________________
320
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XXVI,
to Mr. Majumdar) is of the closed type. The above observations would show that the grouping of the inscribed passages into two broad groups with a difference of more than fifty years between them is rather difficult to justify. There are of course reasons to believe that more than one man were responsible for the engraving of the passages. If, however, B is to be grouped with A, it is not even impossible to suggest that one man incised the two groups in different periods. As regards the form sakimuni, it may be noted that in Central Asian Kharöshthi documents both arögi and arogiya for ārögya are sometimes found in the same inscription.
We now come to section D which contains the passage sa sariatri kaladre. The section reads: ime sarira paluga-bhudrao na sakare atrita [*] sa sariatri kaladre [*] nosadhro na pimdoyakeyi pitri grinayatri [] *) tasa ye patre apomua: vashaye pamchamaye 4 1 Vetrakhrasa masasa divasa pamchavisraye iyo pratrithavitre Vijayamitrena a pracharajena bhagravatu Sakimunisa Sama-sambudhasa sarira [] *). 'Mr. Majumdar translates : " This corporeal relic having been broken is not held in worship with zeal. It is decaying in course of time, (and) is not honoured ; (and here) by the offering of alms and water ancestors are no longer propitiated : (and) the receptacle of that (relic) has been cast aside. (Now) in the fifth year and on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Vaišākha, this has been established by Vijayamitra,' who dias no king as his adversary', namely) the corporeal relic of the lord Sakimuņi (s.e., Säkyamuni), the one who is truly enlightened."
I am inclined to suggest some modifications in Mr. Majumdar's translation. Na sakare atritaSanskrit na satkārēna (or, satkāraih) ādritam, “has not been honoured by homages". This seems to refer to the fact that the relic established by Viyakamitra (Viryakamitra) which was broken, had never been worshipped. It should also be remembered that if homages are once begun to be paid, they are never easily discontinued. As regards na grinayatri, I would prefer "is not propitiated " instead of Mr. Majumdar's "no longer propitiated ”. Sa sariatri kaladre-Sanskrit tat siryatë kālatah," it is decaying in course of time". By "time" Mr. Majumdar means a period of more than fifty years. But a relic well preserved in a stone casket would not literally decay even in by far longer a period. The verb siryatē is therefore used in a broader sense to mean " is wasting away without being cared for ", just like the Bengali verb nashta-hawā, literally "to decay ", but actually " to be without (proper) use". Siryatë seems to be used to emphasize the absence of worship and the want of persons devoted to the relic established by Viryakamitra and to justify Vijayamitra's action in taking away the casket. No sadhro-Sanskrit no (=na) Graddhah " nobody is respectful (towards the relic)". The word sraddha usually means the person having respect and not the thing respected. According to Mr. Majumdar, apomua corresponds to Sanskrit a pamukta, cast aside'; but in that case the o-sign cannot be explained. I prefer avamukta, 'taken away', or better avamuktva-avamuchya 'having taken away'. Tasa ye patre apomua may then be translated : "after having taken away the receptacle of (or, from) that
See, e.g., Boyer-Rapson-Senart, Kharopthi Inscriptions, Vol. I, No. 288 : Sircar, Select Inscriptions, p. 242.
Mr. Majumdar reads na : but the o-sign seems to be clear both in his plate and in the original now in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Mr. Majumdar does not prefer a full stop after kaladre.
- Mr. Majumdar prefers a full stop after a pomua. His plate suggests pido yakeyri for pirkdoyakevi which, however, seems to be the reading of the original. Read dinase. Mr. Majumdar reads diosas- parchavi fraye.
• Op.cit., p. 8. . Why not Visakhamitra 1-C.R.K.)
