________________
No. 7.]
term. I have no doubt that, at the end of 1. 2 as well as in 11. 3 and 4, the text had originally gama[n] Karajak[e], in which Karajake is the accusative plural. If the text had read the locative game, we would also have Karajakesu, which I have stated to be inadmissible. Besides, this is the reading which I find with certainty in the continuation of the line as in apposition to bhikhuhala[m]. Bat even if we had the locative, we should arrive by a round-about way to the same meaning: "the bhikhuhala in the village of Karajaka." It is because the donation embraces the whole village, that no limit is stipulated and that the whole village is included in the immunities promised, while the contrary holds good in Nasik Nos. 4 and 5.
KARLE CAVE-INSCRIPTIONS.
67
After etesa[i] 1 read tu. Perhaps cha has to be read; but this does not matter. In any case we have two co-ordinate sentences. I do not understand how Bühler analysed the final verb of the first sentence, which he read papahi and which I read without hesitation papehi[m], which is the first singular aorist of the causative prapayimi, and for which we shall find in the sequel the distinct parallels pariharehi[m], and niba[m]dhapehi[m]. Deyam pripayitum means 'to cause to obtain, to confer, a gift.' I believe that bhikhuhala is not compounded with deya, but must be understood as in apposition to gamam Karajake. I conclude this from a passage in Nasik No. 3, where we shall find the same expression without bhikkuhala. The meaning of both constructions would, however, be exactly the same. Without pretending to 1race with certainty the reasons why the first singular and the first plural were both employed in the same phrase, I should like to suggest that the singular may have been used here in order to give a personal and deliberate turn to the affirmation or order. In the same way, the desire of accentuating the idea more strongly has caused the employment of the causative papelim after the simple dadima. The king is not content to give; he wants to state that he has issued. the necessary orders for realising his intention. I may quote here the expression used by Vijayabuddhavarman, to which I shall return presently: savaparihârehi pariharatha parihardpetha (this is the actual reading; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 101, 1. 10). Compare also the grant of Sivaskandavarman, 1. 36: pariharitavam parihapetarva cha, etc. The subsequent passage is clear; and one can see now why the donor uses the two symmetrical propositions. It is because he has assigned the village to the monks, that he grants to it the immunities of church-laud. Parihara has, I think, been well explained by Professor Leumann (Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 484). The original meaning,-'exception, immunity,' quite naturally leads to the more general onc,privilege, privileged position.'
The cognate inscriptions leave no doubt as to the privileges which were expressly mentioned here; we have to restore: a[nomasam alonakhadakam arathasamvinayikam savajata parihárikam. The translation is less certain than the reading. Regarding apávesa, in Sanskrit aprárésyam, it is sufficient to refer to Dr. Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, p. 98, pote. Anomasa represents anavamṛisyam; its certain equivalent in the later terminology, namely samastarájakiyanom ahastapṛakshepaniyam, etc. (ibid. p. 171, note), seems to imply that the royal officers were prohibited from taking possession of anything belonging to the village. For alonakhadaka the later inscriptions offer several equivalents,-alaranakrénikhanaka, which Bühler (p. 104) has already quoted (Dr. Fleet's No. 55, 1. 28, and No. 56); alonagulachchhobha in 1. 32 of the plates of Sivaskandavarman (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 6); and salôhalavaṇakara in 1. 17 of the plates of Govindachandra (above, Vol. IV. p. 101). These words are far from clear; but if we remember the fact that the production of salt is a royal monopoly (Bühler in Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 9, note), and the details quoted by Bhagwanlal (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 556 and p. 179) regarding the manner of digging the soil for salt which prevails in the very region of our inscriptions, it seems to me that the explanation proposed by Bhagwanlal, viz. alavanukhataka with the Prakrit softening of t into d, is quite satisfactory. The object of this immunity would thus be to deny to the representatives of the king the right of digging pits for extracting salt.
[Compare above, Vol. VI. p. 88, note 10.-E. H.]
K 2
