DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0129
experienced by Buddhabaia, when handling this comparatively
complicated metre.
Thus, lines rf—/may be translated tentatively as: "By this
this purpose should be achieved: There should be off-
spring for the teacher in the world. The work of Buddhabaia".
The grammar is far from being satisfactory: obviously
stands for for for
for or The word may read
twice according to the
It is common practice in inscriptions to use the word to
indicate the author of verses, who, in this particular case, should
have been a Buddhist monk, perhaps a member of the
school, as his name ends in (HILKA 1910: 146).
In lines %—c two, if not three persons may be mentioned: a
a and a However,
may be the name of a rather than of a person. Therefore,
the AM/7472% seems to have been the of the
district.
In line c a further person may emerge, the son of a If
so, his name wasg%72/f. Unfortunately, it is impossible to decide,
whether or not is a name or whether it simply means
"gong". As this crucial question cannot be answered, the object
of the gift escapes us at present. Two possible translations can be
suggested: "The gong has been given back by the son of the (or:
a) king, pleased in mind" or, alternatively: "the son of the king,
Gandi, has been given back, pleased in mind". Normally, gram-
matical consideration would answer this question at once. In this
inscription, however, seems to be used as a kind of universal
ending giving no hint at all to the interrelation of the words in
this sentence. Line a starts: "This is theg*%. .
When trying to put the whole inscription together, one might
translate as follows: "This is the g^. the
lord of the district king Gandi, the son
of the king (or: the gong by the son of the/a king) has been given
back, pleased in mind. By this, this purpose should be achieved:
may there be offspring for the teacher of the world. The work of
Buddhabaia".
If the son of the king has been given back, evidently to the s%??2g^%,
the last sentence makes good sense: may there be many sons of
67
complicated metre.
Thus, lines rf—/may be translated tentatively as: "By this
this purpose should be achieved: There should be off-
spring for the teacher in the world. The work of Buddhabaia".
The grammar is far from being satisfactory: obviously
stands for for for
for or The word may read
twice according to the
It is common practice in inscriptions to use the word to
indicate the author of verses, who, in this particular case, should
have been a Buddhist monk, perhaps a member of the
school, as his name ends in (HILKA 1910: 146).
In lines %—c two, if not three persons may be mentioned: a
a and a However,
may be the name of a rather than of a person. Therefore,
the AM/7472% seems to have been the of the
district.
In line c a further person may emerge, the son of a If
so, his name wasg%72/f. Unfortunately, it is impossible to decide,
whether or not is a name or whether it simply means
"gong". As this crucial question cannot be answered, the object
of the gift escapes us at present. Two possible translations can be
suggested: "The gong has been given back by the son of the (or:
a) king, pleased in mind" or, alternatively: "the son of the king,
Gandi, has been given back, pleased in mind". Normally, gram-
matical consideration would answer this question at once. In this
inscription, however, seems to be used as a kind of universal
ending giving no hint at all to the interrelation of the words in
this sentence. Line a starts: "This is theg*%. .
When trying to put the whole inscription together, one might
translate as follows: "This is the g^. the
lord of the district king Gandi, the son
of the king (or: the gong by the son of the/a king) has been given
back, pleased in mind. By this, this purpose should be achieved:
may there be offspring for the teacher of the world. The work of
Buddhabaia".
If the son of the king has been given back, evidently to the s%??2g^%,
the last sentence makes good sense: may there be many sons of
67