$To. 35. — 1887.] notes on jatakas. 



191 



Sanskrit " samstrita," " spreading out." As the number of inscriptions 

 seems considerable, they may in time throw light on each other, and 

 enable us to form a more exact idea of the Pali dialect in which they 

 are written. At present, the interpretation must be considered as 

 hypothetical only. 



General Cunningham is fully aware how much depends on fixing a 

 date for these ruins. The style of the architecture, the character of 

 the sculptures, the shape of the letters, all would seem to point to an 

 early date, to a date anterior to our era ; but the less positive archae- 

 ologists are in fixing dates on such evidence, the better for the free 

 progress of scientific inquiry. General Cunningham's chief argument 

 in favour of ascribing the original building to the age of Asoka, is derived 

 from an inscription engraved on one of the pillars of the east gateway. 

 It reads as follows : — 



"Suganam rage ra#na gagiputasa visadevasa potewa gatiputasa 

 agara#asa puteraa vaMiputerca dhanabhiitina karita?^ torana??i silakam- 

 mata ka, upamrau" 



Babu Rajendra Lai Mittra, whom General Cunningham consulted, 

 explained it : — 



" In the kingdom of Sugana (Srughna) this Toran, with its orna- 

 mental stone work and plinth, was caused to be made by King 

 Dhanabhuti, son of Y&khi and Agaraga, son of Gati, and grandson of 

 Yisa, son of Gagi." 



A comparison with the original shows that the translation cannot be 

 accepted, and General Cunningham has therefore proposed the 

 following : — 



" In the kingdom of Sugana, this Toran (ornamental arch), with its 

 carved stone work and plinth, was caused to be made by YaZ^iputra's 

 pupil, R%a Dhanabhuti, the son of Gatiputra's pupil, Agara^/a, and the 

 grandson of Gagiputra's pupil, Visva Deva." 



General Cunningham points out that two of these names, Gatiputra 

 and YaMiputra had already appeared in the Bhilsa inscriptions, and 

 he holds that Gagiputra, Gatiputra, and YaMiputra are the names of 

 Buddhist teachers, and that the kings named in the inscription are 

 their spiritual pupils. He then argues, that in the Bhilsa records the 

 two names of Gatiputra and YaMiputra hold the same relative position 

 chronologically which they do in the Bharhut inscription ; that 

 Ya7^Aiputra is said to be the pupil of Gatiputra, and that consequently 

 Aga Ra#a and YaMiputra were fellow-pupils. He thinks it was due 

 to this connection, that Aga ~Rkg& selected YaMiputra as the teacher 

 of his own son Dhanabhuti. Lastly, as the famous Mogaliputra was 

 likewise a pupil of Gatiputra (see Bhilsa Topes, plate xxix. No. 9), and 

 . as he was seventy- two years of age at the meeting of Asoka's Synod 

 242 B.C., General Cunningham concludes that his fellow-pupils 

 VaMiputra and Aga Ra<?a must have flourished towards the end of 

 Bindusara's reign, or about 270 B.C., while Dhanabhuti, the pupil of 

 YaMiputra, cannot be placed later than 240 B.C. 



