290 T. Bloch — Buddhistic statue from Cravasti [No. 4, 
MahendrapaladeVa; date [Ffarsa]-samvat 155=761-762 
A.D. ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XV, 1886, p. 112 ; line 7 ft', of In¬ 
scription : Crdvasti-bhnlcta.u Crdvasti-mandal-dntahpati- 
Valayika-visaya-sambaddha-Paniyalca-grama. The plate is 
in the possession of a Brahmin in the Saran District, Bihar, 
but seems to have been brought there from some distant 
place. 
(3) Katak Copper-plate Inscription of the third year of Maha¬ 
raja Bhavagupta II.; date 11th century A.D. ; Epigr. Ind., 
Vol. Ill, p. 357; line 38 ff., of the Inscription mentions a 
Brahman who had come to Katak from the bhatta-village 
Kasilll in the Qravasti-mandala ( Cravasti-mandale Kasilli- 
bhattagrdma-vinirggatdya ). 
All these localities, however, mentioned as lying in the mandala or 
bliukti of pravasti, I have been unable to identify; for thatValayika 
in the Dighwa-Dubauli Inscription (No. 2) may be the modern Ballia in 
the North-West Provinces, is nothing more than a mere guess. If it is 
possible to identify those places, they would certainly help to settle the 
question, but I am unable at present to do this. 
To sum up the results of this paper, we learn from the Inscription 
on the base of the statue discovered by General Cunningham in 1863 at 
the modern Set-Mahet: — 
(1) that the statue was erected in the last century B.C. or first 
century A.D., and consequently is one of the oldest 
Buddhist images found in India; 
(2) that it represents a Bodhisattva, and not a Buddha, this 
being recognisable also in the shape of the robe leaving 
the right shoulder naked ; 
(3) that, finally, the statue originally was set up in (JJravasti 
and that the place where General Cunningham found it, 
viz., the modern Set-Mahet, has to be considered on 
the authority of the Inscription as the site of the ancient 
(Jravasti, notwithstanding a certain discrepancy in its 
actual direction from Kapilavastu (Paderia), as compared 
with the direction recorded by the Chinese pilgrims Fa 
Hian and Hiuen Thsang. 
