1922. ] Notes on Kharosthi Inscriptions. 67 
Ind., Vol. VIII, p..117. M. Senart, however, thinks that Maka- 
daka = Markandaka and Vayira= Vajra 
§. Manikiala Inscription of the year 18, 
This well-known record has been thrice edited by Senart ! 
Liiders?, and Pargiter®. Yet it cannot be said that its deci- 
pherment and interpretation have been placed beyond all doubt. 
o show how much still requires to be done ick up a single 
passage (ll. 9-11) which has been read in at least three different 
Senart—Etena kusalamulena budhehi ca spavaspahi ca 
saca sada bhavatu. 
Liiders—Etena aga cae budhehi ca savaehi ca 
sacasana bha 
Pargiter kad kusal ] budhehi ca span- 
takahi ca sacasana bhavatu. 

But the plates accompanying M. Senart’s paper show 
: g 
clearly in my opinion the Hetil reading: elena kusalamu- 
c ena _Budhehi ca athakahi samam sada bhavatu. I render it 
‘* And by this root of bliss and by the Eight Buddhas let 
thar always be tranquility.” As regards the reading samam 
second letter is a regular ma underneath which there is a short 
curve stroke, apart from the letter itself, that may be easily 
read as anusvara. For a similar use of the word sama cf. 
the Sarnath image patio Se of Budhagupta which contains 
the following: yad=atra punyam pratimam karayitva mam= 
astu tat mata-pittror = ee ca lokasya ca sam-artham (Arch. 
Surv. ae 1914-15, p. 125). 


j Jour. AS., 9 serie, tome 7, p. | ff and plates. 
2nd. Re Az Ss. i , p. 666. 
3 Thad, 1914. 646. 
