PYU 16. Socle of Kan Wet Khaung Mound Stone Buddha Image

Authors of digital edition: Arlo Griffiths (argr), Marc Miyake (mami), Julian Karl Wheatley (jukw).

Language: Undetermined (und) [Script (other) (script_other)].

Repository: Pyu Epigraphy (tfc-pyu-epigraphy).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSPYU00016.

File path: DHARMA_INSPYU00016.xml.

Version: (bd0ad9f), last modified (bd0ad9f).

Edition

⟨1⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ [ma](h)ībhujāM _ tga(M)ṃḥ diṃṁ tiṁ pmiR(ḥ) (saḥ) _ Unnata _ kdiRṃṁ tr̥ vaṃ kviṃṁ _ porusa _ O (saḥ) piRṁ tgaṃ _ śriyāM _ O sri yaṁ ⟦ḥ⟧ _ IdaM _ (n)aḥ yaṁ _ virodha _ tiMṁ kaṄṁ _ Upaśama _ O paṄ dliMḥ _ Eka _ IK [*] _ kāraṇaṁ ⟨Face b⟩ tiṁ plaṁḥ _ Itaḥ _ yaṁ piNṁḥ _ pradhāryya _ druNḥ ta ṅaRḥ daMṃḥ _ Āyati _ knaTṁḥ du(K)ṃ ⟨Face C⟩ [*****] _ doR daMḥ (kn)iḥ _ vyadhāyi _ laM ta sdaMḥ _ yena _ pdiKṃṁ _ Ekadine _ t(va) ta(K)ṁ duKṃ _ puradvayaM _ tiṁ priṄḥ kni _ taM _ pau _ Āsrava _ tiNṁ liMṁ tiNṁ[**********] ⟨Face d⟩ O tcaT tca puradvaya _ tiṁ priṄḥ kni _ Ekāntahita _ taKṁ scaṄḥ O paṄ hiP syaṁ

⟨2⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ UpadeśinaM _ O khñoNḥ tiṁ thmi(N)ḥ _ Abhipraṇamya _ (g)aṁḥ druNḥ ta sba _ AryyaguhādhipāhvayaM _ ḅaYṁḥ gauṃ vaM kviṃṁ O rmiṄ _ Dayānukūla _ tiNṁ da(k/r)·ṃṁ tiNṁ yaV O (v)r(eL) ndroMṃ _ AgrasamādhilābhinaM _ kdaMṁ tiNṁ rniṄṁ sdiNṁ tdiKṃ O kdi(ṃ) ḅaYṁḥ di(Mṃṁ) ∥ _ y[ataḥ] ⟨Face b⟩ pd(i)K[ṃ]ṁ piNṁḥ _ prabhr̥tya _ druNḥ ta pr̥ tuM _ Abhyudayāya _ O paṄ tdluṄḥ kliṁḥ O plaṁḥ ⟨Face C⟩ [***](M) _ [***]vaṄṃ _ ta(T) pau _ Agrapā(d)āmvuja _ O plaṁḥ traḥ sdiNṁ tdiKṃ _ pīṭhalāñchitaḥ _ O (dṅeY)ḥ du(R) ḅiNṁḥ ta tdiTṁ _ AyaM _ naḥ yaṁ _ kriyā _ tsaṁḥ _ kāraṇayā _ (t)i[N]ṁ[…] [*] [*******] [nr̥] ⟨Face d⟩ (pa) tdaVṃḥ _ śrījayacandravarmmaṇā srijaNtravaRma kviṃṁ O rmiṄ∥ _ Ataḥ

⟨3⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ yaṁ piNṁḥ _ prabhr̥ty eva _ dru(N)ḥ ta pr̥ tuM ṭloCḥ _ vigāḍha _ tiMṁ daṄṁ tiMṁ gaṃ _ niścayaḥ _ O ndo(Y) tdaMḥ _ paraspara _ tiMṁ daṄṁ tiMṁ ra _ prītirasa _ O kiCṁ kCeṄ O kdiVṃṁ ceV diNṃ _ UpaghātinaM _ kce k(ga) _ AhaM _ gaYṁḥ _ na _ ḅaḥ _ bhūyaḥ _ g(o)T [*] ⟨Face b⟩ (ka)ravāṇi _ ta pliṁḥ saṁḥ tiMṁ kaṄṁ _ sahānuja _ ṅiTṁ kdaṄ nḅuNḥ mrauYḥ _ śrīhārivikra(m)[e] ⟨Face C⟩ [ṇa ca] _ [*****] sri(ha)rivi(K)krama (O rm)iṄ∥ _ bhaveyuḥ _ leḥ ce O kaP ñaḥ _ AsmaT _ ga(Y)ṁḥ _ punaḥ _ k(n)aCṁḥ _ Ātmajāś ca ye _ pdiṃ(K)ṁ gi saḥ pli(ṁ) vaṄṃ hnauT _ saputtrasantāna _ ṅiTṁ (k)da(Ṅ) _[******] [tiNṁ] ⟨Face d⟩ ḅuNḥ tiMṁ taK kiṁ ce hvuṃ _ na te _ ḅaḥ po vaṄṃ _ virotsyanti _ laM hliṁḥ skaṄṁ _ mra vaṄṃ

⟨4⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ saha tva (dā)tmajaiḥ _ ḅaYṁḥ la saḥ pli(ṁ) vaṄṃ daṄṃ _ saputtrasantāna _ ṅiTṁ kdaṄ saḥ tiNṁ ḅuNḥ tiMṁ ta(K) _ paramparāgataiḥ _ tiNṁ ḅuNḥ ti(M)ṁ deLṃṁḥ kiṁ ce hvuṃ vaṄṃ daṄṃ∥ ImaM _ naḥ yaṁ _ sad[ācā]ra _ mra sdiNṁ (O) goT _ pathāgataM _ O de(Lṃḥ) ⟨Face b⟩ [la]Mḥ piNṁḥ kiṁ ce vidhiM _ tiṁ kriNṁ tiṁ sca thṅaMḥ tiNṁ ti diNṃṁ _ caranti _ laM pgau(T) ⟨Face C⟩ ye _ (pdi)[Kṃṁ](na)ḥ tse(C) (vaṄṃ) _ (A)pa(nna)gasambhavā(ya) [*] g(i) sḅuC mrauYḥ piNṁḥ _ te _ (t)i(·)ṃ ba vaṄṃ _ bhavantu _ (peḥ) ce O ka ñaḥ _ sar(v)ve O hnauT nirujāḥ _ ḅa kca _ cirāyusaḥ _ droṄ hra _ sadā [*] (tiṁ) [**] _ [*] [**] (u) ⟨Face d⟩ daya _ O kdiRṃṁ tr̥ vaṃ _ Artthasiddhayaḥ _ O paṄ sdlaṄḥ kliṁḥ khmi(Ṅ) kta vaṄṃ∥

⟨5⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ (v)i(la)ṅghito _ ḅiNṁḥ ta baKṁ tvaNṃṁḥ _ yaiḥ _ pdiKṃṁ vaṄṃ _ AyaM _ naḥ yaṁ _ Aryyagocaro _ mra (s)diNṁ O go(T) rheC _ bhavantu _ paṁ(ḥ ce) O kaP ñaḥ _ te _ pau vaṄṃ _ vigrahakāryya _ tiMṁ kaṄṁ tiMṁ vaṄṃ praT paṄ _ vibhramaḥ _ kmuṄ kmi(C)·ṁ _ nirantara (ḅa) saR ⟨Face b⟩ [*] (K)ḥ _ vyādhiparītamūrttayaḥ _ kca ḅiṁḥ viNṁḥ nciTṁ kviṃṁ O hyaḥ _ sadā _ nṅa(P) duKṃ ⟨Face C⟩ [***](mbha) _ ti(N)ṁ droḥ kdiṃ O pa(Ṅ) duKṃ _ niva(ddh)asid(dh)ayaḥ _ taṁ tya(Ṅ)ḥ kviṃṁ O khmi(Ṅ) kta∥ _ AyaM _ naḥ yaṁ _ kr(i)yākāraṇayaḥ _ tsaṁḥ ti(N)ṁ yaḥ O kriNṁ _ tathaiva _ (p)o naY ṭlo(N)ḥ _ te _ pau vaṄṃ _ para[sparaṁ] ⟨Face d⟩ sauhr̥daM _ O ḅiNṁḥ ce tkoḥ haK O hliḥ _ Ā bhuva sthiteḥ _ tgaMṃḥ O tco(Ṅ)

⟨6⟩ ⟨Face A⟩ (ha)ḥ k(m)V _ priyānujenāpi _ (O) ḅiNṁḥ kroḥ tsaḥ toM _ sadā _ nṅaP duṃ(K) _ Anu(v)arttyate _ ḅi(N)ṁḥ na(ḥ) pgau(T) _ sahānujai[ḥ] _ ṅiTṁ kda(Ṅ) nḅ[uN](ḥ ra) _ puttra _ O saḥ _ kula _ O ṭruḥ hnau(R)ḥ _ kramānugaiḥ _ O da(L)ṃṁḥ daLṃṁḥ knaT(ṁ)ḥ tḅiṁḥ vaṃ ∥〰

Commentary

1A. <tga(M)ṃḥ>: what must be the same word, perhaps meaning ’earth’, also occurs in 5d (whence we assume presence of final <M> here) and in 17, l. 5.

1A. <IdaM [n]aḥ yaṁ>: below (2C, 4A, 5A, 5C), we repeatedly find the sequence <naḥ yaṁ>, once somewhat unclearly but thrice without any possibility of doubt as to the reading <n> rather than <t>, after direct-case forms (ayam, imam) of the Sanskrit near-deictic pronoun, of which idam is another instance. The reading <t> here seems beyond doubt. We therefore have to consider the possibilities (a) that the difference <taḥ/naḥ> represents a linguistic reality, (b) that <taḥ> is a scribal error for <naḥ>, or (c) that damage to the stone has caused an intended <na> to take the shape of <ta>.

1A. <IK ?>: the challenging syllable might contain <g> in second position.

1b. <kna[t]·ḥ>: our reading is partly founded on the assumption that the penultimate word of the text, in 6A, is the same as we see here. There is no anusvāra there, hence we assume possible anusvāra here is actually accidental.

1b. <du[K]ṃ>: this word is tentatively read here on the assumption this line ends with the same word as 5d.

1C. The first five akṣaras of this line must have been in Sanskrit with prosodic pattern – ⏑ – ⏑ –.

1C. <tva>: if the reading is correct, then compare the word <tva> in l. 1 of PYU 7-8.

2A. <gaṁḥ>: restore <gaYṁḥ>?

2A. <aryyaguhādhipāhvayam>: emend <Āryya->.

2A. <y(ataḥ)>: restoration on the basis of the Pyu gloss.

2C. <[t]i(N)ṁ> ◇ reading established on the basis of comparison with 5C.

2d. <(nr̥)[pa]>: restoration on the basis of the Pyu gloss.

2d. <srijaNtravaRma>: this gloss does not represent the element jaya in the Sanskrit.

3A. <paraspara>: it would be possible to read here <parasparaṁ>, but we consider the ostensible anusvāra an accidental unevenness in the stone.

3A. <ceV>: we assume appendages to the right are serifs indicating <c> rather than <kh>.

3b <ṅiTṁ kdaṄ>: see 4A and 6A.

3b–C. <śrīhārivikra[m](e)(ṇa ca)>: the restoration, with <ca> serving no other purpose than to complete the meter, is stylistically unsatisfactory, and also otherwise implausible a trace of <-e> should be visible if the antepenultimate syllable of the verse were really <me>

3C. <leḥ>: see our note on 4A <[peḥ]>.

3C. <k[n]aCṁḥ>: cf. <knaTṁḥ> in l.1?

3C. <(tiMṁ)>: the restoration follows from repeated occurrence of <tiNṁ ḅuNḥ tiMṁ> in 4A. Comparing that passage, and the requirements of the meter, one would a priori be inclined to supply <paramparāgatāḥ> as well, but there does not seem to be sufficient space for those akṣaras plus the full gloss <ṅiTṁ kdaṄ saḥ tiNṁ ḅuNḥ tiMṁ taK> that is expected to have stood in front of it. We assume some sequence of text was omitted at the time of engraving.

3d. <ce>: this syllable, reoccurring beside <kiṁ> several times below, might also be read <kha>. Same sequence <kiṁ kha/ce> occurs in the urn inscriptions.

3d. <hvu(ṃ)>: for the allograph of <-u> attached to subscript <-v->, see several cases in PYU 5 and 6. This precise word occurs in PYU 32, l. 6.

4A. <deLṃṁḥ> ◇ the reading is quite uncertain, but we presume we have here the same morpheme as at the end of this line (although there no more is visible than <de> and that too only on the PPPB estampage) and towards the end of 6A, where it is reduplicated, and where <e> cannot be read without much force. We presume that the spelling deLṃṁḥ represents the same morpheme as daLṃṁḥ but in redundant spelling; note that deLṃḥ in 032.5 could represent the same in an alternative nonredundant spelling with <e> ~ <aṁ>.

4A. <mra sdiNṁ [O] goT>: note same sequence in 5A. As for <[O]>, the sign we encounter here is the one we normally transliterate <O> with an appendix of the left-turning type we normally transliterate <-ra>. Comparison with the presumptive identical sequence in 5A, where we read a normal <O>, suggests scribal confusion here.

4b. <pgoC>: we ignore possible anusvāra arguing that we are at the transition between faces and hence that disturbance of the estampage is likely to have occurred (RTI entirely lacks the akṣara in question); according to MM’s hypothesis, the occurrence of anusvāra on syllables with /o/ is not expected. Presence of final <y> as in PYU 20 <pgoY> seems doubtful. Same word as in the gloss of <anuvarttyate> in 6A?

4C. <[peḥ]>: this syllable is almost unreadable here. It should presumably be identical to the one following the same Sanskrit verb form <bhavantu> in 5A, but what little remains visible suggests there might be an e-vocalisation here; this in turn is reminiscent of the syllable we hesitantly read <leḥ> immediately after the nearly synonymous Sanskrit verb form <bhaveyuḥ> in 3C.

4C. <ka ñaḥ>: we see no trace of the final <P> expected below <ka> on the grounds of the parallelism with the glosses of <bhaveyuḥ> in 3C and <bhavantu> in 5A.

4C. <sadā>: it is remarkable that this word does not here receive the same gloss as it does in 5b and 6A.

4d. <kdiRṃṁ tra vaṃ>: presumably the same sequence appears in the gloss of <unnata> in l. 1.

5A. <sdiN>: we presume the same word is intended here as the one we read <sdiṄ> in 4A. It is possible to assume the unusual shape of the presumptive <s> is in fact that of the <s> of Northern Brāhmī script, hence that the scribe here would have confused scripts.

5A. paṁ[ḥ ce] kaP ñaḥ ◇ this must be equal or quivalent to what we read [peḥ] ce O ka ñaḥ in 4C.

5A. <vibhramaḥ>: it seems impossible to read <vibhramāḥ>, so long <-ā> must be obtained by emendation.

5A. <kmiCṁ> ◇ the final consonant is not damaged at all, but we are unsure of how to identify it; viable options seem to be <Ñ> (but this final consonant is not attested elsewhere), <V> or <N>.

5b. <O hyaḥ>: the two short inscriptions on silver bowls PYU 47-48 show this same expression.

5b. <nṅa[p]· duKṃ>: cf. <duKṃ> at the end of 1b, and 6A for the whole <nṅaP/tṅaP duKṃ>, which must mean ’always’. The prima facie reading here would be <M>, but there is some room for doubt here between <M> and <P>, while the <P> in 6A seems clear.

5C. <ti[n]·ṁ droḥ kdiṃ>: if presence of <N> can be confirmed, then cf. same sequence in PYU 12, l. 1, and in PYU 73.

5C. Cf. <kriyākāraṇayā> in 2C.

5d. <tco[ṅ]·>: cf. three times <tcoM> with clear <M> in PYU 20. Should we read <tcoM> here too?

6A. <ṅiTṁ kdaṄ nḅ(uN)[ḥ ra]>: cf. <ṅiTṁ kdaṄ nḅuNḥ mroYḥ> in 3b. It is impossible to read <mroYḥ> here; the <ra> we read is very uncertain. It is even uncertain whether there is any sign between <nḅuNḥ> and <puttra>; and if, as seems likely to us, there is one more akṣara, then it seems uncertain whether a visarga immediately follows <nḅuN>.

6A. <ṭruḥ>: the interpretation of the sign we provisionally interpret as <ṭ> is rather uncertain.

Bibliography

Duroiselle (1927–1928, pp. 128, 145) first reported the discovery of this headless Buddha with a bilingual inscription in Sanskrit (“sometimes not quite correct”) and Pyu around its pedestal. Tha Myat (1963, pp. 41–43) labeled the script “Gupta Pyu” and provided eye drawings and Burmese transliteration for faces A b and d only. Luce (1985, vol. I, 51, 57 n. 24, 65, 74 n. 22, 131–132), cites earlier sources and reports that Dikshit and Blagden made unpublished readings. Sein Win (2016, pp. 45–60) reproduces verbatim the parts published by Tha Myat and adds his own transliteration of the rest.

Based on published estampages and on our team’s RTIs, the inscription was re-edited and published in Griffiths et al. 2017 besides on our experimental website. The XML source code underlying the latter (Griffiths et al. 2018–03–26) was adapted for this database by Arlo Griffiths in 2026.

Primary

Griffiths, Arlo, Marc Miyake & Julian K. Wheatley. 2018–03–26. “Corpus of Pyu inscriptions.” Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1207290. [URL]. Item PYU016.

Griffiths, Arlo, Bob Hudson, Marc Miyake & Julian Wheatley. 2017. “Studies in Pyu Epigraphy, I: State of the Field, Edition and Analysis of the Kan Wet Khaung Mound Inscription, and Inventory of the Corpus.” BEFEO 103, pp. 43–205. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.2017.6247. [URL]. Pages 88–107.

Secondary

Ray, Niharranjan. 1936. Sanskrit Buddhism in Burma. 1st edition. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. [URL]. Pages 19–20.

Luce, Gordon H. 1937. “The ancient Pyu.” JBMRS 27 (3), pp. 239–254. Pages 243–4.

Guy, John. 1997. “A warrior-ruler stele from Śrī Kṣetra, Pyu, Burma.” JSS 85 (1/2), pp. 85–94. Page 91.

Tun Aung Chain. 2003. “The kings of the Hpayahtaung urn inscription.” MHRJ 11, pp. 1–14. Pages 5–6.

Guy, John. 2014. Lost kingdoms: Hindu-Buddhist sculpture of early Southeast Asia. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Pages 91–2 (cat. 41).