Ajanta Cave 17 Inscription of Ravisamba
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑] [bhava-?](dru?)mā(śa)ni(ṁ) praṇamya vidyā-traya-pāra-ga(ṁ) muniM vihāra-dātur vyavadāta-karmmaṇo guṇābhidhānopanayaẖ kariṣyate||
⟨2⟩ [⏓–⏑––][jana-pā?](la?)ne(na) labdhātma-bhāvasya narādhipasya dhr̥tātapatrasya babhūva putras sitātapatro dhr̥tarāṣṭra-saṁjñaḥ(||)
⟨3⟩ [⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–](s)ya rājño harisāmbo mburuhendu-kānta-vaktraḥ nr̥pates-tanayo babhūva tasy(ā)py amala-śrī(ḥ) kṣiti-pāla-śaurisāmba(ḥ||)
⟨4⟩ [⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑] (te?)(na) pr̥thu-kīrttir dyutimān upendraguptaḥ samabhūd a(va)(ra?)s suto tha tasya kṣitipaẖ kāca Iti prakāśa-nāmā(||)
⟨5⟩ [⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓] (dyu?)(ti)-kīrtti-nyasanāya bhikṣudāsaḥ pratitho bhuvi nīladāsa-nāmā nr̥patis tasya suto narādhipasya||
⟨6⟩ [⏑⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–](raiḥ?) prathitaẖ kāca Iti pradīpta-kīrttiḥ nr̥pater atha tasya kr̥ṣṇadāsaḥ kula-vaṁśa-dyuti-varddhano babhūva||
⟨7⟩ [⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓](s) tanayā candra-karāvadāta-veṣā Abhavat paripūrṇṇa-candra-vaktrā vinayācāra-vibhūṣaṇā (su?)candrā||
⟨8⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [a](rtthi-sthalo?)d⟨d⟩yota-karīm avāpa tasyāñ ca tasyāmburuhāyatākṣāv uttapta-cāmīkara-kānta-r(ū)pau(||)
⟨9⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [pradyu]mna-sāmba-pratimau kumārau| (dharā)dhipā(kh)y(ā)ṁ pratham(o) (ba)bhāra dadhre dvitīyo (ra)visāmba-saṁjñāM(||)
⟨10⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [⏑–⏑](nīyocchri?)(t)am aśmakādi(bhiḥ) (kr̥?)(tārttha-sa)¿(tvā)?(v?) abhibhūya bhūyasā rarājatuś candra-divākarāv iva||
⟨11⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [⏑–⏑––](ha nibaddha)-(mānayo?)(ḥ) vivr̥ddha-sauhārdda-(yaśa?)ḫ-pratānayos sadānukūlyena sukhaṁ vijahr(uṣ)oḥ(||)
⟨12⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] (amāna?)vair apy anivāryya-śāsanaḥ purākr̥todbhāvita-bhīma-vikramaḥ kanīyasi prā(kh)ya(d an)i(t)yatāśani(M)||
⟨13⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [⏑–](va)-dhairyyā(d) i(va kā?)(ya-dh)ī-(ru)jaḥ a(n)i(t)ya-saṁjñā-sacivas tataḫ paraṁ vyavīvr̥dhat puṇya-mahā-mahīruhaM||
⟨14⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––⏑](nujā?)ta-toṣ(āN) bhūyaś śruta-tyāga-dayā-pramoda-maitrī-kṣamā-vīryya-dhiyas siṣeve||
⟨15⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–] (na)rendrāN praśasta-vr̥ttān suviśuddha-vr̥tto vr̥ttena sa(bh?)y(ān) u(c)ito nucakre||
⟨16⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–] cakāra anyārtthikasyārtthi-janas tathaiva kīrtti(ṁ) kr̥tārtthaḥ prathayām babhūva||
⟨17⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓](yā?)(n bha)(ya?)-(v)iplutākṣāN amūmucad vitta-visargga-śaktyā putrā(n) iveṣṭān karuṇābhimr̥ṣṭaḥ||
⟨18⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [⏑–⏑––] (pra?)(ṇaye)na putravaT anūcivāṁso pi hi yasya hr̥d-gatāṁ vida(nr̥va)dhyāśa(ya)-śuddhi-sampadaM||
⟨19⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––⏑]karāṇi sadyaḥ sarvvajña-bhāva-praṇidhāna-siddhi(ḥ) satyābhidhānā(bh)ibhavād apeyuḥ||
⟨20⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑] [sa]mbhāra-ca(yādh)iyogaḥ yaśo-ṁ(śu)bhiś candra-marīci-śubhrair jjagat samagra(ṁ) samalañcakāra|| ||
⟨21⟩ [⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏑⏑––](vada)nāravinda-candre paripālayati kṣitīndra-candre hariṣeṇe hita-kāriṇi prajānāM||
⟨22⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑](n a)tyadbhuta-puṇya-rāśiḥ (cakre) bhuva⟨ḥ⟩ stūpa-vihāra-bhūṣāṁ dānodayaiś-cārtthi-(ja)na-pramodaM(||)
⟨23⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑–]n ākula-nādavadbhiḥ ni(tyaṁ?) vi(tā)nā(rtha-dhi)(yā?) (va)hadbhir a(m)bh(o)-dha(rai?)ś śrīma(t)i sahyapāde|| ||
⟨24⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑](g)āmbhīryya-guṇair upetaM niveśitāntar-muni-rāja-caityam ekāśmakaṁ maṇḍapa-ratnam etaT|| |
⟨25⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––] vipulāṁ visr̥jya| acīkara(c cai)tya-(vimā)na-kalpam alpātmabhiḥ kalpanayāpy aśakyaM||
⟨26⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑––]nayanābhirāmaM nyavīviśat svādu-laghu-prasanna-śīta-prakāmāmbu-mahā-nidhānaM|| || ||
⟨27⟩ [⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [⏓–⏑–]n netra-mano-bhirāmāM anyā(ṁ)ga-deśe sya diśi pratīcyām acīkarad gandha-kuṭīm udārāM|| ||
⟨28⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [jaga](d-dhi)tāyodyata-sarvva-karmmaṇa(ḥ) munīndra-(v?)ā(s?)a-praṇidhāna-siddhaye bhavantv abhīṣṭā bhuvi sarvva-sa{(||)}mpadaḥ||
⟨29⟩ [⏑–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏓] [⏑–⏑–](sa) praṇayena maṇḍapa(ḥ) karotu tāvat kuśalodayaṁ satāṁ (n/v)ihanti yāvad ravir aṁśubhis tamaḥ||*
Bibliography
First (probably) reported in passing in Prinsep 1836, pp. 556–561, with partial eye copy (Plate 27 No. 10). First edited (with eye copy, transcript and translation) in Bhau Daji 1865, pp. 59–61. Re-edited by Bhagwanlal Indraji in Burgess & Indraji 1881, pp. 73–76; by Bühler in Burgess 1883, pp. 128–132 with a facsimile (Plate 56) made by Indraji and “considerably worked up by hand” (according to Mirashi 1963, p. 120); by Mirashi with a new rubbing in Mirashi 1963. Discussed in Shastri 1997, pp. 46–49.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00180). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1927–1936. A list of the inscriptions of northern India in Brahmi and its derivative scripts, from about 200 A. C.: Appendix to Epigraphia Indica and record of the Archaeological Survey of India, volumes XIX to XXIII. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. [URL]. Item 1713.
Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. 1963. Inscriptions of the Vākāṭakas. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 5. Ootacamund: Archaeological Survey of India. Item 27.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="eng">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Ajanta Cave 17 Inscription of Ravisamba</title>
<title type="alt">Ajanta Cave XVII Inscription of the Time of Harishena</title>
<respStmt>
<resp key="creator"/>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00180.xml</idno>
<!--
If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>
-->
<availability><licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</licence></availability>
<date from="2019" to="2026">2019-2026</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change who="part:daba" when="2023-05-15" status="draft">Additional global changes for compatibility with DHARMA</change>
<change who="part:axja" when="2021-07-06" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>
<change who="part:daba" when="2020-08-04" status="draft">Initial import: harmonising file structure with DHARMA inscription template v02. Text and comments as inherited from the Siddham archive of January 2019, unless otherwise indicated (by a name and date in the comment). Comments are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly considered or researched opinion.</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn" rendition="class:83225 maturity:83211">
<lg n="1" met="vaṁśastha"><!--
Throughout the inscription one verse is one line.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="1"/><seg met="-+-++-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg> <supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->bhava-</supplied><unclear cert="low">dru</unclear>mā<unclear>śa</unclear>ni<unclear>ṁ</unclear></l><!--
L1. bhavadrumāśanim is M's conjecture; he vouches that dru is certain. B and Indraji read ...mā(vaniṁ)
-->
<l n="b">praṇamya vidyā-traya-pāra-ga<unclear>ṁ</unclear> muniM</l><!--
L1. The halanta M is slightly reduced, at baseline.
-->
<l n="c">vihāra-dātur vyavadāta-karmmaṇo</l>
<l n="d">guṇābhidhānopanayaẖ kariṣyate||</l><!--
L1. Both B and M print original double daṇḍas at the ends of lines/verses, though B marks some of them as unclear. Where discernible in the rubbings, they are double verticals.
--></lg>
<lg n="2" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="2"/><seg met="=+-++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->jana-pā</supplied><unclear cert="low">la</unclear>ne<unclear>na</unclear></l><!--
L2. janapālanena is M's conjecture; he says la is certain. B read ...nena; Indraji had ...neśā.
-->
<l n="b">labdhātma-bhāvasya narādhipasya</l>
<l n="c">dhr̥tātapatrasya babhūva putras</l>
<l n="d">sitātapatro dhr̥tarāṣṭra-saṁjñaḥ<unclear>||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V3. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure mālabhāriṇī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="3"/><seg met="--++--+-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="9" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>s</unclear>ya rājño</l>
<l n="b">harisāmbo mburuhendu-kānta-vaktraḥ</l>
<l n="c">nr̥pates-tanayo babhūva tasy<unclear>ā</unclear>py</l>
<l n="d">amala-śrī<unclear>ḥ</unclear> kṣiti-pāla-śaurisāmba<unclear>ḥ||</unclear></l><!--
L3. Glide caesura at the cd boundary in v3.
--></lg>
<lg n="4" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V4. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure mālabhāriṇī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="4"/><seg met="--++--+-+-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="10" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear cert="low">te</unclear><unclear>na</unclear></l><!--
L4. tena is M's reading; B has ...śa, Indraji, ...neśa.
-->
<l n="b">pr̥thu-kīrttir dyutimān upendraguptaḥ</l>
<l n="c">samabhūd a<unclear>va</unclear><unclear cert="low">ra</unclear>s suto tha tasya</l><!--
L4. avaras is M's; I find it very plausible. Indraji read agajas, also noting avanas as a possibility. B just has ava#.
-->
<l n="d">kṣitipaẖ kāca Iti prakāśa-nāmā<unclear>||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="5" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V5. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure mālabhāriṇī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="5"/><seg met="--++--+-+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><unclear cert="low">dyu</unclear><unclear>ti</unclear>-kīrtti-nyasanāya bhikṣudāsaḥ</l><!--
L5. dyuti is M's reading; Indraji and Bühler read d/ bhuvi. M says ti is clear.
-->
<l n="c">pratitho bhuvi nīladāsa-nāmā</l>
<l n="d">nr̥patis tasya suto narādhipasya||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="6" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V6. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure mālabhāriṇī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="6"/><seg met="--++--+-+-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg><unclear cert="low">raiḥ</unclear></l>
<l n="b">prathitaẖ kāca Iti pradīpta-kīrttiḥ</l>
<l n="c">nr̥pater atha tasya kr̥ṣṇadāsaḥ</l>
<l n="d">kula-vaṁśa-dyuti-varddhano babhūva||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V7. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure mālabhāriṇī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="7"/><seg met="--+--+-+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>s</unclear></l>
<l n="b">tanayā candra-karāvadāta-veṣā</l>
<l n="c">Abhavat paripūrṇṇa-candra-vaktrā</l>
<l n="d">vinayācāra-vibhūṣaṇā <unclear cert="low">su</unclear>candrā||</l><!--
L7. The reading sucandrā is B's. Indraji did not read the problematic character. M thinks it is ti, because it "does not ... appear like su and has, besides, a curve at the top". The curve is visible in Ms facsimile but there is no trace of it in Indraji's rubbing. I keep sucandrā because it seems to be a more plausible name than aticandrā.
--></lg>
<lg n="8" met="upajāti"><!--
V8. The extant portion is pure indravajrā, but I keep the identification as upajāti because there are many other mixed upajātis in the text. There are also some other pure indravajrās (vv16,17,19,22,23) and one pure upendravajrā (v20) later on - all are identified here as upajāti.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="8"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->a</supplied><unclear cert="low">rtthi-sthalo</unclear>d<supplied reason="omitted">d</supplied>yota-karīm avāpa</l><!--
L8. The beginning of the line is M's reading, which he prints as clear except for the supplied a. B only reads from dyota.
-->
<l n="c">tasyāñ ca tasyāmburuhāyatākṣāv</l>
<l n="d">uttapta-cāmīkara-kānta-r<unclear>ū</unclear>pau<unclear>||</unclear></l><!--
L9.
--></lg>
<lg n="9" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="9"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->pradyu</supplied>mna-sāmba-pratimau kumārau|</l><!--
L9. Not shown by previous editors, there is clear punctuation at the end of v9b. It is a single horizontal. Previous verses do not have such marks (as far as I can see), but some do have a small space at the halfverse point.
-->
<l n="c"><unclear>dharā</unclear>dhipā<unclear>kh</unclear>y<unclear>ā</unclear>ṁ pratham<unclear>o</unclear> <unclear>ba</unclear>bhāra</l><!--
L9. In v9c I follow M, whose reading seems very plausible. Bhau Daji (as cited by M) read dharādhipatye prathamāvatāraṁ; Indraji: ekādhipatya-prathamāvatāraṁ; Bühler: ekādhipatyaṁ prathamovatāraṁ, emending to ekādhipatyaṁ prathamo babhāra. It also seems possible to retain M's version of the syntax but read the first name as ekādhipa.
-->
<l n="d">dadhre dvitīyo <unclear>ra</unclear>visāmba-saṁjñāM<unclear>||</unclear></l><!--
L9. As M notes, the first character of ravisāmba is "somewhat peculiar" but the reading, originally Bhau Daji's, is probably correct. It looks rather like ru or U - could it be rucisāmba instead?
--><!--
L9. The halanta M seems to be smaller and lower down than the one earlier on.
--></lg>
<lg n="10" met="vaṁśastha"><!--
V10. I accept M's identification as vaṁśastha, but the verse (like others of this metre throughout this inscription) could also be a 12-syllable upajāti (vaṁśamālā).
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="10"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="-+-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg><unclear cert="low">nīyocchri</unclear><unclear>t</unclear>am aśmakādi<unclear>bhiḥ</unclear></l><!--
L10. nīyocchritam is M's who says the reading is "almost certain". B reads ... sam.
-->
<l n="c"><unclear cert="low">kr̥</unclear><unclear>tārttha-sa</unclear><sic><unclear>tvā</unclear></sic><unclear cert="low">v</unclear> abhibhūya bhūyasā</l><!--
L10. kr̥tārtha-satvāv is again M's. He prints only kr̥ and va as unclear. B reads ...nu tābhyām. Indraji's rubbing clearly does show no tābhyām, but M's reading seems to make better sense and does look plausible from his own rubbing, except (as indicated by him) kr̥, which is blurred, and va, which still looks like ma.
-->
<l n="d">rarājatuś candra-divākarāv iva||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="11" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="11"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="-+-++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>ha nibaddha</unclear>-<unclear cert="low">mānayo</unclear><unclear>ḥ</unclear></l><!--
L11. v11b is read by M alone, who says it is almost certain. I might add that the preceding character may be ddh or sth; perhaps the former more likely because our poet likes sound repetition. It needs a long vowel, perhaps e?
-->
<l n="c">vivr̥ddha-sauhārdda-<unclear cert="low">yaśa</unclear>ḫ-pratānayos</l>
<l n="d">sadānukūlyena sukhaṁ vijahr<unclear>uṣ</unclear>oḥ<unclear>||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="12" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="12"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><unclear cert="low">amāna</unclear>vair apy anivāryya-śāsanaḥ</l><!--
L12. amānavair is M's, B only has vair.
-->
<l n="c">purākr̥todbhāvita-bhīma-vikramaḥ</l>
<l n="d">kanīyasi prā<unclear>kh</unclear>ya<unclear>d an</unclear>i<unclear>t</unclear>yatāśani<unclear>M</unclear>||</l><!--
L12. At the end of v12 B reads prā(syata) ... tāśaniḥ. M's reading is very plausible. Though Indraji's rubbing does show a visarga very clearly, in M's rubbing the end is much less clear and there may indeed be a halanta M here.
--></lg>
<lg n="13" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="13"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>va</unclear>-dhairyyā<unclear>d</unclear> i<unclear cert="low">va kā</unclear><unclear>ya-dh</unclear>ī-<unclear>ru</unclear>jaḥ</l><!--
L13. In v13b B only reads ... vadhairyyā ... jaḥ. M does not read the va before dhai; this character is clear in Indraji's rubbing, but not in M's.
-->
<l n="c">a<unclear>n</unclear>i<unclear>t</unclear>ya-saṁjñā-sacivas tataḫ paraṁ</l><!--
L13. I follow Mirashi, who argues that anitya-saṁjñā-saciva means "a companion of (i.e. one mindful of) the impermanence of existence". B reads acitya-saṁjñaḥ sacivas. Bhau Daji (cited by M) read anitya-saṁjñā-saciva; Indraji (cited by M) read aciṁtya-saṁjñā-saciva. M misquotes B as reading saṁjñā, so one or both of the other two may have read saṁjñaḥ. M further claims "ni" is undoubted and the upturned curve of ā in jñā is unmistakable. Indraji's rubbing definitely shows saṁjñāḥ, sic, unless it's saṁjñiḥ - the curve could be an i as well as an ā; in fact, it seems to go a bit too far round for it to be an ā. The visarga is clear in Indraji's rubbing, but not in M's one. I'm not sure I am convinced by M's argument: saciva does look very strange in this construction. M says previous editors' understanding is problematic because "why the minister should come in abruptly here has not been stated". We don't know how the verse begins, so the minister's entry may be less abrupt than M wants us to think. I could easily imagine a minister here. samjñā may in fact be saṁjñī, or it may be a correction from saṁjñā to saṁjñaḥ (if the inscription was plastered over and painted, then it would have been easy to hide the ā mātrā without need to erase it from the stone). The name could be acitya or anitya, but other readings also seem possible. I'm in fact tempted to read it as suvidya.
-->
<l n="d">vyavīvr̥dhat puṇya-mahā-mahīruhaM||</l><!--
L13. B prints vyavīvig dhat, which must be a typo.
--></lg>
<lg n="14" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="14"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg><unclear cert="low">nujā</unclear>ta-toṣ<unclear>āN</unclear></l><!--
L14. V14b is M's reading; B reads ...tatoṣam. The halanta character does look like M in Indraji's rubbing but could be N in M's rubbing. nujāta seems very uncertain.
-->
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">bhūyaś śruta-tyāga-dayā-pramoda</l>
<l n="d">-maitrī-kṣamā-vīryya-dhiyas siṣeve||</l><!--
L14. maitrī looks like maityī, perhaps a correction. Or perhaps maitryī?
--></lg>
<lg n="15" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="15"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++--+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear>na</unclear>rendrāN</l>
<l n="c">praśasta-vr̥ttān suviśuddha-vr̥tto</l>
<l n="d">vr̥ttena sa<unclear cert="low">bh</unclear>y<unclear>ān</unclear> u<unclear>c</unclear>ito nucakre||</l><!--
L15. B reads samyakṣubhitonucakre, emending to kkṣu. M says the third character is clearly nu and the fourth is probably ci. His reading is convincing, but bhyā doesn't seem very likely.
--></lg>
<lg n="16" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="16"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++--+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg> cakāra</l><!--
L16. There may be a punctuation sign (dash) after cakāra. There is certainly a space of about 1 character.
-->
<l n="c">anyārtthikasyārtthi-janas tathaiva</l><!--
L16. B prints artthikasyā at the beginning of v16b, unmetrical and probably a typo.
-->
<l n="d">kīrtti<unclear>ṁ</unclear> kr̥tārtthaḥ prathayām babhūva||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="17" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="17"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg><unclear cert="low">yā</unclear><unclear>n bha</unclear><unclear cert="low">ya</unclear>-<unclear>v</unclear>iplutākṣāN</l><!--
L17. B reads ...sa . . bhiplutākṣān.
-->
<l n="c">amūmucad vitta-visargga-śaktyā</l>
<l n="d">putrā<unclear>n</unclear> iveṣṭān karuṇābhimr̥ṣṭaḥ||</l><!--
L17. B reads putrādhiceṣṭān (Indraji: putrābhiceṣṭān); M's reading sounds perfect. The character is definitely dhi in Indraji's rubbing, but does look like ni in M's rubbing.
--></lg>
<lg n="18" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="18"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="-+-++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear cert="low">pra</unclear><unclear>ṇaye</unclear>na putravaT</l><!--
L18. praṇa is M's; ṇa is more or less recognisable in his rubbing.
--><!--
L18. The halanta T has a definite line above it - other halanta characters did not have such lines.
-->
<l n="c">anūcivāṁso pi hi yasya hr̥d-gatāṁ</l><!--
L18. M. emends to anūcivān so. See my comment on the next quarter.
-->
<l n="d">vida<unclear>nr̥va</unclear>dhyāśa<unclear>ya</unclear>-śuddhi-sampadaM||</l><!--
L18. B reads vidanravadhyāśaya, commenting that there must be some mistake here and that the sense "seems to be that even learned men ... had to acknowledge the minister's purity of heart". M reads vidanr̥vadhyāśaya, emending to vidan-nr̥vad dhy āśaya, translating (with his emendation in quarter c), "even he who had been treated affectionately like a son repeated, like a knowing human being, the excellent and pure thoughts in his heart"; by way of explanation he adds that "The verse probably refers to a domesticated parrot kept in the palace" (seriously!). I think this is a bit too much: three emendations to arrive at a forced sense. I wonder if the correct reading could be vidagdha-buddhy-āśaya. I think bu instead of va is possible on the basis of M's rubbing (though it's va in Indraji's one), and ddhy is also a possibility, or we can assume that dhy needs emendation to ddhy, as Mirashi did. My gdha is a bit of a stretch though, and my conjecture seems to want a verb (also missing from Mirashi's version). Perhaps vidur nna buddhy-āśaya? du is perhaps possible, rnna is again a bit of a stretch. But this would be sort of nice.
--></lg>
<lg n="19" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="19"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg>karāṇi sadyaḥ</l>
<l n="c">sarvvajña-bhāva-praṇidhāna-siddhi<unclear>ḥ</unclear></l><!--
L19. M: siddhiṁ. I follow Bühler. The visarga seems quite clear in Indraji's rubbing, though not quite so in Mirashi's.
-->
<l n="d">satyābhidhānā<unclear>bh</unclear>ibhavād apeyuḥ||</l><!--
L19. M: satyābhidhānāṁ vibhavād. (Bhau Daji: satyābhidhānāni bhavād). I follow Bühler in my reading. M believes this sentence is uttered by the parrot (see previous note), and means that "(Rich persons) ... failed to attain, because of their wealth, the siddhi rightly so called (obtainable) by devout meditation on the Omniscient (Buddha)." B does not risk a translation but thinks the general sense is that "misfortunes fled from the pious minister being overcome by his supplications addressed to Buddha." I cannot offer an improvement, but find M's one preposterous.
--></lg>
<lg n="20" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="20"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->sa</supplied>mbhāra-ca<unclear>yādh</unclear>iyogaḥ</l><!--
L20. B: ...ca . . yogaḥ. It does look like a visarga in Indraji's rubbing. M says Indraji had read mbāracayādhiyogaḥ, sic, with mb. I agree with M that mbh is quite clear; he thinks the word adhiyoga was probably used in the ablative but admits that the T is not legible, but he still reads °yogāt. Since there is at least one clear instance of a halanta character with a line above it, the visarga-thing could be a T. But all in all, I think it's better to keep the more likely reading.
-->
<l n="c">yaśo-ṁ<unclear>śu</unclear>bhiś candra-marīci-śubhrair</l><!--
L20. Indraji's reading was yaśombubhiś; B proposed ṁśu and M agrees. ś is plausible from Mirashi's rubbing.
-->
<l n="d">jjagat samagra<unclear>ṁ</unclear> samalañcakāra|| ||</l><!--
L20. B: samagra(ṁ vi)malañ. I don't know why he read so, as samalaṁ is perfectly clear in Indraji's rubbing (and plausible in M's rubbing).
--><!--
L20. Not noted by other editors, the closing double daṇḍa is repeated in this line. Probably a space filler as the line ends before the margin.
--></lg>
<lg n="21" met="viyoginī"><!--
V21. M identifies the metre as aupacchandasika, but it is pure viyoginī.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="21"/><seg met="--+--+-+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="--++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>vada</unclear>nāravinda-candre</l><!--
L21. There is no discernible punctuation at the halfverse point, but there is a large space of about 2 characters.
-->
<l n="c">paripālayati kṣitīndra-candre</l><!--
L21. M notes that there is an unnecessary vertical stroke after the la of paripālayati. Not visible in Indraji's rubbing, but more or less visible in M's.
-->
<l n="d">hariṣeṇe hita-kāriṇi prajānāM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="22" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="22"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>n a</unclear>tyadbhuta-puṇya-rāśiḥ</l><!--
L22. There is again quite a bit of space at the halfverse.
-->
<l n="c"><unclear>cakre</unclear> bhuva<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> stūpa-vihāra-bhūṣāṁ</l><!--
L22. M says there is no need to supply a visarga after bhuva, since this is permitted by the vārttika on Pāṇini 8.3.36. Probably right, but still non-standard.
--><!--
L22. B does not read the anusvāra at the end of v22c, though it seems to be clear in Indraji's rubbing. He emends to bhuvaṁ ... bhūṣāṁ.
-->
<l n="d">dānodayaiś-cārtthi-<unclear>ja</unclear>na-pramodaM<unclear>||</unclear></l><!--
L22. There again seems to be a line or dot over the halanta M.
--></lg>
<lg n="23" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="23"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg>n ākula-nādavadbhiḥ</l><!--
L23. B: nā . . nā(da)vadbhiḥ. I follow M, whose reading seems accurate. He notes that Bhau Daji read the same, while Indraji had nānilanādavadbhiḥ.
--><!--
L23. There is again space (about 1 char) at the halfverse point.
-->
<l n="c">ni<unclear cert="low">tyaṁ</unclear> vi<unclear>tā</unclear>nā<unclear>rtha-dhi</unclear><unclear cert="low">yā</unclear> <unclear>va</unclear>hadbhir</l><!--
L23. B: ...hadbhir. Everything else is M's reading, with my uncertainty markup.
-->
<l n="d">a<unclear>m</unclear>bh<unclear>o</unclear>-dha<unclear cert="low">rai</unclear>ś śrīma<unclear>t</unclear>i sahyapāde|| ||</l><!--
L23. B: a . . . . ma . sahyapāde. Everything else is M's reading, with my uncertainty markup.
--><!--
L23. Not noted by other editors, the closing double daṇḍa is repeated in this line. Probably a space filler as the line ends before the margin.
--></lg>
<lg n="24" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="24"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>g</unclear>āmbhīryya-guṇair upetaM</l><!--
L24. Again a definite line (short, almost a dot) over the halanta M. Likewise over the halanta T at the end of the line.
-->
<l n="c">niveśitāntar-muni-rāja-caityam</l>
<l n="d">ekāśmakaṁ maṇḍapa-ratnam etaT|| |</l><!--
L24. So if anyone ever wondered how to say "monolithic" in Sanskrit, we have it here.
--><!--
L24. I transcribe the punctuation as visible in Indraji's facsimile: a double vertical, then a single vertical. There is also quite a bit of space before the double vertical, and, looking at M's facsimile (which is a lot messier), there may actually be another double vertical here. Still probably a space filler, as above.
--></lg>
<lg n="25" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="25"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg> vipulāṁ visr̥jya|</l><!--
L25. There is very clear original punctuation at v25b, a single horizontal, quite long, and at or near headline height.
-->
<l n="c">acīkara<unclear>c cai</unclear>tya-<unclear>vimā</unclear>na-kalpam</l><!--
L25. acīkarac caityam is B's reading. M insists that the correct reading is acīkarad dityam, as "the conjunct consonant after ra is clearly dda not cca" and ditya is attested in the sense of "gift" in "some records of the period". While the ligature truly doesn't look much like ccai, the vowel mātrā is almost certainly not i. I prefer to stay with Bühler's opinion.
--><!--
L25. caitya-vimāna-kalpam is my own reading of which I am far from certain. M reads caityam amāna-kalpam. Bhau Daji read caityam ihānakalpam (as cited by M, who also says Bühler read the same, which is wrong - perhaps M meant that Indraji read the same). I don't know what that means. Bühler read caityam (ahī)nakalpam (whici M also cites as being read by Bühler); his unclear markup probably means that the i mātrā is actually in the wrong place. M claims that the curve over the m (of his caityam) appears to have been cancelled, and that the following akṣara "must be read as mā. It is not hī." Now the i (not ī) mātrā over this m is quite clear in M's rubbing (though almost completely invisible in Indraji's) and I don't see any indication that it was cancelled. The next character could be ha or mā or perhaps something else, and might have an i or ī mātrā over it, placed rather to the left of where it would be expected, and perhaps struck out. I could imagine caityam ahīna-kalpam as the correct solution, but only if we assume that caityam ihānakalpam was inscribed first, and then corrected only (or mostly) by paint. Likewise, M's solution could be right, but would again need the i mātrā to be plastered/painted over, and it doesn't sound as good as B's reading. My caitya-vimāna-kalpam is a bit desperate; I'm not sure something can "resemble the vimāna of a caitya" and even if it can, we need to suppose that this something is named in the lost part of the stanza. I can also imagine reading caityam ihānukalpam, but reading hā is a stretch, and there is no trace of an u under the n.
-->
<l n="d">alpātmabhiḥ kalpanayāpy aśakyaM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="26" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="26"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-++"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg>nayanābhirāmaM</l><!--
L26. The character before nayanā° may be śe, perhaps [#de](ś)(?e).
--><!--
L26. There may be a punctuation dash at the end of v26b, tangled with the flourish that is the subscript ya of the following nya.
-->
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">nyavīviśat svādu-laghu-prasanna</l><!--
L26. M prints sādhu instead of svādu. This is probably a typo, since he does not note that Bühler and others have a different reading here, and svādu is clear in both rubbings.
--><!--
L26. M notes that Indraji's reading was prasannaṁ, but no anusvāra is visible. Nevertheless it may be better to supply one, otherwise we have not only a cpd boundary over the cd break, but also a brevis in longo, which is in my perception quite unusual at the end of an even line of an upajāti.
-->
<l n="d">-śīta-prakāmāmbu-mahā-nidhānaM|| || ||</l>
</lg><!--
L26. The halanta M again has a definite dash over it.
--><!--
L26. At the end of this line we have three double verticals to fill up the space. The first of these looks like a single daṇḍa in Indraji's rubbing, but it is visibly double in M's rubbing.
--><lg n="27" met="upajāti">
<l n="a"><lb n="27"/><seg met="=+-++--+-+="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="11" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="=+-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg>n netra-mano-bhirāmāM</l><!--
L27. M prints bhirāmam, but this is probably a typo, mā is clear and expected. (Though perhaps it is not a typo - M's translation puts this cpd in a separate sentence, the rest of which is lost.)
--><!--
L27. The halanta Ms both have dashes over them.
-->
<l n="c">anyā<unclear>ṁ</unclear>ga-deśe sya diśi pratīcyām</l>
<l n="d">acīkarad gandha-kuṭīm udārāM|| ||</l><!--
L27. In this line we have two double verticals at the end.
--></lg>
<lg n="28" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="28"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->jaga</supplied><unclear>d-dhi</unclear>tāyodyata-sarvva-karmmaṇa<unclear>ḥ</unclear></l><!--
L28. B reads karmmaṇa, emending to karmaṇāṁ. But the visarga is quite certain, so M must be correct in construing this as a genitive in apposition to someone in the lost part, probably the guy who endowed the cave.
-->
<l n="c">munīndra-<unclear cert="low">v</unclear>ā<unclear cert="low">s</unclear>a-praṇidhāna-siddhaye</l><!--
L28. vāsa is my tentative reading, but I am not at all sure of it. M reads bhāva. All earlier editors had read nātha here, which M rejects, saying it is tautological and pointing at sarvvajña-bhāva-praṇidhāna-siddhi in v19 for comparison. I'm not sure tautology is grounds enough for rejection, but the second character is quite certainly not tha in M's rubbing (though it does look like tha in Indraji's). However, the first character in turn does not look like bha; it has a definite loop, so M's reading is also problematic.
-->
<l n="d">bhavantv abhīṣṭā bhuvi sarvva-sa<surplus><unclear>||</unclear></surplus>mpadaḥ||</l><!--
L28. Not noted by previous editors, there is something between sa and mpadaḥ; it looks like a double daṇḍa in Indraji's rubbing, but may be a bit more complex based on M's rubbing - perhaps śu or gu. It is definitely superfluous.
--></lg>
<lg n="29" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a"><lb n="29"/><seg met="-+-++--+-+-="><gap reason="illegible" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="-+-+"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>sa</unclear> praṇayena maṇḍapa<unclear>ḥ</unclear></l><!--
L29. sa is read only by M, quite recognisable in his rubbing.
-->
<l n="c">karotu tāvat kuśalodayaṁ satāṁ</l>
<l n="d"><choice><unclear>n</unclear><unclear>v</unclear></choice>ihanti yāvad ravir aṁśubhis tamaḥ||<g ref="sym:unclassified" type="symbol">*</g></l><!--
L29. M reads vihanti, as did Bhau Daji. Indraji and Bühler read nihanti. M calls this a misreading. Indraji's rubbing definitely shows ni, while M's does look more like vi, but there is no way to reject ni on its basis so I keep the ambiguity.
--><!--
L29. The closer sign, transliterated by B as Oṁ and completely ignored by M, looks rather like an opening maṅgala symbol, with a short dextrorse spiral at the right and a more or less horizontal tail at the left, bending slightly up (so all in all, much like a question mark mirrored and then rotated 90° clockwise).
--></lg>
</div>
<div type="apparatus">
<listApp>
<app loc="line">
<lem/>
<rdg source="bib:AuthorYear_01"/>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" source="bib:AuthorYear_01"><!--Indicate @resp or change @source when a translation is added -->
</div>
<div type="commentary">
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p>First (probably) reported in passing in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Prinsep1836_01"/><citedRange>556-561</citedRange></bibl>, with partial eye copy (Plate 27 No. 10). First edited (with eye copy, transcript and translation) in <bibl><ptr target="bib:BhauDaji1865_01"/><citedRange>59-61</citedRange></bibl>. Re-edited by Bhagwanlal Indraji in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Burgess+Indraji1881_01"/><citedRange>73-76 </citedRange></bibl>; by Bühler in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Burgess1883_01"/><citedRange>128-132</citedRange></bibl> with a facsimile (Plate 56) made by Indraji and “considerably worked up by hand” (according to <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1963_01"/><citedRange>120</citedRange></bibl>); by Mirashi with a new rubbing in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1963_01"/></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1997_01"/><citedRange>46-49</citedRange></bibl>.</p>
<p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00180</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">1713</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1963_01"/><citedRange unit="item">27</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>