________________
142
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JUNE, 1878.
He further stated that even if my interpretation were correct, and the era used were that of the Nirvana, the inscription would only prove that the Buddhists believed the Nirvana to have taken place 257 years before the 34th of Aśoka's conversion, and not that it actually did take place at that time. He finally suggested that the opening sentence of the edicts might mean. that the gods of Jambudvipa, who had hitherto held aloof from men (i.e. the Buddhistic deities), had been caused to mingle with them.*
Secondly, that this king probably belonged to the third century B.C., and to the Maurya dynasty, on account of the title, which we know to have been a Maurya title, and on account of the alphabet employed in writing the inscription.
Thirdly, that he must have been a Buddhist, because the Mauryas were patrons of that sect, and because we have no evidence that the Jainas, the only other known sect which the terms employed in the inscriptions would fit, were patronized by a Maurya.
Fourthly, that as the author of the inscription was a Buddhist, the author of the sermon which the inscription quotes, the Vivutha or Vyutha, must be Sakyamuni Buddha, and that vivutha must mean 'the Departed,' or he who has passed away,' on account of the phrase duve sapannálátisatá vivutha (Sah. 6, 7), and that the word probably corresponded to Sanskrit vivritta.
Next, Professor Pischel, in a note on the inscription (Academy, Aug. 11, 1877) objected to my view that the edicts belonged to A é oka. He declared my explanations of vivutha, vyutha, and sata to be inadmissible. The former two words he identified with the Sanskrit vyushita, the past part. pass. of vivas, 'to depart,' and translated them by he who has departed from life.' Sata he declared to be the Sanskrit sattva, 'life,' and explained the phrase satavivásá by sattravivását, since his departure from life.' He further contended that, as neither of these terms nor any other word was clearly of Buddhistic origin, nothing remained to connect the inscriptions with Asoka. He therefore took them to be Jaina, and expressed his conviction that the Vivutha must be Mahâ
Fifthly, that if the Vivutha was Buddha, the era used must be that of the Nirvana, and that the explanation of satavivásá by sástri-vira, for which view he adduced a phrase, from
vivását, from the departure, i.e. the death, of the teacher,' which I regarded as probable, confirmed this view.
the departure,' occurring in Stevenson's Kalpasútra, p. 95. He finally ascribed the inscriptions to Aśoka's grandson Sampadi, whom, as I had stated, the Jainas represent to have been a patron of theirs.
Finally, Mr. Rhys Davids, in the appendix to the Numismata Orientalia, Pt. VI. pp. 57-60, once more reviews the whole question. Influenced by Professor Pischel's criticism, he no longer confidently attributes the edicts to Asoka, but thinks that my arguments for that view are not sufficient. He repeats Professor Pischel's assertion that the terms employed in the edict may be Jaina as well as Buddhistic; he also points out that Devámuppiya, the Jaina form of Devánám piye, is used by the latter as a polite form of address to inferiors and women. Hence he thinks that my strongest argument for the identity of the author of the edicts with Aśoka, drawn from the fact that he was the only Devânâm piye who in the third century of the Buddhist
In my analysis of these edicts I statedFirstly, that the author must be a king, because he uses the ancient royal title, Devanampiye, speaks of his greatness, and asserts that he caused a change of religion throughout India, and incised his edicts on rocks and pillars.
Sixthly, that as the inscription belonged to a Buddhist and Maurya king, no one but Asoka could be the author, as no other Maurya had ruled as long as thirty-four years, or been for so long a time a Buddhist; and
Seventhly, that the statements of the Mahavansa, if correctly interpreted, showed that Aśoka had been a Buddhist for about thirty-four years, and might have been alive during the greater part of the year 257 after the Nirvana.
In his first review (Academy, July 14th, 1877) of my article, Mr. Rhys Davids demurred to one point only, viz. to the explanation of the word vivása by 'death,' preferring to render it, in accordance with classical usage,' by abandoning his home' or becoming an ascetic,' and assumed that the era used was not that of Buddha's Nirvana, but that of the Great Renunciation.
As I shall not recur to this remark, I may as well state that the explanation of misam, by miéra, seems to me very improbable.
