Indian Antiquary Vol 48

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 39

ALLEGED SAISUNAGA STATUES
Acho and Vatanardi, but even assuming that the readings are correct, these letters, by themselves, certainly do not lead to the identifications proposed by Mr. Jayaswal; for Acho and Vatanamdi may be merely part of bigger words, as, for example, in the reading proposed by Mr. Chanda. But let us concede that they are independent words, and even further, that they are proper names. Does it necessarily follow that they are to be taken to refer to the Saisunaga Emperors whose names bear real or fancied resemblance to them? The unreliable nature of this argument may be better demonstrated by an example. In Epigraphia Indica, Vol. I, p. 385, we have got the text of an inscription incised on the base of a large statue. Now the word Pushyamitra occurs in this record. Arguing on Mr. Banerji's lines the identification of the statue as that of the founder of the Sunga dynasty may be said to rest on very solid grounds.' The context, however, proves beyond doubt that the word Pushyamitra is the name of a Kula' or family. Again, another record on a statue, published in Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 388, contains the word aya, which is really part of the word ayasa ngamikaya. Is Mr. Banerji prepared to maintain that the identification of the statue with that of king Azes rests on very solid grounds'? The absurdity of these conclusions is too patent, but the position assumed by Mr. Banerji in the case of Saiśunâga statues is of precisely the same type. He reads the inscription on one of these statues as bha (?) ge acho chhoniviko. He cannot explain the rest of the sentence, but simply because there are two letters in it which may be construed as the name of a Saibunâga emperor, he concludes that it is a statue of this illustrious personage:
MARCH, 1919]
35
Next comes the much more important question, do the names Acha and Vatanandi. assuming they are such, really denote any Saiśunâga emperors? Mr. Banerji has assumed that they do, evidently on the authority of Mr. Jayaswal, and as he has not furnished any arguments in support of this assumption, we can only take into consideration those that were put forward by the latter (p. 97). Now there is no monarch called 'Aja 'in the Puranic list of Saisunaga kings as one may satisfy himself by looking at Pargiter's Purana Text, pp. 20-22, but Mr. Jayaswal maintains that the Bhâyavata Purana gives Aja in place of Udayin, and that it refers to Namdivardhana as son of Aja (Ajeya). As a matter of fact, however, the Purana does no such thing. In the first place the Bhagavata Purana has Ajayaḥ smṛital which means 'remembered as Ajaya (invincible)' and not Aja (unborn); and Mr. Jayaswal's attempt to split up ajayaḥ into aja and yah is inadmissible on two grounds. First, it violates grammatical rules, the correct form being ajo yah. Secondly, the corrupt variant readings in the Vishnu Purana such as anaya, danaya, etc., seem to show that the word really consisted of three syllables, as Mr. Jayaswal himself argued elsewhere, in order to find out the true form of the name Oraka."
Mr. Jayaswal's second assertion that Nam divardhana is called son of Aja in the Bhagavata Purana is equally unhappy. The word used is Ajeya, which according to ordinary rules of grammar cannot yield the mea ning 'son of Aja', but son of Ajeya', which, like Ajaya, means invincible. Mr. Jayaswal's reference to Pânini is indeed unfortunate. "The Subhra group," says he, "contains many proper names out of which Aja seems to be one." The one name in the group which makes any near approach to it is, however, ajavasti. Is Mr. Banerji prepared to maintain, along with Mr. Jayaswal, that this should be split up into aja and vasti? Mr. Jayaswal has further sought to strengthen his position by a reference to the Pradyota list, but all his arguments are of no value so long as he cannot independently establish a king Aja in the Saisunaga list, and in this, as we have seen, he has completely failed.
9JBORS., 1917, p. 474.