|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
_____________________________
[1] Kielhorn read correctly the first letters of feet 3 and 4 as taṁ and na respectively, but finding them
indistinct in the impression before him, he suggested nō and saṁ instead, without any cogent justification. He also translated the verse accordingly, for which see Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 144, n, 54. But I
prefer to retain both these letters (taṁ and na), which are quite clear in my impression. The former
of these would mean ‘the celebrated (Yudhishṭhira) on the one side, and ‘the recognised’ (cannot of
dharma) on the other. Kielhorn’s translation ‘that Dhṛitarāshṭra did not oppose Yudhishṭhira’ would
also factually go against the statement of the Mbh. Viz. that he actually did so ‘when he saw his own
race being destroyed’, though not after his family was decimated. Thus the figure of speech applied
here is what is technically called Virōdha and not Virōdhābhasa, as taken by Kielhorn. The reading as
also brings out the significance of the use of the word adbhuta with more force, while its emendation
to saṁ, as suggested by Kielhorn, misses the point almost completely.
[2] Originally  , later on changed to  .
[3] Some letter was first cut before  and subsequently was struck off as redundant.
[4] Here the reference is to the mythical story of Sagara’s sixty thousand sons digging down towards the
Pātāla in search of the sacrificial horse and thus extending the boundaries of the ocean. Cf. R. F.
XIII, v. 3. The name Bailva seems to suggest that the tank was excavated in a spot containing
numerous bilva (Aegle marmelos) trees sacred to Śiva to whom this temple was dedicated.
[5] Originally  , with the mātrā erased later on.
[6] Kielhorn observed that this akshara (tra) is probably engraved below the line, but I do not find it is
my impression. His restoration of the following  to  is not necessary since the
reading here gives the sense of ‘turning away (from the main path)’. The temple referred to in this
verse is obviously the same as described in No. 98. v. 42.
[7] Both the letters of the name are partly abraded but the reading is certain. Kielhorn stated that they
are quite distinct in the best of the impressions’; and, following him. I take it to be the name of the
queen. It may also be observed here that generally a lady is compared to Lakshmī; but the comparison
of this queen with Narmadā may go to suggest that she came from the region where this river was
flowing.
[8] Kielhorn has noted that the letter in the brackets is rather  than  but the present inscription
has a number of instances, e.g., in ll. 25
and 26, where the akshara can distinctly be read as  not 
[9] Read (Sanskrit). By ślēsha this verse is applicable to both Dhaṅga and Kṛishṇa.
[10] The reading of the first aksharas of this verse, from my impression, is exactly as given here, of course
with the exception that the second of
these may also be read as  and also that the third and the
fifth appear to be altered. Read .
[11] Kielhorn read the bracketed akshara as sya and restored it to syā, but the mātrā is marked above the
letter, a small trace of which can be seen
in the photograph.
[12] The mātrā is incised above the letter, resembling a rēpha.
|
