Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T04:37:41.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ājīvikas, Maṇibhadra and Early History of Eastern Bengal: A New Copperplate Inscription of Vainyagupta and its Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2015

RYOSUKE FURUI
RYOSUKE FURUI*
Affiliation:
University of Tokyofurui@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new copperplate inscription of Vainyagupta, to be presented in this article, is important as one of the rare sources that provide a glimpse of the later history of the Ājīvikas. It also tells us about their worship of Maṇibhadra, one of the eminent yakṣas, with interesting information on his iconography. Finally, it gives us some insights into the early history of Samataṭa, a subregion of Bengal on its eastern fringe, as it includes a copy of the grant of an earlier king named Nāthacandra. In this article, I will present an edition of the inscription and discuss some historical aspects revealed by it in connection with other sources.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 657 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2015 

Introduction

The inscription to be presented in this article is a decree on copperplate issued by Vainyagupta, dated year 184 Gupta Era (henceforward GE), currently kept by a private collector in Dhaka who wishes to remain anonymous. I was able to study the plate and take photographs on 26 July 2009, 31 July 2011 and 15 March 2013. I was also provided with another set of photographs taken by Gudrun Melzer on a separate occasion.

This inscription is important not only as a new grant of King Vainyagupta but also as one of the rare sources that provide a glimpse of the later history of the Ājīvikas, a religious group which once flourished in eastern India in competition with both Buddhists and Jains.Footnote 1 It also tells us about their worship of Maṇibhadra, one of the eminent yakṣas, with interesting information on his iconography. Finally, it gives us some insights into the early history of Samataṭa, a subregion of Bengal on its eastern fringe, as it includes a copy of the grant of Nāthacandra, an earlier king mentioned in no other sources. In this article, I will first provide readers some basic information on the inscription, the full text with notes and translation, and notes on its contents. Then I shall discuss some aspects of the history of the Ājīvikas, the yakṣa Maṇibhadra and eastern Bengal revealed by this new inscription in connection with other sources, and finally the interconnection of those aspects.

The Copperplate inscription of Vainyagupta, year 184 GE

The inscription is engraved lengthways on both sides of a single copperplate, 25 lines on the obverse and 22 on the reverse (Figs 1 and 2). An oval-shaped seal is soldered to the left of the plate. The seal seems to contain an image of a couchant bull facing left with one or two lines of inscription below, separated by a single line. Both image and inscription on the seal have suffered heavily from corrosion and the latter is almost unreadable. The plate is 39.7 cm long with seal, 32 cm long without it and 21 cm wide. The seal is 13 cm long and 12.5 cm wide. The plate has sustained damage in some parts due to corrosion making some characters difficult to read. The damage is the severest at both lower corners where parts of the plate have broken away and some characters have become totally obliterated. However, most of characters are still legible, especially with the aid of digital photographs.

Fig. 1 A New Copper Plate Inscription of Vainyagupta, year 184 GE, Obverse. The photograph taken by the author. Courtesy of the owner.

Fig. 2 A New Copper Plate Inscription of Vainyagupta, year 184 GE, Reverse. The photograph taken by the author. Courtesy of the owner.

This is the third plate of Vainyagupta so far discovered. The other two are 1) the Gunaighar plate dated year 188 GE, currently kept in the Bangladesh National Museum with accession number 2400,Footnote 2 and 2) the very corroded and almost illegible plate discovered from the site of Salban Vihara, Mainamati, first reported by Barrie M. MorrisonFootnote 3 and currently kept by the Department of Archaeology, Government of Bangladesh, with accession number BA/CP/5.2001. The provenance of the present plate is unknown, though its contents strongly suggest that the recorded incidents occurred in Samataṭa, a sub-region of Bengal corresponding to the present districts of Comilla and Chandpur in Chittagong division of Bangladesh, as will be discussed below.

The text of the inscription is written in Sanskrit, mostly correct but with non-Sanskritic terms especially among personal and place names, and grammatical mistakes in some parts. It is in prose except four admonishing verses (lines 6–9). The characters of the inscription can be categorised as an eastern variety of Late Northern Brāhmī script. Numerals denoting digits, decades and a hundred are used in the plate. Some of them, mostly those for decades and a hundred, are marked with a circle or similar symbols following them, as indicated in the rendering of the text below.

In terms of orthography, the gemination of consonants in conjunction with r is notable. Examples include dharmma (l. 14), pūrvva (l. 5), yattra (l. 17), puttra (l. 24) and kkrītaṃ (l. 34). Such doubling of consonants also occurs without regularity in other phonetic contexts. Examples are: ānuddhyātaḥ (l. 1), dharmmeṇṇa (l. 4) and saṃvvat (l. 10). The use of n in conjunction with ś, instead of ṃ or ṅ as found in kānsa (ll. 43–45), is another notable feature. The rules of sandhi are not always observed, especially in the case of place names like Ulagiuccālikā (l. 22) and Arīuccāli (l. 26), and words without expected Visarga, or conversely with unexpected Visarga like hakkavaḍḍikebhyaḥ hastāt (l. 31). Unlike other contemporary inscriptions of Bengal, b and v are expressed by different characters, though the substitution of the former by the latter is also observed in certain cases, such as vali (ll. 12–13) and saṃvaddha (ll. 41–42).

TextFootnote 4

Obverse (Figure 1)

  1. (1) svasti mahānauhastyaśvajayaskandhāvārāt krīpurāt paramabhaṭṭārakapādānuddhyātaḥ pañcādhikaraṇoparikamahāpratīhāramahārājaśrīvainyaguptaḥ kuśalī

  2. (2) itastyāṃ bhaviṣyāṃ vā ānyāṃś ca tatpādopajīvinaḥ kuśalam āśaṃsyānudarśayati viditaṃ bhavatām astu pūrvvarājabhir yyāḥ svapuṇyābhivṛddhaye akṣayanīvyā va-

  3. (3) [rṇṇin]ām ā[ś]ramiṇāñ ca tāmraśāsanena dattikās tā mayā (’)pi mātāpittror ātmanaś ca puṇyābhivṛddhaye pūrvvamaṇḍalajayanāṭane bhagavataś caturmmukhamūrtter mma-

  4. (4) [ṇi]bhadrasyāyatana-m-ājīvakabhadantaśramaṇasaṃghāya sarvvātibhogenākṣayanīvīdharmmeṇṇa svatāmraśāsanenābhyanumoditā yuṣmābhir api svaśreyortthibhi-

  5. (5) r evam evānupālayitavyāḥ pūrvvarājadattidattatāmraśāsanākaraś ca yathākṣaraiva mayā svatāmraśāsane likhitaḥ tad yūyam etaddānānumodane (’)smin madīyatā-

  6. (6) mraśāsane dṛṣṭvā sarvvataḥ pratipālanādi kariṣyatha iti anupā[la]naṃ prati ca bhagavatā parāśarātmajena vedavyāsena gītāḥ ślokāḥ (|) ṣaṣṭiṃ varṣasahasrāṇi

  7. (7) svargge modati bhūmidaḥ (|) ākṣeptā cānumantā ca tāny eva narake vaset· (∥ 1) svadattāṃ paradattāṃ vā yo hareta vasundharāṃ (|) sa viṣṭhāyāṃ kṛmir bhūtvā pitṛbhiḥ saha pacya-

  8. (8) te (∥ 2) pūrvvadattāṃ dvijātibhyo yatnād rakṣa yudhiṣṭhira (|) mahīṃ mahimatāṃ śreṣṭha dānāc chreyo (’)nupālanaṃ (∥ 3) yānīha dattāni purā narendrair ddānāni dharmmārtthayaśaska-

  9. (9) rāṇi (|) dharmmābhilāṣān nṛpagauravāc ca mayā (’)py anujñātaphalāni tāni (∥ 4) varttamānaścaturāśītiśatasaṃvatsare caittramāsattrayodaśadivase dūta-

  10. (10) kāḥ kumārāmātyadharmmasvāmibhramararājyapālā likhitaṃ sandhivigrahādhikaraṇikarāmadāsena saṃvvat· 100 80 4 caittradi 10 3 mahā-

  11. (11) rājamaheśvaranāthacandraḥ bhaviṣyān itastyāṃ rājño (’)nyāṃś ca rājapādopajīvinaḥ kuśalam āha evañ cāha viditaṃ vo (’)stu yathā mayā svapu-

  12. (12) ṇyapyāyanāya jayanāṭane bhagavataś caturmmukhamūrtter mmaṇibhadrasya nāthameṭāyatanaṃ kāritan tasya bhagavataḥ s[uma]nogandhadhūpava-

  13. (13) licarusattrapravarttanāya tannivāsyājīvakabhadantasaṃghasya ca tasyāyanasya khaṇḍaphuṭṭapratisa[ṃ]skārakaraṇṇāya kṣettra __ [ddha]grāmam evā-

  14. (14) hāradāsīdāsādisarvvātibhogenātisṛṣṭāḥ tad yuṣmābhir asmadgauravād dharmmavātsalyāc cākṣayanīvīdharmmeṇaiva śaśvatkālam anupālayita-

  15. (15) vyās talle[kh]yā yattra pūrvvamaṇḍalajayanāṭane jakkanaśāṭyāṃ poyavādappapaḍakhāsikābhyāṃ hastākrītaṃ kṣettradroṇavā[pā]

  16. (16) 40 ° mūlyaṃ dī 4 attraiva [dhar]mmadevavilālakantārakarmmāntikābhyāṃ hastāt krītaṃ kṣettradroṇa 10 5 mūlyaṃ dī 1 māṣā 8 attraivomala-

  17. (17) vaṅgālotpalavaṅgālābhyāṃ krītakṣettradro 10 5 mūlyaṃ dī 1 mā 8 eṣāṃ sākṣiṇā yattra heṣamakhallavāstavyasiddhagodama jayanā-

  18. (18) ṭanavāstavyaśrīvilālaḥ attra vāstavya usalamanaśācāraś ca ṣollavillagrāmasya sīmā pūrvveṇa makhaḍapaṭṭī cāli dakṣiṇe[na] gu[lma]-

  19. (19) senikoṭṭaḥ paścimena jakkanaśāṭi uttareṇa gherapuḍāsaṃkoṭṭaś ceti pāyanāṭane paḍakhāsiyākāt krītaṃ kṣettradro 10 mūlyaṃ dī [1]

  20. (20) attra vanake (’)kkihoravaḍḍipaṭṭiyākahastāt krītaṃ droṇa 20 ° mūlyaṃ dī 2 sākṣiṇo jakkanaśāṭivāstavyaughāgrāmanaśācāraguṇamāne __

  21. (21) tasmin· vāstavyamattenapalagālaḥ vondorakarmmāntikaś ca attraiva bhivaravaḍḍisiddhavaṅgālena ca dānadattakakṣettradroṇa 30 ° attraiva pāyanāṭane [gh]idharā-

  22. (22) vaddasantakakṣettradroṇṇa 40 ° ulagiuccālikāyāṃ tasyaiva sivaravelasantakakṣettra dro 100 ° attraiva kopanikhedakāyaśākābhyāṃ krītaṃ kṣettra-

  23. (23) dro 20 ° mūlyaṃ dī 2 attraiva vāstavyasākṣiṇau khedamanaśācāravaḍḍidaṇḍau attraiva jakkanaśāṭyāṃ ajarudranandiyākābhyāṃ krītaṃ kṣettradroṇa 30

  24. (24) [mū]lyaṃ dī 3 attraivāmmadevatatputtrasiddhākābhyāṃ krītaṃ kṣettradro 20 ° mūlyaṃ dī 2 attraiva pūdanikāputtra-usalākagrodākapokkakebhyaḥ krītaṃ [kṣe] __ __

  25. (25) __ __ lyaṃ dī 4 sākṣiṇo (’)ttra vāstavyāḥ gomapoyadevavaṅgālamalliyākāḥ peraññaśake virimainārimamipakavaḍidakṣi __ __ __

Reverse (Figure 2)

  1. (26) __ _radr[o]ṇa 40 ° mūlyaṃ dī 4 sākṣiṇo (’)ttraiva vāstavyabhīmavilālaḥ arīuccālivāstavyajaḍḍavaṅgāla iṭṭahāniś ca [kheṇṭavi]ll[e] vokkicandā __ __ __

  2. (27) [santa]kakṣettradro 10 5 ° nagnapaṭṭoccālikāyāṃ jaḍḍolakarmmāntikāt krītaṃ kṣettradro 80 ° mūlyaṃ dī 8 nāgapaṭṭoccālikāyāṃ ugeyāha[stāt k]r[ī]ta[ṃ kṣettra]-

  3. (28) [dro] 20 ° mūlyaṃ dī 2 anayoḥ sākṣiṇas tannivāsipaṭṭivaṅgāla bhondoravilālaś ceti maramallatuṣappe śrīmattena kaḍḍhaparamattenābhyarddhamānadattamaṃ kṣe-

  4. (29) ttradro 40 ° ūracaṇḍoccālikāyāṃ siddhakeppaśreṣṭhihastāt krītaṃ kṣettradro 40 ° mūlyaṃ dī 4 sākṣiṇo paṭṭimattena gothānavāstavyamūladevāka[va]-

  5. (30) ṅgālas tyugroccālikāvāstavyaghomaśākaikhada tyugroccālikāyāṃ jaḍḍolakarmmāntikakhedākahastābhyāṃ krītaṃ kṣettradro 60 ° mūlyaṃ dī 6 attraiva yuṅgi-

  6. (31) punnakakāragadollavilālahakkavaḍḍikebhyaḥ hastāt krītaṃ nāgolārikhāṭam āśritya kṣettradro 90 ° mūlyaṃ dī 30 marameṭe jaḍḍolakarmmāntik[e]ndi[rama]-

  7. (32) naśācā[ra]hastāt krītam evāgārāś catvāraḥ mūlyaṃ dī 10 8 eṣā sākṣiṇaḥ heṣamakhallavāstavyanāgolakarmmāntiposagavilālaḥ peratyugravā-

  8. (33) stavyadvādaśācaṇḍika attraiva khaddatyugavāstavya-ambukarmmāntikakelāmeṭāś ca khaddamattanoccālikāyāṃ goyolakarmmāntikavilālaputtrakhavatti-

  9. (34) mayīpaṭyālajannakebhyaś caturvvarggikakṣettraṃ kkrītaṃ dro 80 ° mūlyaṃ dī 8 attra sākṣiṇaḥ peragodamakoṭṭavāstavyadīmmittrajye[ṣṭhakadrapa]-

  10. (35) dhelagodamā udyā[tta]śāṭyām attra vāstavyadantakṣettradro 50 ° peravakaṭyāṃ bheḍavillagucchikoraṅgipaccālāgrahārottareṇānaleśva __ __ __

  11. (36) nāgikāśriyākapaṭyālābhyāṃ krītaṃ kṣettradro 100 ° mūlyaṃ dī 20 ° sākṣiṇaḥ bhāśilaśāṭivāstavyakhāḍupolasoriyāka ma __

  12. (37) śolavāstavyapradyumnanademakadīvamanaśācāraś ca paṭṭimattena godhānikāyāṃ ūracaṇḍapūrvveṇa paṭṭivādappahastāt krītaṃ

  13. (38) kṣettradro 40 ° mūlyaṃ dī 4 attra sākṣiṇaḥ ūracaṇḍavāstavyalaṅkānāthabhollabappaś ca vendāsyagrahāravāstavyapaccālakaḥ

  14. (39) ketogapaṭṭoccālikāyāṃ nalāmātyakṣettrena vilālameḍiattapoyahastāt krītaṃ kṣettradro 60 ° mūlyaṃ dī 6 attraiva ketoga-

  15. (40) paṭṭoccālikāyāṃ phalaśapaṭṭikṣettrapaṭṭinamagahastāt krītaṃ kṣettradro 40 ° mūlyaṃ dī 4 attraiva bhīmārikṣettramanuvilālahastā-

  16. (41) t krītaṃ kṣettradro 100 ° mūlyaṃ dī 10 ° teṣāṃ sākṣiṇaḥ paṭṭinamaga khaddatyugravāstavyanāgolakarmmāntikaś ca vātagaṅgāsaṃva-

  17. (42) ddhasvākagilerake sakeḍḍikoṭṭagucche saha v[ā]stukṣettreṇa droṇavāpās saptaśataṃ 10 7 ° attraiva vātagaṅgāyāṃ unnatasāre bhāṇḍāra-

  18. (43) śmaśānaparyyante kṣettradroṇavāpāḥ pañcaśataṃ 10 8 dakṣiṇamaṇḍale taralacaṇḍe santakakṣettradro 100 20 ° kānsaśrapaṇāḥ 4

  19. (44) kānsagalantakāḥ 4 balibhājanattraya 3 tāmragalantaka 2 dantapīṭhikāḥ 8 dantaparyyaṅkā 6 kalantaka 3 bṛhatkānsanadikā 10

  20. (45) śānaśilā 3 kānsataṣṭhakāḥ 40 ° kaṭorikāḥ 40 ° vāsi 5 chāttrā 20 ° kuddālikāḥ 8 kuṭhārikāḥ 8 uñccha 4 nikhātanā 8 ° kara-

  21. (46) pattra 3 kaṭṭārikā 7 pūśanapaṭṭameṭastha[vādānta]karaviṣṭārantaḥ purapālaḥ likhitaṃ mahāsāndhivigrahikakumārāmātyamādhavada-

  22. (47) ttānumatyā bappasvāminā saṃvvat· 90 1 ° pau[ṣa]di 10 8

Notes on the text

2. ānyāṃś: emend anyāṃś.

4. ˚dharmmeṇṇa: emend ˚dharmeṇa.

5. yathākṣaraiva: emend yathākṣaram eva.

8. mahimatām: emend mahīmatām.

9. varttamānaścaturāśīti˚: emend varttamānacaturaśīti˚.

12–13. ˚vali˚: emend ˚bali˚.

13. ˚āyanasya: emend ˚āyatanasya. ˚karaṇṇāya: emend ˚karaṇāya.

15. ˚le[kh]yā: the second akṣara is uncertain. hastākrītaṃ: emend hastāt krītaṃ.

17. sākṣiṇā: emend sākṣiṇo

24–25. [kṣe] __ __ __ __ lyaṃ: with reconstruction of the last two akṣaras of line 24 and the first two of line 25, which were broken away, it can be read kṣettradro 40 mūlyaṃ.

28. ˚dattamaṃ: emend ˚dattaṃ.

32. eṣā: emend eṣāṃ.

33. khaddatyuga˚: emend khaddatyugra˚.

41–42. ˚saṃvaddha˚: emend ˚sambaddha˚.

Translation

Welfare! From Krīpura, the victorious military camp with great ships, elephants and horses, pañcādhikaraṇoparika mahāpratīhāra mahārāja the illustrious Vainyagupta, in healthy state, being favoured by the feet of the supreme lord (paramabhaṭṭāraka), tells present,Footnote 5 future and other dependants on his feet, after wishing for their health (ll. 1–2):

“It should be known to you. Those that were given to the ones belonging to varṇas and āśramas by previous kings for increase of their own merit, with akṣayanīvī (tenure), by copperplate grant, are also approved by me for increase of merit of my parents and myself, for the sake of the saṃgha of respectable Ājīvika śramaṇas at the abodeFootnote 6 of the venerable Maṇibhadra in four-faced image in Jayanāṭana of Pūrvamaṇḍala, with all the excessive enjoyments and with akṣayanīvī tenure, by my own copperplate grant. Thus they should be preserved by you who desire your own welfare. The excellent copperplate grant given as gift by a previous king was also engraved by me on my own copperplate grant, character by character. So after seeing (it) on this copperplate grant of mine in acceptance of this donation, you will thoroughly do protection and so on.” (ll. 2–6)

With regard to preservation, there are verses sung by the venerable Vedavyāsa, the son of Parāśara: “For sixty thousand years, the giver of land rejoices in heaven. The one who refuses it and the one approves him would live in hell for the same duration (Verse 1)”. “(No matter if it was) given by himself or given by others, the one who appropriates the land will be boiled with his ancestors, after being born a worm in excrement (Verse 2)”. “Protect with effort what was previously given to brāhmaṇas, oh Yudhiṣṭhira! Oh best of kings! The preservation of land is superior to its donation (Verse 3)”. “The fruits of donations given here by previous kings, which make merit, profit and fame, are granted also by me because of desire for religious merit and respect for the (previous) kings (Verse 4)”. (ll. 6–9)

On the thirteenth day of the month Caitra, in the current year one hundred eighty-four. The messengers were kumārāmātyas Dharmasvāmin, Bhramara and Rājyapāla. It was engraved by sandhivigrahādhikaraṇika Rāmadāsa. Year 184, (month of) Caitra, day 13. (ll. 9–10)

(Citation of Nāthacandra's grant henceforward)

Mahārāja maheśvara Nāthacandra said welfare and also said thus to future and present kings and other dependants on the feet of the king: (ll. 10–11)

“It should be known to you that the abode Nāthameṭa of the venerable Maṇibhadra in four-faced image was constructed at Jayanāṭana by me for increase of my own merit. For the service of flower, fragrance, incense, oblation, milk rice and charitable feeding to this venerable one (i.e. Maṇibhadra) and to the saṃgha of the respectable Ājīvakas residing in this (abode), for repairs of opened and broken parts of this abode, the land. . . a village were given away with all the excessive enjoyments such as food, female servants and male servants. So they should be preserved by you with akṣayanīvī tenure eternally, out of respect for us and love for religious merit.” Their descriptions (are as follows): (ll. 11–15)

(List of donated land plots)

(Occasion 1) In Jayanāṭana of Pūrvamaṇḍala, in Jakkanaśāṭi, 40 droṇavāpas of land purchased from the hand of Poyavādappa and Paḍakhāsika, price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 1). At the same place 15 droṇas of land purchased from the hand of Dharmadevavilāla and Kantārakarmāntika, price 1 dī(nāra) 8 māṣas (Plot 2). At the same place 15 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Umalavaṅgāla and Utpalavaṅgāla, price 1 dī(nāra) 8 mā(ṣas) (Plot 3). The witnesses of these (cases) are Siddhagodama residing in Heṣamakhalla, Śrīvilāla residing in Jayanāṭana and Usalamanaśācāra residing there. (ll. 15–18) The borders of Ṣollavillagrāma are Makhaḍapaṭṭī and an embankment to the east, the fort of Gulmaseni to the south, Jakkanaśāṭi to the west, and the group of forts (saṃkoṭṭa) of Gherapuḍā to the north. (ll. 18–19)

(Occasion 2) In Pāyanāṭana, 10 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Paḍakhāsiyāka, price 1 dī(nāra) (Plot 4). There, in the forest, 20 droṇas purchased from the hand of Akkihoravaḍḍi and Paṭṭiyāka, price 2 dī(nāras) (Plot 5). The witnesses are Oghāgrāmanaśācāra and Guṇamāne. . . residing in Jakkanaśāṭi, Mattenapalagāla and Vondorakarmāntika residing in this (village). (ll. 19–21)

(Occasion 3) At the same place 30 droṇas of land given as gift by Bhivaravaḍḍi and Siddhavaṅgāla (Plot 6). At the same place in Pāyanāṭana, 40 droṇas of land belonging to Ghidharāvadda (Plot 7). In Ulagiuccālikā, 100 dro(ṇas) of land belonging to Sivaravela, (also) of him (i.e. Ghidharāvadda) (Plot 8). At the same place 20 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Kopanikheda and Kāyaśāka, price 2 dī(nāras) (Plot 9). The witnesses residing in the same place are Khedamanaśācāra and Vaḍḍidaṇḍa. (ll. 21–23)

(Occasion 4) At the same place in Jakkanaśāṭi, 30 droṇas of land purchased from Ajarudra and Nandiyāka, price 3 dī(nāras) (Plot 10). At the same place 20 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Ammadeva and his son Siddhāka, price 2 dī(nāras) (Plot 11). At the same place (40 droṇas) of land purchased from Pūdanikā's sons Usalāka, Grodāka and Pokkaka, price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 12). The witnesses are Gomapoya, Devavaṅgāla and Malliyāka residing there. (ll. 23–25)

(Occasion 5) In Peraññaśaka, 40 droṇas (of land purchased from) Virimaināri, Mamipaka and Vaḍidakṣi. . ., price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 13). The witnesses are Bhīmavilāla residing at the same place, Jaḍḍavaṅgāla and Iṭṭahāni residing in Arīuccāli. (ll. 25–26)

(Occasion 6) In Kheṇṭavilla, 15 dro(ṇas) of land belonging to Vokkicandā. . . (Plot 14). In Nagnapaṭṭoccālikā, 80 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Jaḍḍolakarmāntika, price 8 dī(nāras) (Plot 15). In Nāgapaṭṭoccālikā, 20 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Ugeyā, price 2 dī(nāras) (Plot 16). The witnesses of both these (cases, i.e. Plots 15 and 16) are Paṭṭivaṅgāla and Bhondoravilāla residing in this (village). (ll. 26–28)

(Occasion 7) In Maramallatuṣappa, 40 dro(ṇas) of land separated and given by Śrīmatta (and) Kaḍḍhaparamatta (Plot 17). In Ūracaṇḍoccālikā, 40 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Siddhakeppaśreṣṭhin, price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 18). The witnesses are, with Paṭṭimatta, Mūladevākavaṅgāla residing in Gothāna, Ghomaśāka and Ekhada residing in Tyugroccālikā. (ll. 28–30)

(Occasion 8) In Tyugroccālikā, 60 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the two hands of Jaḍḍolakarmāntika and Khedāka, price 6 dī(nāras) (Plot 19). At the same place 90 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Yuṅgipunnakakāra, Gadollavilāla and Hakkavaḍḍika, from (their) hand, after attaching (it) to Nāgolārikhāṭa, price 30 dī(nāras) (Plot 20). In Marameṭa, four houses purchased from the hand of Jaḍḍolakarmāntika and Indiramanaśācāra, price 18 dī(nāras) (Plot 21). The witnesses of these (cases) are Nāgolakarmānti and Posagavilāla residing in Heṣamakhalla, Dvādaśācaṇḍika residing in Peratyugra, Ambukarmāntika and Kelāmeṭa residing in the same place in Khaddatyugra. (ll. 30–33)

(Occasion 9) In Khaddamattanoccālikā, 80 dro(ṇas) of land of four divisions purchased from Goyolakarmāntikavilāla's sons Khavatti, Mayīpaṭyāla and Jannaka, price 8 dī(nāras) (Plot 22). Here the witnesses are Dīmmitrajyeṣṭhaka and Drapadhelagodama residing in Peragodamakoṭṭa. (ll. 33–35)

(Occasion 10) In Udyāttaśāṭi, 50 dro(ṇas) of land of Danta residing there (Plot 23). In Peravakaṭi, to the north of Uraṅgipaccālāgrahāra in a cluster with Bheḍavilla, 100 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from Analeśva. . .nāgika and Āśriyākapaṭyāla, price 20 dī(nāras) (Plot 24). The witnesses are Khāḍupolasoriyāka residing in Bhāśilaśāṭi, Pradyumna, Nademaka and Dīvamanaśācāra residing in Ma. . .śola, with Paṭṭimatta. (ll. 35–37)

(Occasion 11) In Godhānikā, to the east of Ūracaṇḍa, 40 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Paṭṭivādappa, price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 25). Here the witnesses are Laṅkānātha and Bhollabappa residing in Ūracaṇḍa, Paccālaka residing in Vendāsyagrahāra. (ll. 37–38)

(Occasion 12) In Ketogapaṭṭoccālikā, with the land of Nalāmātya, 60 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Vilālameḍi and Attapoya, price 6 dī(nāras) (Plot 26). At the same place in Ketogapaṭṭoccālikā, 40 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Paṭṭinamaga of Phalaśapaṭṭikṣetra, price 4 dī(nāras) (Plot 27). At the same place, 100 dro(ṇas) of land purchased from the hand of Manuvilāla of Bhīmārikṣetra, price 10 dī(nāras) (Plot 28). The witnesses of these (cases) are Paṭṭinamaga, and Nāgolakarmāntika residing in Khaddatyugra. (ll. 39–41)

In Svākagileraka belonging to Vātagaṅgā, in a cluster with Sakeḍḍikoṭṭa, accompanied by the homestead land and (arable) land, seven hundred and 17 droṇavāpas. At the same place in Vātagaṅgā, in Unnatasāra bordered by a storehouse and cremation ground, the land five hundred and 18 droṇavāpas.Footnote 7 In Dakṣiṇamaṇḍala, in Taralacaṇḍa, the land belonging to (the king?) 120 dro(ṇas) (Plot 29). (ll. 41–43)

(List of donated movables)

Brass cooking vessels 4. Brass water jars 4. Three vessels for offerings 3. Copper water jars 2. Ivory stools 8. Ivory palanquins 6. Kalantakas 3.Footnote 8 Large brass trumpets 10.Footnote 9 Whetstones 3. Brass taṣṭhakas 40.Footnote 10 Small cups 40. Adzes 5. Parasols 20. Small spades 8. Small axes 8. Gleaning (baskets?) 4. Digging (instruments?) 8. Saws 3. Small daggers 7. (ll. 43–46).

Vādāntaka Raviṣṭāranta, stationed at Pūśanapaṭṭameṭa, was purapāla. (It was) engraved by Bappasvāmin, with permission of mahāsāndhivigrahika kumārāmātya Mādhavadatta. Year 91, (month of) Pauṣa, day 18. (ll. 46–47)

Notes on contents

The grant of Vainyagupta, dated year 184 GE, approves the donations to the saṃgha of Ājīvikas made by Nāthacandra and supposedly contains the latter's grant, dated year 91 GE, copied ‘character by character’ (yathākṣara) (l. 5). Accordingly, the inscription consists of the grants of Vainyagupta (ll. 1–10) and Nāthacandra (ll. 10–47).

The grant of Vainyagupta is issued from Krīpura, a military camp, the same issuing place as that of the Gunaighar plate (l. 1).Footnote 11 Mentioning the donations by previous kings to varṇins and āśramins, which seem to denote brāhmaṇas and ascetics respectively, the king approves the donations to the saṃgha of Ājīvika śramaṇas belonging to the abode (āyatana) of Maṇibhadra at Jayanāṭana in Pūrvamaṇḍala (ll. 2–4). The reproduced grant of Nāthacandra reveals the contents of the donations approved by Vainyagupta. The former constructed a shrine called Nāthameṭāyatana for Maṇibhadra in Jayanāṭana and donated land plots and so on for ritual services to the deity, for the saṃgha of Ājīvikas residing in this shrine and for its repairs (ll. 11–14). The donated property, namely 29 land plots and 19 kinds of movables, is listed in this earlier grant (ll. 15–46).

In both grants, the terms akṣayanīvī and sarvātibhoga are used to define the tenures of donation. Akṣayanīvī or akṣayanīvīdharma is mentioned as a condition with which donations are made (l. 2), approved (l. 4) or to be preserved (l. 14). It literally means indestructible / perpetual (akṣaya) capital / principal (nīvī) and denotes the principle of donation according to which the original endowment was in no circumstances to be destroyed or diminished.Footnote 12 In case of monetary endowment, the donation with this tenure means that the donee can spend only interest from the endowed money for the specified purpose while keeping the original capital intact.Footnote 13 Analogous with this, the land donation subject to this condition can be interpreted as one in which the donee is given the right to enjoy a land plot, namely the income from it, without the right of alienation.Footnote 14 This interpretation suits the case of the land plots donated by the present grant. As for the movables donated in the present case, the saṃgha and its members seem to be entitled to use those items on condition of their maintenance, ideally in perpetuity.

Sarvātibhoga, literally “all the excessive enjoyments”, is also mentioned as a condition of donation (l. 14) and its approval (l. 4). The same term is also found in the inscription on a metal vase mentioning the reign of king Devātideva, datable to the early eighth century and pertaining to Harikela, the subregion assignable to the area around present Chittagong.Footnote 15 It seems to denote the entitlement to all the incomes and privileges pertaining to donated tracts. This tenure at least includes the entitlement to food (āhāra), or rather to agrarian product meant for that, and the control over both female and male servants (dāsī / dāsa), as attested by the present inscription (ll. 13–14).

Among the donated land plots, 28 are located in the 16 settlements in Jayanāṭana, in this case a lower administrative unit, of Pūrvamaṇḍala (ll. 15–41).Footnote 16 They are transferred on 12 occasions, for each of which witnesses (sākṣin) are mentioned with their names and residences.Footnote 17 Each plot is minutely described with its location, the original owners from whom it was transferred, the form of transference, its size and price. In most cases, the location of a plot is simply indicated by the name of the settlement in locative form. In some cases, however, particular features within a settlementFootnote 18 or landmarks lying in a particular direction to itFootnote 19 are mentioned additionally. The border demarcations in the four cardinal directions are described only for a village named Ṣollavillagrāma which has no donated tracts within itself (ll. 18–19). It is strange, and the only possible explanation for this anomaly is that this settlement was especially important in some way and that Jakkanaśāṭi, a village where five plots (Plots 1–3, 6 and 10) are located, constitutes its western border.

The plots transferred are mostly stated to have been purchased (krīta) or donated as gifts (dānadattaka) from, or belonging to (santaka), the original owners. Compared with the first two forms, the import of the last one is not clear. It may connote a form of transference not incurring monetary payment or caused by voluntary donation, including confiscation from the original owners.

The size of all the plots is computed in a unit of land measurement called droṇavāpa, abbreviated as either droṇa or dro. In the land sale grants of contemporary North and South Bengal, units called kulyavāpa, droṇavāpa and āḍhavāpa are used for land measurement. One kulyavāpa is equal to 8 droṇavāpas and 1 āḍhavāpa is a quarter of the latter, according to the descriptions in the Paharpur plate.Footnote 20 Philologically, these units can be interpreted as denoting the area required for sowing a particular amount of seeds, namely, a kulya, a droṇa or an āḍhaka. However, the measurement seems to be made by a linear standard called nala, several of which are known from the inscriptions.Footnote 21 The actual size of land denoted by these units is unclear and has been discussed by several scholars.Footnote 22 The diversity of nalas also suggests different sizes indicated by the same unit in different localities. In the current situation, Sircar's guess, based on later lexicographers and authorities on Dharmaśāstra in Bengal, may be accepted as an approximation in the absence of concrete contemporary evidence. According to his calculation, 1 kulyavāpa equals 38 to 48 bighas, 1 droṇavāpa 4 1/2 to 6 bighas and 1 āḍhavāpa 1 1/8 to 1 1/2 bighas.Footnote 23

The size of each of the 28 plots in Jayanāṭana varies between 10 and 100 droṇavāpas. They measure 1,235 droṇavāpas in total. It is remarkable that pāṭaka, a unit of land measurement used in the Gunaighar plate and equal to 40 droṇavāpas,Footnote 24 is not used in the present grant despite the vast size of the entire donated tract.

In case of purchase, the price (mūlya) of land is calculated in currency units of dī and māṣa.Footnote 25 The former can easily be understood as an abbreviation for dīnāra, a unit of gold coins widely circulated under the Gupta regime. It is also mentioned in contemporary copperplate inscriptions of North Bengal.Footnote 26 Māṣa seems to be a lower denomination and the equation of 16 māṣas with 1 dīnāra is obtainable from the fact that 1 dīnāra and 8 māṣas are paid for 15 droṇavāpas of land plots, while it is 4 dīnāras for 40 droṇavāpas in the same locality (ll. 16–17). This proportional value is the same as the one between dīnāra and rūpaka, a unit of silver currency mentioned in the Baigram plate.Footnote 27 Thus māṣa seems to be a unit of silver currency with value equal to rūpaka.Footnote 28

In most cases, 10 droṇavāpas of land plot were purchased for 1 dīnāra. There are only two exceptions in which 1 dīnāra could buy only 3 or 5 droṇavāpas respectively (Plots 20 and 24). In these cases, the plots are described as attached to a khāṭa (l. 31) or adjacent to an agrahāra that makes a cluster with a villa (l. 35). Khāṭa and villa respectively denote channel and lake.Footnote 29 The connection with bodies of water seems to make them more valuable. By analogy with contemporary cases in North and South Bengal, where the price of a particular extent of land is fixed by custom,Footnote 30 the price in the present inscription also seems to be decided according to local norms.

The minute descriptions of donated plots are followed by references to two large tracts of land. They are: (a) 717 droṇavāpas in Svākagileraka belonging to Vātagaṅgā, making a cluster with Sakeḍḍikoṭṭa, with homestead land and arable land (ll. 41–42), and (b) 518 droṇavāpas of land in Vātagaṅgā, in Unnatasāra bordering a storehouse (bhāṇḍāra) and cremation ground (śmaśāna) (ll. 42–43). The sum of both tracts, 1,235 droṇavāpas, equals the sum of all the 28 land plots listed in the previous section. This seems to mean that the land described in this section is actually the same as all the plots listed in the previous section combined. We find here the sum of land plots divided into two groups according to a different criterion. The division seems to be based on the location of land plots in relation to particular geographical features including a river, fort, storehouse and cremation ground. Vātagaṅgā, which originally seems to denote a river, later appears in the Mainamati plate of Vīradharadeva as the name of a viṣaya.Footnote 31 This is one of several features indicating that the recorded transactions and donated tracts fell within the subregion of Samataṭa. The last inference is supported by the names of villages or administrative units containing nāṭana as their component,Footnote 32 which are also found in the other copperplate inscriptions from Samataṭa.Footnote 33

The 29th land plot sized 120 droṇavāpas is located in Taralacaṇḍa in Dakṣiṇamaṇḍala (l. 43). It is only prefixed by the word santaka, without any personal names. It may be the land belonging to the king himself, so that he did not need to mention the names of original owners.

The donated movables listed in the grant include vessels and utensils (brass cooking vessels, brass / copper water jars, three vessels for bali, kalantakas, brass taṣṭhakas, small cups), furniture (ivory stools), palanquins, musical instruments (brass trumpets), parasols and instruments of labour (whetstones, adzes, spades, axes, gleaning baskets, digging instruments, saws, daggers) (ll. 43–46). The utensils, furniture and palanquins seem to be meant for Ājīvika ascetics, while brass trumpets may be used for the religious practice of song and dance.Footnote 34 Instruments of labour, on the other hand, suggest their use in productive labour and household duties by some service groups, although their assignment to the use by ascetics cannot be ruled out.

The officials involved in the issue of grant of Vainyagupta are three kumārāmātyas acting as messengers (dūtakas) and a sandhivigrahādhikaraṇika who engraved the inscription (ll. 9–10). In the case of Nāthacandra's grant, vādāntaka (a term which seems to mean “ender of dispute”) Raviṣṭāranta posted at Pūśanapaṭṭameṭa is mentioned as purapāla, while Bappasvāmin engraved the inscription with the permission of mahāsāndhivigrahika kumārāmātya Mādhavadatta (ll. 46–47). In spite of its meaning “keeper of city”, purapāla in this case functioned instead as an executor or conveyer of royal order, equivalent to dūtakas.

Discussions

Ājīvikas in North India

The most important fact revealed by the present inscription is the presence of the Ājīvikas in North India as late as the early sixth century and their flourishing condition in its eastern periphery. The Ājīvikas formed one of the Śramaṇic orders in which members practised severe asceticism with the support of lay worshippers. They upheld particular doctrines characterised by fatalism.Footnote 35 Makkhali Gosāla, the founder of their religious order, is believed to have been a contemporary of the Buddha and Mahāvīra, who also established their own orders.Footnote 36 The Ājīvikas seem to have enjoyed a considerable following and patronage in eastern India in competition with the other two orders. The extensive patronage enjoyed by them is attested by the Barabar and Nagarjuni caves in Bihar which have inscriptions recording the donations of those caves to the Ājīvikas by the Mauryan kings Aśoka and Daśaratha.Footnote 37

The history of the Ājīvikas, however, then becomes unclear, especially in North India. The occasional references to them in the later Sanskrit texts show their presence as marginal groups indulging in obscure religious practices including worship of Piśācas.Footnote 38 They are sometimes confused with other kinds of ascetics like Vaiṣṇavas and Digambara Jains.Footnote 39 What is evident from those references is their condition of decline, in which small numbers of ascetics and lay worshippers still remained but were gradually inclined toward other ascetic orders and merged with them.Footnote 40 The present inscription changes this perception by proving not only their survival as an organised saṃgha but also their prosperity under royal patronage. This is the first evidence of such patronage since the Barabar and Nagarujni cave inscriptions just mentioned.

Apart from their efflorescence with large landed property, the present inscription also gives us a glimpse of the religious practice of Ājīvikas in this period. The most interesting is their association with the shrine of Maṇibhadra. The inscription clearly says that the Ājīvika saṃgha resides in the shrine (l. 13). In view of the enormous landed properties and movables donated to it, the residential facility for the saṃgha and its managing organisation must have been a permanent one, although individual ascetics may have periodically moved to other places. The donation of instruments of labour also suggests a regular organisation including service groups as discussed above. It makes a stark contrast with the Ājīviya-sabhā where the early Ājīvikas under Makkhali Gosāla gathered, according to a later Jain text. This seems to have been an assembly hall used for their meetings and religious ceremonies, which also functioned as a rest house for ascetics.Footnote 41 However, Makkhali Gosāla is said to have resided not there but in the workshops of his local supporters such as Hālāhalā, the potter woman in Sāvatthi (Śrāvastī).Footnote 42 This difference indicates the growth of the Ājīvika saṃgha into a more regular organisation with an established residential facility and administration, comparable with the development of contemporary Buddhist vihāras.

The last point is confirmed by the reasons for the donations mentioned in the grant of Nāthacandra included in the present inscription. The ritual services of flowers (sumanas), fragrance (gandha), incense (dhūpa), oblation (bali), milk rice (caru) and charitable feeding (sattra) for the deity and the repairs of broken and open parts of the facility (ll. 12–13) are also stipulated in the donations to the Buddhist and Jain orders and Brahmanical shrines recorded in the earlier and contemporary copperplate inscriptions of Bengal.Footnote 43 On the other hand, the provisions of clothing, food, bedding, seats and preparations for disease and medicine for the saṃgha, generally mentioned in the grants to the Buddhist order, are absent in the present record.Footnote 44 It may simply be a result of casual omission in copying the original grant, but might also reflect the different necessities for Ājīvika ascetics who remain naked and keep a simpler diet according to the references in Jain and Buddhist texts.Footnote 45 In spite of this difference, the similarity in terms of large-scale landed properties, residential establishments and ritual practices points to a convergence of the Ājīvikas as a religious order with the Buddhist saṃgha. It is also confirmed by the changed character of Maṇibhadra as an object of worship with regular ritual services, comparable with the Buddha and Bodhisattvas in the contemporary Buddhist vihāras.

Though the present inscription attests to the survival and growth of the Ājīvikas in North India, their history after this period is again shrouded in obscurity. In contrast, the history of their brethren in South India is known better from epigraphic and literary evidence and they seem to have flourished there for a longer period. The inscriptions widely distributed around the area from Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh in the north to former South Arcot district of Tamil Nadu in the south, then from Kolar district of Karnataka inward, belonging to the period from the fifth to fourteenth centuries, refer to the Ājīvikas especially in relation to the special tax imposed on them.Footnote 46 Tamil literary texts like the Maṇimēkalai and the Nīlakēci mention Ājīvika teachers as important doctrinal opponents for their Buddhist and Jain protagonists.Footnote 47 These references suggest that the Ājīvikas maintained their presence as a group with subsistence, on which their lay worshippers could be burdened with extra taxation, and doctrinal cohesion which necessitated serious engagement of their Buddhist and Jain competitors.

A reference in the Nīlakēci, on the other hand, hints at another possibility in the history of the southern Ājīvikas. Nīlakēci, the heroine of the poem, is said to have gone to the city of Kukkuṭa in Camataṇṭa (Samadaṇḍa) to visit the monastery of Pūraṇa the Ājīvika. Basham considers Samadaṇḍa as a corruption of the two names Samataṭa and Daṇḍabhukti, both subregions of Bengal, indicating that the southern Ājīvikas looked upon Bengal as the original home of their faith.Footnote 48 Daṇḍabhukti, an administrative unit of early medieval Bengal covering the area around present East and West Medinipur districts of West Bengal and the Baleswar district of Orissa, is too far away from Samataṭa to be confused with the latter as one locality.Footnote 49 In view of the Ājīvika saṃgha mentioned in the present inscription, Camataṇṭa = Samadaṇḍa may rather be taken as a corruption of Samataṭa and accordingly, the reference in the Nīlakēci points to the possibility that a section of the Ājīvikas shifted from Samataṭa to the Tamil area in the later period. Still, this remains a mere speculation until confirmed by other evidence.

Maṇibhadra

The worship of Maṇibhadra with his shrine is another important fact gleaned from the present inscription (ll. 3–4, 12). Maṇibhadra is an eminent yakṣa known from various sources, beginning with Pāli Buddhist texts. He is described as either the chief of yakṣas or the topmost subordinate of Kubera in the Mahābhārata.Footnote 50 The Jain cosmology defines him and Pūrṇabhadra as chiefs (indra) of yakṣas or members of the 13 devas under Vaiśramaṇa, i.e. Kubera.Footnote 51 Both are also listed as yakṣa brothers residing in a locality named Brahmavatī, which is mentioned side by side with Gandhāra and Takṣaśilā, in the Mahāmāyūrī.Footnote 52 The last reference and the provenances of the known images of Maṇibhadra, Parkham near Mathura and Pawaya near Gwalior,Footnote 53 show that the worship of this yakṣa was not limited to eastern India, though it may have been more prevalent there.Footnote 54 His worship in eastern India in the early historical period, possibly contemporaneous with the lifetime of the Buddha, is attested by references in the Saṃyuttanikāya and the Mahāniddesa. A caitya named Maṇimālaka in Magadha is said to be his residence (bhavana) in the former, while the observers of a vow of Maṇibhadra (maṇibhaddavattikā) are mentioned with others including puṇṇabhaddavattikā in the latter.Footnote 55 The continued popularity of Maṇibhadra in both Bengal and Orissa at least until the sixth century is confirmed by the reference to the land plot belonging to Maṇibhadra in the Gunaighar plate of Vainyagupta,Footnote 56 and the mention of maṭha of yakṣeśvara Maṇibhadra in the Asanapat image inscription of Śatrubhañja,Footnote 57 apart from the present inscription.

Maṇibhadra and Pūrṇabhadra hold a special position in the Ājīvika doctrine. They test an Ājīvika ascetic on the last night of his final penance by caressing his burning body with their cool hands. Only by rejecting this, will he pass to nirvāṇa.Footnote 58 The present case shows the continued importance attached to Maṇibhadra by the Ājīvikas and his worship at the fringe of eastern India in the later period. As noted above, the regular ritual services and offerings to his image installed at the shrine, listed as a purpose of donation, are comparable with those to the Buddha and Bodhisattvas at Buddhist vihāras and deities at Brahmanical temples. They allude to the central position occupied by this yakṣa both in the doctrine and practice of the Ājīvikas in this later period.

The worship of Maṇibhadra with regular services at shrines is mentioned in some textual sources. The Vivāgasuya, a Jain canonical text, mentions a yakṣa shrine (jakkhāyayaṇa) of Pūrṇabhadra in the garden outside the city named Mṛgagrāma (Miyaggāma), apart from his caitya in Campā.Footnote 59 Though not mentioned clearly, the reference in the same text to Maṇibhadra in the garden Vijayavardhamāna in Vardhamānapura seems to indicate a shrine of this yakṣa.Footnote 60 A commentary on the verses in the Piṇḍaniryukti, another Jain text, refers to a small temple (devakulikā) of Maṇibhadra in a garden outside a city named Samilla.Footnote 61 His shrine (gṛha / āyatana / bhavana) in a city in the country of Dvīpāntara, where people worship him through the mediation of a priest (pūjaka), is also described in a narrative told in an episode of the Kathāsaritsāgara.Footnote 62 While the dating of any cases cited above is difficult, the present inscription yields clear evidence of his worship in such a form in eastern Bengal in the early fifth century.

What is also remarkable is the iconography of Maṇibhadra described as a four-faced image (caturmukhamūrti) (ll. 3, 12). An image of Maṇibhadra from Parkham depicts him with only one face, while the head of another from Pawaya is missing.Footnote 63 A yakṣa image from Vidisha identifiable with Maṇibhadra also has only one face.Footnote 64 The Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa prescribes his iconography in the same form as Dhanada (Kubera), concerning whom there is no instruction for multiple faces.Footnote 65 On the other hand, the Aparājitapṛcchā, a treatise on art and architecture datable to the period between the twelfth and the first half of the thirteenth century, mentions a yakṣa named Caturānana and prescribes four faces for Kubera in the chapter on Jain iconography.Footnote 66 The difference between those treatises suggests that the tradition of four-faced yakṣa images was preserved among the Jain sects in the later period. The present case points to the fact that such an iconographic tradition had been held by the Ājīvikas earlier and suggests the possibility that it was later adopted by the Jains, who had a close relation with them.

The shrine of Maṇibhadra was constructed by King Nāthacandra and most probably named after him, as its name Nāthameṭa shows (ll. 11–12). On the other hand, the peculiar iconography of the yakṣa suggests that this was not Maṇibhadra as generally worshiped in North India but a particular form of yakṣa especially upheld by the Ājīvika saṃgha. Both facts indicate royal initiative in patronising the Ājīvika saṃgha worshipping this Maṇibhadra and in establishing their abode. The survival of Maṇibhadra and the saṃgha at the same locality for more than 90 years, from their establishment in or before the year 91 GE to the approval of donations to the saṃgha in the year 184 GE and beyond, points to the local support they could muster in spite of the probable dynastic change inferable from names of the two kings.

Early history of Samataṭa

The present inscription also sheds light on the early history of Samataṭa. A king of Samataṭa is mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta as one of the peripheral kings (pratyantanṛpati) who acknowledged his suzerainty.Footnote 67 The continued presence of local kingship under the Guptas during the reign of Candragupta II is attested by the grant of mahārāja maheśvara Nāthacandra incorporated in the present plate, dated year 91, most probably in the Gupta Era (409–410 AD). The titles of mahāsāndhivigrahika and kumārāmātya held by Mādhavadatta, an official whose approval was given for engraving the grant, hint at an attempt by the early Samataṭa kings to introduce a bureaucratic apparatus modelled on the Gupta one,Footnote 68 to be developed further by the time of Vainyagupta. The appearance of Pūrva- and Dakṣiṇamaṇḍalas suggests the establishment of administrative divisions consisting of maṇḍalas of the four cardinal directions. The Uttaramaṇḍala mentioned in the Gunaighar plate confirms this.Footnote 69 These aspects attest to some level of state formation reached by the early fifth century.

Nothing can be known from the present grant on the political situation in the interval between the reigns of the two kings, covering 90 years or so. However, it does give us better information on Vainyagupta's rule and the changing character of his power. His status as a subordinate ruler under an overlord is clear from the phrase paramabhaṭṭārakapādānudhyāta attached to him (l. 1).Footnote 70 This phrase is commonly used in the inscriptions of subordinate rulers under the Guptas, including the kings of Valkhā and the early Maitraka kings.Footnote 71 Vainyagupta's overlord must also have been the Gupta king, in view of the use of years only assignable to the Gupta Era in this grant and the Gunaighar plate. The titles pañcādhikaraṇoparika, mahāpratīhāra and mahārāja borne by him also conform to his subordinate status (l. 1). These facts also confirm that he is not identical with the Gupta king of the same name mentioned in a seal from Nalanda,Footnote 72 though his use of the title mahārāja, not mahārājādhirāja, and the emblem of the Bull, not the Garuḍa of the Guptas, for his seal, would have already been sufficient to infer this.

In contrast to the present plate, the Gunaighar grant of Vainyagupta, dated year 188, does not contain any expression indicating his subordinate status, except the title mahārāja and dating in what must be the Gupta Era. The word paramabhaṭṭāraka in the phrase of subordination is replaced by Bhagavan-Mahādeva, with which the overall expression rather conveys his claim of acceptance by the god Śiva.Footnote 73 Vainyagupta seems to have attained a position verging on independence in the period of around four years between year 184 GE, Caitra 13 and year 188 GE, Pauṣa 24, the latter being the date of the Gunaighar plate. The enhancement of his power is also suggested by the presence of subordinate rulers wielding the title of mahārāja under him. Mahārāja Rudradatta, the applicant for donation, is called “servant of our feet” (asmatpādadāsa), while mahārāja Vijayasena acted as a messenger (dūtaka) of the royal order.Footnote 74 Suggestively, the titles held by the king in the earlier grant are now borne by Vijayasena, whose titles include mahāpratīhāra, mahāpīlupati, pañcādhikaraṇoparika, pāṭṭyuparika, purapāloparika, mahārāja and mahāsāmanta.Footnote 75

The descriptions of donated land plots, on the other hand, indicate the relatively high level of agrarian development and settlement formation. In Jayanāṭana of Pūrvamaṇḍala, a large tract comprising 28 land plots could be procured from 46 individual landholders scattered around 16 settlements mostly through purchase. However large it is, this tract must have been only a part of the entire cultivated area and 13 more settlements are mentioned as either residential villages of witnesses or neighbouring settlements. The size of each plot varies between 10 and 100 droṇavāpas, except for 120 droṇavāpas in the case of a plot in Dakṣiṇamaṇḍala which probably belonged to the king himself. These land plots were procured from single or multiple landholders. Needless to say, they need not have been all the properties held by landholders, who may also have possessed other land plots. But the size of each plot tells us how much was alienable for different landholders and can be used as an indicator of their respective wealth. While two pairs of them, namely Dharmadevavilāla and Kantārakarmāntika of Plot 2 and Umalavaṅgāla and Utpalavaṅgāla of Plot 3, sold only 15 droṇavāpas each, Jaḍḍolakarmāntika of Plot 15 sold 80 droṇavāpas alone. The latter also sold 60 droṇavāpas of land and four houses with the other holders (Plots 19 and 21). Such difference in wealth among landholders confirms the ongoing process of agrarian development which would result in the concentration of landed properties in fewer hands.

The names of rural residents and their involvement with land plots inform us of their characters and social relations. The names suffixed with karmāntika (artisan) and śreṣṭhin (merchant) suggest inclusion of some professional groups in the circle of rural residents with substantial landholdings and respectability.Footnote 76 The names ending in vilāla, literally meaning “machine” or “cat”,Footnote 77 can also denote such a professional group.Footnote 78 As the case of Khavatti, the son of Goyolakarmāntikavilāla who held Plot 22 suggests, it is not a name of lineage or any genealogical relations. It is differentiated from karmāntika but can be borne with the latter at the same time. In view of its possible meaning “machine”, vilāla may denote an artisan who specialised in particular mechanical devices. The landholdings by professional groups are also confirmed by the cultivated lands (kṣetra) of Viṣṇuvardhaki (carpenter), Miduvilāla, Pakkavilāla and vaidyas (physicians) mentioned in the Gunaighar plate as border landmarks.Footnote 79

On the other hand, the name ending vaṅgāla, the same as the toponym denoting the coastal region of Southeast Bengal,Footnote 80 alludes to their origin as migrants from this area.Footnote 81 Thus a diverse range of social groups resided in rural settlements and were involved in landholdings as well as related activities. Their horizontal social relations are expressed in their collective landholdings and activities as witnesses of land transactions. Some of the latter, in which residents of different villages acted as witnesses together, indicate the possibility of social relations beyond the limit of a single village.Footnote 82

The one remarkable thing is that land plots could be purchased with money. For their prices seem to have been fixed not by an exchange value but by custom, as discussed above, land was not a marketable commodity in this early period. However, this form of transference was only possible with the circulation of currency and acceptance of its value by rural residents. The discovery of gold coins of Samudragupta and Candragupta II from the site of Salban Vihara in Mainamati at least points to the possibility of the Gupta coins circulating in Samataṭa from the last quarter of the fourth century onward.Footnote 83 The occurrence of land sales shows acceptance of the Gupta currency and its use among the rural population in Samataṭa, at least for special transactions like land sale for donation. It is comparable with the situation of contemporary North Bengal, where cases of individuals purchasing land plots for donation were prevalent.Footnote 84

The aspects discussed above point to the progress in both state formation and agrarian development accompanied by some form of currency system. The references to the locations of the donated tracts in relation to Vātagaṅgā and other geographical features connected to it, however, suggest the concentration of settlements and cultivated tracts in particular areas on the river. This is confirmed by the names of eight settlements ending with uccāli / uccālikā, “high embankment”,Footnote 85 which connote their location on river terraces or natural embankments. References to both lake (villa) and canal / channel (khalla / khāṭa) as a part of a village name or landmarks also point to the waterlogged environment of a riverine tract.Footnote 86 The border landmarks described in the Gunaighar plate attest to such an environmental context of the settlements in question.Footnote 87 On the other hand, the presence of large unreclaimed forest tracts and much room for further agrarian expansion in Samataṭa in this period can be assumed from the encroachment upon such tracts through the construction of Brahmanical shrines by local rulers recorded in the seventh-century grants in this subregion.Footnote 88 Those facts, together with the relatively large size of tracts donated in the two grants of Vainyagupta, suggest that agrarian expansion was centred on riverine tracts and that those tracts were put under intensive cultivation in the early period. The presence of possible migrants from Vaṅgāla may point to migration as one of driving forces behind these developments.

Conclusion: interconnection of three phenomena

The discussions above have clarified three phenomena witnessed in Samataṭa in the fifth and sixth centuries: the survival of the Ājīvikas and their growth as an organised religious order, the worship of a particular form of Maṇibhadra by the Ājīvikas and royal patronage of it, and the process of state formation and agrarian development centred on riverine tracts. Their interconnection can be understood in the following way.

The process of state formation and agrarian development constitutes the core of these phenomena. Though the form of political power in the earlier period cannot be known, a development towards a monarchical state may be assumed based on the reference to a peripheral king in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta. The introduction of the Gupta official titles and the establishment of administrative divisions show the development of a state apparatus. On the other hand, the growth of kingship necessitates a new authority which would legitimise an emerging political system. A new religious centre personally connected with the king and a religious order suitable for a new social context could be answers to this requirement. The establishment of the shrine of Nāthameṭa and patronage of the Ājīvikas by Nāthacandra can be interpreted as an attempt in this direction. The acquisition of land plots scattered around many villages and their donations to the Ājīvika saṃgha enabled the king to claim his control over a wide area on the one hand,Footnote 89 and to encroach upon landed properties of emerging landholding groups by procuring their land plots in the name of a pious deed, on the other hand. The survival of the saṃgha and the approval of donations to it by Vainyagupta after 90 years attest to both its entrenchment in the locality and its continued importance for the political power. A similar attempt was made by Rudradatta, a subordinate ruler, who established a vihāra of the Mahāyāna Buddhist saṃgha and asked the king for land donations to it, as recorded in the Gunaighar plate.Footnote 90

For religious institutions, the emerging monarchy in the periphery provided an opportunity to build up a mutually beneficial relation with the temporal power and to gain a stable material basis through its patronage. This must have been especially important for a religious order which was acquiring a character of regular organisation, including the Ājīvikas of the present case.

The worship of Maṇibhadra should be understood in this socio-political and religious context. As discussed above, Maṇibhadra with four faces seems to be a particular form in which the Ājīvikas worshipped this yakṣa. The growth of the Ājīvika saṃgha as a regular organisation seems to have accompanied the transformation of this deity, who held an important position in the Ājīvika doctrine, into an object of regular ritual services. His new iconography may have been invented in this process. On the other hand, Maṇibhadra was an eminent yakṣa known in different traditions and especially popular in eastern India, as discussed above. The survival of his shrine for more than 90 years in the present case attests to his acceptability for local residents in Samataṭa. The establishment of his shrine by Nāthacandra could be motivated by this “popular appeal”, though it may simply be the result of his patronage of the Ājīvikas.

These are just some suggestions on the possible interconnection of interesting phenomena in early Samataṭa gleaned from the present inscription and other sources. I look forward to further discoveries which may shed new light on the history of Bengal and necessitate reappraisal of the interpretations offered in this article.

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank the present owner of the plate for allowing me to personally study his collection and take photographs, even three times. I also thank Dr Gouriswar Bhattacharya and Dr Enamul Haque for informing me about the plate and bringing me in contact with its owner. I am grateful to Dr Gudrun Melzer for another set of photographs which helped me to improve my readings. I appreciate the help of Prof. B. D. Chattopadhyaya and Dr Norihisa Baba in interpreting some words in both Sanskrit and Pāli. I finally thank Prof. Dr Arlo Griffiths for his valuable comments, which corrected some of my errors and enlightened me on many aspects. The research which resulted in the present work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (22720264).

Footnotes

1 For the history, doctrine and practice of the group, see Basham, A. L., History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion (London, 1951, reprint, Delhi, 2002), which is still the most comprehensive work to date. For a recent attempt to reinterpret its doctrine, see Bronkhorst, J., “Ājīvika Doctrine Reconsidered”, in Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion, (ed.) Balcerowicz, P. (Delhi, 2003), pp.153–178 . In this article I use the term “Ājīvika” to denote the group because it is accepted by a wide range of scholars, although the form actually used in the inscription is Ājīvaka, the same as found in the Pāli Buddhist texts.

2 Bhattacharyya, D. C., “A newly discovered copperplate from Tippera [The Gunaighar Grant of Vainyagupta: The Year 188 Current (Gupta Era)]”, Indian Historical Quarterly, VI (1) (1930), pp. 45–60 ; Sircar, D. C., Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, Vol.1: From the Sixth Century B. C. to the Sixth Century A. D. (2nd ed.) (Calcutta, 1965), pp. 340–345 .

3 Morrison, B. M., Lalmai, a Cultural Center of Early Bengal: An Archaeological Report and Historical Analysis (Seattle and London, 1974), p. 98 .

4 Read from three sets of digital photographs taken by me and another provided by Gudrun Melzer. Editorial conventions in presenting the text are as follows: (. . .): elements not present but added by the editor like line and verse numbers. [. . .]: akṣaras unclear but reconstructed on conjecture. __: akṣaras obliterated and not reconstructible. ·: virāma. °: symbols marking numerals. ’: avagraha.

5 The unfamiliar word itastya can be interpreted as an adjective created by adding the suffix -tya to indeclinable itas, ‘here / now’, ‘in / from this world / time’. Whitney, W. D., Sanskrit Grammar (5th ed) (Leipzig, 1924, reprint, Delhi, 1962), p. 479 , 1245 b-c. Its connotation of ‘present’ is clear from the context in which it is paired with bhaviṣya, ‘future’.

6 Āyatana seemingly takes the nominative or accusative form in this place, and could be explained as following the expression āyatanaṃ kāritan below (l. 12). However, it can also be that the case ending -m here is a hiatus-bridger between -a, changed from the locative case ending -e, and ā following it. Accordingly, I translate the term as though it were in the locative form. For the cases of hiatus-bridger -m- in the other texts, see Hazra, R. C., Studies in the Upapurāṇas, Vol. II (Calcutta, 1963), pp. ix–x (Devīpurāṇa); Sanderson, A., “Remarks on the text of the Kubjikāmatatantra”, Indo-Iranian Journal, XLV (1) (2002), p. 10 ; Schopen, G., Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers (Honolulu, 2005), p. 329 , note {4} 1; Y. Yokochi (ed., intro., annoted English synopsis), The Skandapurāṇa Volume III Adhyāyas 34. 1–61, 53–69: The Vindhyavāsinī Cycle (Leiden, 2013), pp. 38–39. I especially thank Arlo Griffiths for pointing out this way of interpretation and informing me of the relevant references.

7 It is remarkable that hundreds are expressed in words, while decades and digits are in numerals in this section.

8 According to Monier-Williams, kalantaka = kalandaka means “a particular vessel used by Śramaṇas”. Monier-Williams, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899, reprint, 2000), p. 260 , col. 3.

9 The term nadikā, “bellowing”, can be interpreted as such in view of kānsa “of brass” prefixed to it.

10 The reading taṣṭhaka is clear, though its meaning is not. If it is a misspelling for taṣṭaka, it can mean something hewn or pared. Its reference side by side with cups, especially in the same number, strongly suggests it is designating a utensil. Can it be a brass plate?

11 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 341, l. 1.

12 Maity, S. K., Economic Life in Northern India in the Gupta Period (Cir. A. D. 300–550) (2nd ed.) (Delhi, 1970), pp. 37–39 .

13 Footnote Ibid . For a discussion on this practice in relation to the establishment of Buddhist vihāras as both buildings and institutions, see Schopen, G., “Doing business for the Lord: Lending on interest and written loan contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya ”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, CXIV (2) (1994), pp. 527–554 .

14 Gupta, C., “‘Khila-kṣetras’ in Early Bengal Inscriptions”, in Studies in Art and Archaeology of Bihar and Bengal: Dr. N. K. Bhattasali Centenary Volume, (ed.) Mitra, D. and Bhattacharya, G. (Delhi, 1989), p. 273 .

15 Bhattacharya, G., “A preliminary report on the inscribed metal vase from the National Museum of Bangladesh”, in Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N. G. Majumdar, (ed.) Mitra, D. (Calcutta, 1996), p. 243 , ll. 8 and 13.

16 One of the plots (Plot 21) is not a land plot proper but four houses (āgārāś catvāraḥ). It is listed side by side with land plots in a similar format (ll. 31–32).

17 The serial numbers of occasions and plots are indicated in the translation above.

18 vanake (Plot 5, l. 20).

19 bheḍavillagucchikoraṅgipaccālāgrahārottareṇa (Plot 24, l. 35); ūracaṇḍapūrvveṇa (Plot 25, l. 37).

20 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 361, Footnote note 1.

21 (aṣṭakana)vakanalā[bhyā]m apaviñchya, Dhanaidaha plate, ibid., p. 288, l. 11; darvvīkarmmahastenāṣṭakanavakanalābhyām apaviñcchya, Baigram plate, ibid., p. 358, ll. 18–19, Nandapur plate, ibid., p. 383, l. 14; ṣaṭkanaḍair apaviñcchya, Paharpur plate, ibid., p. 362, ll. 19–20; (a)ṣṭakanavakanavakanalābhyām apaviñchya, Damodarpur plate, year 163 GE, ibid., p. 334, l. 10.

22 For a summary of the various opinions, see Dutta, S., Land System in Northern India: C. AD 400-C. AD 700 (New Delhi, 1995), pp. 36–42 .

23 Sircar, D. C., Indian Epigraphy (Delhi, 1965), pp. 413–414 .

24 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 342, Footnote note 4.

25 The Gadhwa stone inscription of the year 98 GE has a similar expression, which Bhandarkar read as . . .bhyaṃ dīnārāḥ dvādaśa. . . D. R. Bhandarkar (rev.), B. Ch. Chhabra and G. S. Gai (eds), Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume III (rev.): Inscriptions of the Early Guptas (New Delhi, 1981), p. 271, l. 7. On the attached plate XVII, the akṣara rendered as bhyaṃ can be read as lyaṃ, which probably constitutes the latter part of mūlyaṃ, in view of the present inscription. This possibility was suggested by Arlo Griffiths, to whom I am grateful.

26 Chattopadhyaya, B. D., “Currency in early Bengal”, Journal of Indian History, LV (3) (1977), p. 45 .

27 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 357, l. 6, also Footnote note 1.

28 It should be noted that māṣa with its abbreviation mā was used in Java a few centuries later as a denomination of currency in both silver and gold, with the same rate of 16 to 1 against the higher denomination of tahil / suwarṇa / dharaṇa. J. Wisseman Christie, “Weight and values in the Javanese states of the ninth to thirteenth centuries A. D.”, in Poids et mesures en Asie du Sud-Est: systèmes métrologiques et sociétés, ed. P. Le Roux, B. Sellato and J. Ivanoff, pref. A. Testart (Paris, 2008), pp. 92–93. I thank Arlo Griffiths for informing me of this fact and providing the relevant reference.

29 For the meaning of khāṭa, see Bhattacharyya, “A newly discovered Copperplate”, p. 49. Concerning villa which corresponds to bil in Bengali, see Sircar, D. C., “The Kailan copper-plate inscription of King Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta of Samataṭa”, Indian Historical Quarterly, XXIII (1947), p. 236 .

30 tridīnārikyaku[lyavā]pavikraya[maryyā]da(yā), Damodarpur plate of the time of Budhagupta, no date, Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 338, ll. 12–13; etatprākkriryamānakamaryyādā caturddīnārikkyakulyavāpena, Faridpur plate of the time of Dharmāditya, no date, ibid., p. 368, ll. 13–14. ˚kriryamānaka˚: emend ˚krīyamāṇaka˚.

31 Bhattacharyya, S. C., “Mainamati copper plate of Vīradharadeva”, Journal of Ancient Indian History, XIV, 1–2 (1983–84), p. 26 , l. 11.

32 Jayanāṭana (ll. 3, 12, 15) and Pāyanāṭana (ll. 19, 21).

33 Guptī- / Guptināṭana: Kailan plate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta, D. C. Sircar (ed.), Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization Vol.2: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A. D. (Delhi, 1983), p. 37, l. 4; Mainamati plate of Laḍahacandra (no. 1), idem, Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan (Calcutta, 1973), p. 73, l. 42. Peranāṭana: Ashrafpur plate of Devakhaḍga, year 7, ll. 12–13, year 13, l. 6, my own readings from the impressions attached as Plate VII to Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, I (1905) and Plate II to Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for March, 1885. Cf. Laskar, G. M., “Ashrafpur copper-plate grants of Devakhaḍga”, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, I (6) (1904), p. 90 , l. 12–p. 91, l. 13, p. 90, l. 6; Sircar, Select Inscriptions 2, p.42, l. 6; idem, “Copper-plate inscription of King Bhavadeva of Devaparvata”, Journal of the Asiatic Society, Letters, XVII (2) (1951), p. 93, ll. 43–44, p. 94, l. 56; Mainamati plate of Laḍahacandra (no. 2), idem, Epigraphic Discoveries, p. 75, l. 8; Mainamati plate of Govindacandra, ibid., p. 80, l. 35.

34 For possible inclusion of singing and dancing as a part of the religious practices of the Ājīvikas, see Basham, History and Doctrines, pp. 116–117.

35 For their doctrine of niyati, see ibid., pp. 224–239. See also Bronkhorst, “Ājīvika Doctrine”, for an attempt to reconcile this doctrine with their severe ascetic regimen.

36 Basham, History and Doctrines, pp. 34–78.

37 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 150–60.

38 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 162–165. The Vāyupurāṇam (Bombay, 1895, reprint, Delhi, 1983), 2.8.278–282.

39 Basham, History and Doctrines, pp. 168–181.

40 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 185–186.

41 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 115–116.

42 Footnote Ibid ., p. 53.

43 Baigram plate, year 128 GE (gandha, dhūpa, dīpa and sumanas for Govindasvāmin, repairs of his shrine), Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 357, ll. 7–8; Jagadishpur plate, year 128 GE (bali, caru, sattra, gandha, dhūpa, taila and repairs of the facilities at a vihāra and a shrine of the Sun), idem, Epigraphic Discoveries, p. 61, ll. 9–11; Paharpur plate, year 159 GE (gandha, dhūpa, sumanas and dīpa for Jain ascetics), Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 360, ll. 6–7, p. 361, ll. 12–13; Gunaighar plate, year 188 GE (gandha, puṣpa, dīpa and dhūpa for the Buddha, repairs of the vihāra), ibid., p. 341, ll. 5–6, p. 342, l. 7; Damodarpur plate, year 224 GE (repairs of the shrine of Śvetavarāhasvāmin, bali, caru, sattra, gavya, dhūpa, puṣpa, madhuparka and dīpa), ibid., p. 348, ll. 8–9.

44 Cf. cīvarapiṇḍapātaśayanāsanaglānapratyayabhaiṣajyādiparibhogāya, Gunaighar plate, ibid., p. 341, l. 6–p. 342, l. 7. Preparation for disease (glānapratyaya) means a cloth kept for defraying the cost of medicine, according to Yijing. Takakusu, J. (tr.) A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671–695) by I-tsing (Oxford, 1896, reprint, New Delhi, 1998), p. 55 .

45 Basham, History and Doctrines, pp. 107–109, 118–122.

46 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 187–196.

47 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 196–201.

48 Footnote Ibid ., pp. 201–202.

49 For the location of Daṇḍabhukti, see Bhattacharyya, A., Historical Geography of Ancient and Early Medieval Bengal (Calcutta, 1977), pp. 81–82 .

50 F. Edgerton (ed.), The Sabhāparvan: Being the Second Book of the Mahābhārata (Poona, 1944), 2.10.14cd–18ab (one of Kubera's subordinates); V. S. Sukthankar (ed.), The Āraṇyakaparvan (Part 1): Being the Third Book of the Mahābhārata (Poona, 1942), 3.61.122–123 (Yakṣarāj), 3.140.6cd (Yakṣendra); R. N. Dandekar (ed.), The Anuśāsanaparvan: Being the Thirteenth Book of the Mahābhārata (Poona, 1966), 13.20.8–9ab, 16 (foremost among Kubera's subordinates, leading rākṣasas, yakṣas and gandharvas).

51 Misra, R. N., Yaksha Cult and Iconography (New Delhi, 1981), p. 46 ; Bhagavatīsūtra (Bombay, 1918), 3.7.168.

52 Sircar, D. C., Mahāmāyūrī: List of Yakṣas (From the Journal of Ancient Indian History, V, Parts 1–2, 1971–72) (Calcutta, 1972), p. 20 . Cf. S. Lévi, “Le catalogue géographique des Yakṣas dans la Mahāmāyūrī”, Journal Asiatique, V (1915), p. 38 (Māṇībhadra).

53 Misra, Yaksha Cult, pp. 83–84.

54 Footnote Ibid ., p. 81.

55 L. Feer (ed.), The Saṃyutta-Nikāya of the Sutta-Piṭaka Part I (Pali Text Society) (London, 1884, reprint, 1960), p. 208 (Maṇimālaka Cetiya); L. de la Vallée Poussin and E. J. Thomas (eds), Mahāniddesa, Parts I and II (Pali Text Society Text Series Nos 76, 77) (London, 1916–17, reprint, 1978), p. 89 (maṇibhaddavattikā).

56 dakṣiṇena maṇibhaddrakṣettraṃ, Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 344, ll. 26–27. The land plot is located in Uttaramaṇḍala. Accordingly, it is not identical with any plot donated in the present grant, which pertains to Pūrvamaṇḍala and Dakṣiṇamaṇḍala.

57 Sircar, D. C., “Asanapat Nataraja Image Inscription of Satrubhanja”, Epigraphia Indica, XL (3) (1986), p. 125 , l. 8.

58 Basham, History and Doctrines, p. 128.

59 P. L. Vaidya (ed.), The Vivāgasuya: The Eleventh Anga of the Jain Canon (2nd ed.) (Poona, 1935), 1 (ceia in Campā), 7 (jakkhāyayaṇa in Miyaggāma).

60 vaddhamāṇapure nāmaṃ nayare hotthā | vijayavaddhamāṇe ujjāṇe | māṇibhadde jakkhe ∥, ibid., 188.

61 samillaṃ nāma puraṃ, tatra bahirudyāne sabhākalitadevakulikāyāṃ māṇibhadro yakṣaḥ, Piṇḍaniryuktiḥ (Bombay, 1918), vyākhyā to verses 245–246.

62 J. L. Shastri (ed.), Kathāsaritsāgaraḥ (Delhi, 1970), p. 44. The narrative is told by Devasmitā, the heroine of the episode, as an occurrence in Dvīpāntara, her home country far away from Tāmralipti, the home of her husband where she was brought. Ibid., p. 43. For its possible identification with the Malay peninsula, see Nilakanta Sastri, K. A., “Dvīpāntara”, The Journal of the Greater India Society, IX (1) (1942), pp. 5–8 . I thank Arlo Griffiths for drawing my attention to the last reference.

63 Misra, Yaksha Cult, pp. 83–84, plates 23 and 24.

64 Chandra, P., “Yaksha and Yakshī Images from Vidiśā”, Ars Orientalis, VI (1966), p. 160 and Fig. 4. For its identification as an image of Maṇibhadra, see Misra, Yaksha Cult, p. 109.

65 P. Shah (ed.), Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa Third Khaṇḍa (Vol.1: Text, Critical Notes etc.) (2nd ed.) (Vadodara, 1994), 3.73.13 (Maṇibhadra), 3.53.1–6 (Dhanada).

66 P. A. Mankad (ed.), Aparājitapṛcchā of Bhuvanadeva (Baroda, 1950), 221.46ab (Caturānana), 53cd (Kubera).

67 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 265, l. 22.

68 Titles of sāmdhivigrahika and kumārāmātya are held by Hariṣeṇa, the composer of Samudragupta's praśasti engraved as the Allahabad stone pillar inscription. Ibid., p. 268, l. 32.

69 Footnote Ibid ., p. 342, l. 7.

70 For the meaning of the term pādānudhyāta indicating acceptance by father or approval by an overlord, see Ferrier, C. and Törzsök, J., “Meditating on the king's feet? Some remarks on the expression pādānudhyāta ”, Indo-Iranian Journal, LI (2) (2008), pp. 93–113 .

71 paramabhaṭṭārakapādānuddhyāto mahārājabhuluṇḍaḥ, K. V. Ramesh and S. P. Tewari (eds), A Copper-Plate Hoard of the Gupta Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh (New Delhi, 1990), p. 60, l. 1; paramabhāgavataḥ paramabhaṭṭārakapādānudhyāto mahāsāmantamahārājadhruvasenaḥ, Konow, S., “Five Valabhi Plates”, Epigraphia Indica, XI (1911–12, reprint, 1981), p. 113, ll. 12–14.

72 Bhandarkar et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume III (rev.), pp. 319–321.

73 bhagavanmahādevapādānuddhyāto, Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 342, l. 1.

74 Footnote Ibid ., p. 341, l. 3 (Rudradatta), p. 343, ll. 15–16 (Vijayasena).

75 Footnote Ibid .

76 Karmāntika, Plots 2, 15, 19, 21–22, witnesses of Occasions 2, 8, 12; śreṣṭhin, Plot 18.

77 Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, p. 985, col. 2.

78 Vilāla, Plots 2, 20, 22, 28, witnesses of Occasions 1, 5–6, 8.

79 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 343, l. 19, p. 344, ll. 21–22.

80 Bhattacharyya, Historical Geography, p. 63.

81 Vaṅgāla, Plots 3 and 6, witnesses of Occasions 4–7.

82 Occasions 1, 5, 7–8, 10–12.

83 Harunur Rashid, M., The Early History of South-East Bengal: In the Light of Archaeological Material (Dhaka, 2008), pp. 91–92 .

84 For these cases, see Yamazaki, T., “Some aspects of land-sale inscriptions in fifth and sixth century Bengal”, Acta Asiatica, XLIII (1982), pp. 17–36 .

85 Ulagiuccālikā (l. 22), Arīuccāli (l. 26), Nagnapaṭṭoccālikā, Nāgapaṭṭoccālikā (l. 27), Ūracaṇḍoccālikā (l. 29), Tyugroccālikā (l. 30), Khaddamattanoccālikā (l. 33), Ketogapaṭṭoccālikā (ll. 39–40)

86 Ṣollavillagrāma (l. 18), Kheṇṭavilla (l. 26), Heṣamakhalla (ll. 17, 32) (villages); Bheḍavilla (l. 35), Nāgolārikhāṭa (l. 31) (landmarks).

87 Sircar, Select Inscriptions 1, p. 343, l. 19–p. 345, l. 31.

88 Tipperah plate of Lokanātha, Sircar, Select Inscriptions 2, pp. 28–35; Kalapur plate of Maruṇḍanātha, K. K. Gupta (ed.), Copper-Plates of Sylhet, vol.1 (7th-11th Century A. D.) (Sylhet, 1967), pp. 68–80.

89 For such an interpretation of royal grants, see H. Kulke, “Some observations on the political functions of copper-plate grants in early medieval India”, in Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien [The state, the law, and administration in classical India], (ed.) B. Kölver (Munich, 1997), pp. 237–243.

90 Sircar, Select Insriptions 1, p. 341, ll. 3–5.

References

Basham, A. L., History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion, (London, 1951), (reprint, Delhi, 2002).Google Scholar
Bhagavatīsūtra , (Bombay, Nirnaya Sāgar Press, 1918).Google Scholar
Bhandarkar, D. R., (rev.), Chhabra, B. Ch. and Gai, G. S. (eds) 1981, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume III (rev.): Inscriptions of the Early Guptas, (New Delhi, 1981).Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, G., “A preliminary report on the inscribed metal vase from the National Museum of Bangladesh”, in Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N. G. Majumdar, (ed.) Mitra, D., (Calcutta, 1996), pp. 237–247.Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, A., Historical Geography of Ancient and Early Medieval Bengal (Calcutta, 1977).Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, D. C., “A newly discovered copperplate from Tippera [The Gunaighar Grant of Vainyagupta: The Year 188 Current (Gupta Era)]”, Indian Historical Quarterly, VI (1), 1930, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, S. C., “Mainamati copper plate of Vīradharadeva”, Journal of Ancient Indian History, XIV (1–2), 1983–4, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
Bronkhorst, J., “Ājīvika doctrine reconsidered”, in Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion, (ed.) Balcerowicz, P., (Delhi, 2003), pp. 153–178.Google Scholar
Chandra, P., “Yaksha and Yakshī Images from Vidiśā”, Ars Orientalis, VI, 1966, pp. 157–163.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyaya, B. D., “Currency in early Bengal”, Journal of Indian History, LV (3), 1977, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
Dandekar, R. N. (ed.), The Anuśāsanaparvan: Being the Thirteenth Book of the Mahābhārata, (Poona, 1966).Google Scholar
Dutta, S., Land System in Northern India: C. AD 400-C. AD 700, (New Delhi, 1995).Google Scholar
Edgerton, F., (ed.) The Sabhāparvan: Being the Second Book of the Mahābhārata, (Poona, 1944).Google Scholar
Feer, L., (ed.) The Saṃyutta-Nikāya of the Sutta-Piṭaka Part I (Pali Text Society), (London, 1884), (reprint, 1960).Google Scholar
Ferrier, C. and Törzsök, J., “Meditating on the king's feet? Some remarks on the expression pādānudhyāta ”, Indo-Iranian Journal, LI (2), 2008, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
Gupta, C., “ ‘Khila-kṣetras’ in Early Bengal Inscriptions”, in Studies in Art and Archaeology of Bihar and Bengal: Dr. N. K. Bhattasali Centenary Volume, (ed.) Mitra, D. and Bhattacharya, G., (Delhi, 1989), pp. 271–283.Google Scholar
Gupta, K. K., (ed.), Copper-Plates of Sylhet, vol.1 (7th–11th Century A. D.), (Sylhet, 1967).Google Scholar
Hazra, R. C., Studies in the Upapurāṇas, Vol. II, (Calcutta, 1963).Google Scholar
Konow, S., “Five Valabhi plates”, Epigraphia Indica, XI, 1911–12 [1981], pp. 104–118 (reprint).Google Scholar
Kulke, H., “Some observations on the political functions of copper-plate grants in early medieval India”, in Recht, Staat und Verwaltung im klassischen Indien [The state, the law, and administration in classical India], (ed.) Kölver, B., (Munich, 1997), pp. 237–243.Google Scholar
Laskar, G. M., “Ashrafpur copper-plate grants of Devakhaḍga”, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, I (6), 1904, pp. 85–91.Google Scholar
de La Vallée Poussin, L., and Thomas, E. J. (eds), Mahāniddesa, Parts I and II (Pali Text Society Text Series Nos 76, 77), (London, 1916–17, reprint, 1978).Google Scholar
Lévi, S., “Le catalogue géographique des Yakṣas dans la Mahāmāyūrī”, Journal Asiatique, V, 1915, pp. 19–138.Google Scholar
Maity, S. K., Economic Life in Northern India in the Gupta Period (Cir. A. D. 300–550) (2nd ed.), (Delhi, 1970).Google Scholar
Mankad, P. A., (ed.), Aparājitapṛcchā of Bhuvanadeva, (Baroda, 1950).Google Scholar
Misra, R. N., Yaksha Cult and Iconography, (New Delhi, 1981).Google Scholar
Monier-Williams, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, (Oxford, 1899, reprint, 2000).Google Scholar
Morrison, B. M., Lalmai, a Cultural Center of Early Bengal: An Archaeological Report and Historical Analysis, (Seattle and London, 1974).Google Scholar
Nilakanta, K. A. Sastri, “Dvīpāntara”, The Journal of the Greater India Society, IX (1), 1942, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
Piṇḍaniryuktiḥ , (Bombay, Śoṭha Devacandra Lālabhāī Jainapustakoddhārabhāṇḍāgārasaṃsthā, 1918).Google Scholar
Ramesh, K. V. and Tewari, S. P. (eds), A Copper-Plate Hoard of the Gupta Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh, (New Delhi, 1990).Google Scholar
Harunur Rashid, M., The Early History of South-East Bengal: In the Light of Archaeological Material, (Dhaka, 2008).Google Scholar
Sanderson, A., “Remarks on the text of the Kubjikāmatatantra”, Indo-Iranian Journal, XLV (1), 2002, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Schopen, G., “Doing business for the Lord: Lending on interest and written loan contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya ”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, CXIV (2), 1994, pp. 527–554.Google Scholar
Schopen, G., Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers, (Honolulu, 2005).Google Scholar
Shah, P., (ed.), Viṣṇudharmottara-Purāṇa Third Khaṇḍa (Vol.1: Text, Critical Notes etc.) (2nd ed.), (Vadodara, 1994).Google Scholar
Shastri, J. L., (ed.), Kathāsaritsāgaraḥ, (Delhi, 1970).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., “The Kailan copper-plate inscription of King Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta of Samataṭa”, Indian Historical Quarterly, XXIII, 1947, pp. 221–241.Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., “Copper-plate inscription of King Bhavadeva of Devaparvata”, Journal of the Asiatic Society, Letters, XVII (2), 1951, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., Indian Epigraphy, (Delhi, 1965).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., (ed.) Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, Vol.1: From the Sixth Century B. C. to the Sixth Century A. D. (2nd ed.), (Calcutta, 1965).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., Mahāmāyūrī: List of Yakṣas (From the Journal of Ancient Indian History, V, Parts 1–2, 1971–72), (Calcutta, 1972).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan, (Calcutta, 1973).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., (ed.), Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization Vol.2: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A. D., (Delhi, 1983).Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C., “Asanapat Nataraja image inscription of Satrubhanja”, Epigraphia Indica, XL (3), 1986, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
Sukthankar, V. S., (ed.), The Āraṇyakaparvan (Part 1): Being the Third Book of the Mahābhārata, (Poona, 1942).Google Scholar
Takakusu, J., (tr.), A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671–695) by I-tsing, (Oxford, 1896), (reprint, New Delhi, 1998).Google Scholar
Vaidya, P. L., (ed.), The Vivāgasuya: The Eleventh Anga of the Jain Canon (2nd ed.), (Poona, 1935).Google Scholar
The Vāyupurāṇam , (Bombay, 1895), (reprint, Delhi, 1983).Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D., Sanskrit Grammar (5th ed), (Leipzig, 1924), (reprint, Delhi, 1962).Google Scholar
Wisseman Christie, J., “Weight and values in the Javanese states of the ninth to thirteenth centuries A.D.”, in Poids et mesures en Asie du Sud-Est: systèmes métrologiques et sociétés, (ed.) Le Roux, P., Sellato, B. and Ivanoff, J., Testart, pref. A., (Paris, 2008) pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, T., “Some aspects of land-sale inscriptions in fifth and sixth century Bengal”, Acta Asiatica, XLIII, 1982, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar
Yokochi, Y., (ed., intro., annoted English synopsis), The Skandapurāṇa Volume III Adhyāyas 34. 1–61, 53–69: The Vindhyavāsinī Cycle, (Leiden, 2013).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 A New Copper Plate Inscription of Vainyagupta, year 184 GE, Obverse. The photograph taken by the author. Courtesy of the owner.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 A New Copper Plate Inscription of Vainyagupta, year 184 GE, Reverse. The photograph taken by the author. Courtesy of the owner.