1898.] T. Bloch— Buddhistic statue from Qravastz. 281 
or some precious stones, for if it was merely a piece of wood or iron, 
no reason seems to me why the inscription mentions it specially. The 
umbrella, then rightly might have been called a ratnacchattra d 
The statue itself is described as an image of a Bodliisattva, not of 
a Buddha. To everyone who is acquainted with the ancient Buddhistic 
scriptures, it is well known that these two terms are never used pro¬ 
miscuously, but strictly distinguished from each other, 2 and that such 
a supposition would be quite out of place here, may be easily seen by 
comparing this word with the other Bhagavato camkame in the same line 
of the Inscription, where Buddha is spoken of as Bhagavan. This can be 
easily confirmed by looking over other ancient inscribed statues of 
Buddha. Here, with one exception only, the term Bodliisattva is never, 
employed in describing the image, but such other terms as Buddha , 
Tathdgata , Bhagavan , Casta , etc., which also in literature signify the 
teacher after he had reached the state of enlightenment, in distinction 
from the preliminary stage of a Bodliisattva or, as it is generally 
explained, “a being that in this birth is destined to reach the hodhi, 
without being born again.” I refer to the following inscriptions :— 
(1) An Inscription on the pedestal of a large statue of Buddha, 
in Anyor near Mathura : A. S. R. Vol. XX, p. 49 and Plate 
V, No. 5 : the characters of the Inscription belong to the 
Northern Ksatrapa type. The statue is described in line 
1 as Buddha-pratima ; 
(2) An Inscription, incised on the base of a large seated Buddha, 
found in the town of Kaman: Epigr. Indica, Vol. II, p. 
212 and No. 42 of Facsimile Plate. The date of the In¬ 
scription Sam 74 with all probability refers to the Kusana 
1 I must at least mention one other possible, though highly improbable, 
explanation of the words. On the Mathura Lion Capital a samanachatra is men¬ 
tioned which Prof. Biihler hesitatingly translated by ‘ a stupa of a monk ; ’ see 
Journ. Roy. As. Soc., New Ser., 1894, p. 536, note 6. He refers to the modern chatri 
which is used for a certain class of tomb-like monuments not uncommon in Northern 
India, which, however, to my mind do not seem to have any structural resemblance 
with a Buddhist stupa, but rather look like Muhammadan Maqbirahs. But, granted 
the correctness of this explanation, then we might take chat-ram in our Inscription as 
‘a stupa’; danda might refer to something similar to the yathi ( yasthi) in the Sue 
Bihar Inscription ; see Dr. Hoernle’s edition in Ind. Ant., Yol. X, p. 327, probably ‘ a 
metal rod containing the seven precious substances, and deposited inside the 
stupa.’ This explanation, though scarcely probable, would however, prove important 
for the question as to whether the statue has been found by General Cunningham 
in situ, or not. 
2 A few isolated instances adduced by Prof. Windisch in his Mara und Buddha, 
p. 211, cannot prove anything for the time to which this statue belongs. 
.J. i. 36 
