Epigraphia Indica Vol 20

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 22

No. 1.)
PRAKRIT INSCRIPTIONS FROM NAGARJUNIKONDA.
11
nown as Pubba and Apara-selikas, originated from the two Buddhist convents of Pubbasela and Aparasela which, according to Hiuen Tsiang, existed on the hills to the east and the west of the capital of Dhañña kata ka ?
The inscription G, line 8, contains the name of another Buddhist sect-Bahusutiya-which corresponds to Pali Bahusuttiya (Skt. Bahuśrutiya). Besides, we have Ayira-hamgha (Skt. Arya-sangha) in C 1, line 11 and C2, line 10, and Mahi[să]saka (Skt. Mahīšāsaka) in H, line 12.
Language and Script. A considerable difficulty in the way of interpreting the Nāgārjunikonda inscriptions is the want of precision of which they show ample evidence. Considering that these inscriptions were meant to be perpetual records of pious donations made by ladies of royal blood, the careless manner in which they have been recorded is astonishing. Not only single syllables but whole words have been omitted We find, moreover, that only in one instance it has been considered necessary to correct such an omission, i.e., in the word Mahāchetiya( E, line 1) where the akshara ha has been placed under the line. In other instances syllables have been repeated (C2, lines 1 and 3), or interchanged (e.g., bhaḥkham for kharbham in C 4, line 7). Very often the length of the vowels a and i is not marked. Even the name of the reigning monarch, Siri-Virapurisadata, is written with vi instead of vi except in a very few cases where we find the correct spelling with i. Much less frequently the long i has been substituted for the short one, e.g., in Mahächetiya. Considering the frequency of the omission of the a-stroke, we have ventured to assume that this omission has twice taken place in the long compound samana-bamhana-karana-vanija-din-a. nugaha-velāmika-dana-paţibhūga-vochhina-dhāra-padāyini, which re-occurs several times in the passage relating to the principal donor, Chāṁtisiri. This compound, as far as we can see, does not yield an intelligible sense, unless we read -dan-āpatibhag-āvochhina, thus assuming that the two adjectives required here are a patibhaga and avochhina. With regard to the latter word we may compare the use of the Sanskrit equivalent avyavachchhinna in the following line from the Harivansa (verse 3580) where we read : avyavachchhinna-dhar-aughaih samudr-augha-samairdhanaih.
The sign for dha is sometimes substituted for that of tha, whereas a certain confusion seems to prevail between tha and tha. The looped characters ta and na are very similar and are not always clearly distinguishable. The same is the case with the aksharas, the initial a and su.
The sign for anusvära too has often been omitted, while in several cases it is difficult to decido whether what appears to be a dot over the akshara may not be a depression in the surface of the stone merely due to accident. In consequence, there prevails a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to the correct form of the personal names Chämtamüla and Chāṁtisiri. In several Cases where these names occur, there is no trace of an anusvāra, but as in a few instances such & sign can be made out, we are perhaps justified in assuming that its non-occurrence is due to the inadvertence so noticeable throughout these records.
This want of precision becomes especially manifest if we compare the various redactions of the inscription recording the grant of a stele by the chief donor, the lady Chămtisiri. It is clear that these redactions are all based on the same text, but none of them produces that text without some omissions or mistakes. We may refer the reader to the text of C 3 given below with the various readings found in the corresponding inscriptions.
It is difficult to say who is to be held responsible for the negligent treatment which we have noticed in these epigraphs. The additional passage found in two of the pillar inscriptions of Chämtisiri, namely C 1 and 2, mentions & " Bhadanta Ananda, carrier of the Digha-and the Majjhima-mikäya " who acted as the navakannika of the Mabachetiya. In the case of bo apsidul temple