Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 76

No. 7.]
KARLE CAVE-INSCRIPTIONS.
the opio logend locates the death of Krishpa. In connection with the gift of wives to Brahmapas,' Bhagwanlal Indraji (Bombay Gasetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 571) aptly quotes a passage in the Aphead inscription of Adityaadna. If kanyde are there referred to, while here the donor speaks of bharyde, the position is in the main identioal. Only, it is in the first case considered from the point of view of the Brihmapas who were the fathers of the young women, and in the second one from that of the Brahmapas who became their husbands. There is nothing in this variation to justify the unlikely interpretation which Bhagwanlal (from an argument which in my opinion could easily be turned against him) has tried to substitute for the true one, vid. that Rishabhadatta boasts of having given wives to eight Brabmaņas by exempting eight young women of the Brahmapa oaste from all the expenses which are involved by the costly ceremonial of Hind marriages and the acquisition of the ornaments which in a certain way represent the dowry.
Pi tu are two particles. Bühler's translation for the sake of his father' presupposes in the text pitarat uddiesa. Besides, independently of the omission of the mother, which would be surprising and contrary to custom, the mention would be curiously placed here in a brief roonpitulation; it is oertainly missing in the parallel passage in Nasik No. 14.
Valdraka seems to designate Karle ; compare the following inscriptions. The plural is used frequently in the case of village names. It remains to ascertain in what manner have to be construed all the genitives lenarásinan pavajitánari chátudirasa saghasa. We may compare several analogous formulas. In No. 19, 1. 1 f. we find : lonas Valurakesu vathavana pavajitána bhikhuna nikdyasa Mahdaaghiyana yapandya . . . . gama . . . . . dadama; in Nasik No. 2, 1. 10: lena mahadevi . . . . . dadati nikayasa Bhaddvaniyananh bhikhwaghasa ; in Nasik No. 3, 1. 12: gamo . . . . . bhikhuhi devilonavdoebi nikdyena Bhaddyaniyehi patiga[ h]ya dato; and ibid. 1. 13: gáma ..... bhikhushi devilena[vdechi nikd]yena Bhadayaniyehi patigayha . . .. dato. The passage in No. 19 was intentionally copied from the present inscription and has therefore no independent value. In both 089e8 one might be tempted to separate the two genitives and to let the first depend on dadati, the second on yapandya or ydpanatha. But the long distance from the verb would be little favourable to this hypothesis. And in Nasik No. 2, where yapandya bn no equivalent, it is quite excluded. Besides, in Nasik No.3, where a different case is used, both terms are, just as here, in the same case. Hence we must conclude that in all these inatanoes the terms bhikchu or samgha, nikdya, and Mahasanghiya or Bhadayaniya are 00-ordinate. Thus the donation is made here "for the support of the universal Sangha in the person of the monks residing in the caves at Valdraka;” in No. 19" for the support of the brotherhood oonstituted by the Mahasanghikas in the person of the monks (of this community) residing in the caves at Valûraka"; in Nbaik No. 2, "to the Sangha of the monks in the person of the brotherhood constituted by the BhadAyaniyas; " and so on. We shall see in due time how the change of the case in Nasik No. 3 is to be explained. Here I would only remark that in the two passages of that inscription we find both nikdya and Bhadayaniya in the instrumental care and are thus prohibited in No. 19 to construe, as would seem natural, Mahdeasinghiyana as dependent on nikdya, the brotherhood of the Mahasanghjkas.'
This point being established, we shall have to fix more clearly than seems to have been tried hitherto the meaning which our insoriptions assign to the expression chdtudisa sangha. In my opinion chdtudina is not a kind of epitheton orname, a common-place formula. The expression has an intentional meaning; it signifies the clergy of every origin, 1.e. the clergy in its universality
+ Dr. Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, p. 803, 1..
+ Hemidri in his Chaturvargachintamani (I. 9, p. 878) has collected certain number of lanyaddwar' by which, woording to the epic, oertain kings conferred on Brihmanns women over whom they had authority. But those are at least exceptional, if not absolutely fictitious ches, from which an analogy could not, I think, be invoked for explaining gifts of an ordinary kind, which were frequently repeated.
I 2