Epigraphia Indica Vol 23

SR No.: 032577
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1935
Total Pages: 436
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 25 MB

Page 121

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VoL.XXIII.
18 मस्य सानोमवतम्या प्रमदोपार्जितचीस16 दयस्य वाकाटकानामहाराजश्रीमद्रसेनस्य सु(सू)नी17 ()हाराजाधिराजश्रीदेवगुप्तसुताया प्रभाव[ति गुप्ता18 यामुत्पत्रस्य शम्भोरप्रसादधतिकात युगस्य वाकाटकाना
Third Plate ; First Side. 19 म्परममाहेबरमहाराजश्रीप्रवरसेनम्य वचना[*] ॥ 20 लोषणगराभाग वरदाखेटमाझे अवस्थ(त्य)खेटके 2l सब्राह्मणपुरोगी पामो वक्तव्यः [*] पत्र प्रामे रा22 जक्यमानेम' भूमेर्विवर्तनशतानि चत्वारि महापुरुषपा23 दमूलसीपयोज्य नारायणराजविाप्यन' दत्तम् [11]
Third Plate ; Second Side. 24 यतीमात्मन्तकामविनियोगनियुताः पात्रासचा25 रिकुलपुवाधिवता भटावावाच विश्रुतपूर्वा(व)याजया26 जापयितव्याः [*] विदितमस्तु ब(वो) यथ(2)षास्माभिराम27 नो धमायुबलविजयखर्यविहाय हामवहिता28 र्थमात्मानुग्रहाय वैजयिके धर्मस्थाने अपूर्वदत्या(त्या) उदक29 पूर्वम्प्रतिसृष्टः [0] अथास्योचिताम्पूर्वग[जान[मता] चातु
Fourth Plate; First Side. 30 व्य(ब)द्यापा(अ)हारमर्यादान्वितराम: "] तद्यथा पकरदायी अभट1 The medial u sign is faintly seen on the plato.
Read सुतायो •so in the Seoni and Chammak plates. Read प्रसादधतकायुगस्य. • Read राजकीयमानन
The engraver has canoelled a wrongly incised stroke on the left of ta. • Read -yojyani and dattant.
It is better to read विज्ञत्या.
• The engraver first incised the subscript letter as cha and then tried to convert it into chha by adding & vertical stroke in the middle of the rectangle. Contrast the proper form of chha in 1. 42.
• The feminine form एषा in 1. 26 seems to qualify some word like भूमि:- प्रतिष्टा is, therefore, required bere. The writer has, however, used the masculine form throughout, as he has blindly cond the usual draft for the grant of a village (ग्राम: ). [The intended reference here may be to the agrahāra mentioned in 1.30 in which case Lsh-damabhin should be corrected into showamābhit. Apparently the 400 nivartanas of land constituted the agrahara granted to the temple and an expression like agraharikrilya has been omitted before dattam in 1. 23. As such an agrahara wonld be mainly inhabited by Brahmins, the objections rained by Prof. Mirashi in this rote and the next do not seem to be justified.Ed.]
10 Read et fact ! The writer has forgotten that the present grant was made to a temple and not to Brāhmaṇas versed in the four lores. See also w afere in 11. 36-37 below. Some of the prohibitions and exemptions laid down here are appropriate only in the case of the gift of a whole village.