Slab from Top of Htingonsu Hill, Kunzeik

|||| tena samayena buddho bhagavā Uruvelāyaṁ viharati najjā nerañjarātire bodhirukkhamūle pathamābhisaṁbudddho Atha kho bhagavā bodhirukkhamūle sattāhaṁ Ekapallaṅkena nisīdi vimuttisukhapaṭisaṁvedi Atha kho bhagavā rattiyā pathamaṁ yāmaṁ paṭicchasamuppādaṁ Anulomapaṭilomaṁ manasākāsi Avijjāpaccayā sakhārā saṁkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanaṁ salāyatanapaccayā phasso phassapaccayā vedanā vedanāpaccayā taṇhā taṇhāpacayā Upādānaṁ Upādānapaccayā bhavo bhavapaccayā jāti jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇa sokaparidevadukkhadomanassa Upāyāsā saṁbhavanti vam etassa kemalassa dukkhakkhandhasamudayo hoti Avijjāya vvava Asesaviroganirodhā saṁkhāranirodho saṁkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho viññāṇanirodhā nāmarūpanirodhā nāmarūpanirodhā salāyatananirodho salāyatananirodhā phassanirodho phassanirodhā vedanānirodho vedanānirodhā taṇhānirodho taṇhānirodhā Upādānanirodho Upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho bhavanirodhā jātinirodho jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇasokaparidevadukkhadomanassa Upāyāsā nijjhanti Evam etassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti Atha kho bhagavā Etam atthaṁ viditvā tāyaṁ velāyaṁ Ima Udāna Udānesi yadā have pātubhaveti dhammā Ātāpino jhāyino brāhmaṇassa Athassa kaṁkhā vapayanti savvā yato pajānāti sahetudhaṁman ti ||||| Atha kho bhagavā rattiyā majjhimaṁ yāmaṁ paṭicchasamuppādaṁ

ridevadukkhadomanassa Upāyāsā nirujjhanti Evam etassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti Atha kho bhagavā Etam atthaṁ viditvā tāyaṁ velāyaṁ Imaṁ Udānaṁ Udānesi yadā have pātubhavanti dhammā Ātāpino jhāyino brāhmanassa Athassa kaṁkhā vapayanti sa vidhūpayan tiṭṭhati mārasenaṁ suriyyo va Obhāsaya Antalikkheṁti **

In each case of viññāṇa, we are doubtful as to the presence of <ā>. We do not actually see with certainty which element would represent the <ā>. Perhaps the middle akṣaras of the word should all be read as <ñā> with single <ñ>. nerañjarātire Correct nerañjarātīre. Instead of genitive construction nerañjarāya tīre (PTS), we find a tatpuruṣa. -mūle Note the shape of <le>. -saṁvedi Correct -saṁvedī. saṁbhavanti vam It is very hard to read expected saṁbhavanti Evam, and we hesitantly propose that we might read saṁbhavanti-y-evam and consider that we are dealing here with a hiatus-breaking insertion of <y>. It cannot be excluded that an akṣara <ssa> (PTS) has gone missing at the end of line 9, but we tentatively assume that we again have a tatpuruṣa rather than a genitive construction (cf. line 2). Avijjāya vvava It seems impossible to read the expected sequence Avijjāya tv eva (PTS). nijjhanti The lapicide has forgotten the akṣara <ru> (PTS nirujjhanti); see face B, l. 1. hoti PTS reads hotīti || 2 ||. pātubhaveti It appears impossible to read pātubhavanti (PTS) here, but on the back of the stone, line 2, we do find this expected reading. jhāyino This variant reading for PTS jhāyato is not an error; it recurs on the back, in line 3. It is also recorded by Oldenberg among variants from Burmese manuscripts.

Face B is written upside-down compared with A, which would prima facie indicate that the stone was to be flipped over like a palmleaf after the end of face A. But there is no clear continuity between the two faces, as the largest part of the second face is left blank. Four akṣaras, perhaps to be read savadgati, stand at the right extremity of face B, at some distance above the lines of text transliterated here, which cover the bottom of the back, and of which the first starts not in the left margin but around the middle of the stone.

This inscription was referred to in several publications before its integral text was finally published by 194-200. Re-edited here from our team's photographs and RTIs.

DHARMA_INSPYU00040 110-111 126 I, 176 25 n. 53 95 n. 7 48-9