________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
OLD BRĀ MĪ INSCRIPTIONS
1. Prinsep and others read arahamtānam. In Banerji's impression there. appears a vowel-mark, the ā-mark, which may be taken to stand for an i-sign, yielding the reading arihamtānam which, in ardha-Māgadhi or Jaina Prakrit, is just & variant of arahamtānam.
2. Prinsep, Mitra and Indraji read Verena, Indraji wrongly suggests that Airena is not to be found in Pāli or Prakrit. See Liders' List of Brähmi Inscriptions, No. 1276– Aira Utavipabhāhi : No. 1280-Cüla Ayira, Ayira Bhuta-rakhita, Ayira-Budharakhita. See Fausboll's JĀtaka, Vol. VI, p. 300 : Ayiro hi dāsassa janinda issaro. See, also, the Old Oriya Text quoted by Jayaswal, where one finds such expressions as “ Ahiro namo rāja," " Airo jitavân bhavet," " Airah Utkalêsvarah." Banerji reads Kharena, which is out of the question. The first letter is far from being kha. Cunningham, Lüders, Jáyaswal and Sten Konow correctly read Airena.
2(a). Jayaswal finally reads māhāmegha.
3. Prinsep, Mitra, Cunningham, Lüders, Banerji and Jayaswal read Ceta. Rama. prasad Chanda justifies this reading by the evidence of the Vessantara-Jätaka (Fausboll, Vol. VI, pp. 514-528), in which the kings of the Ceta royal family are said to have reigned in Kalinga. Sten Konow reads Ceti, which he thinks is absolutely certain. He says that both Mr. Jayaswal and Dr. Thomas, who have examined the stone, agree to accept it. He maintains that the reading Ceti (=Cedi) is quite in keeping with the adjective rājisi-vamsa-kula-vinisito in L 17 whereby Khāravela claimed to have descended' from an ancient family of royal sages. Locke's cast shows, indeed, a deep cutting on the top of the letter ta, which one may take to be an i-mark. But on a closer examina. tion it appears that this cutting is either due to the flowing of water or may be simply & slit in the rock. Jayaswal finally reads Ceti. I have always been tempted to suggest such a reading as [Ka]limga-rāja-vamsa-vadhanena on these three grounds : (1) That there is the faintest trace of a letter after mahāmeghavāhanena, which is no other than ka; (2) that the letter read as ce looks also like a damaged li; and (3) that the letter read as ta or ti is, strictly speaking ga, the upper vertical line standing on the left arm of the angle rather than on its apex, as it should be, had the letter been ta. The appearance of an apper vertical line with an i-mark may just be due to some mysterious erosion around the anusvāra-mark. See Plate in JBORS, 1927, Vol. XIII, Parts III-IV.
4. Prinsep, Mitra and Cunningham wrongly read kā for rä.
5. Prinsep and Cunningham read chadhanena. Nothing is more likely than the mistaking of the Brāhmi letter va for ca or cha.
6. Prinsep and Cunningham read suke, which is meaningless.
7. Prinsep reads caturamtala-thāna; Ounningham, caturamkala-thana, Jayaswal, caturamtala-thuna, correcting his former reading caturamtala-thuna. I maintain that there is no such word as caturamtala, the usual literary expression being caturanta or caturanto, cf. the classical Pāli expression căturanto-vijitāvi. The fifth letter is clearly ra or lu. The supposed u-mark appearing below tha is nothing but a lower exten. sion of the letter kha or erosion on the inscribed surface of the rock, having no organic connection with the main letter. So I propose to read rakhana or luthana. Jayaswal finally reads caturamtaluthita.
8. Prinsep fancifully reads ganenakha te va. Jeyaswal reads gunopahitona, correcting his former reading gunopagatena, which accorded with the reading proposed by Cunning. ham and Indraji. I accept Chanda's guna-upetena, which serves as an instance, where the two words of a compound are juxtaposed without being combiped according
For Private And Personal Use Only
