Upload
others
View
6
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From Donation to Memorial: A Case of Pillar Inscriptions at Karle
Abhijit Dandekar1 and Shrikant Pradhan1 1. Department of Archaeology, Deccan College Post‐Graduate and Research Institute,
Yerawada, Pune 411006, Maharashtra, India (Email: [email protected], [email protected])
Received: 17 August 2014; Accepted: 30 August 2014; Revised: 21 September 2014 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 101‐107
Abstract: The caves at Karle are well known not only for their splendor and grandeur but also for a number of inscriptions inscribed on various architectural elements, either in the verandah or pillars in the hall. Barring a couple of royal inscriptions almost all these inscriptions are records of donations by individuals. In short, the entire chaitya was an outcome of the contributions made by individuals to the monastery. This paper examines two such inscriptions on pillar no. 5 in the chaitya hall; one erased and another extant. The paper analyses the interrelationship of these two inscriptions in order to bring out the change in the ‘function’ of the pillar on which they are inscribed.
Keywords: Karle, Pillar‐inscriptions, Chaitya, Memorial, Dharmottariya, Soparaka, Lotus‐medallion
Introduction The cave complex at Karle in the Maval Tehsil of Pune district of Maharashtra is a well known Buddhist monument in Maharashtra. It comprises of 16 rock cut caves. The chaitya of this complex (cave no. 8), as the sponsor of the cave himself proclaims, is indeed a magnificent cave in the entire country. The chaitya, as it appears, was a creation out of donations by numerous donors who have recorded their specific donations either in the verandah or on pillars of the hall (figure 1). Present paper looks at two inscriptions, compares them and tries to rebuild an event which presumably changed the nature of the donation. A pillar was donated as a matter of devotion, after some time a cavity with a decorative lotus medallion (maximum diameter 30 cm and the central niche 18 cm deep) at its opening was created in it as a receptacle of the remains of the donor’s teacher. The episode is inscribed on the same pillar in two separate epigraphs.
These two inscriptions (Luder’s list nos. 1094, 1095) are engraved on one of the pillars on the left side (no. 5) and require special attention. These inscriptions are donations by one single person, Sa timita, probably made at two different occasions. The one at the top has been chiseled out, while the one below is intact (figure 2).
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014
102
Figure 1: Plan of the Karle Chaitya Showing the Location of the Inscriptions
(After Barret 1957)
Figure 2: The Lotus Medallion and the Inscriptions
The erased inscription, because it is almost completely obliterated, poses difficulties in reading. Scholars such as Senart (1902‐03: 54), Burgess (1994: 91) and Burgess and Indraji (1881: 31) have given different and conflicting renditions of the same (Although this publication mentions the authors’ names as Burgess and Indraji, it appears from
Dandekar and Pradhan 2014: 101‐107
103
another reference (Burgess 1994: 91) that reading and translation of these inscriptions were primarily done by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji. In a note Burgess says, “I am unable to make out the last word, beginning with mu but the last letter is not lam as Pandit Bhagwanlal reads it”.).
Senart (1902‐03: 54) reads the text as follows:
1 Soparaka bhayatanam dhamutari‐ 2 yana__ sa__ nathasa therasa____. 3 Bha…. Sa amtevasisa bha na‐ 4 kasa Na___. pat___. Sa Satimitasa 5 saha…. t[i]hi [tha]bho danamukha
Translation (as given by Senart): Preacher Sa timita, the son of Nanda (?)(and) the disciple of the sthavira…. Of the venerable Dhammuttariya (Dharmottariyas) from Sopara, together with [his father and mother?].
Burgess (1994: 91) reads the same text and translates as follows:
1 Soparaka bhayatana dhamutara [ri] 2 yana sa[ma ]nathasa therasa [A] 3 tulasa [a]m tevasisa bha na 4 kasa Nadipatisa Satimitasa 5 saha… tiya thabho dana[m ]mu[II]
Translation: “A pillar, the gift of Sa timita [Swa timitra] from Sopa raka, the husband of Nadi [Nandi], a preacher [and] pupil of the thera Atula, (?) the …. Of the venerable Dhamutariya [Dharmottariya] school”.
Burgess and Indraji (1881: 31) read the text and translate as follows:
1 Soparaka bhayatana dhamutara‐ 2 yana samma nathasa therasa [ma ]‐ 3 tulasa am tevasisa bha na‐ 4 kasa Nada putisa satimitasa 5 saha [ma tapi]tuya thabho danamulam
Translation: “The gift of the cost of a pillar by Satimita, from Sopa raka, out of respect for his maternal uncle the Bhadanta Dhamutaraya, by his (i.e., the bhadanta’s) disciple and sister’s son Satimita, the son of Nanda with his mother and father.
It is very clear from these three renderings that none of them agrees with each other in totality. Following deductions can be made from these renderings:
1. Senart is unable to read the second line satisfactorily. The second word as well as the last letter of the second line and first two words of the third line pose problem
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014
104
for decipherment. Burgess reconstructs these words as ‘Samanathasa’ and ‘Atula’(name of the thera) respectively and Burgess and Indraji reconstruct it as ‘Sam manathasa’ and ‘Ma tula’, meaning ‘in respect of’ and ‘the maternal uncle’ respectively. On the reading of this word, Burgess says, “…The inscription is much obliterated probably intentionally to substitute the next for it and the words Samanathasa and Atulasa are by no means certain. I am unable to explain the former though I suspect that it denotes some spiritual office held by the Thera in the Dharmottariya school; possibly it may be a mistake for Samananathasa, “the lord of the monks” or abbot” (1994: 91). Present authors tend to agree with the reading provided by Burgess.
2. Senart and Burgess take the meaning of the word Bhanaka as preacher, whereas Burgess and Indraji take it as Sister’s son. Burgess (1994: 91) in his note says that ‘Bhanaka’ apparently corresponds to the Pali Bhanaka, a “preacher” and probably means that Sva timitra recited and expounded on the texts of the Dharmottariyas. The Jains have a similar title ‘Va caka’, ‘a reader’ sometimes applied to their Yatis. The interpretation by Burgess and Indraji is probably due to the reading of the last letter of the second line and first two letters of the third line as ‘Matula’ meaning the maternal uncle. Authors think that this confusion is borne out of the reading of the word ‘Atula’ as ‘Matula’, meaning maternal uncle. Once this maternal uncle is mentioned, it is but natural that the relationship as ‘nephew’ is also stated in the inscription. Since ‘ma’ of the Matula is not clear it is not correct to take such liberties while interpreting the inscription.
3. Senart and Burgess take the meaning of the word ‘Dhamutaraya’ as one of the orders (Dharmottariya) in Buddhism; whereas Burgess and Indraji take it as the name of a person. Dharmottariya was an established sect of the Buddhists (Nagaraju 1981: 34‐35).
4. Senart is unable to read the fourth line satisfactorily. While Burgess reads the second word in this line as ‘Nadipatisa’ thereby meaning ‘the husband of Nadi’; Burgess and Indraji read the same as ‘Nadaputisa’ meaning the son of Nanda . Although this word is almost completely damaged, letters ‘na’ ‘pu’ and ‘ti’ are somewhat visible.
5. The last word of the inscription is read by Senart as ‘Danamukha’. He substantiates this reading by saying, “As regards the use of ‘Danamukha’ as an equivalent of Deyadhamma, it is well known in the Buddhist epigraphy of the North‐West, and its occurrence in literature is now sufficiently well established” (Senart 1902‐03: 55). Burgess (1994: 91), not being able to read it satisfactorily, says, “ I am not able to make out the last word, beginning with mu, but the last letter is not lam as Pandit Bhagwanlal reads it.” Burgess and Indraji (1881: 31) read the same word as ‘Danamulam’. This last letter certainly poses difficulty. Its orthography is quite peculiar. It cannot be equated either with ‘kha’ or with ‘la’.
These differences are borne out of the obliterated nature of the inscription.
Dandekar and Pradhan 2014: 101‐107
105
According to the present authors reading of this inscription is as follows:
1 Soparaka bhayatana dhamutara 2 yana sa_nathasa therasa _ 3 tu__ [am]tevasisa bha na 4 kasa Na_putisa Satimitasa 5 saha___ya thabho danamu_
Another interesting thing to note in this inscription is the use of honourific genitive plural for the word ‘Dhamutaraya’ and the use of genitive singular for the word ‘thera’. It can be stated here that almost all other inscriptions from the western Indian Buddhist cave, while mentioning a thera use genitive plural while addressing him. Inscriptions from Kuda, Bhaja and even at Karle (below the line of elephants on the right hand side) use the honourific genitive plural case while mentioning a thera (Burgess and Indraji 1881). This distinction could be in order to show the intimacy between the teacher and the pupil. Here the word ‘bhayantana’ is used in connection with the word ‘Dhamutaraya’ (order of the Dharmottariyas) and not for a single individual as is clear from the usage of two different cases for these two words, bhayanta (genitive plural) and thera (genitive singular).
The second inscription (no. 9), however, is intact and all the three scholars are unanimous as far as the reading of this inscription is concerned (however, they differ in the translation). It is as follows:
1 Soparaka bhayantanam Dhamutariya nam bhan a 2 kasa Sa timitasa 3 Sasariro thabho danam
Translations: “(This) pillar containing relic (is) the gift of the preacher Satimita (of the sect) of the venerable Dhamutariyas, from Sopa raka (Senart 1902‐03: 55; Burgess 1994: 91).
“The gift of a pillar containing relics, by Sa timita from Sopa raka sister’s son of Bhadanta Dhamutaraya (Burgess and Indraji 1881: 92).
It is clear from the above translations that while Senart and Burgess consider the word ‘Dhamutaraya’ as an order in the Buddhist religion, Burgess and Indraji consider it as the name of a person.
Present authors agree totally with the reading of all the three scholars and agree with the translation rendered by Senart (Senart 1902‐03: 55) and Burgess (1994: 91).
Notwithstanding the controversy in the readings of the first inscription and differences in the translation of the second one, the phenomenon of cancelling an inscription and writing a fresh one is quite interesting and unique in a sense. Nowhere do we find such practice adopted to carry out amendments to the original inscription in order to be in
ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014
106
sync with the changed circumstances. As regards its explanation Senart says, “…In the following inscriptions (no. 9) which seems to have been intended to replace the present one. But why this substitution? Was it only in order to avoid the mention of the master of Satimita? Or perhaps for inserting the mention of the relic, which would have become passed over in silence in the first redaction and added ultimately by the donor?” (Senart 1902‐03: 54). In other words, he wonders whether Satimita wanted to avoid the mention of his master in the second inscription which he did in the previous one; or whether Satimita wanted to emphasize the insertion of the relic, mention of which was absent in the previous inscription. Burgess (1994: 91) makes a passing reference to this whereas Burgess and Indraji (1881) are silent about this phenomenon.
Present authors think that this phenomenon records an important event in the life of Sa timita. When the first inscription was inscribed it was only to record the donation of a pillar by Sa timita along with his parents in honour of the thera who was also his teacher. Sometime later however, the teacher passed away. Satimita, in order to preserve the relics of his uncle/teacher, used the same pillar as the repository of these relics. The inscription does not mention the name of the person whose relics were placed in the repository; but considering the mention and reverence (sammanathasa) of a thera in the first inscription, his probable relation with Sa timita, erasing this inscription and absence of mention of the word thera in the second one; one can conclude that the person of reverence in the first inscription and the deceased one in the second are one and the same. If the mortal remains belonged to a different person, one would expect the person’s name mentioned in the inscription (as in the case of inscriptions on the stupas at Bhaje where names of the theras, in whose memory the stupas were erected, are clearly mentioned on them (Burgess and Indraji 1881: 24‐25). Since it was the same thera who was revered in the obliterated inscription, passed away, it is but natural that Satimita didn’t mention his name in the second one as the context of the thera must have been very fresh in his mind. Now, the earlier inscription had become irrelevant as the teacher was no more. Hence Sa timita caused the earlier inscription to be erased and got a new one inscribed in its place as an amendment, along with a nicely decorated lotus medallion; thus converting a donation into a memorial. One can observe the efforts taken by the sculptors to convert this donatory pillar into a memorial one. To begin with they had to chisel the entire pillar to make the lotus medallion. Secondly, they also had to cancel the earlier inscription. The inscribed letters were very deep and hence one can see the remnants of the same even now. One can also observe the concave portion at the top of the pillar due to this cancellation. One more important thing that they had to accommodate was the insertion of ‘Simha‐Stambha’ and ‘Cakra’ on the capital of the pillar, on both sides of the medallion. This is a very interesting phenomenon. Another pillar (no. 30) in the same hall also depicts similar symbols with a Stupa at the centre flanked by a Simha‐Stambha on its left and a Cakra on its right. Interestingly the Cakra bears a depression, probably for similar purpose as that of the one under discussion. Since the latter would have had to go a lot of modifications had the sculptors wanted to accommodate the Stambha and Cakra beside the medallion, they probably thought it wise to insert these symbols at the top.
Dandekar and Pradhan 2014: 101‐107
107
Alternatively, it is also possible that the medallion was part of the original theme of the pillar (as in the similar cases at Bhaja and Bedsa) and it was easier to convert the same into a reliquary. Only minor modifications such as cancellation of the earlier inscription and insertion of two symbols had to be done. It is however, not possible to speculate the time gap between these two events. The earlier donation was recorded at the initial stage of execution of the cave. By the time the chaitya was complete, the teacher passed away and hence the pillar was converted into a reliquary subsequent to his death, may be at a later date.
References Barrett, D. 1957. A Guide to the Karla Caves. Bhulabhai Memorial Institute, Bombay. Burgess, J. 1994 (reprint). Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions.
Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Burgess, J., and Indraji, B. 1881. Inscriptions from Cave Temples of Western India.
Government Central Press, Bombay. Luders, H. 1909‐10. A List of Brahmi Inscriptions, Appendix to the. Epigraphia Indica. Nagaraju, S. 1981. Buddhist Architecture in Western India c. 250BC ‐ c. AD 300. Agam Kala
Prakashan, Delhi. Senart, E. 1902‐03. The Inscriptions in the Caves at Karle. Epigraphia Indica VII: 47‐74.