________________
208
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIV
aksharas ti and mi, represented in it as a clear ra, does not appear to be a letter at all on the impression. It is too close to mi considering the space between any two other letters of the record. We have also to note that the said vertical mark actually continues beyond the proper upper end of the supposed ra, The mark is again not as deep as the incision of the letters of the record. As regards the word timitimingila, Monier-William's Sanskrit-English Dictionary (8.v. timi) recognises it on the authority of the Mahābhārata and the Divyāvadāna, side by side with the words timi, timingila and timingilagila.1
It will moreover be seen that the reading tirami, i.e. tiramhi or tire, on the shore', does not at all suit the scene depicted on the inscribed stone. While the said reading would suggest that Vasugupta was on the sea-shore after his rescue from the Timingila's belly, the sculpture represents a boat with Vasugupta and two associates aboard entering the belly of a huge fish through its wide open mouth and another boat with the same three persons (the two companions of Vasugupta being shown here as oarsmen) rowing away, both on the high seas, that is to say, far away from the shore. Apparently one of the two ships refers to Vasugupta's entry into the sea-monster's belly and the other io that of his rescue.
The last word of A was read as Mahadevānam on the basis of the same eye-copy and the genitive plural in it was regarded by Cunningham as used in the instrumental sense. Hultzsch regarded "devānam, as a mistake for devena. There is, however, no a-matra attached to v in the word. On the other hand, it exhibits a damaged e-mätra.
As regards the sculptural representation for which this is a label, Barus and Sinha draw our attention to a story in the Divyāvadānaand the Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā.. The story refers to a large number of sea-faring merchants aboard a ship, who were going to die owing to a Timingila trying to devour their ship but were saved by uttering the name of Lord Buddha. This has led Barua and Sinha to translate the passage mochitah Mahādevena as rescued by the power of the name of the mighty godly saviour'. It is, however, not quite accurate. Mahādēva in our record may indicate the Buddha as in another inscription from Barhut. It may, however, also indicate a personal name. In any case, the sculpture seems to represent a different and as yet unknown version of the story.
In the word suchi in B, the letter v had been originally written for ch, though an attempt was later made by the engraver to rectify the error by adding & vertical stroke to the right lower end of v. There is a mark at the upper left corner of the letter which, taken with the sign for medial i, looks like the medial sign for i as found in slightly later epigraphs. But the mark in question appears to be due to a flaw in the stone. It is also not impossible that the anusvāra-like mark with na in Mahādevenam in A. is likewise due to a similar flaw in the stone.
B. Fragmentary Inscriptions from Nagarjunikonda The Nägarjunikonda inscriptions discovered in the course of earlier excavations were published in the Epigraphia Indica' nearly 30 years ago. Recent excavations conducted at the
1 Cf. Divyavadana, ed. Cowell and Neil, pp. 231, 602. *Op. cit., pp. 232-33. • Soo op cit., No. 89 (Dharmaruchi-avadana). Barua and wha, op. cit., p. 78 (No. 2); Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 239, No. 160. Cf. Mahabastu, I, 244, 19. ff.
When this article was going through the prees, Prof. Waldschmidt-of-Göttingen informed me that the late Dr. Lüders had suggested the reading timitimigila instaad of tirami titigild as to considered the latter reading quite uneuitable to the context. It was indeed a wonderful suggestion especially ta' view of the fact that Luders had to dopend entirely on Cunningham's eye-oopy of the ipsorption under study,
+ Vol. XX, pp. 1-37; Vol. XXI, pp. 61-71; of. Vol. XXIX, pp. 137-30; Vol. XXXIII, pp. 147 ff., 189 ff.
