Chinaganjam Pillar of the time of Yaññasiri-Gotamīputta

⟨1⟩ na(mo) bhagavato [5×] ⬦ na(mo bha)gavato [3×](vasa) B; na(mo) bhagavato vā(sude)va(sa) M; ⟦namo bha⟧gavato ⟦namo bhavato⟧ V • Bühler explains in his footnote 5: “After भगवतो five, possibly six, letters have been obliterated. The last two seem to have been वस.” Majumdar commented on his reading vāsudevasa filling tha gap: “This word was left unread by Bühler. But the above reading is certain. The triangular shape of the first letter indicates that it can only be a v ; the third letter is apparently de, and those that follow, as Bühler also has stated, are to be read as vasa. Under these circumstances, vāsudevasa would, in my opinion, be the only reading possible.” Venkataramayya rightly questioned Majumdar’s confidence, and explained his own understanding of the situation as follows: “The scribe after inscribing namo bhagavato after sidhaṁ seems to have again repeated by mkistake the letters namo bhavato (omitting ga) and realised that he has by mistake repeated the same portion which he had already written before. So he seems to have tried to erase, and partially succeeded in erasing, the first three letters namo bha following sidhaṁ. By the time he erased these three letters he seems to have further discovered suddently that he had not corrected written the duplicated namo bha ga vato in which he omitted the letter ga. So he quite naturally retained the first which was the correctly written namo bhagavato and wilfully erased the duplicated and incorrect portion namo bhavato.” We for our part remain agnostic about what has happened here, but add as further possibility that the illegible segment, whether wilfully erased or accidentally damaged, originally read tathāgatasa. Based on the parallel in EIAD 1 one might expect Agapogalasa, but this cannot be squared with the shapes of the remaining vestiges of characters. — ⟨1⟩ gotamī- V ⬦ gotami- B M.

⟨2⟩ sata(v)i⟨3⟩saṁ ⬦ sata(vi)⟨3⟩maṁ B; sata(vi)[1*]saṁ M • Majumdar misinterpreted the dash at the end of Bühler’s reading of line 1 as expressing a gap, whereas it merely expressed that the linebreak falls in mid-word; the (ma) for (sa) was probably merely a printing error. Majumdar’s note therefore seems quite far off the mark: “Bühler reads saṁvachara sata(vi) maṁ 20 7. Apparently, he would restore it as saṁvachara sata[vi][sa*]maṁ 20 7. But the letter before the numeral sign for 20 is clearly saṁ. Therefore, the lost letter can only be se.” There is not, in our opinion, any lost character here.

⟨3⟩ hemaṁtānaṁ M V ⬦ hematānaṁ B. — ⟨3⟩ di[vasaṁ paṁca]maṁ • Thus restored by Bühler. — ⟨3⟩ Etīya M ⬦ Etiya B V.

⟨4⟩ mahā[.]e[ca. 10×] ⬦ mahā[s]e M • Majumdar proposes to restore mahāsenāpatinā. This seems convincing.

⟨5⟩ mahādaṁ[…] • Majumdar proposes to restore mahādaṅḍanāyakena. This seems convincing.