Indian Antiquary Vol 18

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 10

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(JANUARY, 1889.
not therefore be decisive in favour of an identification which presents so many difficulties. We have met this adverb on several occasions in our inscriptions, but always under the form puna or pana (pané). The change of an initial p into m is anything but frequent; when, in Prákțit, we meet with mia, miva, for pi va (api iva), it is only after a nasal (cf. Weber, Hala, index, s.v.). Besides this we should have to explain the change of u into i, a change peculiarly unexpected after a labial. This transcription, therefore, ingenious as it may be, appears to me to be extremely hypothetical. I think it preferable to take refuge in & conjecture, and to read námá (for náma) na. Nama would be placed exactly as it occurs at the end of the sentence, after drinave; nothing could be more natural, for the two phrases are in antithesis. I may add that, at the end of the edict, I can see no more plausible expedient than to correct maname into mé náma. Burnouf supposed an accidental repetition of the syllable mé (ma), but we cannot adhere to this explanation; we shall, indeed, see that there is no reason for admitting the presence of the negative for which Barnouf sought. Nor can I follow him further in his translation of the latter portion of this sentence. He commences a new proposition at iyan vá ásinavé, which he translates, Et c'est là ce qu'on appelle la corruption du mal.' I scarcely see, in what precedes, to what this observation can refer; asinava is, on the contrary, defined a little lower down. Besides, the va and the final ti necessarily range this proposition in order with that which precedes it. We shall establish a perfectly natural and connected sense if we translate : "One does not say I have committed such and such a fault, or such and such an action is a sin.' " There is here no tautology. The first proposition deals with the material fact of the bad action which one does not feel bound to confess, the second deals with the exact appreciation of the value of those actions which one abstains from dwelling upon. Indeed, the remainder of the edict has for its object : 1st, to inculcate the necessity of selfexamination ; 2nd, to enlighten the conscience by definition, such as it is, of sin. With regard to ásinava, see the preceding edict.
3. The irregular orthography of Opativékhé for patiyavékhe will be remarked. This anomaly occurs again, e.g. in pativékhúmi, vi. 4, and also in anuvékhamana, viii. 2. The root prati-ava-iksh is consecrated in Buddhist terminology to the sense of examination of the conscience,' self-examination.' See, for example, a passage of the Visuddhimagga, quoted by Childers (s.v. pachchavékkhanan), which, among five subjects of self-examination, distinguishes those regarding the passions which have been destroyed and those regarding the passions which are yet to be destroyed. These are exactly the two. classes of self-examination of which the king speaks here. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the two words chu khô mark a double reservation. The first depends on the preceding phrase: One does not render an account of the evil which one commits; it is true that this self-examination is difficult. The second depends on this phrase itself: this self-examination is difficult, yet still it is necessary to examine oneself. Then follows the tenour of this examination.
4. Asinavagámini does not mean the vices which come from dsrava, but the actions which come under the category of asrava or of sin.' This is the only translation which agrees at once with the customary we of gámin and with the general sense of the passage. The hévari of the preceding phrase gives us notice that we are about to have an explanation of the self-examination which the king demands. As a matter of fact, the sentence commences with imani, which is in exact parallelism with the iyam of the preceding propositions. Moreover, and this is altogether decisive in the matter, the versions of Radhiah and of Mathiah mark off this beginning of the sentence with an iti, which emphasises its real purport. The continuation, yatha, &c., is an explanatory development, a kind of summary definition intended to explain the nature of ásrava, and in what sin consists. Chándya, the equivalent of the abstract noun chandiya, does not appear to have been used in the classical language.
5. Hitherto this last sentence of the edict has not been understood. Neither the phrases nor even the words have been properly separated. The new copies, which supply us clearly with the reading kálanena, can leave no doubt as to the construction. On the other hand, as most of the versions give palibhasayisal (i.e. palibhasayisan) ésa, it is clear that the ti