387 
1SG1.] Statements touching the G-uptas, fyc. 
On the Balm's proposal to identify Toramana of Kashmir with the 
Toramana of the Eran inscription, I have to offer only one or two 
suggestions. Are we sure, that the former lived 4 about the end of 
the fifth century ?” Ear from it. And are we sure, that, as the 
Babii takes for granted, the latter belonged to that age ? Not at all. 
No attempt whatever has been made to set aside my implied assign- 
ment of him, on the basis of an ascertained date, to the first half of 
the second century ;* and the time of Budhagupta, on which his own 
depends, is hypothetically reckoned by the Babu, in an era which 
perhaps began A. D. 278. The result is a difference of three hun- 
dred and thirty-five years. 
Hiouen-Thsang’s Buddhagupta must have flourished at least a 
the aphorism ; but I annex the amplification of it given in the Siddhdnta-KaumucM : 
> *rmT: The incidence of the era, 44 exclu. 
sivelv!” is unmistakeable. Panini means, that it is only before verbs, and never 
after them, that such particles as sam, &c. can be used in composition, these 
prefixes are by no means restricted to direct connexion with verbs, or with any 
other class of vocables ; and to all such they are non-essential. As the Babu 
interprets Panini, authority is wanting even for putting one inseparable prepo- 
sition before another ; and yet in compounds by the myriad, we come upon these 
prepositions lying from two to four deep. In the very inscription where I could 
make out of chaos nothing better than Sansurabhu, we have anumdhaym, 
apyayana and abhyuchchhrita. The Babu, to be consistent, must ostracize them. 
And what, of San/cata, Samadliilca, &c. &c. ? 
Sir. Prinsep’s decipherment Sansuratam has the Babu s approval ; and he 
analyzes it into sam, “ with,” or “.altogether,” su, “ well,” and rata “ pleasbd. 
He has laid down, that “ the particle sam is seldom, if ever, used be ore other 
than a verb or a participial noun and he thinks it “not at all likely, that 
the writer of the inscription should have so sinned against grammar as to write 
Sansurabhu. In so saying, he fails to perceive, that his condemnation of another 
applies just as much to himself j for su, “well,” precisely like my sura, god, 
is neither a verb nor a participial noun. , „ ,. . , 
Finally, as for the epithet Sansurabhu, I have only said, and with all distinct- 
ness, that one must render it, “ if right,” by “ in which is the good land of the 
gods.” I have far from intimated any confidence in the correctness ot my read- 
ing; and I have no partiality for it whatever. The fact is, simply, that the 
original symbols looked to me, in the dilapidated condition in which I found 
them, rather like the constituents of Sansurabhu than like anything. else, that 
Sansuratam is not on the Eran column, I am quite positive, the Babu s suspicion 
of “illusion” to the contrary notwithstanding. Both words are artificial and 
unnatural ; but Sansuratam is the more so. In the account ot grammatical 
propriety, they are pretty much on a par. 
It will have been perceived, that I have not here had to retract anything. 
Sansurabhu must have passed uncensured, had the Babu chosen to give proper 
heed to my account of it which he had before Ins eyes. This I have now made 
plain. If, in doing so, I have reciprocated somewhat ol the animadversive 
attention which lias been bestowed upon me, the reciprocation has not been 
altogether voluntary. 
* Vide supra , p. 15, second foot-note. 
