|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
_________________________
1 A dot above the first of these aksharas is probably due to a redundant stroke of the chisel, as some
others in this inscription, or it may have been due to the fault in the stone. Taking the letters as with
the anusvāra, the editor of the Ep. Ind. remarked that the intended reading seems to be  , i.e., handful ; but recording to M. Williams, it is for āchamana on for rinsing the month. Moreover, the
Śāstras lay down that water is poured on an image by a pot (gaḍuka) and (not from the palm).
Katare agrees with me in reading the word as I have done here.
2 This akshara is wrongly engraved as  .
3 The letters lost here may have been  , as to be restored from the traces, as also read by Katare
4 It is also possible that the intended reading here may have been  : = he, by name.
5 This and the following sibilant show a combination of the dental and the palatal sibilants,
Dr. Sircar
translated the expression in “the Śaivas headed by the Pāśupata āchāryas and vārikas, i.e., temple
superintendents like the Paṇḍās of today”, for which see op. cit., p. 164, n. 1. Our remark on the
word vārika may be seen in No. 83 where too it occurs.
6 I take yēna as an example of Hētau tṛitīyā and the correction in the brackets is as suggested by Dr. Sircar.
7 Both these letters are indistinct in the impression but the latter appears as a conjunct consonant.
8 The akshara in the brackets has altogether disappeared and the reading is only from the traces left
Katare suggested dhi but my reading of it is more suitable.
9 Read  The superscript is perhaps t, wrongly engraved.
10 The sign of anusvāra above ya, which was wrongly engraved at first, appears to have been struck off
subsequently.
11 Here the aksharas appear to be as , but nothing can be made out of them. It is possible
that a portion of the v. in l. 15, which could not be accommodated in this little space, is given below,
which Katare took as a marginal note, though he has not pointed out its exact fitting, it is also
possible that this half of the verse has to be completed by what is engraved in l. 17, after the portion
containing the date, which, in this case, has to be taken as a paranthesis, and it would then give us
the name of the engraver as  . In fact, the whole of this portion is so
carelessly engraved and is
also damaged that nothing can be said with certainly, and the suggestions made here should all be
taken as tentative.
12 Both these aksharas are lost, leaving only traces. 13 In this notice of the inscription in A. S. I., A. R., 1935-36, p. 93, Chakravarti took two
maṇḍapas constructed by Vāsudeva, but this sense does not fit in the record. He appears to have taken the word in
neuter dual, but it is
masculine. The use of sati also shows that it is one (and not two), and the
word is in the locative absolute. Also read  .
14 The daṇḍas are redundant.
15 Katare read  , for which see my remarks in the article above.
16 This letter is again damaged and the reading is doubtful.
|
