Epigraphia Indica Vol 27

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

Page 98

NO. 12 ] NOTE ON THE BAJAUR INSCRIPTION OF MENANDROS
57 after the casket had become damaged, due to the ruler who is called Vijayamitra in C and D, and it seems to me that we must identify this Vijayamitra with Viyakamitra. The cpithet apracharaja has been read in the legend on the British Museum coin of Vijaya mitra's son, but is not known from other sources. The interchange of j and y does not present any difficulty, if we hear in mind doublets such as Aja and Aya for Azes. And the writing of k for y is known from other sources and has its parallel in the frequent y for k. Viyakamitra can accordingly be the same name as Vijayamitra, in a different orthography.
Palaeographically both B and C-D belong to about the first century B.C., and it is just possible that Vijavamitra, Viyakamitra is the same ruler whose coins have, according to Majumdar, been found at Sirkap during the Taxila excavations of 1931.
The form Viyaka can hardly be Viryaka, which would probably become Viriaka, and certainly not Vijaka. Vijayamitra certainly makes the impression of being an Indian name. But we cannot be certain. It may be of interest to bear in mind that the bottom-stroke of j which we find in apracharaja is absent in Vijayamitra, which can very well be an Iranian or semi-Iranian name : cf. the element vise, i.e., vize in the names of Khotanere kings.
In such circumstances I think it possible that the draft of the inscription was revised by an officer of Vijayamitra's who thought it advisable to make the date clearer by adding the ruler's name and therefore entered B, in his own orthography, above the date portion of the inscription. It is impossible to be confident, but such seems to me to be the most likely explanation.
In other respects I can accept most of Majumdar's interpretation of D. He has not noticed the fact that there is, especially in the first part of the inscription, a clear tendency to separate individual sentences and sometimes individual words by short intervals, which sometimes makes it necessary to deviate from his reading. Thus the beginning of the inscription goes on as follows :-ime sarira palugabhu[trao na sakareat(r)i tasa sariat(r)i kalaure. It is evident that we cannot here read sakare al(r)ita, but must take sakareat(r)i as one word and tasa' as the next one. Sakareat(r)i is satkriyatë, or rathar satkāryalē 'is honoured, treated with respect.' Paluga has rightly been identified by Majumdar with Pāli palugga 'broken, decayed', though we should expect pralugga. The first sentence accordingly runs: "This relic having been decayed is not properly respected ', and this is further explained in what follows, which shows that the respect shown to the relic consisted in pious acts performed at the site.
The next clause is lasa sariat(r)i kaladre, where the sa of tasa cannot, as already stated, be separated from ta and consequently not be the subject of sariat(r)i ; i.e., as stated by Majumdar, Sanskrit siryate is broken, falls off'; and the subject must be kaladre, which cannot therefore correspond to Sanskrit kālataḥ, as Majumdar thinks. I am in doubt about the final syllable. If it is dire we would have a külade with a spirantic 8, while kalndre might be something like kāladraya which does not seem to give any sense. I am inclined to look on the apparent stroke as a mistake of the engraver, because the e-mātrā was blurred. And I can only explain kalade as standing for käladeya what should be given in its proper time, seasonal offerings,' and what is meant we learn from what follows: na sadhro na pini doya key(r)i pil(r)i grinayat(r)i 'nobody causes the ancestors to receive frāddha and piydödaka.' Majumdar takes fadhro to stand for frāddhah, to which he assigns the elsewhere unknown meaning 'venerated ', and explains pimdoyakey'r)i as pindödakaiḥ, but final o in this inscription usually stands for am, and both the form and the construction make it impossible to think of an instrumental plural.
The reference to such periodical offerings has no special connection with Buddhism but tenda to show that the relic-sanctuary was held in honour by people of all crecds.
1 Cunningham, Numismatic Chronicle, 1890, pp. 127, 170; Rapson, Indian Coins, p. 9; Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the Panjab Museum, p. 168, pl. xvii, ii.
* CF. C. 1. 1., Vol. II, pt. 1, pp. cv f:
Cf. the remarks by Liders, 40. xviii, pp. 25 ff. XV1.1.11