1<?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"?>
5<?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>
10 <titleStmt>
· <title>A grant of land to monasteries at Śiṣīpuñja, Madhyamasṛgālikā and Grāmakūṭagohālī</title>
· <respStmt>
· <resp>EpiDoc Encoding</resp>
· <persName ref="part:amwb">
15 <forename>Amandine</forename>
· <surname>Wattelier-Bricout</surname>
· </persName>
· </respStmt>
· <respStmt>
20 <resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>
· <persName ref="part:argr">
· <forename>Arlo</forename>
· <surname>Griffiths</surname>
· </persName>
25 </respStmt>
· </titleStmt>
· <publicationStmt>
· <authority>DHARMA</authority>
· <pubPlace></pubPlace>
30 <idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00055</idno>
·
· <availability>
· <licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
· <p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported
35 Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit
· https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to
· Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
· California, 94041, USA.</p>
· <p>Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Arlo
40 Griffiths.</p>
· </licence>
· </availability>
· <date from="2019" to="2025">2019-2025</date>
· </publicationStmt>
45 <sourceDesc>
· <msDesc>
· <msIdentifier>
· <repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
· <idno/>
50 </msIdentifier>
· <msContents>
· <summary></summary>
· </msContents>
· <physDesc>
55 <handDesc>
· <p></p>
·
·
·
60
·
· </handDesc>
· </physDesc>
· </msDesc>
65 </sourceDesc>
· </fileDesc>
· <encodingDesc>
· <projectDesc>
· <p>The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994).</p>
70 </projectDesc>
· <schemaRef type="guide" key="EGDv01" url="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02888186"/>
· <listPrefixDef>
· <prefixDef ident="bib" matchPattern="([a-zA-Z0-9\-\_]+)" replacementPattern="https://www.zotero.org/groups/1633743/erc-dharma/items/tag/$1">
· <p>Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.</p>
75 </prefixDef>
· <prefixDef ident="part" matchPattern="([a-z]+)" replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml#$1">
· <p>Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the <ref>DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml</ref> file.</p>
· </prefixDef>
· </listPrefixDef>
80 </encodingDesc>
· <revisionDesc>
· <change who="part:amwb" when="2021-06-25">Started initial encoding of the inscription</change>
· </revisionDesc>
· </teiHeader>
85 <text xml:space="preserve">
· <body>
· <div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn">
· <pb n="1r"/>
· <p>
90 <lb n="1"/>svast<supplied reason="lost">i</supplied><supplied reason="omitted">.</supplied> puṇḍra-varddhanād āyuktakā Adh<supplied reason="lost">i</supplied>ṣṭhānādh<supplied reason="lost">i</supplied><unclear>ka</unclear>raṇañ ca <unclear>ṣa</unclear>ṇḍ<unclear>ika-</unclear>vīth<supplied reason="lost">e</supplied>yā<supplied reason="lost">r</supplied><unclear>y</unclear>ya<unclear>-g</unclear>r<supplied reason="lost">āma</supplied>
· <lb n="2" break="no"/>-prāveśya-śiṣīpuñja-maddhyamasr̥gālikā<surplus>yā</surplus>bjataṭāpagaccha-prāveśya-grāma-kūṭagohāly<unclear>āṁ</unclear>
· <lb n="3"/>brāhmaṇādīn kuṭumbinaḥ kuśalam uk<supplied reason="lost">tvānu</supplied><unclear>bo</unclear>dhayanti</p> <p>vijñāpayati n<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice> nāgavasuḥ yu<unclear>ṣma</unclear>
· <lb n="4" break="no"/>d-adhikaraṇ<unclear>e</unclear> dvi-dīnā<unclear>r</unclear>ikya-kulyavā<unclear>pe</unclear><supplied reason="lost">na</supplied> <unclear>śa</unclear>śvat-kālopabhojyākṣaya-nīvī-dharmmeṇa samuda
· <lb n="5" break="no"/>ya-bāhyāpratikara-khila-kṣettra-vikra<unclear>yo</unclear> 'nuv<unclear>r̥</unclear>ttas tad arhatha mamāpy anenaiva krameṇa śiṣī
95 <lb n="6" break="no"/>puñja<gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="9"/>vihā<unclear>ra</unclear>-dvay<choice><sic>a<unclear>ṁ</unclear></sic><corr>e</corr></choice> g<supplied reason="lost">rā</supplied><unclear>ma-</unclear>kūṭagohālyāṁ brāhma
· <lb n="7" break="no"/>ṇā <gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="2"/>ṇḍanakār<unclear>i</unclear>taka-vihāra<gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="4"/>vihāra-tray<choice><sic>asya</sic><corr>yāṁ</corr></choice> <unclear>kṣ</unclear>ama<choice><orig>n</orig><reg>ṇ</reg></choice>ācāryya-jinadāsa-ka
· <lb n="8" break="no"/><unclear>r</unclear>ṇṇakābhyām adhiṣṭhitāyāṁ bhagavatām arhatāṁ ga<unclear>ndha-dh</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ūpa</supplied>-<unclear>s</unclear>uma<supplied reason="lost">no</supplied>-dīpa-bali-caru-ni
· <lb n="9" break="no"/>vedyādi-pravartta<unclear>nāya ni</unclear><supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied><unclear>grantha-pu</unclear>tra-ji<unclear>tānāgatābhyāgatānān ta</unclear>nivās<unclear>i</unclear>nāñ c<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ny<unclear>ā</unclear>
· <lb n="10" break="no"/>dyapiṇḍa-pānipāt<choice><sic>r̥</sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>kād<unclear>i</unclear>-bhojya-khaṇḍa-phuṭṭa-pratisaṁskārādyopayo<unclear>ka</unclear> <space unit="character" quantity="1"/> matto dīnāra
100 <lb n="11" break="no"/>catuṣṭayaṁ gr̥hītvā śiṣīpuñja-khila-kṣettras<unclear>y</unclear>ār<unclear>ddha</unclear>-kulyavāpaṁ maddhyamasr̥gālikāya
· <lb n="12"/>khila-kṣattresya kulyavāpaṁ grāmakūṭa<unclear>go</unclear>hālyāṁ <unclear>khila</unclear>-<supplied reason="lost">kṣe</supplied>ttrasyārddha-kulyavāpaṁ Evaṁ Aprati
· <lb n="13" break="no"/>kara-khila-kṣettrasya kuvā<supplied reason="omitted">lya</supplied>padvayaṁ dātum iti</p><p><unclear>ya</unclear>taḥ <unclear>p</unclear>rathama-pustapāla-śarvvādya-pu<unclear>s</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ta</supplied>
· <lb n="14" break="no"/>pāla-<unclear>prī</unclear>ti-viṣṇ<unclear>u</unclear>dhara-jayadatta-rāmadatta-sudarśa<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>aśrīdāsa-bhavadāsānāṁ
· </p>
105 <pb n="1v"/>
· <p>
· <lb n="15"/><supplied reason="lost">Ava</supplied>dhā<unclear>ra</unclear>ṇa<unclear>y</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ā</supplied><unclear>vadhr̥tya</unclear> nāgavaso<unclear>ḥ</unclear> sakāśād dīnāra-catuṣṭayam āy<unclear>ī</unclear>
· <lb n="16" break="no"/>kr̥tya dīyatām iti</p> <p>śiṣīpuñja-śrīgohālī-grāmakūṭagohālyāñ ca vihāratrayy<supplied reason="lost">āṁ</supplied>
· <lb n="17"/>kṣamanācāryya-jinadāsa-ka<unclear>r</unclear>ṇṇakābhyā<surplus>ṁ</surplus>m adhiṣṭhit<choice><sic><unclear>ayo</unclear></sic><corr>āyāṁ</corr></choice> bhaga<unclear>va</unclear>tām arhatāṁ gandha
110 <lb n="18" break="no"/>-dhūpa-sumano-dīpa-bali-caru-nivedyādi-pravarttanāya ni<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>grantha-putra-jitānā
· <lb n="19" break="no"/>gat<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>bhyāgatānān ta<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>n-n</corr></choice>ivāsināñ cā<supplied reason="lost">n</supplied>y<unclear>ā</unclear>dyapiṇḍa-pānipāt<choice><sic><unclear>r̥</unclear></sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>kādi-bhojya-khaṇḍa
· <lb n="20" break="no"/>-phuṭṭa-pratisaṁskārādyarttha<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> śiṣīpuñja-khila-kṣettrasyārddha-kulyavāpa<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> maddhyamasr̥
· <lb n="21" break="no"/>gālikāyāṁ khila<unclear>kṣ</unclear>ettrasya kulyavāpaṁ grāmakū<choice><sic>p</sic><corr>ṭ</corr></choice>agohālyāṁ khila-kṣettrasyārddha-kulya
· <lb n="22" break="no"/>vāpaṁ Evaṁ samudaya-bāhyāpratikara-khila-kṣettrasya kulyavāpadvayaṁ <surplus>da</surplus>
115 <lb n="23" break="no"/>vihāratra<choice><sic><unclear>ya</unclear></sic><corr>yyāṁ</corr></choice> tad yuṣmābhiḥ sva-karṣaṇāvirodhisthāne ṣaṭ-kanalair apavi
· <lb n="24" break="no"/>ñ<unclear>cch</unclear>ya dātavy<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>m akṣaya-nīvī-dharmmeṇa ca śaśvat-kālam anupālyam iti</p> <p>U<unclear>ktaṁ</unclear>
· <lb n="25"/><unclear>bhagava</unclear>tā vyāsena <space unit="character" quantity="1"/>
· </p>
· <lg n="1" met="anuṣṭubh">
120 <l n="a">svadattāṁ paradattāṁ vā</l>
· <l n="b">yo hareta vasundharāṁ</l>
· <l n="c">sa viṣṭh<unclear>ā</unclear>y<unclear>āṁ kri</unclear><lb n="26" break="no"/>mi<unclear>r</unclear> bhūtvā</l>
· <l n="d">pitr̥bhiḥ saha pacyate <space unit="character" quantity="1"/></l>
· </lg>
125 <lg n="2" met="anuṣṭubh">
· <l n="a">ṣaṣṭi<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> varṣasahasrāṇi</l>
· <l n="b">svargge modati bhūmidaḥ</l>
· <l n="c"><supplied reason="lost">Ā</supplied><lb n="27" break="no"/><unclear>kṣeptā cānumantā ca</unclear></l>
· <l n="d"><unclear>tāny eva narake vaseT</unclear></l>
130 </lg>
·<p><abbr><unclear>saṁ</unclear></abbr> <num value="198"><unclear>100</unclear> 90 8</num> śrāvaṇa <abbr>di</abbr> <gap reason="illegible" unit="character" quantity="1"/> </p>
· </div>
· <div type="apparatus">
· <listApp>
135 <app loc="1">
· <lem><unclear>ṣa</unclear>ṇḍ<unclear>ika-</unclear>vīth<supplied reason="lost">e</supplied>yā<supplied reason="lost">r</supplied><unclear>y</unclear>ya<unclear>-g</unclear>r<supplied reason="lost">āma</supplied></lem>
· <note>A number of alternative readings of the unclear or lost <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s are imaginable, notably <foreign>khaṇḍaka</foreign>- or <foreign>khaṇḍika</foreign>-, while nothing more is certain about the first <foreign>akṣara</foreign> after -<foreign>vītheyā</foreign> than that it has a -<foreign>y</foreign>- in final position of a consonant cluster; the consonant immediately above it seems to have been fairly wide, which means another y is a likely candidate. What little remains visible of this consonant supports the hypothesis that it is indeed <foreign>y</foreign>.
·</note>
· </app>
140 <app loc="2">
· <lem>°sr̥gālikā<surplus>yā</surplus>bjata</lem>
· <note>A similarly structured long compound with various hamlet names that are <foreign>prāveśya</foreign> to superordinate units is found at the beginning of the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref>, and makes clear that one should not here emend -<foreign>sr̥gālikāyām abjata</foreign>-, although perhaps the error can be explained as being due to hesitation between two coordinated locative forms, and the <foreign>dvandva</foreign> compound that I assume.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="4">
145 <lem>-kulyavā<unclear>pe</unclear><supplied reason="lost">na</supplied> <unclear>śa</unclear>śvat-</lem>
· <note>Restored after the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref>, lines 4 and 11.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="4">
· <lem>°bhojyākṣaya-</lem>
150 <note>Emend -<foreign>bhogyo 'kṣaya</foreign>- or -<foreign>bhogyākṣaya</foreign>-.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="6">
· <lem>puñja<gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="9"/></lem>
· <note>The part of the lacuna immediately after -<foreign>puñja</foreign> may be filled in with the string <foreign>maddhyamasr̥gālikāyā</foreign>.</note>
155
· </app>
· <app loc="6">
· <lem>vihā<unclear>ra</unclear>-dvay<choice><sic>a<unclear>ṁ</unclear></sic><corr>e</corr></choice></lem>
· <note>Read or emend <foreign>vihāradvaye</foreign>?</note>
160 </app>
· <app loc="6">
· <lem>brāhma
· <lb n="7" break="no"/>ṇā <gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="2"/>ṇḍanakār<unclear>i</unclear>taka-vihāra</lem>
· <note>One has the impression that what stands before -<foreign>kāritakavihāre</foreign> must here be the name of a Brahmin, perhaps the founder of the <foreign>vihāra</foreign> in question, although when the sequence -<foreign>kāritakavihāre</foreign> is used in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00034.xml">Jagadishpur plate</ref>, three times in lines 9 and 10, it is preceded each time by the beneficiary of the monastery’s foundation: see the passage quoted <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">46</citedRange></bibl>.</note>
165 </app>
· <app loc="7">
· <lem>vihāra-tray<choice><sic>asya</sic><corr>yāṁ</corr></choice> <unclear>kṣ</unclear>ama<choice><orig>n</orig><reg>ṇ</reg></choice>ācāryya-</lem>
· <note>Emend <foreign>vihāratrayyāṁ kṣamanācāryya</foreign>-, as in lines 16–17. On the word <foreign>kṣamaṇācārya</foreign>, see discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">47</citedRange></bibl>. In the lacuna before <foreign>vihāra</foreign>-, I expect <foreign>evam</foreign>, as in line 12.</note>
· </app>
170 <app loc="9">
· <lem>-pravartta<unclear>nāya ni</unclear><supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied><unclear>grantha-pu</unclear>tra-ji<unclear>tānāgatābhyāgatānān ta</unclear>nivās<unclear>i</unclear>nāñ</lem>
· <note>See also line 18.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="9">
175 <lem>c<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ny<unclear>ā</unclear>
· <lb n="10" break="no"/>dyapiṇḍa-pānipāt<choice><sic>r̥</sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>kād<unclear>i</unclear>-bhojya-</lem>
· <note>Emend <foreign>cānyādyapiṇḍa-pāṇipātrikādi-bhojya</foreign>-. Cf. line 19. The emendation to -<foreign>pāṇipātrikādi</foreign>- is based on the occurrence of the same term in the Jaina image inscriptions cited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">47</citedRange></bibl>. The first two <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s are of uncertain reading both here and in line 19, where the first seems to be <foreign>cā</foreign> rather than <foreign>ca</foreign>; <foreign>c<choice><unclear>a</unclear><unclear>ā</unclear></choice>nyo</foreign>, <foreign>c<choice><unclear>a</unclear><unclear>ā</unclear></choice>tyo</foreign> are among other possibilities, none of them yielding recognizable words.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="10">
180 <lem>-pratisaṁskārādyopayo<unclear>ka</unclear><space unit="character" quantity="1"/></lem>
· <note>The normal formula is -<foreign>pratisaṁskārakaraṇāya</foreign> (see the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00049.xml">Baigram plate</ref>, line 11; <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00056.xml">Damodarpur #5</ref>, line 8; the Gunaighar grant edited by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhattacharyya1930_01"/><citedRange unit="line">7</citedRange></bibl>; the plate edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Furui2016_01"/><citedRange unit="line">13</citedRange></bibl> — see also <bibl><ptr target="bib:Hinueber2013_01"/><citedRange unit="page">373</citedRange></bibl>. In line 20 we see -<foreign>pratisaṁskārādyarttha</foreign>; emend here -<foreign>pratisaṁskārādyupayogāya</foreign> (cf. <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur</ref>, line 13 <foreign>gandha-<supplied reason="lost">dhūp</supplied>ādy-upayogāya</foreign> and <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00056.xml">Damodarpur #5</ref>, line 9 <foreign>madhu-parkkadīpādyupa<supplied reason="lost">yo</supplied>gā<supplied reason="lost">ya</supplied></foreign>).</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="11">
· <lem>°sr̥gālikāya
185 <lb n="12"/>khila-kṣattresya</lem>
· <note>Emend -<foreign>°sr̥gālikāyāṁ khila-kṣettrasya</foreign>.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="16">
· <lem>vihāratrayy<supplied reason="lost">āṁ</supplied>
190 <lb n="17"/>kṣamanācāryya-jinadāsa-ka<unclear>r</unclear>ṇṇakābhyā<surplus>ṁ</surplus>m adhiṣṭhit<choice><sic><unclear>ayo</unclear></sic><corr>āyāṁ</corr></choice></lem>
· <note>Emend <foreign>vihāratrayyāṁ kṣamaṇācāryya-jinadāsa-ka<unclear>r</unclear>ṇṇakābhyām adhiṣṭhitāyāṁ</foreign>. Cf. line 7–8 above, <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur</ref>, line 6 (<foreign>śramaṇācāryya</foreign>) and 6/13 (<foreign>adhiṣṭhita<supplied reason="lost">sad</supplied>vihāre</foreign>); see also discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">46-7</citedRange></bibl>. Confusion of <foreign>ṇ</foreign>/<foreign>n</foreign> is observed also elsewhere in this text, and throughout the corpus; but in line 7 it is clearly not -<foreign>trayyāṁ</foreign> that has been written. </note>
· </app>
· <app loc="18">
· <lem>ni<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>grantha-putra-jitānā
195 <lb n="19" break="no"/>gat<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>bhyāgatānān</lem>
· <note> Cf. line 9.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="19">
· <lem>cā<supplied reason="lost">n</supplied>y<unclear>ā</unclear>dyapiṇḍa-pānipāt<choice><sic><unclear>r̥</unclear></sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>kādi-bhojya-</lem>
200 <note>Cf. line 10.</note>
· </app>
· <app loc="23">
· <lem>vihāratra<choice><sic><unclear>ya</unclear></sic><corr>yyāṁ</corr></choice></lem>
· <note>It is unclear whether the plate is very worn here, or whether the original engraving was not carried out properly; emend <foreign>vihāratrayyāṁ</foreign>?</note>
205 </app>
· </listApp>
· </div>
· <div type="translation" resp="part:argr">
· <div type="textpart" n="A"><head xml:lang="eng">Initial translation</head>
210 <p n="1-3">Hail! From Puṇḍravardhana, the officials and the council of the capital
· greet the landholders, beginning with the Brahmins,
· in <supplied reason="subaudible">the hamlets</supplied> Śiṣīpuñja and Madhyamasr̥gālikā,
· falling under <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>prāveśya</foreign></supplied>
· <note>The term X-<foreign>prāveśya</foreign>-Y in cadastral contexts indicates that Y is part of the larger unit X. See the glossary in Schmiedchen forthcoming.</note>
215 the village Ārya,
· and in Grāmakūṭagohālī,
· falling under Abjataṭāpagaccha,
· <note>This rather surprising toponym seems to mean ‘lotus <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>abja</foreign></supplied> – shore <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>taṭa</foreign></supplied> – leave <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>apagaccha</foreign></supplied>’.</note>
· <supplied reason="explanation">all three</supplied> in the Ṣaṇḍika division,
220 <note>Cf. the Madhyamaṣaṇḍika <foreign>vīthī</foreign> of the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00039.xml">Raktamālā grant #1</ref> and <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00057.xml">Raktamālā grant #2</ref>.</note>
· and they inform:</p>
· <p n="3-13">
· Nāgavasu petitions us:
· <q>The sale, in your council, of waste land that is without revenue charges and yields no tax,
225 to be enjoyed in perpetuity in accordance with the law on permanent endowments,
· is customary <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>anuvr̥tta</foreign></supplied> with a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>
· for <supplied reason="explanation">the price of</supplied> two <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s.
· Thus <supplied reason="explanation">tad</supplied>, for me too,
· <note>The syntactic position of the genitive <foreign>mama</foreign> is not transparent. It is found in a comparable context also in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00051.xml">Tāvīra plate</ref>, line 8. Is it the indirect object with <foreign>dātum</foreign>? This is implied by Sircar’s explanation (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_02"/><citedRange unit="page">288</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">7</citedRange></bibl>) <foreign>mama</foreign>=<foreign>mahyam</foreign> on the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00031.xml">Dhanaidaha plate</ref>, line 8 (inspection of the published facsimile shows that we must read <foreign>mamāpy anenaiva</foreign> instead of the reading <foreign>mamādyānenaiva</foreign> found in all publications so far), but this text it too fragmentary to be helpful. Anyhow, that solution does not seem to work here and in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00051.xml">Tāvīra plate</ref>. Could it be construed with <foreign>pravarttana</foreign>? But one rather expects that the venerable Arhants should be the agents of the <foreign>pravarttana</foreign>. Perhaps we have contamination from such contexts as <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00047.xml">Damodarpur #</ref>1, line 6–9 (emended) <foreign>brāhmaṇa-karppaṭikena vijñāpitam arhatha mamāgnihotropayogāya apradāprahata-khila-kṣetraṁ tri-dīnārikya-kulyāvāpena śaśvad-ācandrārkka-tāraka-bhogyākṣaya-nīvī-dharmeṇa dātum</foreign>.</note>
230 with this very procedure,
· for the regular performance of <supplied reason="explanation">offerings of</supplied> perfume, incense, flowers,
· lamps, grain oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bali</foreign></supplied>,
· rice oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>caru</foreign></supplied>,
· food oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>nivedya</foreign></supplied>, etc.,
235 to the venerable Arhants at the three monasteries
· superintended by the ascetic <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣamaṇa</foreign></supplied> masters Jinadāsa and Karṇaka — <supplied reason="subaudible">thus:</supplied>
· the two monasteries at Śiṣīpuñja <supplied reason="subaudible">and Madhyamasr̥gālikā</supplied>
· as well as the monastery founded by the Brahmin … in Grāmakūṭagohālī —;
· and for the sake of food for those
240 who use their <supplied reason="explanation">cupped</supplied> hands as bowl <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>pāṇipātrika</foreign></supplied>
· for morsels which were intended to be eaten by others <supplied reason="explanation">i.e., leftovers</supplied>,
· and others, among the Nigranthaputras who have defeated past and future <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karman</foreign></supplied> resident there,
· as well as repairs, etc., of what is broken into pieces,
· be so kind as take from me four <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s and
245 to give two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s of waste land yielding no tax — thus:
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Śiṣīpuñja,
· a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Madhyamasr̥gālikā,
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Grāmakūṭagohālī.</q>
· </p>
250 <p n="13-16">
· <q>Wherefore, after confirmation through an investigation by the first <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>prathama</foreign></supplied> record-keeper Śarva
· and the primary <supplied reason="explanation">ādya</supplied> record-keepers Prīti, Viṣṇudhara, Jayadatta, Rāmadatta, Sudarśanaśrīdāsa and Bhavadāsa,
· and after having taken in cash four <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s from the side of Nāgavasu,
· <supplied reason="explanation">the two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s</supplied> must be given.</q>
255 <note>I tentatively presume that this second quotation terminated by <foreign>iti</foreign> still forms part of the petition that began in line 3.</note>
· </p>
· <p n="16-24">
· And the two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s of waste land without revenue charges and yielding no tax — thus:
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Śiṣīpuñja,
260 a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Madhyamasr̥gālikā,
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Grāmakūṭagohālī —
· for the regular performance of <supplied reason="explanation">offerings of</supplied> perfume, incense, flowers,
· lamps, grain oblation, rice oblation, food oblation, etc.,
· to the venerable Arhants at the three monasteries at Śiṣīpuñja, Śrīgohālī
265 <note>Note that this toponym, also found in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00050.xml">fragment from Baigram</ref> and the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00049.xml">Baigram plate</ref>, here takes the place of Madhyamasr̥gālikā.</note>
· and Grāmakūṭagohālī, superintended by the ascetic masters Jinadāsa and Karṇaka,
· and for the sake of food for those who use their <supplied reason="explanation">cupped</supplied> hands as bowl
· for morsels which were intended to be eaten by others,
· and others, among the Nigranthaputras
270 who have defeated past and future <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karman</foreign></supplied> resident there,
· as well as repairs, etc., of what is broken into pieces,
· are to be given by you to the three monasteries,
· after you have separated them off with sixfold reeds <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>ṣaṭkanala</foreign></supplied>
· in a place that does not conflict with your own cultivation,
275 and are to be protected in perpetuity in accordance with the law on permanent endowments.
· </p>
· <p n="24-6">
· It has been said by the venerable Vyāsa:
· </p>
280 <p n="1" rend="stanza">
· The one who would steal land given by himself or another becomes a worm in excrement and is cooked with his ancestors.<note>
· This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 132 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar <supplied reason="explanation">see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_03"/><citedRange unit="appendix">II</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">170-200</citedRange></bibl></supplied>.
· </note>
· </p>
285 <p n="2" rend="stanza">
· The giver of land revels sixty thousand years in heaven;
· the one who challenges <supplied reason="explanation">a donation</supplied>
· as well as the one who approves <supplied reason="explanation">of the challenge</supplied> will reside as many <supplied reason="subaudible">years</supplied> in hell.<note>
· This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 123 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar <supplied reason="explanation">see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_03"/><citedRange unit="appendix">II</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">170-200</citedRange></bibl></supplied>.
290 </note>
· </p>
· <p>Year 198, Śrāvaṇa, day <gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/> .
· </p>
· </div>
295 <div type="textpart" n="B"><head xml:lang="eng">Translation modified with minor suggestions of Amandine Wattelier-Bricout</head>
· <p n="1-3">Hail! From Puṇḍravardhana, the officials and the city council <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa</foreign></supplied><note>
· The expression <foreign>adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa</foreign> can be found in <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00047.xml">Damodarpur plate #1</ref> line 4, <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00048.xml">Damodarpur plate #2</ref> line 4, <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00053.xml">Damodarpur #4</ref>, lines 3-4, <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00056.xml">Damodarpur #5</ref> in the seal and line 4, and finally in <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur Charter of the Time of Budhagupta</ref> line 1. The different translations suggested for this expression are reported below :
·<p>
· <list>
300 <item><ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00047.xml">Damodarpur plate #1</ref> line 4: <foreign>adhiṣṭhāṇādhikaraṇañ ca nagaraśreṣṭhidhṛtipāla</foreign> translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/></bibl> "<q>the Board of the town presiding over the Nagara-śreṣṭhin Dhṛtipāla</q>"</item>
·<item><ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00048.xml">Damodarpur plate #2</ref> line 4 : <foreign>adhiṣṭhānā<unclear>dhika</unclear>ra<unclear>ṇañ ca</unclear> nagara<unclear>śre</unclear>ṣṭhidhṛtipāla</foreign> translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/></bibl> <q>the Board of the Town, presiding over the Nagara-śreshṭhin Dhṛtipāla</q></item>
·<item><ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00053.xml">Damodarpur #4</ref>, lines 3-4 : <foreign>adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa<supplied reason="lost">ṃ</supplied> nagaraśreṣṭhiribhupāla</foreign> translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/></bibl> <q>the court of the district town as the chief of the Nagara-śreṣṭhī Ribhupāla</q></item>
·<item> <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00056.xml">Damodarpur #5</ref> seal : <foreign>koṭivarṣādhiṣṭhānādhi<unclear>karaṇa</unclear>sya</foreign> translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Basak1919-1920_01"/></bibl> <q>Of the office of the <foreign>adhiṣṭhāna</foreign> <supplied reason="explanation">capital</supplied> of Koṭivarsha</q></item>
·<item> <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00056.xml">Damodarpur #5</ref> line 4 : <foreign>adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa<supplied reason="lost">m</supplied> āryyya<unclear>na</unclear>gara<unclear>śreṣṭhi</unclear>ri<unclear>bhu</unclear>pāla</foreign> translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Basak1919-1920_01"/></bibl> "the affairs of the town <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>adhiṣṭhāna</foreign></supplied> in the company of the Nagara-śrēshṭhin, Āryya Ribhupala"</item>
305 </list>
·</p>
· For this expression, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Apte1890_01"/></bibl> suggests <q>Municipal Board</q> with the following references <title>Epigraphia Indica</title> XV p.143, XVII, p.193, XX, p.61. In my opinion, the translation allows to find an equivalent or to give a base to understand what is behind this expression, but it refers to a system coming from the Roman antiquity. For this reason, I think this translation does not fit. In French, one could translate by <q><foreign>conseil communal</foreign></q> to remove the reference of Roman antiquity, but the equivalent words in English seem to be <q>town</q>, <q>city</q>, <q>village</q> or <q>local</q>. Consequently I consider the translation "<q>the city council</q>" fits better than the earlier translation <q>council of the capital</q> suggested in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/></bibl>.
· </note>
·
310 greet the landholders, beginning with the Brahmins,
· in <supplied reason="subaudible">the hamlets</supplied> Śiṣīpuñja and Madhyamasr̥gālikā,
· falling under <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>prāveśya</foreign></supplied>
· <note>The term X-<foreign>prāveśya</foreign>-Y in cadastral contexts indicates that Y is part of the larger unit X. See the glossary in Schmiedchen forthcoming.</note>
· the village Ārya,
315 and in Grāmakūṭagohālī,
· falling under Abjataṭāpagaccha,
· <note>This rather surprising toponym seems to mean ‘lotus <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>abja</foreign></supplied> – shore <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>taṭa</foreign></supplied> – leave <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>apagaccha</foreign></supplied>’.</note>
· <supplied reason="explanation">all three</supplied> in the Ṣaṇḍika division,
· <note>Cf. the Madhyamaṣaṇḍika <foreign>vīthī</foreign> of the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00039.xml">Raktamālā grant #1</ref> and <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00057.xml">Raktamālā grant #2</ref>.</note>
320 and they inform:</p>
· <p n="3-5">Nāgavasu petitions us:
· <q>The sale, in your council, of waste land that is without revenue charges and yields no tax,
· to be enjoyed in perpetuity in accordance with the law on permanent endowments,
· is customary <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>anuvr̥tta</foreign></supplied> with a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>
325 for <supplied reason="explanation">the price of</supplied> two <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s.</q>
· </p>
· <p n="5-13"><q>Thus <supplied reason="explanation">tad</supplied>, be so kind to use,
· for me too,
· this very procedure
330 <note>Here the instrumental <foreign>anenaiva krameṇa</foreign> is rendered by the expression "use this very procedure". By this way, the genitive <foreign>mamāpy</foreign> could be analysed as a genitive of purpose in a broader meaning. Nāgavasu asks the customary procedure be applied to him as well. This kind of genitive is usually used with the pronouns <supplied reason="explanation">see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Renou1975_01"/><citedRange unit="item">222.D.b</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">307</citedRange></bibl></supplied>. </note>
· concerning the three monasteries
· superintended
· by a couple of ascetics <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣamaṇa</foreign></supplied> masters, Jinadāsa and Karṇaka,
· - the two monasteries
335 at Śiṣīpuñja <supplied reason="subaudible">and Madhyamasr̥gālikā</supplied><note>
· The lacuna consisting of nine <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s line 9 may be reconstructed in two different ways by taking the context into account. The first possibility, suggested in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">38</citedRange></bibl>, is based on the beginining of the text and fills in the lacuna with <foreign>maddhyamasr̥gālikāyā</foreign>, place name founded in compound with Śiṣīpuñja in line 2. The second possibility is based on the continuation of the text. As the three monasteries are mentioned by the compound <foreign>śiṣīpuñja-śrīgohālī-grāmakūṭagohālyāñ ca vihāratrayy<supplied reason="lost">āṁ</supplied></foreign> line 16 and as one can read the repetition of the word <foreign>vihāra</foreign> in a compound <foreign><gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="2"/>ṇḍanakār<unclear>i</unclear>taka-vihāra<gap reason="lost" unit="character" quantity="4"/>vihāra-tray<choice><sic>asya</sic><corr>yāṁ</corr></choice></foreign>, the part of the lacuna may also be filled in with °<foreign>vihāraśrīgohālī</foreign>°. In this case, the translation would be <q>the two monasteries, the one located in and the other located in Śrīgohālī</q> in which the repetion of the word <foreign>vihāra</foreign> is rendered by <q>the one ... and the other</q>. </note>
· and the <supplied reason="explanation">third</supplied> one <supplied reason="subaudible">called...?</supplied>,<note>
· Maybe the four <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s illegible before <foreign>vihāra-trayasya</foreign> line 7 mentioned the name of the monastery.
· </note> a monasterie which is made <supplied reason="subaudible">well-ornated <foreign>su-maṇḍana</foreign></supplied><note>
340 I suggest fill in the lacuna of two <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s line 7 by the syllable <foreign>suma</foreign> in order to reconstruct a compound <foreign>su-maṇḍana-kāritaka</foreign>. The <foreign>avakhaṇḍana</foreign> word could be suggested to fill in the lacuna and could be translated by <q>a monastery which has been made destroyed by a brāhmaṇa</q>. Whereas the destruction of a monastery by a brāhmaṇa seems less likely, it could be explained the need to repair what is broken or cracked in line 10.
· </note> by a brāhmaṇa
· <supplied reason="explanation">and which is located</supplied> in Grāmakūṭagohālī -
· <supplied reason="subaudible">and be so kind to</supplied> give <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>dātum</foreign> line 13</supplied>
· to the venerable Arhants
345 for the sake of the regular performance of
· <supplied reason="explanation">offerings of</supplied> perfume, incense, flowers,
· lamps, grain oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bali</foreign></supplied>,
· rice oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>caru</foreign></supplied>,
· food oblation <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>nivedya</foreign></supplied>, etc.,
350 and to those resident there
· who are Nigranthaputras who have defeated past and future <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karman</foreign></supplied>
· for the use of <supplied reason="explanation">such things as</supplied>
· providing their food by beginning by those who use their <supplied reason="explanation">cupped</supplied> hands as bowl
· for morsels which were intended to be eaten by others
355 or carrying out the repairs of breaches <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>khaṇḍa</foreign></supplied> and cracks <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>phuṭṭa</foreign></supplied>
· two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s of waste land yielding no tax
· <supplied reason="explanation">divided</supplied> as follows <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>evam</foreign> line 12</supplied>,
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Śiṣīpuñja,
· a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Madhyamasr̥gālikā,
360 a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Grāmakūṭagohālī,
· after taking from me four <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s.
· </q>
· </p>
· <p n="13-16">
365 <q>Wherefore,
· after confirmation through an investigation
· by the first <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>prathama</foreign></supplied> record-keeper Śarva
· and the primary <supplied reason="explanation">ādya</supplied> record-keepers Prīti, Viṣṇudhara, Jayadatta, Rāmadatta, Sudarśanaśrīdāsa and Bhavadāsa,
· and after having taken in cash four <foreign>dīnāra</foreign>s from the side of Nāgavasu,
370 <supplied reason="explanation">the two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s</supplied> must be given.</q>
· <note>I tentatively presume that this second quotation terminated by <foreign>iti</foreign> still forms part of the petition that began in line 3.</note>
· </p>
· <p n="16-24">
· And <supplied reason="subaudible">they inform that</supplied> <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bodhayanti</foreign> l.3</supplied>
375 the two <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s of waste land without revenue charges and yielding no tax — precisely <supplied reason="explanation">evam</supplied> <supplied reason="explanation">made of</supplied>
· a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Śiṣīpuñja,
· a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Madhyamasr̥gālikā
· <supplied reason="explanation">and</supplied> a half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land at Grāmakūṭagohālī —
· for the regular performance of <supplied reason="explanation">offerings of</supplied> perfume, incense, flowers,
380 lamps, grain oblation, rice oblation, food oblation, etc.,
· to the venerable Arhants
· <supplied reason="subaudible">dwelling</supplied> in the three monasteries at Śiṣīpuñja, Śrīgohālī
· <note>Note that this toponym, also found in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00050.xml">fragment from Baigram</ref> and the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00049.xml">Baigram plate</ref>, here takes the place of Madhyamasr̥gālikā.</note>
· and Grāmakūṭagohālī,
385 superintended by the two ascetic masters Jinadāsa and Karṇaka;
· and to their inhabitants who are the Nigranthaputras who have defeated past and future <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karman</foreign></supplied>
· for the sake of <supplied reason="subaudible">providing</supplied> their food by beginning by those who use their <supplied reason="explanation">cupped</supplied> hands as bowl for morsels which were intended to be eaten by others,
· <supplied reason="explanation">and for the sake of</supplied> carrying out the repairs of breaches <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>khaṇḍa</foreign></supplied> and cracks <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>phuṭṭa</foreign></supplied>,
· all of this <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>tad</foreign></supplied> is to be given
390 by you to the three monasteries <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>vihāratrayyāṁ</foreign> line 23</supplied>,
· after you have separated them off with sixfold reeds <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>ṣaṭkanala</foreign></supplied>
· in a place that does not conflict with your own cultivation,
· and is to be protected in perpetuity in accordance with the law on permanent endowments.
· </p>
395 <p n="24-6">
· It has been said by the venerable Vyāsa:
· </p>
· <p n="1" rend="stanza">
· The one who would steal land given by himself or another becomes a worm in excrement and is cooked with his ancestors.<note>
400 This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 132 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar <supplied reason="explanation">see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_03"/><citedRange unit="appendix">II</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">170-200</citedRange></bibl></supplied>.
· </note>
· </p>
· <p n="2" rend="stanza">
· The giver of land revels sixty thousand years in heaven;
405 the one who challenges <supplied reason="explanation">a donation</supplied>
· as well as the one who approves <supplied reason="explanation">of the challenge</supplied> will reside as many <supplied reason="subaudible">years</supplied> in hell.<note>
· This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 123 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar <supplied reason="explanation">see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_03"/><citedRange unit="appendix">II</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">170-200</citedRange></bibl></supplied>.
· </note>
· </p>
410 <p>Year 198, Śrāvaṇa, day <gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/> .
· </p>
· </div>
· </div>
· <div type="commentary">
415 <div type="textpart" n="A"><head xml:lang="eng">Description</head>
· <p>This plate measures 13.5 cm in height and 23.3 cm in width. In its left margin we see a semicircular extension with a rectangular hole in the middle: this is where a seal would originally have been affixed. This seal is unfortunately lost. The plate has suffered badly from corrosion, but thanks to the repetition of long strings of text in two parts of the inscription it has been possible to read or restore most of it — 14 lines on the obverse, 13 on the reverse. It records a donation in favor of three monasteries whose affiliation with Jainism is revealed by a string of unique or rarely attested terms (see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">45-50</citedRange></bibl> and below). The grant must be compared with the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00034.xml">Jagadishpur plate</ref>, dated 128 GE, and the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref>, dated 159 GE, both in favor of Jaina ascetics. This new grant is, like the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref>, issued from the capital of Puṇḍravardhana. It figures anonymous officials addressing householders in the localities Śiṣīpuñja, Madhyamasr̥gālikā and Grāmakūṭagohālī to order execution of a donation petitioned and paid for by a certain Nāgavasu. He spent a sum of 4 <foreign>dīnāra</foreign> coins, for a total of 2 <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign>s, covering three distinct parcels of waste land, to be given to the monasteries in the mentioned localities, for the sustenance of the monks, for the regular performance of worship, and for the maintenance of the buildings. A number of named record-keepers figure as authorities confirming the local price of a <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land. Two of the usual admonitory stanzas on land donation are cited in the final part of the inscription, which closes with a colophon containing a date in the month of Śrāvaṇa in year 198 of the Gupta era, corresponding to around 518 CE, making this the latest inscription but one of the Gupta period in the Puṇḍravardhana area.</p>
· </div>
· <div type="textpart" n="B"><head xml:lang="eng">Vaidika and Jaina beneficiaries</head>
· <p>The majority of the beneficiaries of the grants recorded in our corpus are Vedic Brahmins, and the epigraphic material of early Bengal has already been analysed from the point of view of the social history of the Brahmins. The new plates published here do not contain any new data beyond additions to the prosopographic database that has been compiled and recently published by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Furui2017_01"/></bibl>. I refer therefore to the same scholar’s article presenting a synthesis on the history of Brahmins in the early history of Bengal (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Furui2013_01"/></bibl>), with the updated perspectives formulated in his more recent contribution (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Furui2017_01"/><citedRange unit="page">181-2</citedRange></bibl>: 181–182). Since they are not cited by Furui, I mention here also the important overview of earlier philological and historical work by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Witzel1993_01"/></bibl> and a recent study by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schmiedchen2007_01"/></bibl>, which offers important comments on the social realities behind the term cāturvidya ‘belonging to the community of [Brahmins] studying the four Vedas’, that we have encountered above in the Raktamālā plate #2, notably with regard to the question whether the term is evidence or not for the presence of Brahmins affiliated to the Atharvaveda. So far, the corpus has brought us evidence only of named Brahmins belonging to the White Yajurveda (<foreign>vājasaneya</foreign>) and Sāmaveda (<foreign>chandoga</foreign>) traditions.
420 </p>
· <p>The corpus also contains a small number of grants to temples (<ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00049.xml">Baigram</ref>, <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00053.xml">Damodarpur #4</ref>), but none of the new plates belongs to this subgroup. Besides the two donations to Brahmins recorded in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00057.xml">Raktamālā plate #2</ref> and in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00051.xml">Tāvīra grant</ref>, the new material contains a donation made to a group of three monasteries which I have above identified as Jaina. This identification was not immediately evident to me when I started studying the inscription, in part because of the poor state of preservation of the plate. I will present here the evidence which led to the conclusion that we are dealing with a grant to Jaina monks.
· </p>
· <p>It will be helpful to start by repeating the two relevant passages from Nāgavasu’s grant, which express twice almost exactly the same information, restored and emended in accordance with my edition and notes above:
·</p>
425 <p n="5-10"> From <foreign>śiṣīpuñja</foreign>- to -<foreign>saṁskārādyopayo</foreign>
· </p>
· <p n="16-20">From <foreign>śiṣīpuñja</foreign>- to <foreign>saṁskārādyartthaṁ</foreign>-.</p>
· <p>In interpreting these passages, I was for a long time on the wrong track, by imagining a term <foreign>ni<supplied reason="lost">r</supplied>granthaputrajita</foreign>, whose <foreign>prima facie</foreign> meaning would have been ‘defeated by the sons of the Nirgrantha’, but which I considered to be an inverted <foreign>samāsa</foreign> (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Oberlies2003_01"/><citedRange unit="page">XLIV, 361</citedRange></bibl>), making it translatable as ‘by whom the sons of the Nirgrantha have been defeated’, which seemed like a potential designation of Buddhist or Ājīvika monks. My problems of interpretation were made worse by the presence of gaps in the first passage, by errors of spelling of certain terms or differences between the two passages, notably for the string that reads <foreign>cānyādyapiṇḍa-pāṇipātrikādi</foreign>- in emended form, and by the fact that the term <foreign>kṣamaṇa</foreign> (see below) is not found in any Sanskrit dictionaries.
· <note>I only realized when most other pieces had fallen into place that the Prakrit equivalent <foreign>khamaṇa</foreign> is recorded in the <title>Illustrated Ardhamagadhi Dictionary</title>, vol. 2, p. 553.</note>
430 The process of resolving these problems started by reading the above data from Nāgavasu’s grant in conjunction with parallel passages from two previously published inscriptions:
·</p>
· <p><list rend="numbered">
· <item><ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00034.xml">Jagadishpur</ref>, lines 8–12 (emended):
·<foreign>Icchāmaḥ dakṣiṇāṅśaka-vīthyāṁ pecikāmra-siddhyāyatane</foreign>
435 <note>Sircar read -<foreign>vī<supplied reason="lost">th</supplied>yā mecikāmrasiddhāyatane</foreign>. No word <foreign>mecikā</foreign> is known, whereas <foreign>pecikā</foreign> is a known word, designating a kind of owl.</note>
· <foreign>bhagavatām arhatāṁ kāritaka-vihāre gulmagandhike cārhatāṁ pūjārtthaṁ kāritaka-prānta-vihārike tatraiva gulmagandhike bhagavatas sahasraraśmeḥ kāritaka-devakule ca bali-caru-satra-pravarttaṇāya khaṇḍa-phuṭṭa-pratisaṁskāra-karaṇāya gandha-dhūpa-tailopayogāya śaśvat-kālopabhogyākṣaya-nīvyā-m-apratikara-khila-kṣetrasya kulyavāpam ekaṁ krītvā dātuṁ</foreign>
· <p><q>For offerings of <foreign>bali</foreign>, <foreign>caru</foreign> and <foreign>sattra</foreign>, for carrying out the repair of what is broken into pieces, <supplied reason="explanation">and</supplied> for requirements of perfumes, incense, and oil in the monastery commissioned for the venerable Arhants in the shrine of Pecikāmrasiddhi in the Dakṣiṇāṁśaka division, and in the little peripheral monastery commissioned for the purpose of worshipping the Arhants at Gulmagandhika, and in the temple commissioned for the Lord Sahasraraśmi <supplied reason="explanation">i.e., Sūrya</supplied> in the same Gulmagandhika, we wish to purchase and give one <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of waste land without revenue charges by way of permanent endowment to be enjoyed in perpetuity.</q>.After which we read in lines 17–18: <foreign>ṣaḍ-droṇavāpāḥ śravaṇakācāryya-balakuṇḍasya samāviśitāḥ</foreign>, possibly to be emended and translated as follows: <foreign>ṣaḍ-droṇavāpāḥ śramaṇakācāryya-balakuṇḍasya vihāre samāveśitāḥ</foreign> ‘the six <foreign>droṇavāpa</foreign>s were entrusted to the monastery of the <foreign>śramaṇaka</foreign> master Balakuṇḍa</p></item>
· <item><ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur</ref>, lines 5–9 (emended):
· <p><foreign>tad arhathāneṇaiva kkrameṇāvayos sakāśād dīnāra-trayam upasaṁgr̥hyāvayoḥ sva-puṇyāpyāyanāya vaṭagohālyām evāsyāṅ kāśika-pañcastūpanikāyikani<supplied reason="lost">r</supplied>grantha-śramaṇācāryya-guha-nandi-śiṣya-praśiṣyādhiṣṭhita-vihāre bhagavatām arhatāṁ gandha-dhūpa-sumano-dīpādy-artthan talavāṭakanimittañ ca […] evam adhyarddhaṁ kṣetra-kulyavāpam akṣaya-nīvyā dātum</foreign> <q>So, in this very manner, be so kind as to take from both of us three dīnāras and — for the purpose of the merit of the both of us being increased — to give as permanent endowment, for the sake of perfume, incense, flowers and lamps, etc., for the venerable Arhants in the monastery at the same Vaṭagohālī here, overseen by the disciples and grand-disciples of the Nirgrantha <foreign>śramaṇa</foreign> master Guhanandin of the Kāśika-Pañcastūpa order and for the purpose of <supplied reason="explanation">use as</supplied> adjoining parcel: […] thus one-and-a-half <foreign>kulyavāpa</foreign> of land.</q> The same basic information is repeated in lines 12–16 of the inscription. </p></item>
440 </list></p>
· <p>With regard to the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00034.xml">Jagadishpur plate</ref>, its editor D.C. Sircar unhesitatingly assumed that the monastic beneficiaries were Buddhists, and his great authority has led several subsequent scholars to accept this idea. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schopen1990_01"/><citedRange unit="page">208-9</citedRange></bibl> (and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schopen1990_01"/><citedRange unit="page">281</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">26</citedRange></bibl>) was more prudent and pointed to the significant parallels with the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref> which certainly concern Jaina beneficiaries, adding the important observation: <q>The mere fact that it is not always easy to distinguish Buddhist and Jain inscriptions of this sort is […] in itself significant.</q>. We will see below some examples of overlap between the technical terminology of the two religions. But to return to the affiliation of the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00034.xml">Jagadishpur plate</ref>, which is the least explicit of the three grants, the sum of the evidence presented in this section persuades me that its beneficiaries were Jaina monks as well. Their abbot is here called <foreign>śravaṇakācāryya</foreign>, probably an error for <foreign>śra<hi rend="bold">ma</hi>ṇakācāryya</foreign>.
·</p>
· <p>The <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur plate</ref> speaks of a <foreign>kāśika-pañca-stūpanikāyikani<supplied reason="lost">r</supplied>grantha-śramaṇācāryya</foreign>, and the reading <foreign>śramaṇa</foreign> here is secure. This word can indicate not only Jainas, but also Buddhist and Ājīvikas. For the former, see the SSanchi stone inscription of Candragupta II, year 93 Gupta Era, line 2 — <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="page">250</citedRange></bibl>; for the latter, see the aforementioned plate dated 184 Gupta Era from Southeast Bengal, where we read (line 3–4, ed. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Furui2016_01"/></bibl>): <foreign>pūrvva-maṇḍala-jayanāṭane bhagavataś catur-mmukha-mūrtter mma<supplied reason="lost">ṇi</supplied>bhadrasyāyatana-m-ājīvaka-bhadanta-śramaṇa-saṁghāya</foreign> ‘for the sake of the community of respectable Ājīvika <foreign>śramaṇa</foreign>s at the abode of the venerable Maṇibhadra in four-faced image in Jayanāṭana of Pūrvamaṇḍala’. But the Jaina affiliation of the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00052.xml">Paharpur grant</ref> is beyond doubt, because the <foreign>pañcastūpanikāya</foreign> is a known name for a Jaina order
· <note>See the paper by A.N. Upadhye “<title>Pañcastūpānvaya</title>”, originally published in the <title>Karnataka Historical Review</title> 7 (1–2), 1948, and included in the same scholar’s volume of papers (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Upadhye1983_01"/><citedRange unit="page">279-83</citedRange></bibl>). See also <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shah1987_01"/><citedRange unit="page">16</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">82-85</citedRange></bibl>.</note>
445 and Jaina affiliation is implied also by the term <foreign>nirgrantha</foreign>.
· <note>This is perhaps a fact too well known to require a bibliographic reference. Nevertheless, I may refer to <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schubring1978_01"/><citedRange unit="entry">§137</citedRange></bibl>.</note>
· Incidentally, this word is consistently spelt <foreign>nigrantha</foreign> in the four occurrences in our corpus, perhaps because of subliminal influence from its Prakrit form <foreign>niggantha</foreign>.
·</p>
· <p>Now our new inscription contains the variant <foreign>kṣamaṇa</foreign>, which is known only in Jaina context, and to my knowledge only once elsewhere in South Asian epigraphy, viz. in the Vidiśā stone image inscriptions of the time of <foreign>mahārājādhirāja</foreign> Śrī Rāmagupta. The best preserved of these three copies of what is basically a single text, labeled A in Bhandarkar’s edition (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="page">231-4</citedRange></bibl>), reads as follows:
450 <note>
· The angle brackets indicate restorations of elements omitted in the text, after <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bakker2006_01"/><citedRange unit="page">182</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">9</citedRange></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bakker2010_01"/><citedRange unit="page">463</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">12</citedRange></bibl>, whose translation I also adopt with only minor modifications. However, for the reading <foreign>cellaka</foreign>- I differ from Bakker, and from <bibl><ptr target="bib:Willis2009_01"/><citedRange unit="page">333</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">277</citedRange></bibl>, who believe the reading cannot be anything else than <foreign>celūka</foreign>. In my opinion, reading -<foreign>lla</foreign>- is perfectly possible in view of the estampage published in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="entry">V A</citedRange></bibl> and expected in the light of the argument brought forward by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Dundas2014_01"/><citedRange unit="page">239</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">16</citedRange></bibl>, while a dignitary named Cellaka is attested in the <ref target="DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00063.xml">Mastakaśvabhra plate</ref>, line 2 (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2015_02"/><citedRange unit="page">29</citedRange></bibl>).
· </note></p>
· <p n="1"><foreign>bhagavato rhataḥ candraprabhasya pratimeyaṁ kāritā ma</foreign>-</p>
· <p n="2"><foreign>hārājādhirāja-śrī-rāmaguptena Upadeśāt pāṇipā</foreign>-</p>
455 <p n="3"><foreign>trika-candra-kṣam⟨<unclear>aṇ</unclear>ācāryya-kṣamaṇa-śramaṇa-praśiṣya Ācā</foreign>-</p>
· <p n="4"><foreign>ryya-sarppasena-kṣamaṇaśiṣyasya golakyāntyā⟨ḥ⟩ satputrasya cellakṣamaṇasyeti</foreign> ||</p>
· <p><q>This image of the Lord, the Arhant Candraprabha, was commissioned by the <foreign>mahārājādhirāja</foreign> Śrī Rāmagupta, at the instigation of Cellakṣamaṇa, son of Golakyāntī, who is the pupil of the preceptor Sarpasenakṣamaṇa and the grand-pupil of the pāṇipātrika Candrakṣamaṇa, preceptor <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>ācārya</foreign></supplied> and forbearing monk <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣamaṇaśramaṇa</foreign></supplied>.</q></p>
· <p>In his recent article giving a useful overview of what is known about Jainism in North India during the Gupta period, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Dundas2014_01"/><citedRange unit="page">239</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">16</citedRange></bibl> affirms that <q>there is no doubt that the expression appended to these monks’s names is the same as the Prākrit honorific <foreign>khamāsamaṇa</foreign> (~ Sanskrit <foreign>kṣamāśramaṇa</foreign>), and has perhaps been misheard or misunderstood as being in a quasi-rhyming relationship with -śramaṇa by a scribe unfamiliar with Jain usage</q>. Although the new inscription may require rethinking of these matters, and the Vidiśā image inscriptions may have to be reinterpreted in such a way that <foreign>kṣamaṇācārya</foreign> stands as a unit, as it clearly does in our text, the main point of importance for my discussion is that the use of the term <foreign>kṣamaṇa</foreign> may be considered a clear indicator of the Jaina affiliation of the beneficiaries of Nāgavasu’s grant. The Vidiśā image inscriptions also contain another Jaina technical term that occurs in our inscription, namely <foreign>pāṇipātrika</foreign>, which has been elucidated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Dundas2014_01"/><citedRange unit="page">239-40</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">18</citedRange></bibl>:
· <q>The expression <foreign>pāṇipātrika</foreign> is a common epithet normally used of monks of the Digambara sect who differentiate themselves from the Śvetāmbaras who use alms bowls. However, the practice of using the hands as an alms bowl was also prescribed amongst the Śvetāmbaras for advanced monks following the <foreign>jinakalpa</foreign>, the ‘practice of the Jinas’, a more intense mode of renunciant life. As noted above, the honorific <foreign>kṣamāśramaṇa</foreign>, however represented in the inscription, seems to be characteristic of Śvetāmbara usage, and the conclusion must be that the monks in question were Śvetāmbaras, although the term may not have had a formally sectarian sense at this particular time</q>
460 I am unable to find any other occurrence of the term <foreign>anyādyapiṇḍa</foreign>, which is joined here with <foreign>pāṇipātrika</foreign>, and the reading is in both instances open to doubt. If I am correct in reading this term, it appears to give expression to the rule that Jaina monks “were required not to accept any food or water especially prepared for them” (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Balcerowicz2016_01"/><citedRange unit="page">110</citedRange></bibl>).
· <note>For more details on this rule, see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schubring1978_01"/><citedRange unit="page">272</citedRange><citedRange unit="entry"> §154</citedRange></bibl>:
· <p><q>The alms, above all, must not be prepared in advance, neither for receivers of alms in general (<foreign>āhākamma</foreign>) nor for him personally who is expected to ask for them (<foreign>uddesiya</foreign>), no more than they may be sent for (<foreign>abhi-haḍa</foreign>) or bought (<foreign>kīya-gaḍa</foreign>) or set aside from one’s own meal (<foreign>ceiya</foreign> K. 2, 25-28, Dasā 2, 4, Nis. 10, 4, Āyār. I 36, 20, II 50, 20; Dasav. 3, 2).</q></p></note>
·</p>
·<p>Let me now try to explicate the sequence <foreign>nigrantha-putra-jitānāgatabhyāgatānānta-nivāsināñ ca</foreign> which is clearly preserved only on the reverse of the plate, and whose precise reading on the front can no longer be known, but which I have proposed to emend as follows: <foreign>ni<supplied reason="lost"><hi rend="bold">r</hi></supplied>grantha-putra-jitānāgat<hi rend="bold">ā</hi>bhyāgatānān ta<hi rend="bold">n</hi>-nivāsināñ ca</foreign>. The position of <foreign>ca</foreign> after the two genitive plural forms seems to be due to the author’s desire to establish a syntactic parallelism between, first, the long clause ending in <foreign>pravarttanāya</foreign> and, second, the long clause ending in <foreign>pratisaṁskārādyopayogāya</foreign>/<foreign>pratisaṁskārādyartthaṁ</foreign>. As regards the elements <foreign>anāgata</foreign>, <foreign>abhyāgata</foreign> and <foreign>tannivāsin</foreign>, it seems to me that the author was consciously playing with terminology that was used by his Buddhist contemporaries. Occurrences of these elements in Buddhist contexts have been discussed in a recent article by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Tournier2018_01"/><citedRange unit="page">67</citedRange></bibl>, with reference to 6th-century Sanskrit inscriptions from the Andhra region: “the <foreign>dvandva</foreign> <foreign>āgata-anāgata</foreign>, distinguishing between those who have arrived and will arrive in the future to reside at a given monastery, is uncommon in Indian inscriptions, and the term occurs almost exclusively in Pāli literature. Occurrences of the compound may thus be found in the Pāli Vinaya’s discussion of how residences should be dedicated to the Saṅgha, the locus classicus being the gift of the Jetavana by Anāthapiṇḍada.” In his discussion, he cites and translates the first three of the following epigraphical Sanskrit passages, the last two being added here by me:
465 </p>
· <p>
· <list rend="numbered">
· <item>
· <foreign>caturddig<hi rend="bold">abhyāgatā</hi>ryyasaṁghaparibhogāya</foreign> ‘for the enjoyment of the noble community coming from the four directions’ (<title>Early Inscriptions of Āndhradeśa</title>, <ref target="http://epigraphia.efeo.fr/andhra">EIAD</ref>, 180, lines 27–8)
470 </item>
· <item>
· -<foreign>mahāvihāra<hi rend="bold">nivāsyāgatānāgata</hi>cāturddiśāryyavarabhikṣusaṅghacatuṣpratyayaparibhogārtthan</foreign> ‘for the enjoyment of the four requisites by the community of noble and excellent monks of the four quarters, current and future residents of the mahāvihāra’ (<title>Early Inscriptions of Āndhradeśa</title>, <ref target="http://epigraphia.efeo.fr/andhra">EIAD</ref> 186, lines 22–24)
· </item>
· <item>
475 <foreign>svakāritavihāre ratnattrayopayogāya catuṣpratyayanimittaṁ bhagnasphuṭi<unclear>ta</unclear> <gap reason="lost"/> kimmājuvdevyā <hi rend="bold">Āgatānāgata</hi>jetavanavāsisthaviracāturddiśāryyabhikṣusaṅgha <gap reason="lost"/> grāmo nisr̥ṣṭo</foreign> ‘Kimmājuvdevī endowed the village <gap reason="lost"/> to the community of noble monks of the four quarters, current and future residents of the Jetavana, the Sthaviras, to be used for the Three Jewels in the <foreign>vihāra</foreign> she had herself commissioned to be built <supplied reason="subaudible">and, in particular</supplied> for the four requisites <supplied reason="subaudible">and</supplied> <supplied reason="explanation">for the repair of</supplied> broken and shattered <supplied reason="subaudible">parts</supplied> <gap reason="lost"/>’ (Arakan copper-plate, ca 600 CE, lines 11–12 — ed. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1967-1968_01"/></bibl>)
· </item>
· <item>
· <foreign>kuberanagarasvatalaniviṣṭayaśonandikāritavaḍḍavihāre <hi rend="bold">tannivāsicaturddigabhyā<supplied reason="lost">ga</supplied>tā</hi>ryyabhikṣusaṅghasya ca cīvarapiṇḍapātaśayanāsanaglānapratyayabhaiṣajyapariṣkāropayo<supplied reason="lost">gāya</supplied></foreign> ‘in the Vaḍḍa <supplied reason="explanation">= old?</supplied> monastery erected by Yaśonandin on the city territory <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>svatala</foreign></supplied> of Kuberanagara, for the use for robes, alms-food, beds and seats, medicine to cure the sick of the noble order of monks coming from the four directions and residing there’ (Ambalasa Plates of Śīlāditya I
·
480, year 290 of the Valabhī = Gupta Era, line 26–28 — ed. and transl. Schmiedchen forthc.
·
·)
· </item>
· <item>
485 <foreign><hi rend="bold">caturddigabhyyāgatāya</hi> śramaṇapuṅgavāvasathāyāryyasaṅghāya</foreign> ‘for the community of noble ones coming from the four quarters, which is the abode of most eminent ascetics’ (<ref target="http://siddham.uk/index.php/inscription/in00012">Sanchi stone inscription of Candragupta II</ref>
·
·, year 93 Gupta Era, line 2 — <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="page">250</citedRange></bibl>)
· </item>
· </list>
490</p> <p>It will be noticed that none of these passages gives the precise combination <foreign>anāgatābhyāgata</foreign>, which indeed I am unable to find in any other context. I tentatively interpret the apparently unique expression <foreign>jitānāgatābhyāgata</foreign> as a reconfiguration of in origin Buddhist terms to express the Jaina tenet of eradication of past <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>abhyāgata</foreign></supplied> and future <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>anāgata</foreign></supplied> <foreign>karman</foreign>,
· <note>Admittedly, I have so far identified no clearer expression of this idea than the following passages translated from the Āyāraṅgasutta (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Jacobi1884_02"/><citedRange unit="page">81</citedRange></bibl>):
· <p><q>The sage, perceiving the double (karman), proclaims the incomparable activity, he, the knowing one; knowing the current of worldliness, the current of sinfulness, and the impulse, (15) Practising the sinless abstinence from killing, he did no acts, neither himself nor with the assistance of others; he to whom women were known as the causes of all sinful acts, he saw <supplied reason="explanation">the true state of the world</supplied>. (16)</q></p>
· In his note on ‘double (<supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karman</foreign></supplied>)’, Jacobi explains the meaning to be present and future, presumably based on the commentary. But in another passage, translated by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Jacobi1884_02"/><citedRange unit="page">32-3</citedRange></bibl>, we read: <q>There is no past thing, nor is there a future one; So opine the Tathagatas. He whose karman has ceased and conduct is right, who recognises the truth <supplied reason="explanation">stated above</supplied> and destroys sinfulness <supplied reason="explanation">thinks</supplied>: What is discontent and what is pleasure? not subject to either, one should live; Giving up all gaiety, circumspect and restrained, one should lead a religious life.</q></note>
· although I cannot exclude other possibilities, among which the most likely one seems to be that the intended meaning of ni<supplied reason="subaudible">r</supplied>granthaputrajitānāgatābhyāgatānān was ‘of those who come in the present <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>abhyāgata</foreign></supplied> and in the future <supplied reason="explanation">anāgata</supplied>, the conquerors <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>jita</foreign></supplied> among the Nirgranthaputras’ and that the conjunction ca was intended to distinguish wandering ascetics from permanent residents <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>tannivāsinām</foreign></supplied>.
495 <note>Several of the elements from Nāgavasu’s grant analyzed so far find significant parallels in the epigraphic data from Jaina epigraphy in South India assembled in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Schmiedchen2018_02"/></bibl>, with regard to the purposes specified in such grants and the importance of teacher-disciple lines.</note></p>
· <p>The designation <foreign>nirgranthaputra</foreign> is rather commonly used in Buddhist sources to designate Jainas or Ājīvikas, and it often occurs as a ‘surname’ for the heretic teacher Satyaka, or Saccaka Nigaṇṭhaputta in Pali (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Lamotte1960_01"/><citedRange unit="page">39</citedRange></bibl>). A long passage that is particularly relevant for our copper plate issued from Puṇḍravardhana is found in the Aśokāvadāna:
· <q><foreign>tasmiṁś ca samaye puṇḍavardhananagare nirgranthopāsakena buddhapratimā nirgranthasya pādayor nipatitā citrārpitā | upāsakenāśokasya rājño niveditaṁ | śrutvā ca rājñābhihitaṁ śīghram ānīyatāṁ | tasyordhvaṁ yojanaṁ yakṣāḥ śr̥ṇvanti | adho yojanaṁ nāgāḥ | yāvat taṁ tatkṣaṇena yakṣair upanītaṁ | dr̥ṣṭvā ca rājñā ruṣitenābhihitam | puṇḍavardhane sarve ājīvikāḥ praghātayitavyāḥ | yāvad ekadivase ’ṣṭādaśasahasrāṇy ājīvikānāṁ praghātitāni |</foreign></q>
· <q>In the meantime, in the city of Puṇḍavardhana, a lay follower of Nirgrantha Jñātiputra drew a picture showing the Buddha bowing down at the feet of his master. A Buddhist devotee reported this to King Aśoka, who then ordered the man arrested and brought to him immediately. The order was heard by the nāgas as far as a yojana underground, and by the yakṣas a yojana up in the air, and the latter instantly brought the heretic before the king. Upon seeing him, Aśoka flew into a fury and proclaimed: “All of the Ājīvikas in the whole of Puṇḍavardhana are to be put to death at once!” And on that day, eighteen thousand of them were executed.</q>
·</p>
500 <p>I cite the text after the edition of <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mukhopadhyaya1963_01"/><citedRange unit="page">67-8</citedRange></bibl>, and the translation of <bibl><ptr target="bib:Strong1983_01"/><citedRange unit="page">232</citedRange></bibl>. The reading <foreign>puṇḍavardhananagare</foreign> is of course to be corrected to <foreign>puṇḍravardhananagare</foreign>, as in the edition by K.P. Jayaswal used by P. Balcerowicz who has cited the same passage in his recent book (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Balcerowicz2016_01"/><citedRange unit="page">270</citedRange></bibl>), and whose comments must be quoted here:
· <q>The story is clearly fictitious and ahistorical for no images of the Buddha or the Jina are known to have existed at the time of Aśoka, and the account of the execution is similarly fictitious and ahistorical. Nevertheless, the legend may preserve a grain of truth, namely that Puṇḍravardhana had once been another centre of the Ājīvikas. Of note is that the passage is one of several examples when the term nirgrantha is erroneously used by the Buddhists to denote an Ājīvika.
·</q>
· Other evidence for such confusion on the part of Buddhist authors is added by Balcerowicz elsewhere in his book (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Balcerowicz2016_01"/><citedRange unit="page">278-9, 321</citedRange></bibl>). But he does not mention that the Chinese transmission in the same passage of the Aśokāvadāna, which I am able to access through the translation of <bibl><ptr target="bib:Przyluski1923_01"/><citedRange unit="page">278-9</citedRange></bibl>, uses characters corresponding to the term <foreign>nirgranthaputra</foreign> even where the Sanskrit transmission switches to ājīvikas. Since the Sanskrit text is available only in very late manuscripts, whereas the Chinese text translated by Przyluski dates to the 3rd century CE, there is some reason to take the Chinese version at face value and read the passage as evidence of Jaina rather than Ājīvika presence in Puṇḍravardhana in the first half of the first millennium CE.
·</p>
505 <p>This can be corroborated with textual evidence from the Jaina tradition itself. For in Jacobi’s paraphrase of the Sthavirāvalī of Bhadrabāhu’s <title>Kalpasūtra</title> we read (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Jacobi1884_02"/><citedRange unit="page">288-9</citedRange></bibl>):<note>
· I have standardized the transliteration system. The corresponding passage in the same scholar’s 1879 edition of the text is found on pp. 78–79.
· </note>
· <q>Ārya Bhadrabāhu of the Prācīna gotra, who had four disciples of the Kāśyapa gotra: a. Godāsa, founder of the Godāsa Gaṇa, which was divided into four Śākhās: α. The Tāmraliptikā Śākhā, β. The Koṭivarṣīyā Śākhā, γ. The <hi rend="bold">Puṇḍravardhanīyā</hi> Śākhā, and δ. The Dāsīkharbatikā Śākhā. b. Agnidatta, c. Gaṇadatta, d. Somadatta.</q>
· We see here that Jaina’s were known to be settled in ancient Bengal not only at Puṇḍravardhana but also at such important known sites as Tāmralipti and Koṭivarṣa.<note>See the map, Pl. 1 <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="page">17</citedRange></bibl>.</note></p>
510 </div>
· </div>
· <div type="bibliography">
· <p>First edited by Arlo Griffiths. Re-edited here with small improvements based on direct inspection of the plate. The text has been encoded by Amandine Wattelier-Bricout.</p>
· <listBibl type="primary">
515 <bibl n="G"><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="item">II.3</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">35-9</citedRange></bibl>
· </listBibl>
· <listBibl type="secondary">
· <bibl><ptr target="bib:Griffiths2018_02"/><citedRange unit="item">II.3</citedRange><citedRange unit="page">35-9</citedRange></bibl>
· </listBibl>
520 </div>
· </body>
· </text>
·</TEI>
Commentary
Description
This plate measures 13.5 cm in height and 23.3 cm in width. In its left margin we see a semicircular extension with a rectangular hole in the middle: this is where a seal would originally have been affixed. This seal is unfortunately lost. The plate has suffered badly from corrosion, but thanks to the repetition of long strings of text in two parts of the inscription it has been possible to read or restore most of it — 14 lines on the obverse, 13 on the reverse. It records a donation in favor of three monasteries whose affiliation with Jainism is revealed by a string of unique or rarely attested terms (see Griffiths 2018, pp. 45–50 and below). The grant must be compared with the Jagadishpur plate, dated 128 GE, and the Paharpur plate, dated 159 GE, both in favor of Jaina ascetics. This new grant is, like the Paharpur plate, issued from the capital of Puṇḍravardhana. It figures anonymous officials addressing householders in the localities Śiṣīpuñja, Madhyamasr̥gālikā and Grāmakūṭagohālī to order execution of a donation petitioned and paid for by a certain Nāgavasu. He spent a sum of 4 dīnāra coins, for a total of 2 kulyavāpas, covering three distinct parcels of waste land, to be given to the monasteries in the mentioned localities, for the sustenance of the monks, for the regular performance of worship, and for the maintenance of the buildings. A number of named record-keepers figure as authorities confirming the local price of a kulyavāpa of waste land. Two of the usual admonitory stanzas on land donation are cited in the final part of the inscription, which closes with a colophon containing a date in the month of Śrāvaṇa in year 198 of the Gupta era, corresponding to around 518 CE, making this the latest inscription but one of the Gupta period in the Puṇḍravardhana area.
Vaidika and Jaina beneficiaries
The majority of the beneficiaries of the grants recorded in our corpus are Vedic Brahmins, and the epigraphic material of early Bengal has already been analysed from the point of view of the social history of the Brahmins. The new plates published here do not contain any new data beyond additions to the prosopographic database that has been compiled and recently published by Furui 2017. I refer therefore to the same scholar’s article presenting a synthesis on the history of Brahmins in the early history of Bengal (Furui 2013), with the updated perspectives formulated in his more recent contribution (Furui 2017, pp. 181–2: 181–182). Since they are not cited by Furui, I mention here also the important overview of earlier philological and historical work by Witzel1993_01 and a recent study by Schmiedchen 2007, which offers important comments on the social realities behind the term cāturvidya ‘belonging to the community of [Brahmins] studying the four Vedas’, that we have encountered above in the Raktamālā plate #2, notably with regard to the question whether the term is evidence or not for the presence of Brahmins affiliated to the Atharvaveda. So far, the corpus has brought us evidence only of named Brahmins belonging to the White Yajurveda (vājasaneya) and Sāmaveda (chandoga) traditions.
The corpus also contains a small number of grants to temples (Baigram, Damodarpur #4), but none of the new plates belongs to this subgroup. Besides the two donations to Brahmins recorded in the Raktamālā plate #2 and in the Tāvīra grant, the new material contains a donation made to a group of three monasteries which I have above identified as Jaina. This identification was not immediately evident to me when I started studying the inscription, in part because of the poor state of preservation of the plate. I will present here the evidence which led to the conclusion that we are dealing with a grant to Jaina monks.
It will be helpful to start by repeating the two relevant passages from Nāgavasu’s grant, which express twice almost exactly the same information, restored and emended in accordance with my edition and notes above:
(5–10) From śiṣīpuñja- to -saṁskārādyopayo
(16–20) From śiṣīpuñja- to saṁskārādyartthaṁ-.
In interpreting these passages, I was for a long time on the wrong track, by imagining a term ni[r]granthaputrajita, whose prima facie meaning would have been ‘defeated by the sons of the Nirgrantha’, but which I considered to be an inverted samāsa (Oberlies 2003, pp. XLIV, 361), making it translatable as ‘by whom the sons of the Nirgrantha have been defeated’, which seemed like a potential designation of Buddhist or Ājīvika monks. My problems of interpretation were made worse by the presence of gaps in the first passage, by errors of spelling of certain terms or differences between the two passages, notably for the string that reads cānyādyapiṇḍa-pāṇipātrikādi- in emended form, and by the fact that the term kṣamaṇa (see below) is not found in any Sanskrit dictionaries. 21 The process of resolving these problems started by reading the above data from Nāgavasu’s grant in conjunction with parallel passages from two previously published inscriptions:
“For offerings of bali, caru and sattra, for carrying out the repair of what is broken into pieces, (and) for requirements of perfumes, incense, and oil in the monastery commissioned for the venerable Arhants in the shrine of Pecikāmrasiddhi in the Dakṣiṇāṁśaka division, and in the little peripheral monastery commissioned for the purpose of worshipping the Arhants at Gulmagandhika, and in the temple commissioned for the Lord Sahasraraśmi (i.e., Sūrya) in the same Gulmagandhika, we wish to purchase and give one kulyavāpa of waste land without revenue charges by way of permanent endowment to be enjoyed in perpetuity.”.After which we read in lines 17–18: ṣaḍ-droṇavāpāḥ śravaṇakācāryya-balakuṇḍasya samāviśitāḥ, possibly to be emended and translated as follows: ṣaḍ-droṇavāpāḥ śramaṇakācāryya-balakuṇḍasya vihāre samāveśitāḥ ‘the six droṇavāpas were entrusted to the monastery of the śramaṇaka master Balakuṇḍa
tad arhathāneṇaiva kkrameṇāvayos sakāśād dīnāra-trayam upasaṁgr̥hyāvayoḥ sva-puṇyāpyāyanāya vaṭagohālyām evāsyāṅ kāśika-pañcastūpanikāyikani[r]grantha-śramaṇācāryya-guha-nandi-śiṣya-praśiṣyādhiṣṭhita-vihāre bhagavatām arhatāṁ gandha-dhūpa-sumano-dīpādy-artthan talavāṭakanimittañ ca […] evam adhyarddhaṁ kṣetra-kulyavāpam akṣaya-nīvyā dātum “So, in this very manner, be so kind as to take from both of us three dīnāras and — for the purpose of the merit of the both of us being increased — to give as permanent endowment, for the sake of perfume, incense, flowers and lamps, etc., for the venerable Arhants in the monastery at the same Vaṭagohālī here, overseen by the disciples and grand-disciples of the Nirgrantha śramaṇa master Guhanandin of the Kāśika-Pañcastūpa order and for the purpose of (use as) adjoining parcel: […] thus one-and-a-half kulyavāpa of land.” The same basic information is repeated in lines 12–16 of the inscription.
With regard to the Jagadishpur plate, its editor D.C. Sircar unhesitatingly assumed that the monastic beneficiaries were Buddhists, and his great authority has led several subsequent scholars to accept this idea. Schopen 1990, pp. 208–9 (and Schopen 1990, p. 281, n. 26) was more prudent and pointed to the significant parallels with the Paharpur plate which certainly concern Jaina beneficiaries, adding the important observation: “The mere fact that it is not always easy to distinguish Buddhist and Jain inscriptions of this sort is […] in itself significant.”. We will see below some examples of overlap between the technical terminology of the two religions. But to return to the affiliation of the Jagadishpur plate, which is the least explicit of the three grants, the sum of the evidence presented in this section persuades me that its beneficiaries were Jaina monks as well. Their abbot is here called śravaṇakācāryya, probably an error for śramaṇakācāryya.
The Paharpur plate speaks of a kāśika-pañca-stūpanikāyikani[r]grantha-śramaṇācāryya, and the reading śramaṇa here is secure. This word can indicate not only Jainas, but also Buddhist and Ājīvikas. For the former, see the SSanchi stone inscription of Candragupta II, year 93 Gupta Era, line 2 — Bhandarkar et al. 1981, p. 250; for the latter, see the aforementioned plate dated 184 Gupta Era from Southeast Bengal, where we read (line 3–4, ed. Furui 2016): pūrvva-maṇḍala-jayanāṭane bhagavataś catur-mmukha-mūrtter mma[ṇi]bhadrasyāyatana-m-ājīvaka-bhadanta-śramaṇa-saṁghāya ‘for the sake of the community of respectable Ājīvika śramaṇas at the abode of the venerable Maṇibhadra in four-faced image in Jayanāṭana of Pūrvamaṇḍala’. But the Jaina affiliation of the Paharpur grant is beyond doubt, because the pañcastūpanikāya is a known name for a Jaina order 23 and Jaina affiliation is implied also by the term nirgrantha. 24 Incidentally, this word is consistently spelt nigrantha in the four occurrences in our corpus, perhaps because of subliminal influence from its Prakrit form niggantha.
Now our new inscription contains the variant kṣamaṇa, which is known only in Jaina context, and to my knowledge only once elsewhere in South Asian epigraphy, viz. in the Vidiśā stone image inscriptions of the time of mahārājādhirāja Śrī Rāmagupta. The best preserved of these three copies of what is basically a single text, labeled A in Bhandarkar’s edition (Bhandarkar et al. 1981, pp. 231–4), reads as follows: 25
(1) bhagavato rhataḥ candraprabhasya pratimeyaṁ kāritā ma-
(2) hārājādhirāja-śrī-rāmaguptena Upadeśāt pāṇipā-
(3) trika-candra-kṣam⟨(aṇ)ācāryya-kṣamaṇa-śramaṇa-praśiṣya Ācā-
(4) ryya-sarppasena-kṣamaṇaśiṣyasya golakyāntyā⟨ḥ⟩ satputrasya cellakṣamaṇasyeti ||
“This image of the Lord, the Arhant Candraprabha, was commissioned by the mahārājādhirāja Śrī Rāmagupta, at the instigation of Cellakṣamaṇa, son of Golakyāntī, who is the pupil of the preceptor Sarpasenakṣamaṇa and the grand-pupil of the pāṇipātrika Candrakṣamaṇa, preceptor (ācārya) and forbearing monk (kṣamaṇaśramaṇa).”
In his recent article giving a useful overview of what is known about Jainism in North India during the Gupta period, Dundas 2014, p. 239, n. 16 affirms that “there is no doubt that the expression appended to these monks’s names is the same as the Prākrit honorific khamāsamaṇa (~ Sanskrit kṣamāśramaṇa), and has perhaps been misheard or misunderstood as being in a quasi-rhyming relationship with -śramaṇa by a scribe unfamiliar with Jain usage”. Although the new inscription may require rethinking of these matters, and the Vidiśā image inscriptions may have to be reinterpreted in such a way that kṣamaṇācārya stands as a unit, as it clearly does in our text, the main point of importance for my discussion is that the use of the term kṣamaṇa may be considered a clear indicator of the Jaina affiliation of the beneficiaries of Nāgavasu’s grant. The Vidiśā image inscriptions also contain another Jaina technical term that occurs in our inscription, namely pāṇipātrika, which has been elucidated by Dundas 2014, pp. 239–40, n. 18: “The expression pāṇipātrika is a common epithet normally used of monks of the Digambara sect who differentiate themselves from the Śvetāmbaras who use alms bowls. However, the practice of using the hands as an alms bowl was also prescribed amongst the Śvetāmbaras for advanced monks following the jinakalpa, the ‘practice of the Jinas’, a more intense mode of renunciant life. As noted above, the honorific kṣamāśramaṇa, however represented in the inscription, seems to be characteristic of Śvetāmbara usage, and the conclusion must be that the monks in question were Śvetāmbaras, although the term may not have had a formally sectarian sense at this particular time” I am unable to find any other occurrence of the term anyādyapiṇḍa, which is joined here with pāṇipātrika, and the reading is in both instances open to doubt. If I am correct in reading this term, it appears to give expression to the rule that Jaina monks “were required not to accept any food or water especially prepared for them” (Balcerowicz 2016, p. 110). 26
Let me now try to explicate the sequence nigrantha-putra-jitānāgatabhyāgatānānta-nivāsināñ ca which is clearly preserved only on the reverse of the plate, and whose precise reading on the front can no longer be known, but which I have proposed to emend as follows: ni[r]grantha-putra-jitānāgatābhyāgatānān tan-nivāsināñ ca. The position of ca after the two genitive plural forms seems to be due to the author’s desire to establish a syntactic parallelism between, first, the long clause ending in pravarttanāya and, second, the long clause ending in pratisaṁskārādyopayogāya/pratisaṁskārādyartthaṁ. As regards the elements anāgata, abhyāgata and tannivāsin, it seems to me that the author was consciously playing with terminology that was used by his Buddhist contemporaries. Occurrences of these elements in Buddhist contexts have been discussed in a recent article by Tournier 2018, p. 67, with reference to 6th-century Sanskrit inscriptions from the Andhra region: “the dvandva āgata-anāgata, distinguishing between those who have arrived and will arrive in the future to reside at a given monastery, is uncommon in Indian inscriptions, and the term occurs almost exclusively in Pāli literature. Occurrences of the compound may thus be found in the Pāli Vinaya’s discussion of how residences should be dedicated to the Saṅgha, the locus classicus being the gift of the Jetavana by Anāthapiṇḍada.” In his discussion, he cites and translates the first three of the following epigraphical Sanskrit passages, the last two being added here by me:
It will be noticed that none of these passages gives the precise combination anāgatābhyāgata, which indeed I am unable to find in any other context. I tentatively interpret the apparently unique expression jitānāgatābhyāgata as a reconfiguration of in origin Buddhist terms to express the Jaina tenet of eradication of past (abhyāgata) and future (anāgata) karman, 27 although I cannot exclude other possibilities, among which the most likely one seems to be that the intended meaning of ni[r]granthaputrajitānāgatābhyāgatānān was ‘of those who come in the present (abhyāgata) and in the future (anāgata), the conquerors (jita) among the Nirgranthaputras’ and that the conjunction ca was intended to distinguish wandering ascetics from permanent residents (tannivāsinām). 28
The designation nirgranthaputra is rather commonly used in Buddhist sources to designate Jainas or Ājīvikas, and it often occurs as a ‘surname’ for the heretic teacher Satyaka, or Saccaka Nigaṇṭhaputta in Pali (Lamotte 1960, p. 39). A long passage that is particularly relevant for our copper plate issued from Puṇḍravardhana is found in the Aśokāvadāna: “tasmiṁś ca samaye puṇḍavardhananagare nirgranthopāsakena buddhapratimā nirgranthasya pādayor nipatitā citrārpitā | upāsakenāśokasya rājño niveditaṁ | śrutvā ca rājñābhihitaṁ śīghram ānīyatāṁ | tasyordhvaṁ yojanaṁ yakṣāḥ śr̥ṇvanti | adho yojanaṁ nāgāḥ | yāvat taṁ tatkṣaṇena yakṣair upanītaṁ | dr̥ṣṭvā ca rājñā ruṣitenābhihitam | puṇḍavardhane sarve ājīvikāḥ praghātayitavyāḥ | yāvad ekadivase ’ṣṭādaśasahasrāṇy ājīvikānāṁ praghātitāni |” “In the meantime, in the city of Puṇḍavardhana, a lay follower of Nirgrantha Jñātiputra drew a picture showing the Buddha bowing down at the feet of his master. A Buddhist devotee reported this to King Aśoka, who then ordered the man arrested and brought to him immediately. The order was heard by the nāgas as far as a yojana underground, and by the yakṣas a yojana up in the air, and the latter instantly brought the heretic before the king. Upon seeing him, Aśoka flew into a fury and proclaimed: “All of the Ājīvikas in the whole of Puṇḍavardhana are to be put to death at once!” And on that day, eighteen thousand of them were executed.”
I cite the text after the edition of Mukhopadhyaya 1963, pp. 67–8, and the translation of Strong 1983, p. 232. The reading puṇḍavardhananagare is of course to be corrected to puṇḍravardhananagare, as in the edition by K.P. Jayaswal used by P. Balcerowicz who has cited the same passage in his recent book (Balcerowicz 2016, p. 270), and whose comments must be quoted here: “The story is clearly fictitious and ahistorical for no images of the Buddha or the Jina are known to have existed at the time of Aśoka, and the account of the execution is similarly fictitious and ahistorical. Nevertheless, the legend may preserve a grain of truth, namely that Puṇḍravardhana had once been another centre of the Ājīvikas. Of note is that the passage is one of several examples when the term nirgrantha is erroneously used by the Buddhists to denote an Ājīvika. ” Other evidence for such confusion on the part of Buddhist authors is added by Balcerowicz elsewhere in his book (Balcerowicz 2016, pp. 278–9, 321). But he does not mention that the Chinese transmission in the same passage of the Aśokāvadāna, which I am able to access through the translation of Przyluski 1923, pp. 278–9, uses characters corresponding to the term nirgranthaputra even where the Sanskrit transmission switches to ājīvikas. Since the Sanskrit text is available only in very late manuscripts, whereas the Chinese text translated by Przyluski dates to the 3rd century CE, there is some reason to take the Chinese version at face value and read the passage as evidence of Jaina rather than Ājīvika presence in Puṇḍravardhana in the first half of the first millennium CE.
This can be corroborated with textual evidence from the Jaina tradition itself. For in Jacobi’s paraphrase of the Sthavirāvalī of Bhadrabāhu’s Kalpasūtra we read (Jacobi 1884, pp. 288–9):29 “Ārya Bhadrabāhu of the Prācīna gotra, who had four disciples of the Kāśyapa gotra: a. Godāsa, founder of the Godāsa Gaṇa, which was divided into four Śākhās: α. The Tāmraliptikā Śākhā, β. The Koṭivarṣīyā Śākhā, γ. The Puṇḍravardhanīyā Śākhā, and δ. The Dāsīkharbatikā Śākhā. b. Agnidatta, c. Gaṇadatta, d. Somadatta.” We see here that Jaina’s were known to be settled in ancient Bengal not only at Puṇḍravardhana but also at such important known sites as Tāmralipti and Koṭivarṣa.30