Old Bramhi Inscriptions In Udaygiri And Khandagiri

SR No.: 020516
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Benimadhab Barua
Publisher: University of Calcutta
Publication Year: 1929
Total Pages: 354
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 55

INSCRIPTION OF KHĀRAVELA
13. Prinsep reada samathaghisipa; Cunningham, sa matha ghisipā; Indraji, samatha. thapatihi; Jayaswal, samuthäpitähi.
14. Prinsep reads anakayā janahi pihi; Cunningham, anake yojanā piti ghi; Indraji, aneka-yojan ähi; Jayagwal correctly, aneka-yojanähitâhi.
15. Prinsep reads the five letters of which there are traces as pa .. ra; Cunningham, as pa.. pipe. Indraji and Jayaswal wisely leave a blank space. Jayaswal finally reads pa, sio.
16, 17. There can hardly be any doubt about the given reading. 18. Prinsep reads silaha; Jayaswal, silāhi, correcting his former reading silahi.
19, 20, 21. Prinsep reads sa papatha dhara si dhasayani nāni; Cunningham, bhagapatha... dhadayana; Jayaswal, Simhapatha-Rañiya Dhusiya nisayāni, correcting his former reading sappatha... Jayaswal finally reads räni Sidhudāya.
22, The beginning piece of L 16 is missing.
23. Prinsep reads patalake; Jayaswal, pataliko. Cunningham and Indraji read pațălake. Jayaswal finally reads ghamtālakto.
24. Prinsep reads catapa; Cunningham, catara; Indraji, Cetake; Jayaswal correctly, catare.
25. Prinsep and Cunningham read ce; others, ca.
26. Prinsep reads veruriya ; Cunningham, teghariya. Indraji is the first to correctly read veduriya.
27. Pringop and Cunningham read gabha, Indraji and Jayaswal correctly, gabhe. 28. Prinsep and Indraji read thabhe; Cunningham and Jayagwal, thambhe.
29. Prinsep reads patipa-yati; Cunningham, patitha payati. Indraji and Jayaswal correctly read patithāpayati.
30. Prinsep reads panatanusa ; Cunningham and Indraji read pamnatariya. Jayaswal reads panatariya, correcting his former reading panamatariya. In Sten Konow's opinion panatariya is the correct reading.
31. Prinsep reads saca. . raja ; Cunningham, sa ca vasa; Indraji, sathi-vasa-sate rāja ; Sten Konow, sacasahite, partly accepting and partly modifying Fleet's reading pamnatariya sacasata ; Jayaswal, sata-sahasehi, correcting his former reading sathi-vasa-sata Räja. Jayaswal has, I believe, placed the reading beyond all dispute.
32. Prinsep reads -riya; Cunningham, ...ya; Indraji, Muriya ; Jayaswal, too, Muriya. Banerji also offers the reading Muriya. Sten Konow thinks that the reading Muriya is certain. Where is the certainty of such a reading ? None need be misled by Banerji's impression. Locke's plaster cast shows that the stone has been peeled off just where some letter was engraved, presenting a socket, which is apt to delude the eye with the appearance of a ma or mu, or to come out in an estampage as a ma or mu. His cast also shows that there is a short space after sahasehi, just enough for engraving one letter. I have carefully examined this space where I find the faint trace of a letter, which is no other than ve. The same has also been made out froin one of the two impressions within my access. See Pl. I in J BORS, 1927, Vol. XIII, Parts III-IV. The letter lost or obscured in the socket is found to be, both in Locke's cast, rather du than ma or mu,
33. Prinsep reads la; Cunningham, kala, Indraji, käle; Fleet, too, kāle, Jayaswal, kalam, correcting his former reading kale or kāle. I doubt very much if the first letter can be read as ka or kā. I say it is not at all ka or ka. Locke's cast clearly shows how