68 Memorandum on and tentative reading of the [No. 2 



Naganatasa Dhakha kelisa atreyura matravisishtasa atreyubhrate 

 prasishtasa yatri eva puyae ilia Damane (tliird line) vihar, — and 

 tentatively I would read this as follows : — 



" This vihar, in Damana, for the religious advantage (puyae) 

 equivalent to a pilgrimage (yatri eva. .yatra-iva ?) of Dhakakelis 

 (Dhakukelis ?) the .... excellent mother and .... very excellent 

 brothers of the Bhikshu Atreshwara of Naganata." 



The verb must come in the third line, which I have not as yet 

 had time to work out ; but I do not like to keep the papers longer. 

 I will copy out the tracing, however, and if I can make any further 

 probable guesses, will send them afterwards. The only impor- 

 tance which attaches to the second line is that which is derived 

 (if my reading is correct) from the mention of pilgrimages, as show} 

 ing that they were in use among the Buddhists of the early date 

 to which this inscription apparently belongs (not later than the 

 first century, A. D.), and that they were considered as conferring 

 religious merit. 



If the Society publish the inscription, they should, I think, gei a 

 loan at least of the plate. It is much more satisfactory to read from 

 the original than from the best tracing or copy. 

 May 1st, 1869. 



Major Stubbs having kindly sent me the original copper-plate 

 found at Sue Vihar near Bhawalpiir, I am now in a position to 

 add somewhat to the tentative readings before submitted to the 

 Society, though I regret to say that I am still unable to complete 

 the whole inscription. This mainly arises from doubts as to the 

 value of certain characters which appear to occur here for the first 

 time. If my readings, however, are right as far as they go, they 

 seem to indicate that the pillar was set up as a quasi expiatory 

 offering by some one who had at some period of his career lapsed 

 into heresy, or into the commission of some grave crime. The 

 only other point of importance brought out is the date of the day 

 of the month, which is clearly the nineteenth ; but as will be seen, 

 there is some difficulty as to the cypher for this, which hardly accords 

 with that given for the date of the year eleven. The first figure 



^ is either a contraction for / ? S (11), or else there is 

 some omission in the engraving. 



