Indian Antiquary Vol 18

SR No.: 032510
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 454
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 87

MARCH, 1889.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
75
of which the correct form (cf. M. and A.) is dudi, means "& small species of tortoise." We next have certainly to deal with a fish, machha, i.e. matsya; as for the former part of the compound I would not take it, with Prinsep, as corresponding to anarthika, but as the equivalent of anasthika. The fish in question is named as "the boneless one," perhaps figuratively, and on account, for example, of its extreme suppleness. The cerebral th appears to me to recommend this etymology. I learn from Mr. Grierson that, at the present day, in Magadha, the praun is said to have no bones. It is not eaten by Vaishnavas. I can imagine only one possible transcription for védavéyaka, -vaidarvéyaka. Darvi means the expanded hood of a snake, and we can suppose that vidarvi, or, which comes to the same thing, its patronymic form vaidarvéya, might allude to some fish as resembling a snake less the hood.' It could thus, for example, mean "an eel;" but this is a pare hypothesis, for I do not meet the word in the Sanskțit dictionaries. From the sense of 'swelling' given for pupputa, it is natural to think that gasgápupufaka is applied to a particular fish of the Ganges, remarkable for some protuberance. The sannkujamachha should be the same as the bankuchi, or skate-fish' of Sanskrit lexicographers. There is only between them; a shade of pronunciation which is sufficiently explained by the Pråkpit weakening of ch into j. The next word heads the list of terrestrial animals, at least it does so in its second half, sayaka, which is, I think, in Sanskpit Salyaka, 'the porcupine. The first member is doubtful. We, however, meet in Yajsavalkya, I. 177, the porcupine (under the form sallaka) associated with the tortoise (kachchhapa), and one is strongly tempted to search for a similar association here, and to take kaphata as equivalent to the Sanskrit kamatha. I admit that the phonetic transition is the reverse of regalar, but the objection would not be absolute, especially for a kind of proper name, which was in frequent use, and which, even under its classical form, bears all the characteristics of a popular origin. Moreover, these two animals are mentioned in the verse of the Dharmasastra above quoted, as being allowed to be eaten, and it is therefore natural that they should not be included here in the final category of savé chatupadé, &c. The same verse speaks of the hare, basa, which we also meet in our pashnasasd, whether the latter word is a mere equivalent of basa, or whether the addition of parna marks A particular species. For simala, I cannot discover any Sanskrit equivalent, the correspondence of which would be either phonetically regular, or at least justifiable. Sandaka is the Sansksit shanda, and means a bull living at liberty. For ôkapirida I cannot offer a certain translation. At least the form and the existence of the word are vouched for, for we meet it elsewhere in PAli. In Mahdvagga, vi. 17, 6, it is narrated how the Bhikshus leave outside the monasteries the provisions which have been brought to them, and skkapindakápi khádanti chôrápi haranti; 'the wkkapindakas eat them, the thieves carry them off. The two last items in the list, sétakapota and gámakapota, which admit of no hesitation, and evidently referring to two species of pigeons, appear to authorise the restoration of palasate to palapaté. i.e. turtle-dove.' The correction of into
is very easy, and, no matter how well these inscriptions are engraved, in our reproductions there is no want of clear instances in which corrections are necessary. If the new revisions definitely guaranteed the reading palasaté, we should be driven to recognize the PAli parasato, and to translate it by 'rhinoceros' (cf. Trenckner, Pal Miscell., L. 50), which would look very singular here.
3. Prinsep, while construing the sentence wrongly, correctly recognized the meaning of the expression patibhogann ti, to enter into, to serve for consumption. The king, who wished to restrain as much as possible the slaughter of animals, naturally forbade in general terms the killing of all those which did not serve for urgent needs, and of which therefore the slaughter was not indispensable. I suppose that patibhoga does not refer exclusively to nourishment, but in general to all the needs which dead animals could serve to satisfy. If it were otherwise, na cha khádiyati would only repeat the idea without adding anything new.
4. After the general and absolute prohibitions come those which are accidental and temporary. Ajakanání gives no sense. We require a feminine singular, and there is no place here for a neuter plaral. The slight correction of 1 to + gives the reading ajaká kani