________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
230
OLD BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS
Each of these interpretations has its strong and weak points. The strong points of the first interpretation are obvious: (1) the contiguity of the kingdom of Magadha to that of Kalinga; (2) the discovery of two Brāhmi inscriptions as old as the Barābar Hill Cave inscriptions of Asoka and the Hathi-Gumphā inscription of Khāravela enabling us to identify Gorathagiri with the Pravaragiri or Barā bar hills; (3) the exploration of the lingering remains of an ancient enclosure; (1) the local tradition asserting that there was a fortress or stronghold in the Barābar hills; and (5) the Mahābhārata describing the Gorathagiri of Māgadhakşetra as the hill or mountain from which one could have a view of Girivraja or Old Rājagsba, the earlier capital of Magadha. Its weak points are: (1) the Mahābhārata describing Gorathagiri simply as a bill or mountain, and not as a stronghold or fortress; (2) the stone-enclosure and other supposed remains of an ancient fortress being explained also as vestiges of an ancient sbrine, temple or stūpa ; (3) it being inexplicable why, if Pătaliputra were at that time the capital of Magadha and Gorathagiri had served as its first line of defence on the south, Khāravela bad directed his attacks towards Rājagraba, unless it be presumed that the capital had to be removed from Pātaliputra to Rajagpha in fear of an attack from the north as formerly done during the reign of King Munda or that the army of Magadha having bien gradually driven southward, was finally concentrated in Råjagrha.
The strong point of the second interpretation is that it enables us to understand how Khāravela could venture to carry his expeditions into the very heart of Uttarāpatha after having made himself the master of Mathorā even before he planved his attacks on Angu and Magadha. The weak point of it is that there is no other authority but the Ramayana to establish that there was a Rājagļha in the Uttarāpatha as distinguished from Rajagļha, the earlier capital of Magadba.
The strong point of the third interpretation is that it enables us to understand how the king of Pāņdya was compelled to send valuable presents to Khāravela, which is to say, to ackaowledge the supremacy of the king of Kalinga. Its weak point is that there is yet no evidence to prove the identity of the Kekayas with the Rājagahikas. Another point in its favour is that if it could be established, we might have clearly seen that Khāravela turned his attention to Northern India only after he had subdued the powers in the Deccan.
But weighing the matter carefully, we feel that the balance of probablity lies, after all, with the first interpretation, and, to some extent, with the second interpretation. And it follows from either of these two interpretations
For Private And Personal Use Only
