Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

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

Page 99

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. VIIL.
- (3) G. oyanajapa; AS. Che [?] yảna ja. . The differences in reading show how doubtful all these letters are, except perhaps the na.
It results from the information supplied by Bhagwanlal (G. p. 576) that it cannot even be decided if these fragments are connected with the preceding epigraph or independent from it. In such a condition of things, I wish to express only one conjecture, vis., that in l. 3 we ought to read násaya, and that consequently this postscript, which certainly commemorated both a gift of money to Brahmans and the creation of a tirtha, may have contained some details about the donation on the Barnäså river,' of wbich it was the principal object of the preceding inscription to state the exact date.
No. 15, Plate vii. (Ksh. 12.) On the left wall of the court in Cave No. 19.
TEXT. 1 Sidhan råjõab Madhariputrasya (1) Sivadatt-Abhiraputrasya 2 Abhirasy-Esvarasenasys samvatsare (2) Davama. (3) 3 mhapakhe chothe 4 divasa trayodasa 18 (4). . 4 ya puvaya (5) Sak-Agnivarmmaņa) duhita (6) gapapaka. (7) 5 Rebhilasya bharyaya (8) gapapakagya (9) Visvavarmasya. 6 trå Sakanikaya (10) upåsikâya Vishņudatåyå (11) sarvasatvahi7 tasuk hârtham (12) Triraśmiparvatavihâravasta vyasya châturdisa (13) 8 bhikshusamghasya (14) gilânabheshajártham (15) akshayanivi prayukta . . . .
våsta (16) - 9 vyagu agatånågatåsu (17) frenishu (18) yataḥ kularikagrepy& haste karshapana10 sahagra 1000 odayamtrikasrenya (19) sahasrani dve (20) . . . . 1 Dyab (21) Satani pamcha 500 tilapishakagren . . . (22) 12 ete cha karshapaņå chatâlep& . . (23).
REMARKS. (1) AS. leaves a blank for the two first characters of Madhari, which are certainly not quite clear, but on the estampage sufficient traces of both are still discernible, especially of dha. I may mention that, as appears from the comparison of the two facsimiles, this epigraph seems to have suffered very much since the time when it was examined by Bhagwanlal. In addition to the cases which I shall expressly mention, many readings would be risky if they could not be ascertained from the context.- (2) AS. savao; G. Otsara.- (3) AS. navame [9]; G. navama[gi]. In reality the last character is indistinct. AS. has [gi] at the beginning of 1. 3.-(4) Of the fa and of the number I cannot make out anything.- (5) AS. yd puváya.- (6) AS. duhitra.-(7) AS. ganapao - (8) G. and AS. bharyaya.-- (9) AS. gandpao.- (10) AS. . . gásákánika. - (11) G.odattaya.-(12) G. 'sattvao; AS. Osukhartha.- (13) AS. chátudisa[ya]. The end is much damaged. - (14) AS. bhikhusaghasya.-(15) AS. gilina'.- (16) AS. Oktà .va .na .. The reading vasta is little more than a conjecture. It seems indeed that traces of va and na are visible.-(17) G. dgatásná]gatásu ; AS. Sugatágat asu.-(18) AS. srenishu.-(19) G. odayantrikafrenyah sao ; AS. douyatrikafrenya[ro] sao. I dare not decide absolutely if da or da must be read. Both letters are too similar to be distinguished with certainty in so defaced an inscription. At least I can discover no reason for excluding the reading da. (20) G. dve 2 . . . . .[re]. The figure is entirely illegible.-(21) AS. nyá[m].-- (22) G. Srenya sata . . . . ; AS. "srenyá[mm] sata
. . It will be seen from the comparison of Plate vü, that in this line and the next one some haracters that are still visible have not been included in the estampage I have before me.-(23) AS. [chatá]lopa. The two first letters, especially the first one, are certainly most doubtful