Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

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

Page 78

No. 8.)
NASIK CAVE INSCRIPTIONS.
bably the stroke on the left is accidental, and we ought to read pha. -(49) AS. Vilnihu, which is a printer's mistake for Vinhuo; G. Venhu. - (50) G. sámivanananata ; AS. sámivanandnata. -(51) G. namo, which is perhaps right. - (52) G. bhaga[ua]tasao; AS. bhagatasao; G. opatipatipasa.
TRANSLATION "Success! The lord of Navanara, Siri-Puļumåvi Vasithiputa, commands Sivakhandila, the officer at Govadhana: The village of Sudisana here in the Govadhana district on the Southern road, which by us, in the loth year, on the 13th day of the 2nd fortnight of summer, ..... by the Samaņas of Dhanamkata who [dwell] here on mount Tiranha
....., has been given to be owned by the Bhikshus of that fraternity, the Bhadâyaniyas dwelling in the Queen's Cave, to produce a perpetual rent for the care of the cave meritoriously excavated, - in exchange for this gift, — the village of Sudasaņa, - we give the village of Såmalipada, here in the Govadhana district on the Eastern road; and this village of Samalipada, . . . . . by the Maha-Aryaka, you must deliver to be owned by the Bhikshus of the school of the Bhadâyaniyas dwelling in the Queen's Cave, to produce a perpetual rent for the care of the cave meritoriously excavated ; and to this village of Såmalipada we grant the immunity belonging to monk's land, (making it) not to be entered (by royal officers), not to be touched (by any of them), not to be dug for salt, not to be interfered with by the district police, (in short) to enjoy all kinds of immunities. With all these immunities you must invest it; and this donation of the village of Sa malipada and the immunities take care to have registered here at Sudasaņa. And by the officers) entrusted with the abrogation of the previous) donation of the Sudasaņa village it has been ordered. Written by the Mahasenúpati Medhuna .... ., kept (P) by the . . . . .of deeds (?). The deed was delivered in the year 22, the 7th day of the . . fortnight of summer; executed by.. .. .(?). With A view for the well-being of the inhabitants of Govadhana, Viņhupala proclaims the praise of the Lord : Obeisance to the Being exalted in perfection and majesty, the excellent Jina, the Buddha."
This inscription offers in its last part some difficulties which result from uncertain readings, and even more from lacuna. In order not to lengthen this commentary unnecessarily, I shall not dwell on differences of opinion in a few passages where former interpreters have decidedly gone astray.
From the comparison of Benákatasvami in the next inscription, which offers many analogies to the present one, I infer that Dr. Bhandarkar was right in understanding Navanarasvåmin =lord of Navanara, I suppose for Navanagara. Nothing in the other inscriptions entitles us to look in it for some hypothetical biruda.
The sentence beginning with ya amhehi rests on two propositions which are exactly balanced and throw light upon one another. The general construction is clearly determined by the symmetry which obtains between the relative proposition : ya amhehi . . . . . Bhadáyaniyehi patigaya dato on the one hand, and the principal one : eta cha.. . . . patigayha oyapapehi. They correspond link to link. The general similarity makes the more conspicuous the discrepancy which exists in respect of a single detail : instead of Dhanan kata samanehi y[e] etha pavate Tira . . . . . na, line 13 has mahaairakena odena. This disagreement is made worse by the lacuna and by the partial uncertainty of the reading odena. The obscurity of these two expressions is to my mind the only real difficulty in this part of the text. One useful result at least, although only a negative one, is gained from their comparison, namely, that the singular construction attempted by Bühler, who supposed samanchi and aïrakena to be governed by pafikhaya (as he read), must first of all be discarded. To connect, as he did, Dhanakațasamanehi and bhikhuhi which are separated from each other by a whole sentence, is too inadmissible to require a lengthy refutation. Either member includes two terms: first
E 2