Kanheri Cave 21 Verandah Inscription
Version: (587d8eb), last modified (19df65b).
Edition
⟨1⟩ sidhaṃ |||
⟨2⟩ raño gotamiputasa sāmisiriyañas(a)takaṇi⟨⟨sa⟩⟩ savachar(e) 104 gi-
⟨3⟩ mh(ā)ṇa pakh(e) 1 d(i)vas(e) 5 _ kāl(i)yaṇavāṭhavasa _ negamasa _ (Ā)ṇa-
⟨4⟩ daputasa _ U(pā)sakasa _ Apareṇusa _ saparivārasa _ sah(ā)
⟨5⟩ kuḍubiṇiya _ Āṇaṃdamātu(k)āv(ā)riṇikāya _ sahā b(ā)la(ke)na _ (Ā)ṇaṃd(e)ṇa
⟨6⟩ saha ca suṇh(ā)hi _ (A)ṇa[dena mā](t)[u]l(eṇa) s(a)ha ca _ dhāmadevāya
⟨7⟩ saha (ca) sa□(ve)ṇa _ Ahavi Āpano _ Āmāpitār(o) _ Udise
⟨8⟩ pāvate kāṇhase□le _ leṇaṁ _ koḍhi ca _ deyadhāmaṁ _ cā(t)udise
⟨9⟩ bh(i)khusaghe _ padiṭhāpitaṃ _ sāvasa□taṇ(i) hitasughatha <svastikaLeft>-
⟨10⟩ Etasa ca Akhayanivi datā kāhāpaṇāna(ṃ) satāni be 200-
⟨11⟩ saghasa yeva hathe paḍike sate Etha ca Ādhapaṇaṁ
⟨12⟩ khetayasa kheta gāme magalaṭh(ā)□ne bhojā kapati Eto
⟨13⟩ sa(ṁ)ghaṇa _ dātava civariko soḷasaka _ paḍīko ca m(ā)so Utukāle
Apparatus
⟨1⟩ sidhaṃ ||| ⬦ sidhaṃ || B+B; sidhaṃ || M; sidhaṃ G • Although perhaps unexpected, the triple daṇḍa is clear.
⟨2⟩ sāmisiriyañas(a)takaṇi⟨⟨sa⟩⟩ • Prior scholars do not note that the final sa is inserted interlinearly. This interlinear -sa- is inordinately large for no obvious reason, perhaps suggesting that it was added at a later time by a different engraver.
⟨3⟩ kāl(i)yaṇa ⬦ kāliyāṇa B+B; kālayaṇa M; kāliyāṇa G.
⟨4⟩ U(pā)sakasa • The shape of what we read as -pā- is odd, and it seems that the engraver might have first engraved a -va-, before correcting himself, thereby resulting in an ambiguous akṣara.
⟨5⟩ kuḍubiṇiya ⬦ kuḍubiniya B+B; kuḍubiniya M; kuḍubiniya G. — ⟨5⟩ Āṇaṃdamātu(k)āv(ā)riṇikāya ⬦ Āṇadamātu (ju)vārinikāya B+B; Āṇadamātu (ju)vārinikāya M; Āṇadamātu (ju)vārinikāya G.
⟨6⟩ (A)ṇa[dena mā](t)[u]l(eṇa) s(a)ha ca ⬦ Aṇa [3+] la [1+] sipeca B+B; Aṇa [2+] la [1+] sipe ca M; Aṇa [5+] la [5+] sipeca G • This reconstructed reading is somewhat uncertain however it fits the context well. — ⟨6⟩ dhāmadevāya ⬦ dhāmadev(i)ya B+B; dhāmadev(i)ya M; dhāmadev(i)ya G.
⟨7⟩ Āpano ⬦ Āpaṇā B+B; Āpaṇā M; Āpaṇā G. — ⟨7⟩ sa□(ve)ṇa ⬦ [3+]veṇa B+B; [3+]veṇa M; [3+]veṇa G • West notes that “The spaces in the [seventh] and [eighth] lines are probably blank”, a correct observation given that we have kāṇhase□le in l. 8. — ⟨7⟩ Udise ⬦ Udisa B+B; Udisa M; Udisa G.
⟨9⟩ padiṭhāpitaṃ ⬦ paḍiṭhāpita B+B; paḍiṭhāpita M; paḍiṭhāpita G • Although we expect a retroflex here (or at least a -ti-), this is clearly a -di-, cf. l. 5 ḍu/l. 11 ḍi/l. 13 ḍī and l. 7 di/l. 8 di. — ⟨9⟩ sāvasa□taṇ(i) ⬦ sāvasatāṇaṃ B+B; sāvasatāṇaṃ M; sāvasatāṇaṃ G.
⟨10⟩ kāhāpaṇāna(ṃ) ⬦ kāhāpaṇān(i) B+B; kāhāpaṇān(i) M; kāhāpaṇān(i) G • There is no i-mātra on the final akṣara, however this may be compared with KI00035 l. 3 Akhayanivi ca dinā kāhāpaṇāṇaṁ and KI00033 l. 8 kahāvaṇāṇaṁ śatāni _ 10(6) (perhaps cf. EIAD 200.13 kāhāpanāna ca purānasahasa Akhayaniv([i] and EIAD 201.14 purāna kāhāpanāna Akhanivi [3+]. — ⟨10⟩ 200 • This numeral extends all the way into the line below.
⟨12⟩ khetayasa ⬦ khetiyasa B+B; khetiyasa M; khetiyasa G • The reading is clear. — ⟨12⟩ magalaṭh(ā)□ne • Prior scholars do not note the space due to a fault in the stone. It appears that the ā-mātra here is positioned above the -th-. We find this as well in the first akṣara of KI00084 l. 6and in both cases it is unclear if the mātra is "floating" above the akṣara or if it is connected with a vertical line. — ⟨12⟩ bhojā kapati ⬦ bhojākapati M; bhojākapati G.
⟨13⟩ paḍīko ⬦ paḷiko B+B; paḷiko M; paḷiko G. — ⟨13⟩ m(ā)so ⬦ māse B+B; māse M; māse G • The reading of the final akṣara is clear, but understand māse.
Translation
⟨1–3⟩ Success! On the 5th day of the 1st fortnight of the hot season in the 16th year of the king Gotamiputa Sāmisiriyaññasātakaṇṇi.
⟨3–9⟩ A cave and koḍhi on the Kāṇhasela Mountain: the meritorious gift of the lay follower Apareṇu, son of the market councillor Anada [and] resident of Kalyan, with the retinue. Together with the kuḍubini Kāvāriṇikā, the mother of Āṇada; together with the son Āṇada and together with the daughter-in-laws; [and together] with the maternal uncle Aṇada and together with Dhāmadevā; and together with all. [The merit is] assigned to his very own mother and father. Established for the universal order of monks, for the purpose of the welfare and happiness of all beings.
⟨10–13⟩ And for this, an akhayanivi of two hundred — 200 — kāhāpaṇas has been given. [The interest is set at] a paḍika to the hundred in the hand of this very Saṃgha. (l. 11-13) And in this, the ownership of the half-paṇa field owner [in] a field in the village of Magalaṭhāṇa is arranged. From this, a cloth money of sixteen and a paḍika per month in the season is to be given to the Saṃgha
Bibliography
Primary
[B+B] Burgess, James and Georg Bühler. 1883. Report on the Elura cave temples and the Brahmanical and Jaina caves in Western India: Completing the results of the fifth, sixth, and seventh seasons' operations of the Archaeological survey, 1877–78, 1878–79, 1879–80. Vol. 5. Archaeological Survey of Western India. London: Trübner & Co. Page 76, item 5.
[M] Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. 1981. The history and inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas and the Western Kshatrapas. Bombay: Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture. [URL]. Page 71, item 27.
[G] Gokhale, Shobhana. 1991. Kanheri inscriptions. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute. Page 52, item 6.
Secondary
Senart, Émile. 1905–1906. “The inscriptions in the caves at Nasik.” EI 8, pp. 59–96. [URL]. Page 83.
Rapson, Edward James. 1908. Catalogue of the coins of the Andhra dynasty, the Western Kṣatrapas, the Traikūṭaka dynasty and the "Bodhi" Dynasty. London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum. [URL]. Pages xxxiv, lii.
Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1934. “Epigraphic notes: 1. Hiraṇyagarbha ― 2. Genealogy of the “Ānanda Kings of Guntur”.” JRAS, pp. 729–736. Page 561.
Naik, A. V. 1948. “Inscriptions of the Deccan: an epigraphical survey (Circa 300 B.C.-1300 A.D.)” BDCRI 9 (1/2), pp. 1–160. [URL]. Pages 19–21.
Lamotte, Etienne. 1958. Histoire du bouddhisme indien: des origines à l'ère Śaka. Bibliothèque du Muséon 43. Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste. Page 569.
Njammasch, Marlene. 1971. “Akhayanivi-Schenkungen an Klöster Und Tempel Im Dekhan Unter Den Sātavāhanas.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 24 (2), pp. 203–215. [URL]. Pages 213–214.
Njammasch, Marlene. 1972. “Dorfverleihungen und Landschenkungen im Dekhan vom 1. bis zum 5. Jahrhundert u. Z.” Klio 54 (54), pp. 251–308. DOI: 10.1524/klio.1972.54.54.251. [URL]. Pages 262, 266–267, 305–306.
Hettiarachchy, Jayadevanandasara. 1973. “Buddhism in the Northern Deccan under the Śātavāhana Rulers (c. 30 B.C. - 225 A.D.)” Doctoral Thesis, University of London. London. Pages 84, 114–115, 158, 191–192, 252.
Damsteegt, Theo. 1978. Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit: Its rise, spread, characteristics and relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 23. Leiden: Brill. Page 313 n. 167.
Njammasch, Marlene. 1981. “Probleme der Stadtentwicklung und der Stadt-Land-Beziehungen in Indien vom 1. bis zum 5. Jahrhundert u. Z.” Klio 63 (1), pp. 113–121. Pages 117, 120.
Nagaraju, S. 1985. “The Kanheri Caitya hall and its Foundation Inscription: A Reexamination.” In: Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art (eds. Frederick M. Asher and G.S. Gai). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH; American Institute of Indian Studies, pp. 47–59. Page 51.
Ray, Himanshu Prabha. 1986. Monastery and guild: Commerce under the Sātavāhanas. Delhi: Oxford University Press. [URL]. Pages 61–62, 103–104.
Ray, Himanshu Prabha. 1987. “Inscribed potsherds: A study.” Indica 24, pp. 1–14. Page 98.
Habib, Irfan and Faiz Habib. 1990. “A Map of India, B.C. 200 -- A.D. 300, Based on Epigraphic Evidence.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 51, pp. 103–114. [URL]. Page 108.
Ray, Reginald A. 1994. Buddhist saints in india, a study in buddhist values and orientations. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 39.
Neelis, Jason. 2010–11–19. “Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange within and beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia.” In: Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks. Leiden: Brill. [URL]. Page 25 n. 74.
Visvanathan, Meera. 2018. “Uṣavadāta's Akhayanivi: The Eternal Endowment in the Early Historic Deccan.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 41, pp. 509–535. DOI: 10.2143/JIABS.41.0.3285750. Pages 529–530.
Strauch, Ingo. 2021. “Money for rituals: and related inscriptions from Āndhradeśa.” In: Power, presence and space: South Asian rituals in archaeological context. Edited by Henry Albery, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Himanshu Prabha Ray. Archaeology and Religion in South Asia. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 193–214. Page 206.
Schopen, Gregory. 2023. “On the Loss of Legal Documents and Business Records from Indian Buddhist Monasteries.” In: Rethinking Buddhism: Text, Context, Contestation (ed. Anand Singh). Delhi: Primus Books, pp. 227–249. Pages 231–232.
Commentary
Prior Scholars do not make note of the use of semantic spaces throughout l. 2-9.
It seems probable that the “post-script” recording the donation of the akṣayanīvī was carved at a later time and should perhaps be considered a separate inscription. This was already noted by West who states “The last four lines being more distinct than the rest, and probably cut subsequently”. Not only are l. 10-13 carved noticeably deeper than the preceding text, they also contain no spaces between words and the ta-s are written in the looped style.