Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 335

106
RTAM
"In some instances (some) of this may have been written incompletely, either on account of the locality, or because (my) motive was not liked, or by the fault of the writer."
As regards alocetpå, Hultzsch derived it from loceti=Skt. rocayatis and took a- as the negative prefix. He, therefore, translated käraņam va alocelpā as 'or because (my) motive was not liked'. Bloch also does the same when he translates the words as 'ou faute de considerer le fond (or for want of appreciating the basis)' (p. 134). But this meaning is extremely unlikely. It is difficult to imagine that the king's motive was not liked by them. Hultzsch and those who thought like him, were obviously misled by the reading alocepta in Gir., alocayitu in Kal., and aloceti in Shāh., all having an initial a-. This a- was looked upon as the negative prefix. But the Dhauli version has locayitu without initial a- and this could have made it clear that the verb underlying the form alocetpă etc. was not vruc but loc, often used with the prefix a-, 'to consider'. This initial short a- in Girnar is, therefore a, mistake. It should have been a-. As regards the other two versions, it is well known that the vowel length is not marked in the Shāh. version, and at Kāl. ā- is often written as a. Woolner in his Glossary under locayitu had already suggested to read alocayitu 'having regard to'. This has now been confirmed by the Yerrāgudi version which gives the reading alocayitu. Following 'Woolner, the correct rendering of the words kāraṇam va alocetpå could, therefore, only be 'or having considered (some) reason (for the omission)'.
The words desaṁ va sachāya” in this edict have also caused difficulty. Hultzsch took desam to mean 'locality'. As regards, sachāya he equated it with either samkšāyalo or saṁkhyāya 'on account of'. Thus, according to him, Asoka's edicts were at times incompletely written on account of the locality concerned. In footnote 6 on p. 26 he mentions as an example of this kind of omission the fact that the Rock-edicts XI-XIII were omitted at Dhauli and Jaugada and the two separate edicts were substituted for them.
D.C. Sircar who reads the text of the Yerra. version as desam va samkhāyāyā (obviously a mistake for samkhāya) translates either as the (particular) place (of a record) was considered (unsuitable for them)' (El 32.15). Apparently he too takes desa to refer to the localities and derives samkhāya from sam khya-.
J. Bloch, on the other hand, translates desam va sachaya as 'soit par omission d'un détail'. He apparently follows Senart who derived Kalsi şarkheye from sam kşi- and translated the words as 'in suppressing a
Madhu Vidyā/310