Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

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

Page 80

No. 8.]
NASIK CAVE INSCRIPTIONS.
69
justifies their parallelism naturally enough. I have therefore no doubt that pratigrihya must mean here to be received as property by ...' As I have stated above (in K. 13), the construction nikúyena Bhadayaniyehi seems to imply that even where the reading mikayasa Bhadayaniyanan would rather suggest an interdependence of the two genitives, it must be admitted that the two terms are, as is necessarily the case here, 00-ordinated, and that the second follows the first as a kind of apposition.
Patisantharana is, as far as I know, an anak leyópevov. Its general meaning is evident. Bhagwanlal has aptly compared the Pali meaning of pafisanthára; but I fear he has from these exact premises elicited a conclusion which is inadmissible. Pafisanthara is by Childers translated friendly greeting, welcome, etc.' But the word, I think, points not so much to the feelings, as to the material care which is involved by the duty of hospitality. The etymological meaning must have started from the carpet which is spread out to socommodate the guests, and is in perfect agreement with the instances adduoed. If a term has been thus fixed in & certain sense, somewhat diverted from the literal bearing, it would evidently be imprudent to vindicate for secondary, simply analogous derivations an identical figurative meaning. Nothing authorises us to attribute to patisaitharana the precise sense of hospitality,' which would not suit either the construction of the sentence or the term chitana in the preceding inscription. Nor do I see on what ground could be maintained the too precise translation of repairs,' given by Bühler. It seems to me that the general meaning of care' is more conformable to what analogy requires.
The reading eta cha for the apparent etata, judiciously advocated by Bühler, is above all doubt. As to oyapapehi, I have, in commenting on K. 19, only been able to stato in an additional note that this transcription seems now to be secured by the Kondamudi plates where Prof. Hultzsch has made it out. His etymology from avayava is extremely ingenious. But I do not think, and to this effect our epigraphs seem to me to supply decisive arguments, that we onght to insist on the etymological shade of meaning. I would prefer to distribute, to bestow,' i.e. in fact to realise the gift.
This passage and the sequel agree with K. 19 and N. 4. It is enough here to refer to these two records. But in spite of the general symmetry, there are some divergencies for which we are left without the aid and control of direct analogies. First, if, after niba[n]dhápehi, we really mast, in spite of some difficulties, read Sudasana (and the characters Sud ..na at least appear extremely probable), the cha which follows after gámasa compels us to take gámasa with the sequel, and implies that Sudasana belongs to what precedes. Hence I am led to postulate the reading Sudasane, 'in the village of Sudasana;' but Sudasane for Sudasaneou, or rather for gume Sudasanesu, does not satisfy me entirely.
The sequel corresponds exactly with our No. 4, in so far as five different acts connected with the donation are enumerated in both places. In the next epigraph they are expressed by the words anata, chhata, uparakhita, data patiká and kata, of which the first, second, fourth and fifth are common to the present text as well. It is a priori probable that the third also is, if not identical in form, at least equivalent in bearing. The reading hathachhato gives no meaning which can be made to agree with uparukhita. Besides, chhato stands condemned by the fact that this word already figures in the same series. Although the transcription chh, especially if we judge from the back of the estampage, cannot be said to be impossible, the too angular tracing and the unusual place which would have to be assigned to the vertical stroke sur mounting the double ourl joins with the general aspect of the front to make it at least doubtful. The reading hatha (or hathe) guto, besides reminding of Rohanigutto which I have adduced in K. 19, would perhaps satisfy the desideratum of close agreement; but I must own that the actual traces of the estampage do not seem to favour it, and I put it here only as a provisional guess, to stand until a more acute reader or some evident analogy removes every uncertainty.