1898.] 
T. Blocli —Buddhistic statue from Cravasti. 289 
To my humble opinion, such an assumption would be very 
difficult to maintain. Suppose, a pious Buddhist Monk or layman who 
had got hold of the statue at the place where it was standing previous¬ 
ly, desired to make it a gift to some of his co-religionists who were then 
residing at the place which is now called Set-Mahet. For this 
purpose, he removed the statue, 11' 8" in height, and of a considerable 
weight some thirty or even fifty miles. Is it not then entirely in 
opposition to the usual custom in India that he took all this trouble 
and, in connexion with it, the considerable expenses upon himself 
without recording even his name on the statue ? pravasti in 636 A.D. 
when Hiuen Thsang visited the place, certainly was already very 
much devastated, and only few Buddhists were residing there. But it 
must have been absolutely depopulated and no one must have been 
there to claim the possession of the image which even on its size 
would have excited the religious veneration of an ordinary Hindu or 
Buddhist, if he was allowed to take the statue away, and nobody dared 
to object, as it has been done now-a-days hundred of times to Archaeolo¬ 
gists and Collectors of sculptures for the various Museums. And is it 
really in accordance with the usual custom in India that, whenever a reli¬ 
gious man wants to gain merit by setting up a statue or building up a 
temple, he utilizes some old broken stone which he has come across with 
at some distant place P On the contrary, in such a case, no respect 
whatever for any object of antiquity is shown—a feeling which indeed is 
entirely new to the ordinary Indian—and the donor rather boasts himself 
of having made a new statue, however ugly, out of some other piece of 
venerable antiquity. 
These considerations make me inclined to trust the authority of 
the Inscription on the statue discovered by General Cunningham and 
to look upon the discrepancy in the direction as recorded by the Chinese 
pilgrim as a minor point of no considerable importance. There is some 
more Epigraphical evidence as to the site of the ancient fravasti which 
I may be permitted to add here, though, unfortunately, it does not 
help us any further. Qravasti is mentioned also in the following 
Inscriptions :— 
(1) Madhuban Copper-plate Inscription of Harsavardhana of 
Kanauj; date Harsa-samvat 25=631-632 A.D.; Epigr. 
Indica, Yol. I, p. 72, line 8 ff. of Inscription : Cravasti- 
bhuktau Kundadhaiu-vaisayika-Soinakundikd-grama . The 
plate was discovered in 1888 by a ploughman in a field near 
Madhuban, Pargaua Nathupur, Distr. A‘zamgarh, N.-W. 
Provinces. 
(2) Dighwa-Dubauli Copper-plate Inscription of Maharaja 
J. i. 37 
