________________
162 EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXX chakra in the back-ground representing perhaps the "Wheel of Law. Below the figure occurs in raised letters the legend (Mahū]rāja-Vijaya[sē]nasya, i.e. 'Of the Mahārāja Vijayasēna,' which is partly defaced.” Further on, commenting on the opening verses of the inscription, Mr. Majumdar sayg': ""The figure on the goal of the copper-plate may be a representation of Lökanātha, although it is too indistinct to admit of a definite identification." By Lökanātha, Mr. Majumdar evidently means the Buddha; for, his remarks on the invocatory Aryās in the beginning run as follows: "The record opens with an eulogy of the god Lõkanātha, of Dharma, and of the saints (santah), i.e. the Buddhist Sangha."
It may be pointed out that there is no other evidence in the record of its being Buddhistic. On the contrary, there is ample proof in it to the fact that it is Brahmanical. The grant of land, for instance, is made 'to a Brahmin named Vatsasvāmin of the Kauņdinya götra, belonging to the Bahvřicha sākhā of the Rigvēda, to enable him to perform the "five great sacrificial rites"." It need not be pointed out that these details do not assort well with a Buddhist record.
It is easy to understand as to how Mr. Majumdar came to take the invocation as offered to the Buddhist triratna, 'Three Jewels': the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. We have seen how he is inclined to explain the chakra device on the seal as standing for the 'Wheel of Law' or the Dharma-chakra of the Buddhists. Through the association of this, he naturally took Lokanātha in the opening couplet as standing for the Lord Buddha, although ordinarily the appellation Lokanātha is applicable to the gods Brahman, Vishņu and Siva quite as well as to the Lord Buddha. It is in extension of the same chain of association that Mr. Majumdar takes the word dharma in the first Aryā as referring to the Dharma of the Buddhist triratna and the word santah in the second Arya as referring to the sangha of the same "Three Jewels. It may be pointed out that there is no justification for explaining the word sant (or sat) in the normal course as synonymous with the Buddhist arhant (or arhat), through which Mr. Majumdar obviously comes to take santah of the record as arhantaḥ, i.e. collectively speaking, the Buddhist Sangha.
Mr. Majumdar has, it looks, totally neglected to observe the inconsistency resulting from the view accepted by him : the nature of the record being Brahmanical, while that of its seal and invocation being Buddhistic.
This inconsistency can easily be obviated if we take the chakra on the seal for the Sudarsanachakra of the god Vishnu. In that case, even Lökanātha of the invocation will have to be taken as meaning Vishnu. We have, in fact, the name Lokanātha included in the thousand names of Vishnu :
Lokabandhur-Lokanātho Madhav Bhaktavatsalah." As for the words dharma and santaḥ in the invocation, they may be taken in their normal sense of law' and 'good folk' respecticely. Dharma can be taken even as another name of Vishnu.. In this way, there is nothing inconsistent in the charter.
1 Ibid., p. 155. * Ibid., p. 157, n. 1,
* Ibid., p. 157. [The expression santab seems to be used in the same sense in the Buddhist mangala at the beginning of the Trikändahesha of the East Indian lexicographer Purushostama: Jayanti santal kubalan prajanath namo Munindråya surdh smpilah stha, eto. Cf. OHRJ, Vol. I, p. 168; Sel. Ing., p. 360.--Ed.]
Loc. cit. [Most of the numerons charters of the Buddhist kings of Eastern India, such as the Palas, Chandras and others, exhibit the same characteristic of recording grants in favour of Brihmaņas. -Ed.)
Vishnusahasranama, 93 ; Mahabharata, edited by P. P. S. Sastri, Anubisana parvan, part ii, p. 1291. • Ibid., 58 : Viral Saktimata mi breshtho Dharmd Dharmavid-Uttamal.
