Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

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

Page 86

No. 8.]
NASIK CAVE INSCRIPTIONS
in this way it is easy to understand why they do not note many details which could not fail to appear in the official deeds themselves.
Though it is generally inadvisable to have recourse to the correction of supposed errors of the engraver, it is difficnlt not to agree with Bühler when he corrects pațihararakhiya. For other details see K. 19 and N. 3.
No. 6, Plate iii. (N. 8.) On the back wall of the veranda in Cave No. 6.
TEXT. 1 Sidham Viragahapatisa nyegamamsa (1) lepam (2) 2 deyadhama katumbiņiya (3) chasa Namdasiriya (4) ovara ko 3 ya chasa Purisadatáva ovarako eva leņam chatugabbam 4 niyuta (5) bhikhusamghasa châtudisasa piyachitan.
duhutu
REMARKS. (1) AS. °gamasa; the antsvara, although faulty, seems perfectly clear. -(2) G. and A8. lena. -(3) G. 'biniya. - (4) AS. °dasaraya. The reading siri seems sure. - (5) G. niyuta.
TRANSLATION "Success! This cave, a pious gift of the householder Vira, a merchant, a cell of his wife Nandasiri, and a cell of his daughter Purisadattå; the cave thus oompleted to four cells has been bequeathed to the universal Sangha."
I do not think gahapati ought to be taken as a part of the proper name, any more than in Nandagahapatind at Sailarwadi (CTI. p. 38, text 1. 5). At Junnar (CTI. and AS. No. 4) we meet again with a donor Virasenakasa gahapatipamughasa dhanmaniga masa. In spite of the close resemblance of the epithets, the writing of the two documents does not seem - unless, what is very possible, the difference be more local than chronological, - to entitle us to identify both. Anyhow it follows from the comparison that gahapati, just as negama, is a title. Besides, it may perhaps be concluded from it that Vira is only an abridgment of the real name which has to be completed by a second member like sena. Negama need not be explained; but it may be remarked en passant that its use here favours the opinion I have formerly stated, and which I must maintain against the doubts that have been raised by & learned opponent (Fick, Sociale Gliederung au Buddha's Zoit, p. 164), vis. that gļihapati is, in the Buddhist language, specially restricted to people of various castes, who are included in the large class of Vaisyas.
The writing nyene is the more noteworthy because we find afterwards niydohvita= miyatita. It looks as if this engraver had felt some peopliar inclination towards the palatalizing of dentals.
Niyuta was translated by Bühler in various ways: 'allotted, given,' and often, as now,' dedicated. The inscription No. 1 at Mabad reads. . . lena chetiyaghara ovaraka cha atha ti kaman niyutan . . and seems to settle the exact bearing of the word, vis. * executed, completed,' implying the notion of a plan, of an appropriation to some use or some object, which is conveyed by the verb niyuj. Niyuta is thereforo not ordinarily construed with a dative; it is generally followed by another participle, as here by niyatita, pointing to the donation which takes place after the work has been completed. It is needless to observe that when niyuta is accompanied by a dative (or a genitive fulfilling the functions thereof), as at: Junnar No. 15 (where we have to read niyutaka), this fact is no way irreconcilable with the translation I am advocating: made for the Sangha (residing) at Kapichita.
L 2