________________
facsimile) to match that, Cunningham's lithograph and reading show sacavasā followed by two illegible syllables... And, if we follow Cunningham's lithograph, we may understand that the words, as written, represent paņnatt-ariyasacca...., and that the reference is to texts propounding some Jain ariyasaccāni, analogous to the cattări ariyasaccăni, "the four sublime truths', of the Buddhists. Fleet's contention that there is no date in the inscription was endorsed by Luders and Charpentier', while Jayaswal and Banerji have adopted the view of Bhagwanlal Indraji that it is dated in the Maurya era, though they differ from him in their readings of the text. It is of little interest to mention the interpretation given by Mr. Jayaswal in his first note, because he has himself abandoned it. In his second paper he reads as follows in 1.16 : Pațālikocatare ca vedūriyagabhe thambhe patithāpayati pānatariyā satasahasehi. Muriyakālam vochimnam (-nem?) ca coyathiagasatikam-tariyam upādāyati, which he translates: 'on the lower roofed terrace (i.e., in the verandah) he establishes columns inlaid with bery) at the cost of 75 hundred-thousand (paņas). He (the king) completes the Muriya time (era), counted, and being of an interval of sixty-four with a century.' I understand that Mr. Banerji agrees with Mr. Jayaswal, whose views have further been endorsed by the late Mr. Vincent Smith, 'n Professor G. Jouveau-Dubreuil," and Mr. K.G. Sankara Aiyar, 12 while they have been opposed by other scholars such as R.C. Majumdar!) and Ramaprasad Chandra!“, who both maintain that the date would, if Mr. Jayaswal were right, be expressed in a very extraordinary way. Mr. Ramaprasad further objects that Khāravela, who was not a Maurya but a Ceta, could not naturally be supposed to have used a Maurya era, and that paleographical considerations point to the first half of the first century B.C. as Khāravela's date. He also informs us that Sir John Marshall's is of opinion that the sculptures in the Mañcapuri Cave, in the upper store of which the inscription of Khāravela's queen is incised', belong to a date considerably posterior to the sculptures at Bharhut. Those latter ones Sir John assigns to the middle of the second century B.C., so far as the railing of the stūpa is concerned while those on the gateway are said to belong to a later date.
92 C
-
Het w Bia 131
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
