________________
166
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1891.
4 chilațhitikê hêsatîti alahâmi hakam tam vatavê [.) iinâni bhantê dhammapa
ligâyâni vinayasamukase 5 aliyavasảni anagatabhayẩni munigathủ mônryasatê upatisanaginê ê chi lagulô6 våde musâvâdam adhigichya bhagavatî budhêna bhasitê étâna bhamtê dhamma
paliyayani ich hâmi 7 kimti bahu ke bhikhupayê chỉ bhakhuniyê châ abhikhinam sunaya chå upadha
lêyêyu cha 8 hêvamın êvå upisakâ cha apåsika cha [.] êtêni bhamtê imam likhâpayâmi abhihetani ma janata ti?
NOTES. · 1. The third word of the inscription has long been read magadhé, and the question arose whether it was to be understood as an epithet of lája or as 'an irregular orthography for magadhai. From the last facsimile it may be seen that the supposed vowel-sign is by no means regularly cut, and is probably nothing more than an accidental scratch, - especially as the following annsvára seems to be quite clear. It is thus inégadhai which we must read, and which we must, of course, construe with sanghan. Hitherto, the word has been taken simply in its geographical signification : 'the samgha of Magadha. I have some doubts on this point. In the first place, saigha, as is proved by what follows, was from this epoch consecrated, in its generic and, so to say, abstract use, to designate the clergy in its most general terms. Hence its association with a local restrictive designation is no more likely here than it would be in the ordinary literary language of Buddhism. In the second place, it is difficult to explain the erection in Rajasth in of an inscription destined expressly for the clergy of Magadha. Ought we not to consider that magadha should be a synonym of 'Buddhist, based on the place of the origin of the doctrine? If such a use really existed, it would explain, for instance, how Pali ultimately received the name of mdgadhi bhdshá, although it had surely nothing to do with Magadha. This is a mere conjecture which I pat forth subject to all reserves. The old reading abhivadé mátpá)nan must be put aside together with the various conjectures to which it has induced the several interpreters. Neither má nortpá can be made out of what are really only incoherent scratches, whether the stone was from the first defective at that spot or the engraver intended to blot out some letter erroneously begun by himself. I consider that the vowel-sign é has no more reality here than in the above mágadhê. As to this point the fragmentary rabbing of Dr. Hoernle (photographed in the abovementioned paper) is especially decisive. We have consequently to read as I have transcribed abhivadanan áhu... This construction of áha or some equivalent with abhivádana and a double accusative is frequent enough in the phraseology of Buddhistic Sanskrit. I shall only quote one example (Mahavastu, II, 105): STT
TTT FUAT YOU, "and tell my husband my greeting. The meaning here is clear and perfectly satisfactory: the king tells the Sangha his greeting and his wishes.'
2. I find it, I confess, a little rash to have recourse to analogies borrowed from Hindi to explain the form humá. The meaning has, however, been recognised by Dr. Kern, and there can be no further doubt about it. Moreover, the form is not isolated here. Beside the genitive hama. we shall shortly find the instrumental hamiyáyé, which has not hitherto been recognised under the reading painiyayé. Humiyyé is to mamiye (Dh., det. ed., ii. 4), mamiyá (J., det. ed., ii. 6; Col. ed. vii. 7), as hama is to mamu. The two sets of forms are in complete correspondence. We could, strictly speaking, explain their origin, either by a metathesis of maha to hama, which has been afterwards continued in the declension, or by a false analogy with the nominative han. At any rate, we can be certain about the meaning in both cases.
3. The old copy has here the right reading kêchi. The rubbing, however, seems really to have the anuscára.
