Women in Early Buddhist Inscriptions by Vinay Kumar Rao
Abstract: The period from the third century BC to the third century AD, is roughly considered as the Early Buddhist Period in India. During this period several Buddhist monuments were constructed across vast regions of the country to express gratitude to Lord Buddha, by his immensely large number of devotees. Significantly, all these monuments are engraved with numerous inscriptions reflecting the desires, motives and homage of Buddhist disciples, irrespective of class, sex and creed. The monuments contain several inscriptions which are engraved by women donors, expressing their tribute to the Lord. These inscriptions carry useful and interesting information about the position of women in the socio-economic perspective. The inscriptions provide us information about the various names popular among women, their emotional ties with the family members from within her own family as well as from her in-laws; her professional involvement in earning a livelihood and her individual merits. Most significantly, these inscriptions provide a solid basis to contradict any notion propagating the rigidity and bias of Buddhism against women. These inscriptions give us sufficient grounds to believe that women were not ignored in Buddhism and in no case were they treated inferior to their male counterparts.
The tradition of engraving inscriptions started during the Mauryan period. Owing to Aśoka’s personal initiatives, many inscriptions were engraved on pillars and rocks in all four corners of his empire. Aśoka preferred to have his inscriptions engraved at places of strategic and cultural importance to express his political and moral commitment to his people. Though he was inclined towards Buddhism and he had several inscriptions engraved at the places of Buddhist importance, the prime objective of the inscriptions was political. It was during the Śunga period when the stupa of Bharhuta was constructed in central India with the patronage of the laity and the common people who had faith in Buddhism. The inscriptions of Bharhut had nothing to do with politics. There are hundreds of inscriptions from Bharhuta, Sānc̣ī and Mathurā in central India to Kārlā, Kanherī and Bhajā in the western Deccan, and Amarāvatī, Sannati, etc. in the Deccan region of India which have an abundance of valuable information about the contemporary socio-economic life of the people. The construction of Buddhist monuments was initiated with great magnitude in the Śunga period and was further enhanced during the Kuśāna and Sātavahana periods. There was tremendous enthusiasm among the common people and the traders for the construction of Buddhist religious monuments during these eras. To express their devotion, the laity preferred to engrave information about them in the form of inscriptions on various components of Buddhist monuments like the stambha, vedikā and śuc̣ī.
A comprehensive study of these inscriptions provides useful information about the social, cultural and economic life of the people who donated money to propagate the dhamma, and it also give us significant information on the condition of women in the early Buddhist period. On the basis of these inscriptions one can easily reject any view which believes in Buddhist prejudices against women. These inscriptions help us to evaluate the important role played by women in contemporary society both as individuals and collectively.
The Bharhuta inscriptions reflect women fulfilling various responsibilities at par with their male counterparts. Several number of inscriptions at Bharhuta are engraved by Buddhist upāsikās as well as bhikśuṇīs which show their devotion to the dhamma. In no way do the bhikśuṇis appear less than Buddhist lay women in the inscriptions. One inscription at Bharhuta shows that the donators were inhabitants of Kauśāmbī and Veṇugamaniyā, places situated at a considerable distance from Bharhuta. This shows that Buddhist women had an established samgha life and roamed the land for bhikśuṇīc̣aryā.
A number of inscriptions at Bharhuta mentions only the names of women donators and provides details of their donations but no other details. This is reflected in an inscription which names Sonā as the person donating the money for the construction of a pillar. Along with this we see the names of a laywoman Anurādhā from Vidiṣā and an almswoman Somā from Kākamdiya proudly announcing their respective names, the nature of their donations and their native places in these inscriptions.
Some of the inscriptions from Bharhuta had considerable information about the liberty enjoyed by women and their active presence in various matters related to Buddhist embellishments. The names found in some inscriptions suggest that there was no fixed practice for women to confine their names to their own sects. For example, a female donor, Velamitā a native of Vidiṣā, prefixed the name of her gotra Vāsitḥiya to her name which has a Vedic identity. Barring this example, there is evidence of some sectarian rigidness and we trace another female donor from the Koḍā tribe feeling immense pleasure to name her tribe in the inscription. We notice a tradition of women donors engraving their children’s names in some inscriptions in Bharhuta. For instance, a woman named Pusadevāya, the mother two children, Dhamagutā and Ghāṭila, and an inhabitant of Moragiri had given donations for the dhamma. The tradition of mentioning the names of sons may perhaps show a tendency to identify themselves with their famous sons. Several inscriptions showing joint donations with the other family members are also present in in Bharahuta. Women donors are also found providing significantly more elaborate introductions about themselves and also include the names of their husbands.
It is interesting to see some upāsikās and bhikśuṇīs with names reflecting a sect, religion, celestial body or supernatural power. One donor gives her name as Dhamarakhitaya showing her religious fervour and deep faith in the Buddhist religion. Sectarian names like Samanāya, celestial names like Aurādhā and traditional Vedic names like Idadevāya can also be seen. Though most people of that era had great faith in Buddhism, this did not restrict them from showing devotion and respect for other spiritual elements that were not fully Buddhist in nature. Thus a donor named Yakhiyā, the name of a supernatural spirit well known among the followers of both Buddhism and Vedic traditions, proudly affirms a donation in one of the inscriptions at Bharhuta.
There is no particular evidence which proves that Bharhuta was used for monastic activities and thus it can be assumed that devotees from all over the region would arrive for special occasions. The marvellous construction, striking looks and centralized location of the place were some of the features which attracted people from around the region to visit Bharhuta. Impressed by its location, an upāsīkā, Gorahitiya, wife of Vasukasa from Nāsik, a city situated at a considerable distance, in the Deccan visited the stupa at Bharhuta and offered a donation for the construction of a stambha.
The simplicity of the writings of the inscriptions at Bharhuta is more or less present at the stupa of Sānc̣ī with slight differences. In Bharhuta, the women donors were satisfied with mentioning the names of their direct relatives, but in the inscriptions at Sānc̣ī they are found to be more enthusiastic and provide the names of their indirect relatives as well. We notice an inscription at Sānc̣ī where a woman donor show immense pleasure in introducing herself with the name of her kula (in laws). In another inscription at Sānc̣ī, we find various women pronouncing themselves as pajāvatiyas (wives), bhaginis (daughters-in-law)  and daughters of a family from Ujjain offering the donation jointly to the Sangha. It shows that the freedom to have their names engraved in the inscriptions at Bharhuta was followed here as well. Relations like sisters and nieces, mentioned in the inscriptions illustrate the close ties and harmony among the various members of a family, particularly amongst the female members.
We can trace the social status, sobriety and intimacy between various women more acutely in some inscriptions from Sānc̣ī. We cannot overlook an inscription where a woman is presented delightedly announcing that she is the mother of bhikśuṇī Dhamasāyā who is an inhabitant of Ujjain. The feeling of collectiveness is fascinating in an inscription where many bhikśuṇīs are shown giving a collective donation for the cause.
The inscriptions of the early Buddhist period are not impassive to the changes caused in society with the rise of the new political power of the Sātavāhanas. It is a known fact that with the advent of Buddhism the śreśtḥi class experienced the bliss of relief and respect. Now their occupations were not treated as degrading as it was in earlier times. This change encouraged this newly emerged prosperous class to offer large donations for Buddhist embellishments. These changes are moreover reflected in the socio-economic perspective as well and can be easily traced in an inscription where a lady, Devabhāgā wife of a śreśtḥi from Kamdaḍigāma is seen proudly announcing the profession of her husband. In another inscription a mother is presented in an inscription announcing the same profession (śreśtḥi) of her son. These inscriptions indicate that by then, the position and profession of a śreśtḥi had gained popularity and respect in society.
The inscriptions of Bharhuta restricted women donors to use the common word, bhāriyāya or wife. But we see a magnificent change in the inscriptions of Sānc̣ī. Here we see the addition of more descriptions like gahapatina, ghariṇīya and pavajatiyā for her. In this respect, it is remarkable that the use of a new term devī for a married woman was introduced. The tradition of using the term amtevāsina for a woman devotee was also initiated at Sānc̣ī. It is interesting to see a bhikśuṇī (almswoman), bhikśu (almsman) and upāsaka (layman) giving a donation of a particular gift collectively for the cause. On the basis of this inscription we may assume that in the Buddhist religion, the sangha and society had cordial and harmonious relations with each other.
We can deduce on the basis of certain inscriptions from the western Deccan that to some extent commercial mobility affected the internal composition of society. In these inscriptions the donors are seen more interested about communicating their respective professions instead of merely providing their names and native places. There are some instances such as a woman donor named Bādhā who shows her pride in announcing her husband’s profession as that of a hālika (ploughman). Similarly, another woman is present in an inscription giving the profession of her husband as that of a heraṇikasa (goldsmith). These are the results of women’s consciousness and changed economic status that she is seen in an inscription referring to her relatives as sārthavāhas (traders).
The social designation of a gahapati is found in very many inscriptions in the western Deccan; but this designation did not only denote a specific profession. The term gahapati was largely used by a male person who was the chief of a family from a śreśtḥi or kriśaka (peasant) background. There are a number of inscriptions in the western Deccan which are primarily donated by men but also mention women. In such inscriptions it is amazing to find a trader’s son Sapāla presenting a donation with the virtue that it would benefit his mother Dāmāyā who is already a bhikśuṇī. A magnificent type of religious devotion and social honour can be seen from an inscription where all the members of a particular family are giving admiring a donation with their sister’s son. There are inscriptional evidences where various members of a family are presented accepting the membership of the sangha. Thus it is easy to conclude that monastic activities were accepted widely by the people in society and almswomen were equally welcomed.
In contrast to the inscriptions in Bharhuta and Sānc̣ī affirming joint donations, the western Deccan inscriptions have many significant features. In an inscription we see a thera and an upāsikā giving a joint donation of a leṇa (cave). In another inscription we find more then one amtevāsiniyas giving a joint donation. An inscription shows two kulavadhus (housewives) from two different families giving a joint donation of a jala-pondhi (for water storage). Similarly, an inscription confirms a donation of a leṇa by a daughter-in-law of a grihaswāmī (household). This gives us considerable information about social and family bonding within society. It is very pleasant to see different members of different families offering auspicious donations to the cause.
In the inscriptions of the western Deccan we find a great inclination of women donors towards political designations. This can be recognized from some inscriptions mentioning the names of dignitaries holding high positions. It was a matter of pride and maternal satisfaction that a Mahārathi Viṇhudata feels in introducing himself with his mother’s name, Kosiki while making a donation of a jala pondhi. In a different inscription a rajavaidya (physician) named Magilasa is similarly presented introducing himself with his mother’s name, Vācḥi. In an inscription from this region a daughter named Goyammāyā is presented giving a donation of a leṇa, while announcing the name of her father, Hālasa who was an amātya (royal position).
The trend of announcing the family tradition in respect of royal lineage seems to have gained popularity during that time period, in the inscriptions of the western Deccan. One inscription shows a woman, Sāmaḍinikā, mentioning the titles of Mahādevī and Mahārathinī with her name besides describing her daughter as a Mahābhoja (royal position). This tradition is repeated in another inscription where a Rājalekhaka (official writer)  is present along with his wife mentioning the name of his ruler and patron. The younger brother of the same Rājalekhaka is seen in a different inscription with his wife, sons and daughters-in-law presenting a religious offering. After looking thoroughly at these inscriptions we are convinced that at that time a trend to project individuals with a political perspective was emerging among donors while engraving the inscriptions.
It may be assumed from the inscriptions of the western Deccan that on particular occasions, devotees of other religious sects also offered donations to the Buddhist cause. In one inscription, the wife of a Brahmiṇa is depicted giving a donation of a c̣aityaghara. Besides the use of synonyms like bhāryā, pajāvatiyā and dhariṇī, the western Deccan inscriptions add a new term – vitiyika – for a married woman. The period and region showed flexibility in the turf of the sangha and it was on this account that a bhikśuṇī could not resist the opportunity of mentioning her daughter’s name in an inscription. The details of a therī and a śramaṇa as brother and sister shows that in this age the activities of the bhikśuṇī sangha became more colourful. On the basis of these inscriptions it can be easily established that women gained considerable attention and dominance in the monastic settlements of the western Deccan. She was so extensively involved in the monastic settlement that she started giving akhayanivi (ever-existing donation) which could fulfil the requirements of the bhikśuṇī sangha by using the regular interest on the donated amount.
Almost the same style of engraving inscriptions with a few minor changes is repeated in the inscriptions of the Kuṣāṇa period. It is interesting to note the presence of an upāsikā giving a donation of a Buddha image and praying for the benefit and welfare of her family members and her swāminī (mistress). This inscription is different from those of the earlier period where joint donations were given by members of different families who had close associations. The tradition of joint donations continued in Buddhist inscriptions of the Kuṣāṇa times but we notice here that a healthy practice had developed among married women of engraving the names of their fathers-in-law along with their father’s. The inscriptions of the Kuṣāṇa period show that the bhikśuṇī sangha had been established in a more systematic way. The women were allowed to participate more actively in monastic activities and were considered equally virtuous to their male counterparts. The bhikśuṇī like Buddhamitrā had enough courage to claim the title of tripiṭaka gyātā (having knowledge of the three piṭakas).
Most of the inscriptions donated by women in the Kuśāna period are engraved by married women. Besides the earlier names, two new ones for a married woman – pūrvaye and kuṭumbinī are noticed in some inscriptions. Her deep concern and affection for her family is well reflected in an inscription where a bhikśuṇi named Buddadevā is presented establishing an image of the Bodhisattva and wishing for the welfare of not only her family but of all sentient beings. We gain more information about some new professions and political positions in the inscriptions of the Kuṣāṇa era. In addition to earlier professions like hālika, heraṇikasa and sārthavāha we have those of a prāvarika (in charge of construction works) in inscriptions. This can be noticed in an inscription which was engraved by Samghilā, the wife of Hāsthi, a prāvarika by profession, while establishing a Buddha image. There is a continuation of an earlier tradition of the western Deccan where a woman donor is proud to mention certain political positions. The presence of a woman donor, Gotamī, wife of a baladhikāsya (official for maintaining law and order)  and the wife of a vihāraswāmī confirms this type of consciousness.
The inscriptions engraved during the Āndhra-Sātavāhana age show a similar style of engraving with the presence of women donors in the various roles of wife, daughter and sister. Examples of joint donations are again seen in the inscriptions of the Āndhra-Sātavāhana age. One inscription mentions three women named Saghā, Sanghadāsī and Kamalā, wives of three respectable men giving a joint donation. The earlier instance of a joint donation by a bhikśuṇī and an upāsikā is again located here. An inscription mentioning a joint donation by the female members of different families involved in vāṇija (trade) and heraṇiya (goldsmith) two different professions is very significant in southern India which indicates the establishment of a new paradigm set to achieve the goal of social harmony and collaboration.
The inscription from southern India shows that the bhikśuṇī sangha had undergone several changes in its internal and external structures. Bhikśuṇīs and upāsikās mentioned their merits and abilities, as well as those of their patrons in a more open manner. This can be seen in an inscription where an upāsikā is announces her sect. Simultaneously, an amtevāsiniya is presented praising her patron because of her virtue of being a vinayadhirasa. In another inscription, a bhikśuṇī Rohā, is reflected praising herself as being above all the eight worldly dharmas and admiring her mother for her merit of self-control. An upāsikā is presented in an inscription simply adoring the Buddha and announcing herself to being above all worldly human tendencies. Another inscription describes a woman donor who has mentioned the names of three of her generations who were involved in religious activities and two involved in the bhikśuṇī sangha.. The trend of continuing the family tradition for two generations in monastic activities is sufficient to show the devotion of a family to Buddhism.
We can see women donors from both privileged and common backgrounds expressing their immense dedication and devotion to Buddhism and constructing religious embellishments during the Āndhra-Sātavāhana regime. Buddhism considered every component of the society with equality, liberty and compassion. It was a result of its humanistic approach that a family belonging to the C̣ammakāra community (leather worker) was allowed to give an auspicious donation of a punaghaḍapaṭa on a Buddhist monument. This type of tolerance and acceptance towards the whole of society emerges repeatedly in Buddhist inscriptions especially in respect to women.
Sannathi provides us an inscription affirming the collective donation by three women named Govindadāsī, Ayadāsī and Vāluki who are dancers by profession. The practice of announcing royal relationships in the western Deccan is again traced in the Āndhra-Sātavāhana inscriptions. We find some women donors feeling delighted to state their respective husbands’ positions as a Rājāmātya, Āmāc̣i and Rājalekhaka. An inscription affirming the establishment of a dharmac̣akra on a gate by a householder Kahūtara and his wife Nāganikā has the date corresponding to the reign of the Sātavāhana king Pulumāvi son of the queen of the Vāsitḥiya family.
According to the details in the various inscriptions discussed above it is clear that women are not only present in early Buddhist inscriptions in large numbers, but they are actively present and full of details are available of the important role they played in the family and in society. Women are illustrated in early Buddhist inscriptions as both alms and lay women. They are presented in a vibrant manner attributing their beliefs, faith and independent values and are found eager in fulfilling their duties towards the sangha and dharma. Women are not only depicted in inscriptions as carrying out their duties as wives, daughters and mothers, but also actively and happily fulfilling her responsibilities in society. The nature of the donations, especially the akhaya nivi, show women’s well-planned attitude to the concept of donations. It also provides sufficient basis to accept their claims of being capable with regard to handling various monetary aspects. With the help of the above mentioned inscriptions we can easily suggest that Buddhism affirmed the claim of various women in strengthening the bhikśuṇī sangha and laity to achieve spiritual and worldly goals.
Footnotes<references / >
- Henrich Luders, 1963, Ooti Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol-2, Part II; Kosabeyekaya bhikhuniya/Venuvagimiyāya Dhamārakhitā/Yā dānam; A-52.
- -do-; Sonāya dānam thabhā; A-123.
- -do-; Vedisā Anurādhāyā dānam; A-32.
- -do-; Kākamdiya somāya bhichhuniya dānam; A-37.
- -do-; Vedisā vāsitḥiya veḷmi[tāyā]; A-35.
- -do-; Koḍāya yakhiya dānam; A-116.
- -do-; Dhamaguta- matu Pusadevaya dānam; A-120.
- -do-; Moragirimā Ghāṭila- matu dānam; A-28.
- -do-; [Na]garakhitasa cha mātu cha Kamuchukaye dānam; A-54-b.
- -do-; Vedisā Chāpadevāyā Revatimitabhāriyāya patḥmathabho dānam; A-34.
- -do-; (Dha)marakhitaya dāna suchi; A-118.
- -do-; Samanāyā bhikhuniyā Chudatḥilikāyā/dānam; A-12.
- -do-; Vedisā Anurādhāya dānam; A-32.
- -do-; Purikayā Idadevāya dānam; A-19.
- -do-; Koḍāya Yakhiyā dānam; A-116.
- -do-; Nāsika Gorakhitiya thabho dānam/Vasukasa bhāriyaya; A-46.
- Marshal, Foucher and Majoomdar, 1970, Calcutta, Sānchī Vol 3 ; Tubavanā gahapatino patithiyasa bhātu ja[a]yāya dhāñya dānam; Ins-16.
- -do-; Ujeniya tāpasiyāna Husā Najaya dānam; Ins-74.
- -do-; Ujeniyaya Opepedadatasa pajāvatiya Vayudataya dānam; Ins-73.
- -do-; Ujeniyaya Upepedadatasa bhaginiya Himadataya dānam; Ins-78.
- -do-; [U]jeniyā Dhamayasāyā matu bhic̣huniya dānam; Ins-60.
- -do-; [Vā]ḍi[vā ]hanā bhic̣huniya dānam; Ins-22.
- -do-; Kamdaḍigāmiyasa setḥino/pajāvatiyā Devabhāgāya dānam; Ins-41.
- -do-; Setḥino matu Kaniyasi(ye); Ins-124.
- -do-; Tubvanā gahapatino patithiyasa bhātu ja[a]yāya Dhāñya dānam; Ins-16.
- -do-; Virahakaṭaghariṇīye Sijhāye dānam; Ins-160.
- -do-; Kamdaḍigāmiyasa sethino/pajāvatiyā Devabhāgāya dānam; Ins-41.
- -do-; Vāka[lā ]ye deviye Ahimita ma(tu); Ins-364.
- -do- ; Yasilaya atevasini Sagharakhitāye dānam; Ins-118.
- -do-; Devada[siya] bhic̣huniya upāsikadhamac̣uda bhc̣huno Vajino bhic̣uno; Ins-215.
- Jas Burgess, New Delhi, 1994 Report on Buddhist Cave Temples and Their Inscriptions ; Bādhāyā hālikajayāyā dānam; No-I,6.
- Shobhana Gokhley, Pune, 1991 “anheri Inscriptions; Sidham heraṇikasa Dhamaṇakasa bhayā/Sivapālitanikāya deyadhamma/tharāna bhayata dhammapālānama/thubhā; No-15.
- Jas Burgess, -ibid- ; Sathavāhasa Vehamitasa bitiyikaya Sivadatāya Pu- snạkamātuya deyadhamam leṇam; No-IV, 27.
- -do-; Sidham gahapatisa setḥisa samgharakhita saputasa vi; No-V, 2.
- Shobhana Gokhale, -do- ; Sa/pāla nāvinakeṇa c̣a vi-su-mahā/aṭanasa Saghāratha c̣a negama navinakeṇa-saha/c̣a mātuya pavac̣ātikāya Dāmāyāya yeva akha nivi c̣a leṇama datāmi; No-44.
- -do-; Nīyānam parigahe pa (titḥāpitamakrimā)/tapitunam abhātata (na)/pūjā ya kuṭumbanā(na bāla)bāli(kānam)/savatasa bhāgineyāna nika(ā)yasa jāti; No-5.
- Jas Burgess, -ibid-; ..pā[Sā]timitāna Bhadamta/Āgimitā[tā](na) c̣a bhāgineyiya pāva/yitikāya Nāganikāya duhutaya pāva/yitikāya Padumānānakāya dayadhamamam; No-IV, 5.
- -do-; SidhamTherā (ṇam Bhadamta) s[iva]da taṇa a(tevāsino) pava(da)ta-/ sa go ā (ḍa)ma lenam sātimita yā ya; No-IV, 4.
- -do-; sa sā ..[n]hu../savam c̣a āmtivāsiniya Bbodhiya; No-IV, 21.
- -do-; Isimulasāmino bhaya-/Naḍbāḷikāya Nāḍaka-Torikasa/Lac̣hini[kā]ya deyadhama podhi ; No-VIII, 14.
- -do-; Sathavāhasa Vehamitasa bitiyikaya Sivadatāya pu/saṇakamātuya deyadhamam leṇam; No-IV, 27.
- -do-; Mahārathisa Kosikīputasa Viṇhudatasa deyadhama podhi; No-I, 7.
- -do-; Rājavejasa Vacḥīputasa Magilasa dā[nam]; No-III, 5.
- -do-; Rājamacḥasa Hālasa [duhu]-/tāya Goyammāyā [leṇam]; No-IV, 16.
- -do-; Mahābhoyabālikāya ma[hā]devi-/ya mahāratḥiniya Sāmaḍinikāya/[de]yadhama Āpadevakaṇasa bitikāya ; No-VI, 3 .
- -do-; Mahābhojiya Saḍgeriya Vijayāya putasa Mahābhojasa Mamdavasa Khamdapālitasa lekhasa/Sulasadataputasa Utaradatāputasa c̣a Sivabhutisa saha bhayāya Namdāya deyadhammam [leṇam]; No-IV, 1.
- -do-; Mahābhojiya Sāḍageriya Vijayāya/Mahābhojasa Mamdavasa Khamdapālitasa upajīvīnam/Sulasadataputasa Utaradatāputasa c̣a putānam bhātunam lekha/ka Sivabhutimha kanetḥasa Sivamasa deyadhammam leṇam/saha bhayāya Vijayāya putānam c̣a sa Sulasadatasa Siva/pālitasa Sivadatasa Sapilasa c̣a selarūpakam duhutam/sa Sapāya Sivapālitāya Sulasadatāya c̣a thambha; No- IV, 6.
- -do-; Ayitilu upāsakasa Bamamsahanasa bhayāya Bhayilāya c̣etiyagharo deyadhammam No-IV, 13.
- -do-; Sathavāhasa Vehamitasa bitikaya Sivadatāya Pu-/saṇakamātuya deyadhamam leṇam; No-IV, 27.
- -do-; Koḍiya bhikhuniya Ghuṇikamāta veyikā daṇa Nadikena ka[ta]; No- VII, 16.
- Shobhana Gokhale, -do-; Sidham therāṇa bhayata ghosaṇa atevāsiniye/pavatikā a poṇakiyāssaṇā.. niya sahac̣a(bhāturi) (samaṇa) pāppalokhi c̣ātu; No-34.
- -do-; Hitasudhaya bhikhusaghasa akhayanivi c̣a dinā eto c̣a (bhikhu)/samhgāṇa c̣ivarika dātava solakasa utukāle c̣a; No-38.
- Satyashrava, New Delhi, 1993 Dated Kushana Inscriptions; ..Śakyamune apratimasaya pratimā pratiśtḥāpitā Ālikāyām Rośikā vihāre/ātmasya āragyadakśiṇa mātā pitina bhaṭārikāye ś[am]aṇikamātare Śamaṇikāye Jīvakasya Jīvakamatu/sarvastavānam c̣a hita s[u]khārtha; No-89.
- Sennarta, Gottington, 1961, Mathura Inscriptions of Ludders; siddha[m] Saddhisya vadhu Matisena[sya]/dhitā Nagadasya dharmapatini/…; No-175.
- Satyashrava, -do-; Bodhisatvo[ttavam] par[ti]/[ṣtḥā]payati bhikhuṇi Budhamitrā tripiṭ[i]kā bhagavato Buddhasa c̣a[m]kame; No-10.
- -do-;../..etasya puraye M[āth]uri Kalavaḍ[ā] O[ḍak]i…/ye Tośāya patimā..t..; No-8.
- -do-; etasa purvāyā Dharm[a]k[a]sa sovaṇik[a]sa kūṭubīnīye/upāsikā N[a]gapiyā Bodhisatva pratithāpeti svakāyā c̣et[i]/yākaṭ[i]y[ā] ac̣ārayana Dharmagutakāna pratigrahe; No-44.
- -do-; …purvayam bhikuṇiye Puśaha[th]iniye sa/ni[y]e/Bhikhuṇiye Budhadevāye Bodhisatvo pratithāpito sahā mātāpitihi sarvasat[v]ahitasukhā; No-85.
- -do-; prāvarika H[ā]sth[is]y[a]/bh[ā]rya Samghilā bhagavato pitāmahasya samya sambhuddhasya svamatasya devasya pūjārtha pratim[ā]mam pratiśtḥā /payati sarva dukkhā prahāṇārtham; No-40.
- -do-; varś[a]/mahārājasya 200 70 bh[u]/Gotamiye balānā[s]/tu[mā]/baladhikāsya
bh[u]/bhāryaye dānam sa[r]va/[dha] pūc̣aye sap[itu]m[adhu]; No-166.
- -do-; vihārasvāmisya Hitākasya dhata/Balāye dānam bhagavato Śākyamunisya pratimā pratiśtḥāpitā; No-133.
- Jas Burgess, New Delhi, 1996, The Buddhist Stupas of Amravati and Jaggayapetta; Loṇavalavakasa Samgharakhitasa cha Mariti[sa] cha/bhariyāyo Saghāya cha Saghadāsiya cha Kumaḷaya cha dānam; No-LXI, 56.
- -do-; … gahpatino Idasa duhutuya ghariniya kaṇhāya duhutuya upāsikāya Kamāya saputikāya sabhutukāye sabhaginikāya bhikhunikaya cha Nāgamitāya .. ya..kaya…; No-LVI, 13.
- -do-; [savasa] tutamasa Naravasabhasamsammbhudādichasa AA Upāsakasa Nārasalasa vāniyasa Nāgatisasa gharaṇiya Nākhāya sahā putehi heraṇikena Budhinā mūlena…; No-LVIII, 28.
- I. K. Sarma and V. P. Rao, Delhi, 1993 Early Brahmi Inscriptions from Sannathi; Siri ..mi..putasa Hathilasa Naṭikāya Budhaseni yānama Munāḍiya naṭikāya kārayati yāma Govindāsiya/naṭikāya naḍiya Guḍaputiyā ayadāsīyama nāḍiya Vālukiyāya mukhudikoyam; No-D6, P.22.
- Jas Burgess, -do-; Vinayadhirasa Aya-Punavasusa atevāsiniya uvarayiniya Samuḍiyāya atevāsiniya Maḷamyā pāḍakā dānam; No-LVI, 8.
- -do-; rilikā mahayāya Sujātamya mahāvasibhutaya duhutāya bhikhunya Rohāya aṭhalokadhammavītivatāya dana; No-LVI, 16.
- -do-; Sidham! Namo Bhagavato Savasatutamasa Budhasa Mamdaravathavasa pavaitosium tasa bhaginiya…. No-LVII, 22.
- -do-; Sidham Kuṭaparavane vathavaya pavajitikaya Sagharakhitāya bā(li)kaya ja pavajitikāya Hi(ḷa)ya kumārikāya ja (Se)vaya dā(na) deyadham(ma) upaṭā ; No-LX, 50.
- -do-; Sidham! Chammakārasa Nāgagharu[tapa]putasa Vidhikasa samatukasa sabhayakasa sabhatukasa putasa cha Nagasa sama(dhu)tukasa sanātimitabamdhavasa deyadhamma/punaghaḍakapaṭo; No-LVIII, 36.
- Sarma and Rao do-; Siri ..mi..putasa Hathilasa naṭikāya Budhaseni yānama Munāḍiya naṭikāya kārayati yāma Govindāsiya/naṭikāya naḍiya Guḍaputiyā ayadāsīyama nāḍiya Vālukiyāya mukhudikoyam; No-D6, P.22.
- -do-; Rājāmāc̣asa Gaganasa bhariyāya rājāmāc̣iya Rāmasiriya; No-B6, P.16.
- -do-; (a) māc̣i yakhanikā-Aamāc̣i Samghanikā; No-B6, P.17.
- C. Sivramamurty, Chennai, 1998, Amravati Sculptures in the Chennai Government Museum; Rājalekhakasa Bala/sa jāyāya Somadatā; No-26.
- Jas Burgess, -do-; [Si]dhamRāño V[ās]itḥ[i]puta[sa] s[ā]m[i]siri-Pulumāvisa savachḥarā…Piṇḍsutariyāna[m] Kahutaragahapatisa Purigahapatisa c̣a putasa Isilasa sabhātukasa [sama]/ saginikasa bhayāya c̣asa Nākānikāya saputaka[sa]..[to] mahāc̣etiye c̣etikiyānam nikāsa parigahe aparādāre dhamac̣akasa Dedham[mam tḥ]āpita; No-LVI, 1.