________________
APRIL, 1902.]
INSORIPTIONS OF MAHANAMAN.
198
This contrast is not noticed by Dr. Fleet in either of his editions. The two inscriptions prenent an equally strong contrast in the manner in which they name Mabankman.
The long record gives the donor of the tomple no title, and describes him as a disciple of Upasens (II.). The short record gives the donor of the image the special clerical title of Sthavira, and calls him 'a Sakya friar' (Sakya bhikshoh). Why should we assume these two Mabangmans to be identical? The identity of name is nothing. Mahânâman was a common name for monks in Ceylon, and two persons of that name are mentioned in the longer of the two documents under discussion, The two donors are differently described in the two documents, and the presumption is that they are different persons. If they were identical why should pure pandit's Sanskrit be used in the one inscription, and Prakritized Sansk pit in the other?
The occurrence of both inscriptions at Bodh-Gayê is no proof of identity. There is no improbability in supposing that two Mahânâmans from Ceylon may have performed pious acts at the holiest of Buddhist holy places. It is quite possible that the donor of the image may have been the Mahânâman who was the spiritual grandfather of the builder of the temple. The only substantial argument for identifying the two donors is the palæograpbical one. Dr. Fleet was of opinion that the characters of the short dedication allot it to precisely the same time' as the longer dated record. Certainly, if there is any difference in the characters, it is very slight, and the two records belong substantially to the same palæographical stage of development, but there is nothing to prevent one from being fifty years older than the other. To my eye the short record looks the earlier of the two. The words Amradvipádhivdoi and Mahdndmá in the longer document may be compared with Amradvipa-vasi and Mahåndmasya in the shorter.
My conclusion is that the two doouments, although nearly contemporaneous, aro records not of one donor, but of two donors. In the remaining discussion I shall therefore confine my attention to the long dated dooument, of wbich the substance has been given at the beginning of this article.
Dr. Fleet went too far when he said that there is a "probability " that the donor of the temple at Bodh-Gayâ should be identified with the MahkoAman, who is the reputed author of the earlier part of the Mabávama. The exact date of the author of the Mahůvamsa is not known. Turnour supposed that Mahanaman's contribution to that work was written in the reign of Dhatu - Bêna which he placed in the period A. D. 459 to 477. But Turaour's arguments are not conclusive. The earlier chapters of the Mahảvamsa appear to be not very much later than the Dipava ise, and may bave been written as early as A. D. 400. The date, 269, of the inscription cannot possibly be interpreted so as to place the donor of the temple in approximately A. D. 400, and the Less identifying the donor with the author of the Mahavah'sa must be rejeoted. It never bad any foundation except the identity of name, which is of no significance, the name being • common one in Ceylon. When writing the text of The Gupta Inscriptions' Dr. Fleet had no doubt' that the date of the inscription, 269, must be referred to the Gupta era, and be considered equivalent to A, D. 588-589. Dr. Bühler adopted this date and inserted it in his Indische Palæographie.' When compiling the index to his great work Dr. Fleet admitted a doubt
to the era used in the insoription and suggested that it right perhaps' be the Kalaahuri era, of which the epoch is A. D. 248-49. On that hypothesis the date A. D. would be 518. It is not very easy to understand why « Ceylonese monk on a visit to Gayê should use the era of the Kalachuri princes of Chedi, in the region nop known as the Central Provinces, and I think that the Kalachuri interpretation may be safely rejected as being highly improbable.
The Gupta interpretation is much more probable. The use of the Gupta era at Gayê in A. D. 588 involves no improbability, and in the opinion both of Dr. Fleet and of Dr. Bühler the characters of the inscription are consistent with this interpretation.
M. Bylvain Levi's Chinese studies have led him to reject the intorpretation approved by Fleet and Bühler, and to propose to treat the inscription as dated in the Saks ers of A, D. 78. The record according to his view was composed in the year A. D. 347. This bold proposal
