122 Notes on Sanskrit Inscriptions from Ifathurd. [No. 2, 



same direction. The ladder as we now possess it (Plate VI. Fig 1 , 

 xiv) is only a fragment, the upper half being lost. This circum- 

 stance, and the injuries which the letters have received from time 

 and ill-usage, render the complete decipherment of the record 

 quite out of the question. From the few words that I have been 

 able to read, I take the steps to have been presented by a mendi- 

 cant, named Buddha-dasa, for the iise of the pious, or, to quote his 

 own words, " for the good of all mankind" (sarvasatta liit&ya). 



The inscriptions on the pillars are likewise records of gifts 

 to the monastery, and in language, style and grammar differ not 

 in the least from similar records in Sanchi and other Buddhist 

 sanctuaries. The shortest inscriptions of this class simply say ll the 

 gift of so and so y" others add the purpose for which the gift is made, 

 being the good of one's ownself, or that of his parents, or of mankind 

 at large ; and the more elaborate include the date of the gift, 

 the name of the monastery, and perhaps the name of the reigning 

 sovereign. The nature of the gift is sometimes mentioned, but 

 not often ; and the question may be raised as to whether in the 

 case of inscriptions, recording gifts fddnaj without specifying their 

 nature, they are to be taken as mere records of gifts, or of the gift 

 of the objects on which they occur? General Cunningham is in favour 

 of the latter alternative, and is of opinion that the things on which 

 donative inscriptions occur, are themselves the objects of these 

 inscriptions. There is generally, however, no pronoun of any kind 

 in such inscriptions to fix such a meaning, and it often happens, that 

 a single bar of a railing, records two or three or more gifts of 

 different dates, eaeh in the usual form of gifts of so and so 

 — amulcasya ddnam. Of the two inscriptions given on plate V. (No. 

 y,) that on the torus records the gift of some Dasa, the son 

 of Vasiimihira, while the one on the plinth, gives the name 

 of Yis vasika Vikramahara, son of Sinha. They cannot possibly 

 be intended to record the gift of the pillar, but of some gift 

 in money or other article to the shrine. Had the object been 

 the joint gift of two or more persons, their names would have 

 been given, not in separate inscriptions, but in one record, as 

 is the case in many inscriptions which have come under notice, 

 I am disposed to think, therefore, that the ddna inscriptions were 



