________________
JUNE, 1878.]
THE THREE NEW EDICTS OF ASOKA.
THE THREE NEW EDICTS OF ASOKA. SECOND NOTICE.
BY G. BÜHLER.
(See Ind. Ant. vol. VI. pp. 149f.)
My translation and analysis of General A.
Cunningham's new Aśoka edicts, published in vol. VI. pp. 149ff of the Indian Antiquary, have called forth two reviews in the London Academy, one by Mr. Rhys Davids,' and one by Professor R. Pischel," in which my explanations of several important words have been found fault with, and the correctness of the historical inferences drawn from the inscriptions has been disputed. Mr. Rhys Davids has also devoted a couple of pages to the new edicts in an appendix to his work "On the coins and measures of Ceylon" (Numismata Orientalia, Part VI. pp. 57-60). As the latter work contains an analysis of the statements regarding Buddhistic
Sahasrám.
Devânâm piye hevam â[há: sátilekáni aḍhit]iyâni savachhalâni, am upâsake sumi, na cha bâdham palakamte.
Savimchhale sâdhike, am [sumi báḍham palakam]t[e].
Etena cha amtalena jambudipasi ammisam deva [hu]sam, ta munisâ misam deva kațâ.
Pala[kamasi hi] iyam phale, [n]o [cha ilyam maliatata-vachakiye pâvatave.
Khudakena hi palakamamînenâ vipule suag[e] [sa]kiye âlâ [dhayita]v[e]. Se etâye athâye iyam sâvane:
Khudakâ cha uḍâlâ cha palakamamtu, amtâ pi cham
janamtu; chilathitike cha palakame hotu. Iyam cha athe vadhisati, vipulam pi cha vadhisati, diyaḍhiyam avaladhiyena diyndhiyam vadhisati.
Iyam cha savane vivuthena; duve sapamnâlâtisatâ vivuthâ ti (sun phra) 256.
Ima cha atham pavatesu likhâpayâ thâya; [yata] vâ athi hete silâthambhâ tata pi likhâpayà thayi.
The Academy, July 14, 1877, p. 37. Ib. Aug. 11, 1877, p. 145.
3 Corrections and vv. 11. :
Sahasrâm.
Savachhale-amisam, devâ,-cha janamtu, savane. Mr. Rhys Davids in addition reads sapamnálatisatâ, a correction regarding which I am still as doubtful as when I wrote my first article.-Num. Or. VI. p. 57, note 1.
141
chronology, given in the Dipavamsa and Mahávamsa, as well as a very ingenious attempt to fix the date of the Nirvâna somewhere about 410 B.C., the author very naturally felt it necessary to deal with the somewhat inconvenient three edicts, which, if the interpretation given by me were right, would make his deduc. tions valueless. The importance of the questions connected with the new inscriptions, and the consciousness that in my first notice some important points have been either entirely omitted, or rather touched than fully discussed, induce me to reply to the strictures passed on my article.
For the sake of ready reference I reprint the texts of the Sahasrâm and Rûpnâth edicts.
Rúpnáth.
Devânâm piye hevam âhâ: sâtirakekâni aḍhitisâni va[sá], ya sumi pâkâ sa[va] ki, no cha bâdhi pakate.
Sâtileke chu chhavachhare, ya sumi haka samgha-papite, bâdhi cha pakate.
Yi imâya kâlâya jambudipasi amisâ devâhusu, te dâni masa katâ.
Pakamasi hi esa phale, no cha esâ mahatatâpâpotave.
Khudakenà hi kapi paramaminenâ sakiye pipule pi svage ârodhave.
Etiya athaya cha sâvane kate:
Khudakâ cha uḍâlâ cha pakamaṁtu ti, atâ pi cha
jânamtu; iyam pakâre cha kiti ? chirathitike siya. Iya hi athe vadhi vadhisiti, vipula cha vadhisiti, apaladhiyena diyadhiyam vadhisati.
Iya cha athe pavatisu lekhâpeta vâlata hadha cha; athi silâṭhubhe silâthambhasi lâkhâpeta vayata.
Etinâ cha vayajanenâ yâvatakatu paka ahâle, savara-vivase tavâyati. Vyuthenâ sâ vane kate; (sú phra) 256 satavivâsâ ta.
Rapnath. satilekani,-haka-pakamaminenâ,-vipule-ârâdhavepakare ?-lekhåpeta thâyi ti-tapayati ? tapâyati ?-vyathena P
Mr. Rhys Davids suggests for sa(va)ki, su-ko, I think unnecessarily. His correction vyuthena, is also unnecessary as the inscriptions show three instr. in end. The real reading of the inscription is kate, not kata as he supposes.-Num. Or. VI. p. 57, note 2.
