|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
Rama[1] who made the image of Nīlakaṇṭha.[2] And with the date, as discussed above, the inscription
comes to a close.
TETX[3]
[1] It is not known whether the prefix śrī is a part of the name.
[2] Here too the language is ambiguous, as throughout the inscription. Some of these points will be discussed in the text below. But the record is not of any historial importance. Rāma is the same person
as mentioned in No. 110, l. 18, above.
[3] From a rubbing.
[4] Expressed by a symbol.
[5] Cunningham read this akshara without the mātrā which is clear in the impression before me.
[6] There are traces to show that tra was first incised at the end of this line but probably scored off and
written in the next line.
[7] Maisey read and second letter of the name as lu but what he took as the sign of the mātrā is a badly
formed ha. We have no mātrā-sign of this type throughout the record. See suta which is just the
next word.
[8] The first of the epithets used here is a Prakrit form of sādhanika which means a general; and the implication of the second is not known to me, though the reading is absolutely certain. Maisey read
 but it is not vouchsafed by the rubbing before me. The third akshara is ṇi and
not si; for the form of the consonant ṇ, cf. parāyaṇa in l. 3. It again cannot be definitely said whether
the sign denoting the medial ā was engraved at the end of the line so as to read kumāra-.
[9] Cunningham read this akshara without the sign of mātrā which has faintly come out.
[10] The Sanskrit form of this word is Vatsarāja. After this name there is a floral design where Maisey sees
letters reading them as Dēvaśrī, and following it, his transcript gives  :, which I do
not find in the rubbing.
[11] The first akshara in the line has totally disappeared and has been adopted here from Cunningham’s
reading. Maisey read here nitya, as stated in the preceding note, but the space shows that only one and
not two letters could have been accommodated here.
[12] The reading of the bracketed letter, which also seems to have been ja, is uncertain. In that case the
name would be Jaüdana. It may
also be noted that the names are all without case-ending but they are
separated by the daṇḍas.
[13] The reading of both these aksharas is from the traces left and therefore uncertain. Cunningham read
both these letters as Badrī and
Maisey read the whole expression as  :
which is merely fanciful.
[14] The reading of this and the preceding akshara is uncertain. The reading of the name Lakshmīdhara
is certain but it is
doubtful whether this was the name of the deity or of the mason. The language is
very defective here, as stated above. Moreover, it may also
be observed that
the two deities Lakshmī-
dhara and Śānti can in no way be connected.
[15] Here Maisey read  (for  and this reading may be adopted. But I do not find
the space to accommodate the last three letters.
[16] The vertical of the mātrā of this akshara may have been on the original but lightly engraved.
it could not come in the rubbing.
|
