Octagonal pillar from Phanigiri — reign of Siri-Ruddapurisadatta, year 18

10 810 6But von Hinüber reverted to the correct reading 10 8 in : 366 (H). -dipta- -dīpta- The reading seems certain enough and should be treated as one of several very minor spelling mistakes from the point of view of classical Sanskrit. The integrity of the meter is not affected by short i in this word, which probably allowed it to persist through the production process of the text into the final inscription. rājña rājño rājño An ending -o would constitute incorrect sandhi. We therefore prefer to consider rājña śrī- as either a simplified spelling for the correct sandhi rājñaś śrī-, avoiding the three-part conjunct śśr, or as a phonetic simplification. pāditaṁ The reading is clear, but lexically we expect pātita-, as in the preceding pāda. : 9 suggest that the confusion of t and d may betray a Dravidian background of the engraver (or rather original scribe) of the inscription. While this is possible, we consider a Middle Indo-Aryan source of the confusion equally likely since intervocalic Old Indo-Aryan t and d had begun to merge into ð well before the time of our inscription. śakkyakuloddhvajena After inspection of the original stone there can be no doubt that this reading is correct. This rules out the interpretation of : 9, n. 5, based on the reading kuleddhvajena, in terms of a learned compound with inflected prior member (aluksamāsa). We propose a tentative alternative interpretation of śakkyakuloddhvajena as śakkyakulorddhvajena “scion of the Śākya family,” with omitted r in -ūrddhva-, either as accidental Prakritism (note śakkya- for śākya- in the same word) or as intentional “imprecise spelling” in the Sanskrit-Prakrit grey area that was meant to bring the word in question closer to the instances of -ddhvaja- “banner” in this stanza and create a punning relationship (śleṣa) with them. A meaning “later” for ūrdhva is well-attested, making the interpretation of ūrdhvaja as ‘born later, scion’ at least possible. The dictionaries do not appear to list this meaning for the compound, but MW, s.v. “being higher, upper” and PTSD, s.v. uddhaja “upright, honest … (v.l. for pannadhaja)” at least show the possible semantic breadth of the compound. A third, less involved, interpretation, would be to take śakkyakulo simply as prior member of a compound with -o instead of -a, but while such compound spellings are well-attested in Gāndhārī (e.g., acaliobhava-, cf. : 236), we have no reason to expect them in our inscription. sadharmmajena sa dharmmajena sa dharmmajena Both editors later corrected themselves to sadharmmajena. It would indeed be hard to construe independent sa, presumably as nominative singular masculine of the demonstrative pronoun, in the sentence in question. The problem would be not only that the referent darppadhvajo yo is already picked up by taṁ — see 8 imena tena for another case of pleonastic pronouns — but that the two pronouns in question here would be far apart from each other and disagree in their apparent gender and/or case (neuter nominative or masculine/neuter accusative taṁ vs. masculine nominative sa). Reading sadharmmajena, one is immediately tempted to understand sa(d)dharmmajena, “born from the excellent Dharma.” But this is complicated by the constraints of the meter which requires the first syllable of the word to be short. The composer may thus have intentionally resorted to the “imprecise” orthography with dha, since this commonly stands for ddha in the corpus of Prakrit inscriptions (see, e.g., supabudha- in EIAD 19, l. 1, below p. + 9). The only possible alternative is to interpret sa- as “together with” and translate “this wheel born together with the Dharma,” the solution also adopted by von : 366. The intended meaning would then be that the Dharma and its symbol the wheel originated at the same time when the Dharma was fist promulgated (the dharmacakrapravartana). māyāśarīrāraṇisaṁmbhavena māyāśarīrāranisaṁmbhavena māyāśarīrāraniṁ saṁmbhavena However both absence of anusvāra and retroflex nasal in -āraṇi- are clear. We think we can offer a significant improvement in the interpretation of the imagery expressed by this word. : 8 translated the entire phrase māyāśarīrāraṇisaṁmbhavena tenottamadhyānaguṇendhanena jñāṇārcciṣā as “by the spark which is insight, (the spark) that arose from the kindling wood which is his magic (illusory?) body, by this fire wood which is virtue, the deepest meditation.” They go on to suggest that the term māyāśarīra, which they concede to be unattested elsewhere, might either be a general reference to the insubstantial nature of the Buddha’s physical body or even refer directly to the buddhological concept of the nirmāṇakāya. There is a syntactic problem with their interpretation in that māyāśarīrāraṇisaṁmbhavena and tenottamadhyānaguṇendhanena are both very likely to be attributes of jñāṇārcciṣā, not only because of their position preceding jñāṇārcciṣā but also because in the real world the production of fire required both firesticks and fuel. A less problematic interpretation of māyāśarīrāraṇi- suggests itself if we simply take māyā to be the name of the Buddha’s physical mother Māyā and remember that araṇi “(lower) firestick” is a common metaphorical expression for a mother with reference to the process of sexual intercourse and conception (MW, s.v.). The overall phrase would then amount to a perfectly balanced comparison of the Buddha’s knowledge (jñāna) as arising from the physical condition of his birth from his mother Māyā’s body (māyāśarīra) and the further condition of his highest meditative absorption (uttamadhyāna), with a flame (arcis) arising from the combination of fiestick (araṇi) and fuel (indhana). The mention of the Buddha’s mother Māyā in stanza 4 further provides a link with the specification of his further ancestry as the Śākya family in stanza 2, neatly bracketing the three Triṣṭubh stanzas describing the Buddha and his accomplishments. The archeological context of the pillar would have contributed to bringing the Buddha’s mother to the mind of a learned reader of this inscription since the pillar appears to have been established in proximity to a majestic toraṇa in the decorative program of which the birth of Śākyamuni features prominently. We cannot entirely rule out that a learned double entendre was intended by the composer of the verse by using the compound māyāśarīra. We know that the docetic buddhology set forth, for instance, in the Lokānuvartanāsūtra, was current among the Śaila schools of Āndhradeśa, at least by the time of Candrakīrti (ca. 600–650), but possibly earlier. At the moment, however, we do not know which monastic lineage(s) were present in Phanigiri. In the absence of any supporting evidence from the site that would suggest that religious figures such as Dhammasena might have been familiar with such docetic trends, we consider it preferable to adopt the simpler interpretation of this compound. dagdhāni dagdhāni dagdhāni dagdhāni There does not, however, seem to be a length mark on the second akṣara, and we prefer to treat this as an orthographic slip.taṁ Erisaṁ taṁ varisaṁ taṁdharisaṁ translated which accompanies [the pillar], but it is unclear to us how their translation follows from their reading. Presumably -dharisaṁ would somehow be derived from the root dhr̥ “to hold,” but in fact it is the pillar that holds the cakra rather than vice versa. On closer inspection of the original stone, however, it seems clear to us that the second akṣara is E rather than dha. This suggests an interpretation as two words, the second of which corresponds to Old Indo-Aryan īdr̥śa “such a one,” i.e., a cakra exactly as just described in the four Sanskrit stanzas. Middle Indo-Aryan forms of this word with r are common (cf. CDIAL, s.v. īdr̥ śa), but in light of the general closeness of the Ikṣvāku Prakrit inscriptions to Pali it is interesting to note that the normal Pali form is edisa with d.mahāsenapatisarame naṁdiṁṇakasamahāsenapati saramenaṁ diṇokasamahāsenapati saramenaṁdiṇakasamahāsenapatisa ramanaṁdinokasaWhile both of Munirathnam’s readings correctly recognized the presence of a Great General, they remained syntactically incoherent. healed the syntactic problem with their reading, but were left with a problem of two donors that they described as follows: The general Ramanaṃdinoka donated the cakra to be raised and put on a pillar erected by the physician. They had noted earlier: Strangely enough, the physician does not mention his name. This, however, is perhaps again due to the metre. We may add as a third problem, not addressed by , that the place or institutional recipient of the donation would not be mentioned. It seems to us that all of these problems can be solved by dividing words as we do and assuming vowel sandhi in mahāsenapatisarame (= mahāsenapatisa arame) which then specifies the institutional recipient of the donation as the pleasure-grove of the Great General. The title mahāsenāpati figures very prominently in the Ikṣvāku inscriptions from Nagarjunakonda where it is applied to members of the royal house. This in turn makes it possible to interpret naṁdiṁṇakasa as the name of the heretofore nameless physician, who was then the donor of both the cakra and, secondarily, the pillar on which the cakra was mounted (as indeed specifid in stanza 1). Following the usual pattern in the Ikṣvāku corpus, his Indo-Aryan name Nandi is extended by a suffi -innaka-.nivāṇasaṁbharathatāyani vato saṁ bharadhato yanivane saṁbharathatāyanivāṇasaṁbharathatāyā misinterpret the serif of the last syllable as the vocalic marker -ā. When discussing the compound, they do provide the correct reading -athatāya, with the expected dat. sing. fem. ending. Compounds including nivāṇa and athanā (Skt. arthanā) commonly occur in the Āndhradeśa corpus. It is therefore tempting to consider the variant athatā- here as a mistake of the engraver, even if it can be accounted for as an abstract in -tā of atha.bhadaṁtadhemasenenabhadaṁta dhemasenena bhadanta bemasenenaThe fist word clearly uses anusvāra instead of class nasal, as throughout the Prakrit portion of this inscription. The name of the venerable monastic representing his institution at the donation was in all likelihood Dhammasena, with the apparent e mātrā in our inscription as a misspelling for anusvāra. The name Dhammasena is known from another Phanigiri inscription (EIAD 105), though it remains unclear whether both refer to the same person. jāṇātu .i ? ?. and refrain from any reading in this part of the inscription. On close inspection we are fairly certain of our reading proposed here, in which the special form of the ā mātrā attached to jā was misinterpreted by as their i mātrā. The imperative third-person singular verb turns everything that precedes in the concluding formula into a dependent participial phrase. sadevāsuramānuso lokosana ... mānusalaka... mānuso lokosa ????? mānuso lokoAfter inspection of the original stone, the reading proposed here — a known expression in Buddhist sources — seems very likely and provides the subject for the concluding sentence governed by jāṇātu.