________________
No. 7.]
KARLE CAVE INSCRIPTIONS
Sivaskanda is the governor of the district; in Násik No. 4 the amatya Sivagupta writes the grant; and here Sivaskandagupta engraves the document on copper. The simultaneous occurrence of names into the composition of which Vishņu enters prevents us from drawing from this fact hasty conclusions regarding the state of the sects in this region. Could these resemblances be the result of relationship?
I must not fail to recall the link which seems to cinect this inscription with No. 13, to the commentary of which the reader is referred. I will only add that, renewed by a royal personage, the giant of the village of Karajaka was necessarily accompanied by fiscal and administrative privileges which, in spite of his high connections, Rishabhadatta had been doubtlessly unable to confer.
No. 20, Plate iii. (Ksh. 21). North of the chaitya cave. On the wall of the second cell (from the south) of a chiru. right of entrance, top.
TEXT. 1 Sidha (L) raño (2 Vasithiputasa Siri-Puļumávisa savaobhare chatuviso 24
hemantâna pakhe (3) tatiye 3 divase bi2 tiye 2 upåsakasa Harapharaṇasa Setapharana-puttasya So[va]sakasya Abulamaya
vathavasya ima deyadhama madapo (4) 3 navagabha (5) Mahisaghiyanam (6) parigaho (7) saghe châtudise dina . (6)
måtâpituna pujá (9) savasatanam hitasaghasthataye (10) ekavise (11) sa4 vachhare nithito saheta (12) cha me puna Budharakhitena matara cha syu (13)
.. npåsikaya (14) Budharakhitasa måt[u deya]dhamma (15) (påho) a[no] (16).
REMARKS. (1) CTI, sidhan.-(2) AS. rano.- (3) CTI. and AS. hemati.-(4) AS. and CTI. matapo. The da is not absolutely perfect, but at least probable, which cannot be said of the ta.-(5) The bh has a vertical stroke at the top, which is so pronouncod that I am doubtful if we ought not to read garbha, with which the Sanskřitisms pultasya and Sovasakusy ! would have to be compared.-- (6) AS. Oghiyang.-(7) AS, and CTI. parigahe; the ho seems to me certain.-(8) CTI. chatulise dinan md. After na there is certainly room for a character, but no positive trace of it which would show that it did really exist. - (9) AS. and CTI. Fituna rúja. The tail of the subscribed # of pu seems to be a little more pronounced here than in the rest of the inscription. But our engraver was so fond of this flourish that, in the absence of any additional trace on the right, we are not authorised to attribute a special phonetical value to each an imperceptible differentiation.-(10) CTI.®thataya, AS. Osthataya. The th and the final e are much more distinct in the estampage than they appear in the Plate.-(11) OTI. ekacisa;
Together with the proofs of this article, I received from Dr. Hultzsch a proof of his paper on the newly discovered Kondamudi plates (above, Vol. VI. No. 31), which throw fresh light on some doubtful poiuts in Karle No. 19. In pointing out several of these corrections, Dr. Hultzsch has quoted my present article. It is conse quently too late to modify my remarks, and it will be enough at present to draw attention to the principal correc. tions which the new plates suggest.-(1) The reading oyapi pehi, instead of deya papehi; (2) the explanation of this verb, as well as of pariharski and nibadhapehi, not as 1st singular aorist (with alteratiou of fual hi into
hith), but as 2nd singular imperative. (3) The proposed interpretation of vijayathasaidkhe ought surely to be given up; but I do not consider the general meaning att ibuted to the phrase by Dr. Hultzsch as altogether satisfactory. (4) Nor do I consider his translation of chhata by 'signed' beyond every doubt, although the word is here accompanied by suyan. (5) The reading etansi tan in l. 25 of the Koņdamudi plates suggests a similar correction for etesa[*] tu in l. 3 of Kärle No. 19. But such a correction, at least so far as the second syllable is concerned, would be opposed to the apparent testimony of the estiinpage. Anyhow, my forthcoming article on the Neaik inscriptions will give me an opportunity for returning to several of these difficult poiuts.