^{page 425 note 1} See the Vinayapiṭaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 314 ff.

^{page 425 note 2} Ed. Pausböll, 1. 356; 5. 145, 162, 337.

^{page 426 note 1} See my table in this Journal, 1909. 27.

^{page 426 note 2} See, fully, my remarks in this Journal, 1908. 493.

^{page 426 note 3} Monier-Williams: and compare Childers.

^{page 427 note 1} For translations of this passage see SBE., 17. 38, and this Journal, 1904. 84. Regarding the impossible dimensions assigned to the country in other works, see my remarks in this Journal, 1907. 653, note 3.

^{page 428 note 1} For a map of the Rāmaňča country see Ind. Ant., 22. 328.

^{page 428 note 2} It has also been understood to be the Golden Khersonēsē of Ptolemy: see, e.g., Ind. Ant., 13. 372.

^{page 428 note 3} See Taw Sein Ko in Ind. Ant. 1906. 212, and Report on Archæological Work in Burma, 1905–6. 8.

This change of view, of course, does not in any way impeach the credit of the Ceylonese chronicles: quite the reverse. The supposed fact of an introduction of Buddhism into Burma in the time of Aśoka does not rest on either them or the Samanta-Pāsādikā: it rests entirely on the mistaken identification of the Suvarṇabhūmi mentioned by them: they do not say anything to locate that country in Burma.

The Burmese have taken over the names of many Indian countries and places. Notably, in addition to a Suvarnabhūmi they claim a Vanavāsī, an Aparantaka, a Mahāraṭṭha, and even a Mahiṁsakamaṇḍala.

^{page 429 note 1} Vol. 18 (1908), pp. 162, 169, 253, 261.

^{page 429 note 2} Mahāwanso, index and glossary, 16.

^{page 429 note 3} Bhilsa Topes, 117.

^{page 429 note 4} Vishṇu-Purāṇa, translation, 2. 178, note 6.

^{page 430 note 1} See the Imperial Gazetteer, 10. 291; and compare MrRice's, Mysore 1897), 2. 500–4Google Scholar

^{page 430 note 2} See, fully, my remarks in this Journal, 1909. 997.

^{page 431 note 1} Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). Nj. 134. The text in roman characters gives to the name which I quote the form Mayasun-nāḍ; the translation gives Maysūr-nāḍ; and the text in Kanarese characters gives Maysunnāḍ. As the Kanarese texts are the bases of what is published in the volumes of the Epigraphia Carnatica, I adopt the last form.

^{page 432 note 1} Ind. Ant., 8. 212: and see my list of spurious records in id., 30 (1901). 215, No. 10. Spurious records, though mostly valueless for chronological purposes, are frequently of considerable use from the geographical and other miscellaneous points of view.

^{page 432 note 2} That the Mysore tāluka now includes one hundred and fifty towns and villages, is of course immaterial. The numbers in the territorial divisions of India have been altered and are still altered from time to time; for improved administrative purposes, as well as because of new villages growing up, and old ones becoming deserted.

^{page 432 note 3} Epi. Carn., 6 (Kaḍūr). Kd. 9.

^{page 432 note 4} Pending the issue of a proper index to the volumes of the Epigraphia Carnatica, it is not practical to use them exhaustively. But the above-mentioned three records give the only references that I have been able to find for the Maysūr or Maisūr seventy, and the earliest instances of the existence of the name: and Mr. Rice himself does not claim to have done more; see, e.g., his Mysore (1897), 2. 280:—“We find Maisu-nād or Maisur-nād mentioned in inscriptions of the 11th and 12th centuries.”

A group of villages known as the Mayse-nād appears to be mentioned in an inscription of a.d. 1136, and in another which is referred to about a.d. 1200: Epi. Carn., 5 (Hassan). Bl. 17; Hn. 139. And the same seems to be mentioned as the Maise-nād in inscriptions of a.d. 1117 and 1174: ibid., Bl. 58, 59, 71. But that is marked by the records as a different group, close to Bēlūr in the Bēlūr tāluka of the Hassan District.

^{page 433 note 1} Compare MrRice's, remarks in Mysore (1897), 2. 280, 281Google Scholar:—“The present town of Mysore cannot perhaps boast of much antiquity … Here a fort was either constructed or repaired in the year 1524.”

^{page 434 note 1} Nothing could be clearer than the proof that this is the meaning of these numerical designations: yet Mr. Rice in his recent publication has repeated prominently an old mistake in asserting (p. 174) that the numbers denote the revenue values; and the mistake has found its way, from his previous writings, into the Imperial Gazetteer, 10. 291, note 2. I shall hope to give a separate note on this matter.

^{page 434 note 2} There were, indeed, Gaṅgas in Mysore before a. d. 750, in the sixth and perhaps even the fifth century. But no authentic details are known about them.

^{page 434 note 3} At Taḷakāḍ, Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). TN. 1.

^{page 434 note 4} At Bēgūr, Epi. Cam., 9 (Bangalore). Bn. 83: previously edited by me.in Epi. Ind., 6. 48. The Maḍivāḷa inscription, Epi. Carn., 10 (Kōlār). Kl. 79, is probably also of the time of Ereyappa: if, however, it might really be referred to Ranavikrama, then the full expression is carried back to about A.D. 810 to 840.

^{page 434 note 5} Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 29.

^{page 435 note 1} See the table in MrRice's, Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 126Google Scholar.

^{page 435 note 2} See, e.g., a copperplate record of a.d. 1614 from Mēlukōṭe, Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). Sr. 157.

^{page 435 note 3} See, e.g., records of A.D. 1647 at Mattigōḍu, Epi. Cam., 5 (Hassan). Ag. 64; of 1662 at Hālagere, vol. 12 (Tumkūr). Kg. 37; of 1675 at Chāmarājnagar, vol. 4 (Mysore). Ch. 92; and of 1686 at Seringapatam vol. 3 (Mysore). Sr. 14. And compare Mr. Rice's book, p. 124 ff.

^{page 436 note 1} At Talakāḍ, Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). TN. 13.

^{page 436 note 2} At Bēlūru, Epi. Carn., 5 (Hassan). Bl. 29.

^{page 436 note 3} I can, of course, only quote the forms as they are given in the texts in roman and Kanarese characters in the volumes of the Epigraphia Carnatica; and the readings do not always match each other. I have preferred, as a rule, to follow the Kanarese texts, because they are the bases of the others. For the reason stated in a previous note (the absence of a proper index), I cannot guarantee that I have exhausted all the forms: I give only each form, and the earliest instance of it, that I have detected.

^{page 437 note 1} At Gajjiganahalli, Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). Nj. 198.

^{page 437 note 2} At Bīrasandra, Epi. Carn., 12 (Tumkūr). Tp. 106.

^{page 437 note 3} The inscriptions do not seem to show how Yādavas who had come into Mysore to visit their family-god Nārāyaṇa became Ṡaivas with Durgā as their tutelary deity: and the “tradition” reported by Mr. Rice (his latest book, p. 125) does not furnish any clear explanation.

^{page 437 note 4} At Bejagōdu, Epi. Carn., 5 (Hassan). Mj. 40.

^{page 437 note 5} At Mañchanahaḷḷi, Epi. Carn., 3 (Mysore). Ml. 69.

^{page 437 note 6} The suggestion (Epi. Ind., 4. 58, note 2) that Mysore is mentioned as Māhishavishaya in the inscription A. of a.d. 945 at Sālōtgi in the lndī tāluka, Bijapūr District, cannot be accepted. This “Mahisha district” is certainly to be located somewhere not very far from Sālōtgi: and the village Kāñchana-Muduvōl or Kāñchina-Muduvoal, which the record places in it, is perhaps the modern ‘Kanchināl’ in the lṇḍī tāluka.

^{page 438 note 1} Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions (1909), p. 14, note 1. From an earlier writing by him, this derivation is given in the Imperial Gazetteer, 18. 161.

^{page 438 note 2} Mr. Rice seems to have been thinking of the Sanskṛit uru, ‘wide, broad’, whence we have urvī, ‘the earth’.

^{page 439 note 1} See M. Seshagiri Sastri's Report on a Search for Sanskrit and Tamil MSS. for the year 1893–4, No. 2, p. 131.

^{page 439 note 2} The Village Postal Directory of the Madras Circle (1893) shows, under e and y, eighteen such names, and is suggestive of there being also others, not correctly spelt there. And, judged by maps, this compilation is not exhaustive.

^{page 440 note 1} Bṛihat-Saṁhitā, 9. 10: Harivaṁśa, 782.

^{page 440 note 2} Bṛihat-Saṁhitā, 17. 26.

^{page 440 note 3} Mahābhārata, e.g., 6 (Bhīshma). § 9. 366: Vishṇu-Purāṇa, book 4, chap. 24 (Bombay text, 1866, p. 42a): Mārkaṇḍēya-Purāṇa (Bibl. Ind.), chap. 57, verse 46.

^{page 440 note 4} Matsya-Purāṇa (Calcutta, 1876), chap. 113, verse 47; text in the Ānandāśrama series, 114. 47.

^{page 440 note 5} Book 2, chap. 6: Bombay text (1866), p. 14b.

^{page 441 note 1} From mahisha we have mahishmat, ‘possessing buffaloes’. The name Māhishmatī is explained by the St. Petersburg Dictionary as being the feminine of māhishmata from mahishmat. There are indications that in some of the passages presenting the name Mahishaka, etc., there are various readings which give shm instead of sh in the third syllable.

^{page 441 note 2} Epi. Ind., 2. 109, No. 111; 389 f., Nos. 313, 314, 317.

^{page 441 note 2} Epi. Ind., 9. 108.

^{page 442 note 1} Compare the explanation, mentioned above, of the term māhishika as used in the Vishṇu-Purāna.

^{page 442 note 2} In accordance with this, certain princes in Southern India, of the 11th and 12th centuries, who claimed to be of Haihaya extraction, used the title “lord of Māhishmatī the best of towns”, to indicate their place of origin: see my Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, in the Bombay Gazetteer, vol. i, part 2, pp. 439 and note 2, 450, 451, 457, 523; also Epi. Ind., 4. 86.

^{page 442 note 3} On the descent compare Vishnu-Purāṇa, translation, 4. 53 f.

^{page 442 note 4} So also in the Vishṇu-Purāṇa, translation, 3. 268.

^{page 442 note 5} There has also been a third view, which, however, we need not consider; namely, that Māhishmatī is ‘Mandla’, the head - quarters town of the Mandlā District, Central Provinces: see Sleeman, in JASB. 6(1837). 622Google Scholar, and Cunningham, in Ancient Geography, 488Google Scholar.

^{page 442 note 6} See Vishnu-Purāṇa, translation, 2. 166, note 8.

^{page 442 note 7} See, e.g., his Mysore (1897), 1. 280; 2. 280. He has said that Sahadēva crossed the Kāvērī to reach Māhishmatī. I do not find any mention of a Kāvērī in connexion with Māhishmatī in the Calcutta text of the epic. But, in case such a statement is really made anywhere else, it may be noted that the Indian Atlas shows a ‘Cavery R.’ flowing into the Narbadā from the south about a mile above the place which really is Māhishmatī.

^{page 443 note 1} Asiatic Researches, 9. 105.

^{page 443 note 2} Vol. 17, p. 9; vol. 21, p. 118.

^{page 443 note 3} Verse 1011 ends with Vana-savhayaṁ; and verse 1012 begins with Kōsambiṁ ch = āpi. The translation (by Fausböll, SBE., 10. part 2, p. 180) says:—“… Vedisā, Vanasavhaya, and also to Kosambī, Sāketa, …” Vana-savhaya means ‘having the appellation vana’. It might of course be taken as denoting some place bearing any such name as Vanapura, Vananagara, or even Vanavāsa: and the division of the verses may be adduced in support of that. But the whole passage is little more than prose, with the addition here and there of suitable words to make it scan. And I venture to take it as speaking of “Kōsambī which had the appellation Vana”, that is “Kauśāmbī in the Forest”, on the strength of the gaṇa attached to Pāṇini, 4. 2. 97, which gives the name Vana-Kauśāmbī: it may be mentioned that the Nava-Kauśāmbī of the Benares text of the Kāsikā, 2nd edition, is a mistake; all the other versions have Vana°. The gaṇa presents, in fact, two names; Kauśāmbī and Vana-Kauśāmbī. But we seem to be justified in taking them as denoting one and the same place by what Hiuen-tsiang says: after his description of Prayāga, he continues (Beal, Life, 90, and compare Si-yw-ki, 1. 234):— “From this, in a south-west direction, we enter a great forest, in which we frequently encounter evil beasts and wild elephants. After going 500 li or so, we arrive at Kiau-shang-mi.” Also, the Antagada-dasāo mentions Kōsambakāṇana, “the Kosamba forest” (translation by Barnett, p. 81), though it may not place it in the same locality.

At the beginning of the passage in the Suttanipāta, the words are:— Aḷakassa Patiṭṭhānaṁ purimaṁ. Here, also, I venture to differ from Fausböll, who translated: — “To Patiṭṭhāna of Aḷaka first, then to Māhissatī, … ”

^{page 444 1} See his translation of the Mārkaṇḍēya-Purāṇa, p. 333, note ‡ (issued in 1896), and introd., p. 9 (1905).

^{page 445 note 1} There is no inhabited island there; and the hills do not close in on the river. Moreover, the place does not seem to have any remains suggestive of antiquity.

^{page 446 note 1} A town Purikā is mentioned in some of the inscriptions at Bharaut: Ind. Ant., 21. 234, No. 83; 236, Nos. 117–9.