Epigraphia Indica Vol 09

SR No.: 032563
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch, Sten Konow
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1907
Total Pages: 498
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 28 MB

Page 192

No. 17.]
INSCRIPTIONS ON THE MATHURA LION-CAPITAL.
145
J. (1 and 2.) 1 viya rva . . . . . . . .Palishte (PP) na 2 nisimo karita niyatito (nissimo karita niyyatitd].
These three inscriptions present the most difficult problems of all those insoribed on the capital. They are written in aksharas of approximately the same size. As M. has no verb (unless we here make use of the - Krakárita (P) of E".), we should naturally expect it to be in connection with one of the others. It certainly seems to join the vdya of I. 1. But here we enter upon a very obscure passage. Bühler with great ingenuity has elicited the reading vaya. wdino kadhavaro busaparo kadhavaro=vdgôdirnd skandhdoard busaparo skandhdvård, which he renders the army has started in haste, the army is intent on wealth.' But to this there are, spart from the inappropriateness of the sense, the following objections :-(1) skandhavara does not mean an army,' but an encampment;' (2) the meaning 'riches' attached to busa is attested only by Wilson's Diotionary; (3) it is doubtful whether the third akshara is really w; it is onlike the other w's of these inscriptions and rather resembles an, while the bottom curve may even be a part of the accidental indentation in the stone (see the Plate); (4) a weakening of g to y in veya is contrary to the tendencies of the languages employed in these inscriptions. On the other hand, the ro of 1. 2 plainly follows the pa of 1. 1, and a reading veyaan dinau kadhavaros vaijayantind min skandhdvård appears but little promising. The viya which precedes the large rua in J. 1 is in small characters and no doubt an independent addition. Can it possibly be an insertion to show that the large rua, which apparently joins on to nothing, is an error for vya= viya? The sign which Bühler renders by shté (reproduced in his Indian Palmography, Plate I. ool. xiii.), is quite clearly inscribed; but its meaning is anything but olear. It is more like rdi, which seems very unlikely. With the preceding pali (Bübler pult) it composes no doubt a proper name. What came before pali, occupying & space sufficient for 7 or 8 aksharas, is quite obsonre owing to the stone having peeled sway. We seem to have the remains of a sa; bat what is to be done with the large rua commencing the line P Even adopting the suggestion that it is an error for vya we have no ground for proceeding further. The words missimd karita niyyatito, 'a stapa was caused to be made and presented,' are quite satisfactory. We have already noted the older form of ta in karita. With these remarks I must be content so far as these inscriptions are concerned.
1 Khalagamu2 so.
The aksharas are perfectly clear, though Bühler read khalafdna bo. Wo seem to have here a proper name.
K. & L. 1 Ayariasa [&yáriassa] 2 badhatevasa (Buddhatėvassa) 8 utaona ayimisa (ataồna Ågimisa].
TRANSLATION. Through the elevation of the acharya Buddhadêva, Âyimisa.
The exact meaning is not clear. We might take Ayimisa as a genitive with dinara understood. But what then was the dána i The last akshara of Ayimisa, which lacks the tail of the sa, was read by Bähler as ta.
1 See Plate L.
> On the leg of the left lion, under his tail. * Not shown in the Plates : incised in very clear characters on the breast of the left linn between J. and .-. (noe Plate II): plainly a single independent record.