No. 6 Ajaíòà cave inscription. (pl. lviii). The characters in which the inscription is written belong to the central group of alphabets. They differ from the southern types of the Chalukya, Kàdamba, and other inscriptions in the forms of na and ta, which resemble those used in the Valabhè and Gurjara ùàsanas. They come very close to the inscriptions in Caves XVI and XVII, and probably belong to the latter half of the sixth or beginning of the seventh century A.D. The language is faulty and ungrammatical Sanskrit, containing a number of peculiar Buddhistic phrases. It is such as might be expected to be written by a Bauddha Àchàrya (vs. 19) who, like the Jaina Yatis of our days, possessed only a superficial knowledge of the Brahmanical idiom. According to the inscription, the person who ordered Cave XXVI to be excavated, and provided the funds for the work, was a monk called Buddhabhadra (vs. 13). His agents were the monk Dharmadatta and his own pupil Bhadrabandhu (?), who superintended the actual work. Buddhabhadra seems to have been no common monk (vs. 7). The nature of the work which he performed clearly indicates that he possessed considerable wealth. His friendship with the minister of the king of Asmaka, in whose honour the cave was excavated, and the epithet "abhijanopapanna" (vs. 16), which seems to mean that he was of noble family, indicate, too, that he was more than a common begging friar. Perhaps we shall not err, if we assume that he occupied a position analogous to that of a Jaina Ùrèpój and was the spiritual head of some Bauddha sect. The fact that he mentions "his striving for the welfare of the people" (vs. 16), and "his having taken upon himself the care of the people," may be adduced in support of this view. It is at present impossible to trace the two ministers of the Aùmaka king, Bhavviràja and Devaràja, who held office one after another. But the Sthavira Achala, who is mentioned (vs. 6) as one of the former builders of Vihàras, is known from Hiwen Thsang's Meúmoires (tom. ii. p. 152). It is stated there that the Arhat, 'O-che-lo, a native of Western India, traced his mother (who had died, but had been born again as a woman) to a village in Mahàràøòra, converted her to Buddhism, and, touched by the kindness he had received from her who had born and nursed him, and thinking with emotion of the acts in her former life, caused a convent to be built (on the eastern frontier of the kingdom of Mahàràøòra) in order to thank her for her great benefits. M. St. Julien transliterates 'O-che-lo by Àchàra, but that is certainly a mistake, as Achala comes much closer to the Chinese sounds. Moreover, the epithet kðitakðityenàpi satà, "though his desires were fulfilled," which is applied to Sthavira Achala, seems directly to refer to the story of 'O-che-lo's finding and converting his mother. If the identification of our Achala with Hiwen Thsang's 'O-che-lo be accepted, the conjecture that Hiwen Thsang meant to describe Ajaíòà in his account of the monastery on the eastern frontier of Mahàràøòra gains in probability (ASWI)

Text.

[1.] jayati lokahitàvahitodyato- . . . . . sukhàntakaraõ paramàrthavi[t|] trividhanirmmalasarvvaguíodayo-mu[øitabhèõ] karuíàmalachandrika[õ ||1||]
[2.] puíar api maraíàdi yena samya . . . ivam ajaràmaradharmmatà cha labdhà [|] ùèvam abhayam anàlayaì gatopi-praùamapuraì jagatàì karoti chàrttha[ì ||2||]
[3.] tato namaskàraguíàbhidhàna[ì]-bhavaty avandhyaì vipulaì mahàrtthaì [|] pradattam ekaì kusumaì cha yatra-svarggàpavarggàkhyaphalasya hetu[õ || 3 ||]
[4.] ata iha viduøà Tathàgateøu-prathitaguíàdhikalokavatsaleøu [|] kðitam anusaratà janena kàryyà-drava-karuíàõðidayeøv atè-
[5.] va bhakti[õ] || [4 ||] devà nirastavijayàs savipattikatvàch-chhàpena Ùaìbhur api kàcharalochanobhót | Kðiøíovaùopi vaùam àpatitontakasya-tasmàj jayaìti
[6.] Sugatà bhayavipramuktàõ ||[5||] Sthaviràchalena muninà ùàsanam udbhàvayaìkðitajãena [|] kðitakðityenàpi satà ùailagðihaì kàritaì ùàstuõ ||[6||]
[7.] pràg eva bodhisattvair bhavasukhakàmaiù cha mokøakàmaiù cha [|] saìvidyamànavibhavaiõ kathaì na kàryyà bhave kèrttiõ ||[7||] yàvat kèrttir loke tàvat svargge-
[8.] øu modati cha dehè [|]chandràrkkakàlakalpà kàryyà kèrttir mahèdhreøu ||[8 ||] anekajanmàntarabaddha-sauhðidaì-sthiraì kðitajãaì sudhiyaì vipaùchitam [|]
[9.] suràsuràchàryyamateøu kovidaì-mahànubhàvàùmakaràjamantriíam ||[9||] lokajãam ekàntasamantabhadraì-sarvvàrtthinàm artthakaraì suvàcham [|] guíonnataì praùraya-
[10.] nàmramórttiì-khyàtiì gataì sachcharitaiõ pðithivyàì ||[10||] daíäasàdhyàni kàryyàíi vyàyàmaikarasàny api-yas sàdhayati sàmnaiva nðipater mantðipuêgava[õ] ||[11 ||] itthaì
[11.] bhótosya putropi Devaràjo dhuraìdharaõ [|] pitaryy uparate yena padam unnàmita[ì] guíaiõ ||[12||] taì Bhavviràjam uddiùya màtàpitaram eva cha [|] bhikøuíà Buddhabhadreía
[12.] kàritaõ Sugatàlaya[õ ||13||] àgamya Dharmmadattaã cha bhikøuì sachchhiøyam eva cha [|] Bhadrabudhum idaì veùma tàbhyàì niøpàditaì cha me || [14||] yad atra puíyaì tat teøà[ì]
[13.] jagatà[ì] cha bhavatv idaì [|] sarvvàmalaguíavyàtamahàbodhi-phalàptaye || [15||] yo Buddhaùàsanagatiì samabuddhya jàto-bhikøur vvayasy abhinavebhijanopapanna[õ|]
[14.] bahuvrataõ ùèlaviùuddhachetà-lokasya [mokøà]ya kðitàdhikàraõ || [16 ||] na saìsàràpannaì ùubham api[tu k]iêchich chhubhakaraì-vipàko divyo
[15.] ß ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ß ß chà nèyamà [|] ÿ ß lokàrtthàya prasðitamana ß puíyamahato-[dhè]ràíà[ì] bbavati sukha . ß
[16.] na jagatàm ||[17||] ß ß ß ÿ ÿ ß ÿ ß valabhirnnànàíäaja- ß ÿ ß [|] golàngólaninàdapóritadare pràgbhàravi ß ÿ ß _ ß ß ß ÿ ÿ ß ÿ ß ÿ ÿ ÿ
[17.] yogèùvaràdhyàsite veùmedaì jana ß ÿ ß janakabhótyai ß pratiøthàpitaì || [18 ||] pórvvàpi cheyam tenaiva dribddhàchàryyeía saugati [|] lokachi[ntàmu]pàdàya . . . . . . . .[|| 19 ||]

Notes (ASWI)
_____________________
L 2. The sign after samya is not clear. Pandit Bhagwànlàl reads it as køi, which, in my opinion, is impossible. I believe that it is meant for gji, and that the phrase must be read samyag-jitam, instead of samyag-jivam.(ASWI)
L 6. Read udbhàvayat, as Pandit Bhagwànlàl suggests.(ASWI)
L 10. Read namramórtiì;- mantripuêgavaõ.(ASWI)
L 12. The last ligature in the second name is uncertain. It looks like dhdhum. But Pandit Bhagwànlàl's emendation, bhadrabandhum, is probable.(ASWI)
L 13. Read sarvvàmalaguíavyàpta-. Pandit Bhagwànlàl's reading, dhyàta-, is against the facsimile; -vyàtta- would also give sense.(ASWI)
L. 15. Possibly prasðitamana[sàm] puíyamahatàm is to be read; Pandit Bhagwànlàl's restoration, sukha[bhogàya], cannot stand, as na is distinct before jagatàm (line 16).(ASWI)
L 17. Possibly jana[sevitaì] or jana[saìstutaì] may have been the original reading; read dðibdhàchàryeía; it must remain doubtful if saugatè or saugatèm is the correct reading. In the former case the word would have to be taken with praùastiõ, which doubtlessly stood in tbe last pàda of the mutilated anuøòubh; in the latter it belongs to lokachi[ntàì].(ASWI)