________________
82
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1908.
Thus, if a comparison is made between two inscriptions, one of which is Jaina and the other Buddhist, and which mention the name of the same king and contain dates near enough to allow of comparison, then the difference in the form of the characters would be instantly recognised. The characters of the Jains inscription would appear to be very late modifications of those of the Buddhist one. If the Sarnath inscription of the year 3 (No. 1), which is Buddhist, is compared with the Mathura inscription of the year 4, a Jaina record, the above statement would at once be evident. In fact, it is very difficult to distinguish between Jaina inscriptions of the Kuşana period and those of the Gupta period, but not between Buddhist inscriptions of the Kusana period. The only cause of this is that the Jaina inscriptions of Mathura are in & script which was very much in advance even of the current script of the period. It is very well known that the current script used in every day lift of a period is very much more in advance of the script exhibited on epigrapbical records. Dr. Bühler has already noticed the influence of the current band of the period on Indo-Scythian inscriptions. Most of the Jaina inscriptions mention the particular Gaņa, Kula, and Sākhū to which the donor, belonged, and in particular cases mention is made that the donor was either a Srestbin or Särthaväha 16 so it is extremely probable that these donors of the Indo-Scythian period, like their descendants at the present day, were merchants or traders. Now it is well known that Indian merchants and traders use an extremely cursive script in their daily transactions. The Banias and Modis and the clerks of merchants and big traders at the present day use a script which is very much in advance of the current hand and still more so of that used in print. It is also extremely probable that the Jains merchants and traders of the Indo-Scythian period, in recording their religious donations, used the same script as in their business transactions. This in fact is the only explanation for the presence of later forms in inscriptions of the first and the second century A. D. In this case a difference of 40 or 60 years would not matter very much, and it cannot be held that, if the date of the accession of Kanigka is placed 47 years earlier, it would be less easily reconcilable with palæographical facts, because the later forms which occur in these inscriptions become common two centuries later. If we exclude the Jaina inscriptions we find that the characters of the other inscriptions of this period do not show any marked affinity to those of the inscriptions of the Gupta period. The Jains records of the Kuşans period form a unique series of Indian epigraphs showing very advanced forms of characters, the parallel of which has not as yet been found in India.
I may note here that one at least of the inscriptions of this period is official. This is No. 29 of the list. Nos. 1 and 2 may also be taken as official. No. 1 is decidedly official, as it mentions the name of the two satraps, probably father and son, the Mahākşatrapa Kharapāllana and the Ksatrapa Vanaspars, while the second may also be taken to be an official inscription because the friars Bals and Paşyavaddhi were undoubtedly personages who possessed great influence at the Royal Court; for governors of provinces, however devout they may be, do not take so strong an interest in the gifts of ordinary monks as these two do. I may also note that I cannot agree with Dr. Vogel's interpretation of the relation between the satraps and the monks. Dr. Vogel says : -
The question has been raised how mendicants who have to beg for their food and are not allowed worldly possessions could make donations which would necessarily involve considerable expenditure. Perhaps the Sārnāth inscriptions afford an explanation. We may suppose that the two satraps supplied the necessary funds, but the gift was carried on under the supervision of the friar Bala, who thos was fully justified in calling the gift his own,"16
One of the main points of discussion which necessitated the making of a second Buddhist Council at Vaibali, was whether the monks were to receive gold or silver as gifts or not. Mention is made of monks of Vaiśālī who actually received gold and silver as gifts.17 This proves that the Buddhist monks were not above accepting gold and silver as gifts. Moreover, the inscriptions on the pedestal expressly states: -
(1) Bhikşusya Balasya Trepitakasya Bodhisatvo pratisthäpito
(2) mahākṣatrapena Kharapallānena salā kşatrapena Vanasparena. * B. I, Vol. I, p. 373. ogx. 1., Vol. VIII, p. 178. 11 Rockhill's Life of Buddha, p. 178.
