VII. On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum
by Professor H. Luders
Excerpt from The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Pp. 153-179
1912
H. Luders, ‘On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (UK) 1912, fn., p. 167. Fuhrer was then Assistant Editor (to Burgess) on the Epigraphia Indica...
Luders neglects to mention that Fuhrer had supplied Buhler with the details of these and other inscriptions – almost 400 in all – for Buhler’s assessment in the Epigraphia Indica, and epigraphists will now have the unenviable task of establishing the authenticity of these items. Immediately following Fuhrer’s exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Fuhrer’s supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental.
-- Lumbini On Trial: The Untold Story. Lumbini Is An Astonishing Fraud Begun in 1896, by T. A. Phelps
-- The Piprahwa Deceptions: Set-ups and Showdown, by T.A. Phelps
-- The Buddha and Dr. Fuhrer: An Archaeological Scandal, by Charles Allen -- Alois Anton Führer, by Wikipedia -- Georg Bühler, by Wikipedia -- Epigraphia Indica, by Wikipedia
-- Monograph On Buddha Shakyamuni's Birth-Place: The Nepalese Tarai, by Alois Anton Fuhrer
VII. On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum
by Professor H. Luders
In a recent number of the Ep. Ind., vol. x, p. 106 ff., Mr. R. D. Banerji has edited twenty-one Brahmi inscriptions of the “Scythian” period, of which nine had been already published by him, under the name of R. D. Bandhyopadhyaya, in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, N.S., vol. v, pp. 243 f., 271 ff. We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to him for making these records accessible, although the way in which he has acquitted himself of his task cannot meet with unreserved praise. I do not undervalue the difficulties which beset these inscriptions. I know that it cannot be expected that the first reading and interpretation of an inscription of this class should be always final. But what may be reasonably expected, and what, I am sorry to say, is wanting in Mr. Banerji’s paper, is that carefulness and accuracy that have hitherto been a characteristic feature of the publications in the Epigraphia Indica. It would be a tedious and wearisome business to correct almost line for line mistakes that might have been easily avoided with a little more attention. The following pages will show that this complaint is not unjustified.
All the twenty-one inscriptions are in the Provincial Museum of Lucknow. Of eight of them the find-place is unknown; nine are, or are said to be, from Mathura; while four are assigned by Mr. Banerji with more or less confidence to Ramnagar. Among the Mathura inscriptions there are three, No. 7 = B, 42;1 [B refers to my “List of Brahmi Inscriptions” in Ep. Ind., vol. x, appendix, where the full bibliography is given.] No. 10 = B, 66; No. 11 = B, 75, which were previously edited by Buhler. As far as the dates are concerned, Mr. Banerji's readings are undoubtedly an improvement on those of his predecessor (astapana instead of 40 4 hana in No. 7, hamava 1 instead of hana va 1 in No. 10, sam 90 9 and di 10 6 instead of sam 90 5 and di 10 8 in No. 11). But the rest of his new readings seems to me only partly correct. I will quote here only one point which is linguistically interesting. In No. 11 the name of the nun at whose request the gift was made, read Dhama[tha]ye by Buhler, is read Dhama[si]r[ i]ye by Mr. Banerji, who adds that the reading of the third syllable is certain though the crossbar of the sa is not distinct in the impression. Mr. Venkayya has already remarked in a note that in the plate the reading appears to be Dhamadharaye. The impression before me leaves no doubt that it really is Dharmadharaye. This is a new instance of the lengthening of an a before r + consonant in the Mathura dialect, on which I have commented, Bruchstucke Buddhistischer Dramen, p. 31.
Of the rest of the Mathura inscriptions, No. 2 = B, 88, and No. 6 = B, 52, were brought to notice by Growse, and No. 13 = B, 140, by Dowson; No. 14 = B, 109, was read by Mr. V. A. Smith; No. 18 was mentioned by Buhler, Ep, Ind., vol. ii, p. 311. I will pass over Nos. 2, 6, and 18, as I have no impressions of them. But of the very interesting inscription No. 13, which is engraved on a large slab of red sandstone, there is an impression among the materials collected by Dr. Hoernle for the intended second volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. It is not a very good one, but it is nevertheless very valuable as it was taken at a time when the inscription was in a more complete state than at present. I read it: —
1. . . .apavane1 Srikunde2 svake3 vihare Kakatikanam pacanah niyatakah4 nanatra vastussi5 samkkalayitavyah sanghaprakitehi vyavaharihi upathapito yesam ni[pa]6.
2. . . [ya]7 -- Sthavarajatra— B[u]d[dh]araksita— Jivasiri — Buddhadasa — Sangharaksita
3. — Dhammavarmma8 — Buddhadeva — Akhila9
1. Bn. navan[e]. As to the first letters, the impression entirely differs from the collotype. The impression reads as above, but the vowel of the lost aksara may have been an o of which only the right half is preserved. Above the last aksara there is a short stroke which I should take to be meant for the anusvara if this were not grammatically impossible.
2. Bn. reads Srikande, adding that ‘‘the word may he taken to be kanthe". This, of course, is impossible as the nde is just as distinct as the u of ku.
3. Bn. reads stake, adding that the word may be read as svaka. The reading svake is beyond doubt.
4. On this word Bn. makes a note which really seems to apply to the ya. However, it is superfluous as there is no e-stroke at the top of the ya. The two large horizontal strokes left unnoticed by Bn. I take to be the anusvara, though they are rather below the line.
5. Bn. has wrongly separated these words. Perhaps the true reading is vastussi.
6. The last aksara is uncertain. It may have been also ha or la.
7. The ya is mutilated and uncertain.
8. Bn. Dharmma°, but the a-stroke is distinct; cf. above, p. 154.
9. Bn. su[kha]la. The vowel-sign of the kha undoubtedly is i.
Mr. Banerji has not translated this inscription, because "it contains some peculiar words''. I venture to offer a translation, although owing to the mutilated state of the inscription the connexion between the first and the second line is not clear, and moreover the exact meaning of some terms cannot yet be settled —
"The fixed cooking-place of the Kakatikas, not to be put up in any other house, . . . in the grove ... at Srikunda (Srikunda), in their own Vihara, has been set up by the merchants entrusted with (taking care of) the Order, whose . . . Sthavarajatra, Buddharaksita, Jivasiri (Jivasri), Buddhadasa, Sangharaksita, Dharmmavarmma (Dharmavarman), Buddhadeva, Akhila . . . "
The pacana which forms the object of the donation apparently is the slab itself, and I do not see how the word can have any other meaning but ''cooking-place", although the Sanskrit dictionaries assign that meaning only to pacana as a neuter. The words nanatra vastussi samkkalayitavyah, which apparently stand in contrast to niyatakah, seem to represent Sanskrit nanyatra vastuni samkalayitavyah, but I am by no means sure that in translating them I have hit the right meaning. The term occurs several times in the Buddhist inscriptions of Mathura edited by Dr. Vogel in the Catalogue of the Archaeological Museum at Mathura.
Probably the names in lines 2 and 3 are the names of these sanghaprakrtas. It is more dificult to say who is meant by Kakatikanam. I take this to be a proper name, and as a cooking-place in a Vihara can hardly be intended for anybody but the monks living there, Kakatika would seem to be the name of those monks, though I cannot say why they were called so. Srikunda, where the Vihara was situated, is mentioned as the name of a tirtha in the Mahabharata (iii, 5028), but, of course, it does not follow that the two localities are identical.
No. 14, incised on the waistband of a female figure, was read by Mr. Banerji: —
1. Pusabalaye dane Dhama-
2. vadhakasa [bha]yaye
But in the impression as well as in the plate the first word is clearly Pusabalaye (= Pusyabalayah) and the last bharyaya.
We next turn to the inscriptions of unknown origin. Nos, 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21. In No. 3, incised on the base of a Jaina image, the arrangement of the lines is irregular. It seems that it was intended at first to record only the gift and that the statement about the nivartana was added afterwards to the left. I read the inscription from an impression: —
1. siddham sam 9 he 3 di 10 Grahamitrasya dhitu Avasirisya1 vadhue Kalalasya2
2. kutubiniye3
3. Grahapalaye4 dati — 5
4. Koleyato6 ganato7
5. Thaniyato kulato Vairato8 [sakha]to
6. Arya-Taraka[s]ya9
7. [n]iva[r]tana
1. Bn. reads Sivasirisya and adds that “the first syllable of the word Sivasiri may also be read as Avasiri" [sic!]. The first syllable of the word is undoubtedly a.
2. Bn. reads vadhu Ekradalasya and remarks that the last word may also be Ekradalasya, There is certainly no subscript ra, but there is a small horizontal stroke which makes the ka almost look like kka. As, however, the word cannot begin with a double consonant, it is apparently accidental. The second letter of the word is la; see my paper on the lingual la in the Northern Brahmi script, above 1911, pp. 1081 ff.
3. Bn. kutu[m]biniye, but there is no trace of the anusvara.
4. Bn. Gahapalaye. The subscript ra is quite distinct, but there is no a-stroke attached to the la.
5. Bn. does not take any notice of the sign of punctuation.
6. Bn. Kottiyato. Cf. note 2 above.
7. Bn. ganato. There is no trace of the a-stroke.
8. Bn. Thaniyato kulato Vair[a]to. There is not the slightest trace of an a-stroke in the three words.
9. Bn. Tar[ i]ka[s]ya. The i-sign is not visible in the impression.
“Hail! In the year 9, in the 3rd month of winter, on the 10th day, the gift of Grahapala (Grahapala), the daughter of Grahamitra, the daughter-in-law of Avasiri (Avasri), the wife of Kalala, at the request of the venerable Taraka out of the Koleya gana, the Thaniya (Sthaniya) kula, the Vaira (Vajra) sakha."
Of the short inscription between the feet of the statue I have no impression. It seems to refer to Grahapala and to characterize her as the pupil of some Jaina monk.
No. 5 is engraved on the pedestal of a Jaina statue. I read it from an impression: —
1. maharajasya Huveksasya1 savacara2 40 8 va 2 d[ i] 10 7 etasya puvayam K[o]l[ i]ye gana3 Bama4 . .
2. [si]ye k[u]le5 Pacanagariya6 sakhaya7 Dhanavalasya8 sisiniya9 Dhanasiriya10 nivatana
3. Budhikasya11 vadhuye12 Savatratapotriya13 Yasaya14 dana15 Sa[m]b]havasya prodima pra-
4. t[ i]stapita17
1. Bn. Huvaksasya, but the e-stroke is quite distinct.
2. Bn. sa[m]vacar[e]. There is no trace of the anusvara in the impression, and the last letter is distinctly ra.
3. Bn. K[otti]ye [gane]. Regarding the first word see note 2 on p. 157. The last letter is clearly na, not ne, though gane, of course, would be the correct form. Above the line, between the ye and the ga, there is a small ta. Perhaps the engraver intended to correct Koliye gana into the ordinary Koliyato ganato, but gave the task up again.
4. The ma is missing in the impression, but distinct on the plate. Read Bamada.
5. The ku is very small and has been inserted afterwards.
6. Bn. °nagariye, but there is no trace whatever of the e-stroke. Read Ucanagariya.
7. Bn. sakaya. This certainly was the original reading, but the ka has been altered afterwards to kha.
8. Bn. Dhujhavalas[yal The second letter is as clearly as possible na, and there can be only a doubt whether the small stroke at the top is to be read as a or not. The first letter may be dhu, but as the prolongation of the vertical line in the dha occurs again in Budhikasya, where it cannot denote u, and as Dhunavalasya would be an etymologically unaccountable form, I am convinced that it is dha.
9. Bn. sisin[ i]y[e], but the e-stroke is quite improbable.
10. Bn. Dh[ujhas]iriy[e]. The remarks on the first two aksaras of Dhanavalasya apply also to the first two aksaras of this word. There is no e-stroke on the ya.
11. Bn. [Bu]dhukasya. See note 8; the i-stroke is distinct.
12. Bn. vadhuye. The a-stroke of va is perfectly clear.
13. Bn. Savatrana(?)potr[ i]y[e]. The a-stroke of tra is distinct. The fourth aksara is clearly ta; cf. e.g. the word nivatana. There is no e-stroke on the ya.
14. Bn. Yasay[e]. There is no e-stroke on the ya.
15. Bn. dana. The a-stroke is distinct.
16. Bn. protima, but the second aksara is undoubtedly di; pro, of course, is a mistake for pra.
17. Bn. °ta(ti)stape(pi)ta. The i-stroke of ti is rather indistinct.
"In the year 48, in the 2nd month of the rainy season, on the 17th day, of maharaja Huveksa, on that (date specified as) above, at the request of Dhanasiri (Dhanayasri), the female pupil of Dhanavala (Dhanyavala) in the Koliya gana, the Bama[da*]siya (Brahmadasika) kula, the Pacanagari (Uccanagari) sakha, an image of Sambhava was set up as the gift of Yasa, the daughter-in-law of Budhika, the granddaughter of Savatrata (Sivatrata ?)."
Mr. Banerji takes Pacanagari as a Prakrit form of Vajranagari. Leaving aside the phonetical difficulties, this interpretation is impossible as the Vajranagari, or rather Varjanagari, sakha is a subdivision of the Varana gana, not of the Koliya gana. There can be no doubt that Pacanagariya is a mistake of the engraver for Ucanagariya.
The remaining inscriptions of unknown origin are but small fragments. No. 12, which consists of but two words and a half, is correctly read. No. 15, incised on the fragment of a slab, is read by Mr. Banerji: —
Gosalasya dhita Mitraye [danam*]
Linguistically and palaeographically the form Gosalasya is striking. In sa, ta, tra, the a is expressed by a long slanting line, whereas in sya the sign would seem to consist of a short and perfectly vertical stroke. Now, on the reverse of the two impressions before me just this stroke is entirely invisible, whereas the rest of the inscription is quite distinct. I have therefore no doubt that it is only an accidental scratch. Why, at the end, danam should be supplied instead of danam, is unintelligible to me. I read: —
Gosalasya dhita Mitraye ...
"[The gift] of Mitra, the daughter of Gosala.’’
Of Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 21, I have no impressions. But in the case of No. 19 even the collotype is sufficient to show that Mr. Banerji’s readings are incorrect. He reads: —
1. . . . sya [v]rta Ku[tu]kasya ku[tu][mbini*] . . .
2. . . . na putrehi dhitihi natti pau[ttrehi*] . . .
The collotype shows: —
1. . . . sya . rtakundakasya kutu ...
2. . . . na putrehi dhitihi nattipau ...
"... of the wife of [Gh]rtakundaka, . . . sons, daughters, daughter’s sons (or great-grandsons ?) and son’s sons ...”
It is extremely unlikely that the second aksara of the first line should have been vr, as the base of the letter is far too long for a va. Nor will it appear likely to anybody familiar with these inscriptions that the husband of the donatrix should bear the epithet "the chosen” as supposed by Mr. Banerji. I would restore the name to Ghrtakundaka.
On No. 20 Mr. Banerji remarks— "The inscription is of some interest as it contains the number 800 expressed both in words and by numerical symbols, viz. by the symbols for 8 and 100 [sic!]." This statement refers to the second line of the fragment, which runs —
. . . n = astasata 100 8 gandhi . . .
The two symbols are not joined in any way, and it therefore appears to me impossible that they should represent 800. The term astasata is ambiguous. It certainly may mean 800, but just as well it may mean 108, as proved by the passages quoted in the PW. sub voce astan. Under these circumstances I cannot admit that we have here an instance of the symbol for 800.
***
The most important inscriptions, from an historical point of view, would seem to be that group which is supposed to come from Ramnagar. Before we can discuss them, it will be necessary to enter into the history of the Ramnagar excavations, though I do so reluctantly. It certainly is an unpleasant task, but it must be performed as we cannot allow science to be led astray by statements which apparently are not true.
In the Progress Report of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh for 1891-2, Epigraphical Section, Dr. Fuhrer gives a short account of the excavations at Ramnagar in the Bareli District. He first describes the remains of two Saiva temples. With these we are not concerned here, as no inscriptions were found in them. He then speaks of the excavation of a mound which "brought to light the foundation of a brick temple, dedicated to Parsvanatha, . . . dating from the Indo-Scythic period”. These statements rest on epigraphical finds about which Fuhrer says — During the course of the excavations a great number of fragments of naked Jaina statues were exhumed, of which several are inscribed, bearing dates ranging from Samvat 18 to Samvat 74, or A.D. 96 to 152. An inscription on the base of a sitting statue of Neminatha records the following: — 'Success! The year 50, second month of winter, first day, at that moment, a statue of divine Neminatha was set up in the temple of the divine lord Parsvanatha as a gift of the illustrious Indrapala for the worship of the Arhats and for the welfare and happiness of the donor's parents and of all creatures.”'
In my opinion there can be no doubt that this inscription has been invented by the author of the Report. The date has been copied from the Mathura inscription Ep. Ind., vol. ii, p. 209, No. 36, which is dated [sam.] 50 he 2 di 1 asya purvvaya. The name of the donor and the phrase “for the worship of the Arhats” have been taken from the Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind., vol, ii, p. 201, No. 9, which records the gift of Idrapala (Indrapala), the son of a Goti (Gaupti), for the worship of the Arhats. And the phrase “for the welfare and happiness of the donor's parents and of all creatures" has probably been taken from the Buddhist Kaman inscription, Ep. Ind., vol. ii. p. 212, No. 42, which ends: matapitrnam sarvvasa[ta]na ca hitasukharttha, “for the welfare and happiness of (the donors) parents and of all creatures" (Buhler's translation).
The account of the excavation of the Jaina mound is followed by the description of “another extensive mound, . . . which on exploration was found to hide the remains of a very large Buddhist monastery, called Mihiravihara, and dating from the middle of the first century A.D. . . . Externally the temple was decorated with elaborate brick carvings and numerous figures of terra-cotta, representing scenes from the life of Buddha, some of which bear short inscriptions and masons' marks. . . . An inscription on the base of a terra-cotta statue of Buddha records the following: — ‘Success! In the year 31 (A.D. 109), in the first month of the rainy season, on the tenth day, at that moment, a statue of divine Sakyamuni was set up within the precincts of the Mihiravihara as a gift of the monk Nagadatta, for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadin teachers, for the welfare and happiness of the donor’s parents and of all creatures.'"
In this case, also, the document supposed to give evidence for the name and the date of the building has been manufactured by Fuhrer. The date comes from the Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind,, vol. ii, pp. 202 f., No. 15, which is dated sa 30 1 va 1 di 10. The rest, with the exception of the name of the donor, is an almost literal copy of the Kaman inscription just mentioned, or rather of Buhler's translation of that inscription: “ . . . at that moment, a statue of divine Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni, was set up as) the gift of the monk Nandika in the Mihiravihara, for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadi (Sarvastivadin) teachers, for the welfare and happiness of (the donor's) parents and of all creatures."