namas sarvvajñāya traaikūṭakānāṃ pravarddhamānarājye saṃvvatsaraśatadvaye pañcacatvāriṃśaduttare kr̥ṣṇagirimahāvihāre sindhuviṣayāntarggatagrāme kāṇake vāstavya suprabhāyāḥ buddhaśriyā puṣyavarmmaṇaś ca putro daśabalabali no bhagavataś śākyamunes samyaksambuddhasya taddharmmaśrāvakāryyabhikṣoḥ caraṇaparicaraṇakuśalo buddharucir i daṁ tasyaiva paramamuner agryaśrāvakasyāryaśāradvatīputrasya caityaṃ ghaṭitapāṣāṇeṣṭakābhir āca ndrārkkārṇṇavapritisthitisamakālinaṃ pratiṣṭhāpitavāṃs tad asya devayakṣasiddhavidyādharagaṇamāṇibhadrapū rṇṇabhadrapāñcikāryyavajrapāṇivajraṇakhādayaḥ svasti diśantv api ca

yāvad vīcīsahasrapracalitamakarā ghūrṇṇitāvarttatoya⟨ḥ⟩ kṣīrodaḥ kṣīratoyo br̥hadupalacitaẖ karkkaśo vāpi meruḥ yāvad vā yānti nadya s suvimalasalilas sāgaraṁ toyavatyaḥ tāvat kīrttiḥ sthireyaṃ bhajatu śubhakarīsatsutaṁ puṣyanāmnaḥ

dāḍhā

traaikūṭakānāṃ trikūṭakānāṃ There was likely originally a vowel mātra which was not preserved in the eye-copy, -ai. saṃvvatsara saṃvatsara Mirashi notes that "There was evidently an anusvāra on sa which is responsible for the reduplication (wrong, of course,) of v. grāme kāṇake grāme kāṇaka grāmikāṇaka grāmikāṇaka Mirashi translates “the village Kāṇaka”, but this implies grāmakāṇaka. Given the frequent occurrence of vastavya with a locative in inscriptions from across India (cf. EIAD 32 kaṃmākaraṭhe gāme toḍatur̥e vathavasa; III Sail 1.1 dheṇukākaḍe vāthavasa etc), it is perhaps best to read the second akṣara as -me (cf. l. 7 meruḥ) and supply an e-mātrā on the final akṣara. The name of the village may perhaps be compared with modern Kanak in Balochistan, as suggested by Pia Brancaccio (personal communication, 14/04/2025). vāstavya suprabhāyāḥ vāstavyaḥ vāstavyaḥ vāstavyaḥ There is no space on the eye-copy for a visarga, perhaps the words are in compound? putro The first akṣara really rather resembles su- or a-. Was the scribe hesitant between suto and putro? A comparison with suprabhāyāḥ earlier in the line seems to rule out a reading of su-. however it is still difficult to read this as pu-, especially when compared to l. 4 -putrasya. daśabalabalino The first akṣara really resembles de- or o-(cf. daṃl. 4). We follow Mirashi’s suggestion to restore an i-mātra to the second la. kāryyabhikṣoḥ Mirashi says “The superscript r has been wrongly written like the medial i. The sign for the medial i on bhi has not come out on the lithograph”. He also states that “The superscript k of ksh is cursive like that in kshiti, in line 5 of the Pārḍi plates of Dahrasena (No. 8) [CII IV.1: 24]. Pandit Bhagvanlal proposed to read gaṇyo, but the first akṣara is probably bha.” Based on these uncertainties it is worth exploring other possible readings (including the Pandit’s), especially when we compare the two kṣ-s in l. 7. There is no room for a visarga following the supposed kṣo, although this could just be a flaw in the eye-copy. caraṇaparicaraṇakuśalo Both of the ṇa-s really resemble he-s. ndr Mirashi says “The subscript curve appear like that of medial r̥i, but it is clearly a mistake of the scribe”. pritisthiti Mirashi says “The subscript curve appear like that of medial r̥i, but it is clearly a mistake of the scribe”. priti kṣiti kṣiti Mirashi suggests that the first akṣara should be kṣi but still reads pri. pāñcikāryya pañcikāryya pañcikāryya pañcikāryya vajraṇakhā vāṅkaṇakā vāṅkaṇakā vāṅkaṇakā Understand vajranakhā. Mirashi, struggling to make sense of this term, notes that Vāṅkaṇaka “may be a follower of Vaṅkaṇa… perhaps, the presiding deity of the Vaṅka mountain mentioned in some Jātakas.” The proposed reading Vajranakha makes much better sense, although it is not very well attested in early Buddhist literature. In non-Buddhist literature, the term commonly occurs as an epithet of Narasiṃha. vartta varta varta varta The conjunct is clear. citaẖ citaxka citaxka cita ka Perhaps the proper reading is citam ka-. satsutaṁ puṣyanāmnaḥ This may be taken as an allusion to Śāriputra, who is commonly referred to as Upatiṣya, and understood in Mūlasarvāstivādin sources to be the son of the brahmin Tiṣya. The donor, who is himself the son of Puṣya(varman), seems to play on this, and on the pair that Tiṣya and Puṣya (and thus, Upatiṣya and *Upapuṣya) form.

Homage to the Omniscient One! In the prosperous reign of the Traikūṭakas, in the year two hundred increased by forty-five, in the Kṛṣṇagiri mahāvihāra, Buddharuci a resident of the village Kāṇaka, included in the Sindhu viṣaya (district), the son of the resplendent Buddhaśrī and Puṣyavarman, skilful in serving the feet of the Lord Śākyamuni, who possesses of the ten powers and is perfectly and completely awakened, (and) of the venerable monk who is an accomplished auditor in his Dharma (i.e. Śāriputra), has erected this caitya with stones and bricks joined together to last as long as the moon, the sun, the oceans and the earth will last, (which is) dedicated to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, the chief disciple of the very same supreme Muni.

Therefore, may gods, yakṣas, siddhas, vidyādharas, gaṇas, Māṇibhadra, Pūrṇabhadra, Pāñcika, the Noble Vajrapāṇi, Vajranakha and others grant their blessing

“As long as the milky ocean, the waters of the whirl-pools of which are whirled by the alligators tossed about by thousands of (its) waves, is an ocean of milk, as long as the rugged Meru is piled with huge rocks, as long as rivers of very clear water flow with (their) water into the ocean – even so long may this lasting and auspicious fame resort to the excellent son of him (who is) named Puṣya!"

Dāḍhā(?)

Māṇibhadrapūrṇṇabhadrapāñcikā: Māṇibhadra, Pūrṇabhadra, and Pāñcika are recognised as three yakṣasenāpatis, for instance in the Suvarṇaprabhā (for the first two), see also Hōbōgirin, s.v. Bishamon. The Mmī, which we know circulated in Maharashtra, identifies the first two as brothers living in Brahmavatī (not identified, but understood to be near Gandhāra, which is mentioned immediately after in the work), while some versions of the work interestingly locate Pāñcika in Sindh. Cf. Mmī 20, 22.

58 29 10 59 14 lxiii 31 73-74