasmi. For the maintenance of these mendicants Gautamiputra Sâta karņi 18 granted a piece of land in the village of Aparakakhadi in the 18th year, i.e. one year previous to the excavation and presentation of the cave to the Bhadrayaniyas Inscription No. 4). But the village could not be inhabited and the field could not be tilled. Another piece of land was therefore given in the year 24 by Satakarņi who was here joined by his mother in the making of this gift (Insoription No. 5).
It is supposed by Bühler and Bhagwanlal Indraji that the dates of Inscriptions Nos. 4 and 5 in which autamiputra Satakarņi is mentioned as the donor must refer to his reign and those of Inscriptions Nos. 2 and 3 to the reign of Pulumâvi who alone figures there as the grantee. It is, therefore, contended that Satakarņi and Puļumâvi reigned separately, the latter after the former, even so far as Maharashtra was concerned and that Satakarni was dead when Cave No. 3 was granted to the Bhadrayaniyas Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar, on the other hand, contends that all these dates pertain to the reign of Pulumavi and that he reigned conjointly with his father, the former over Mahârâshtra and the latter over the hereditary Satavahana dominions. The latter view alone can be correct. For in Inscription No. 5 Gautamîputra Satakarni, who is the donor there along with his mother, issues a grant in favour of Buddhist monks, who, it ie expressly stated, were staying in the cave which was the pious gift of theirs. This cave which was a pious gift of Satakarņi and his mother must doubtless be Cave No. 3 which, as we have seen above, was excavated and given over to the Bhadrayanîyas. But then we have also seen that this cave was presented to these monks in the 19th regnal year, not of Satakarni but of Puļumavi. Inscription No. 2 does not leave us in any doubt on this point. Evidently Satakarņi was living when the cave was granted to the Bhadráyanîyas, otherwise how could he possibly make any grant to these monks while they were dwelling
The words Ya amhe hi sava 19 of pa 2 diva 13 Dhanakafasamanli ya etha papate ... dato have very much puzzled the antiquarians. Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, Bühlor and M. Senart taka Dhanakataaa manchi to stand for Dhanyakafa-framanash. I cannot understand how these sramane could have granted the village of Sudasana. Besides, the word Bramaņa nowhere occurs in Cave inscriptions and in the sense of Buddhist mendioants. Dhanakata samanehi must, therefore, be taken is oquivalent to Dhanakata-adminchi and connected with dato as is done by Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarker (EHD., 18, n. 2). The letters amhehi preceding the date I split up into the two words amhe Mi and amhe I take in the sense of 'we' and connect with dadama.
18 M. Senart supposes that Nasik Inscription No. 4 calla Gantamiputra Satakarni lord of Banakataka'. I powever prefer to road Bendkatakd svdms with Buhler and Pandit Bhagwanlal, and take Bonakataks to be the place where the king's army was onoamped. Similarly in Nasik Inscription No. 3 I prefer to read Nava nard oudmi instead of Navanara-strims and suppose that Puļum&vi issues his order from a locality called Nayanara.