Indian Antiquary Vol 18

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

Page 15

JANUARY, 1889.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
the rajjúkas take pains to satisfy me.' In other words, the king entrusts the rajjúkas with a mission of superintendence over his officers in general, which, if properly conducted, should ensure their joint action in helping forward his religious intentions.
6. It is annecessary to discuss again infinitive forms like parihatave for parihartave. The meaning of pariharati is quite fixed by the custom of Buddhist language, in which it signifies
to busy oneself,' to take care of,' (cf. e.g. Mahávastu, I. 403). All the rest of the sentence has been ingeniously explained by Burnouf. Dr. Kern has improved his analysis with regard to the word viyata, which he transcribes, not by vyápta, but by vyakta.
7. With Dr. Kern, I consider saitai as not equivalent to santan, but as representing the nominative plural santah. I have already (K. xiii. 11) drawn attention to the nominative ayô for ayah ; and this would be the exact converse, if the final 6 were not transformed into é in this dialect; but the frequent changes in it of nominatives neuter (an) into nominatives masculine (8) would furnish a ready foundation for & confusion of this nature. Sántas in this position will not construe. Regarding the rest of this sentence, see note 2. It is hardly necessary to draw attention to the close correlation which the words yena, éténa, in order that,' for this purpose,' establish between the two members of the sentence. With a form slightly different, the sense is exactly the same as in lines 3-5.
8. I cannot agree with previous commentators in taking kiinti as = kirtih. It must be the particle kinti, so common in our inscriptions. The termination of ichhitaviyé, which is the same in all versions, and above all a comparison with Bhabra, 1. 6, and with Dh., detached edict 1, 3, 9-11, &c., appear to me to be absolutely decisive. sd, as happens elsewhere (e.g. 1. 19 of the preceding edict), and ichhitaviyé, represent neuters.
I have already stated the meaning in which I take samatd. I know of no authority, either in Sangkrit or Buddhistio usage, for turning the word from its proper signification, which is not impartiality' (Barnouf), or equity' (the equitas of Dr. Kern), but equality' or 'uniformity.' It is this last meaning, too, which leads us to a correct understanding of the whole idea.
9. The transcription of avritti (Barnouf's dvriti is an obvious misprint) for duuti is admissible; but the meaning 'change of resolation' is unexpected, and entirely arbitrary. I have intimated above (note 1) that I transcribe it as dyukti. The change of y too under such conditions is so common that it need not cause as to hesitate for a moment. This transcription is moreover the only possible one in the désávutike of the 2nd detached edict of Dhauli (1.8), as Dr. Kern has already recognised. So also in anávutiya (1st detached edict, 1. 11), as we shall see later on. The meaning suits exactly,' from henceforth, this is my injunction, my decision.'
10. I have already (I. 158) had occasion to fix the true signification of tillita (tfrita). Tiréti refers especially to the completion, to the judgmont of a case, and ttlitadamda signiftes those men whose sentence of punishment has been delivered.' Yoté appears to me to have been perfectly explained by Dr. Kern, through its connection with the Sanskrit yautaka, and gives the sense, firat suggested by Burnouf, of respite.'
The revision of the different versions of the Corpus confirms the original reading jivitaye tánann throughout. It is on this and not on tisanam) that our interpretation must be founded, Dr. Kern's conjecture (jivitáydtí nánásanngai, do) must be condemned by one fact alone, that in our text tánann ends & line, and that hence, to judge from the constant practice of the texts which avoid the division of a word between two lines, the syllable natis could not be separated from the syllable which precedes it, to be joined to those which follow. Tanan etits the sense admirably. It is simply the well-known genitive plural of the pronoun tad. It can clearly only apply te the condemned persons who have just been named. It is also certain that these same persons are the subjeots of the verbs which follow, dáhaiti and kachhanti, and from this I draw several conclusions. First, that. tenet belongs to the sentence of which the verb ik nijhapayishti. It must, moreover, be the last' word of that sentence, for a cannot