Kanheri Epitaph Inscription 26 EpiDoc Encoding Kelsey Martini intellectual authorship of edition Kelsey Martini Vincent Tournier DHARMA Munich DHARMA_INSKI00076

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported 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.

Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Kelsey Martini.

 2019-2025 DHARMAbase

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).

Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.

Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the DHARMA_idListMembers_v01.xml file.

 Initial Encoding of the File Version 3.2 : moving the xml:lang to the root Version 3.1: adding the encodingDesc and linking the template with the DHARMA Schema Version 2: addition of handDesc and summary Creation of the template

therāṇaṁ Ayyamahā giriṇaṁ Arahaṁ tāṇaṁ vabhiḥ

therāṇaṁ theraṇaṃ Ayyamahā giriṇaṁ Ārya la vi ṇaṁ Arahaṁtāṇaṁ Arahaṃ vabhiḥ thubho

Stūpa(?) of the venerable Noble Mahāgiri, an arhat…

The name of the monk, Mahāgiri, is unusual for an individual, although it is attested in IBH, Sanc 140: mahāgirino bhichuno dānaṁ. This name interestingly brings to mind the name of the *Mahāgirīya (Tib. ri chen po pa) nikāya, otherwise unattested in inscriptions. In the third account of the nikāyas and their tenets preserved in his Tarkajvālā, the Vātsīputrīyas are subdivided into two groups, the Saṁmitīyas and the *Mahāgirīyas, the latter subdivided into the Dharmottarīyas and the Bhādrāyaṇiyas. See Eckel 2008: 121, 315.9–22. Since the latter are the only nikāyas represented in Kanheri, the mention of a master Mahāgiri may be of some relevance for the later self-representation of the religious milieux active at the site.

The end of this inscription is most puzzling, since we don’t find the usual thūbhaṁ at the end, and at the moment can’t make sense of the last term. The last akṣara seems clearly to read -bhi-, although it could theoretically be interpreted as an attempt to modify a -bha- into a -thū-. There however remains that the previous two akṣaras do not correspond to what one would expect.

136 E26