Bailey published Senavarma’s inscription in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1980. It records Senavarma’s renovation of the stūpa which was erected by one of his ancestors. Senavarma belongs to the Iṣmaho family, which is thought to be Iranian, and thus his inscription shows the ardent concern of Iranian invaders about Buddhism.Bailey’s publication has aroused the keen interest of world scholars. Articles were written by G. Fussman (in BEFEO 71. 1982), B. N. Mukherjee (in Asiatic Society Monthly Bulletin X. 1, 1981) and R. Salomon (in IIJ 29-4. 1986). The content of the inscription has been admirably clarified by those eminent scholars, even though the inscription is filled with difficult problems of paleography and context.Still some problems remain unsolved. I myself tried to re-examine the text. The main arguments which I propose as solutions not yet fully attained by former scholars are as follows.(1) The line No. 3a of the inscription has “Vasuseṇa, son of Utaraseṇa, King of Oḍi from the Iṣsmaho line…… he establishes this Ekakūṭa.” It is already said in the inscription, without mentioning the name of Vasusena, that the stūpa was established and was furnished with great height, and so on. Former scholars were perplexed, being unable to understand in what chronological order Senavarma, Vasusena and others committed themselves to the stupa. I think that the above-mentioned statement could be the content itself of a dedicatory inscription (*pratiṣṭhāpanikā). Accordingly I should like to take the preceding word “avaśita” to mean “left”, “remained” (<ava √śiṣ), in place of “jeté à bas, détruit (apāsita)” (Fussman) and “destroyed (<ava √śī or ava √śṝ)” (Salomon), thus understanding that the dedicatory inscription deposited by Vasusena in former times was safely recovered by Senavarma after the falling of a thunderbolt.(2) The first part of the line No. 5a is paraphrased by Fussman and Salomon as “sarvasa jhaṇa-aṇuśaśa-” and translated as “entire[ly]… through the benefits of meditation” (Salomon’s translation). I would like to paraphrase it as “sarva-saṃyojana-anuśaya-” (all fetter-proclivity-).(3) The first word of the line No. 6e is read “avayido” and sanskritized “apajitaḥ” by Fussman, and is read “avayidro” and sanskritized “abhaya-indra” by Salomon. I take the word together with the following “gati” to correspond to Sanskrit “apāya-durgati” (miserable existence).
セーナヴァルマ刻文の研究
gakuho01_69-1,2-09.pdf
(1.36MB)
お知らせ
