________________
MAY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
157
ing, as the remainder of the sentence clearly shews. What the king means is 'I have been an upasaka for two and a half years without making great efforts; and it is now more than a year since,' &c.
2. It is clear that we must complete the lacuna either by am[sumi báḍham palakam]té, or by am[sumi samghapapi]te (cf. the note to the corresponding passage in Rûpnâth). Dr. Bühler proposes the former restoration, and, as a matter of fact, the lacuna seems to be one of about seven characters. The meaning, in any case, would remain identical in substance. In dealing with the sixth Columnar Edict (note 1), I have had occasion to point out how the chronological data which we find here, combined with the indications which we find in the 10th Edict of Khalsi, put it beyond any doubt that the present text does actually emanate from the same author as he who engraved the columnar edicts. These data permit us to fix the time of our inscriptions, Piyadasi, according to his own statements, having been converted in the ninth year, say eight years and three months, after his coronation, we must first add to these figures two years and a half and a fraction, say two years and seven months, and again a year and a fraction, say a year and three months, which sum places these inscriptions, as well as those on the Barabar caves which we shall shortly examine, in the thirteenth year after his coronation. This is not the place to enter into the general historical question, and I shall content myself with one remark. The Mahávamsa (p. 22, 1. 2; p. 23, 1. 3) places the conversion of Aśoka in the fourth year following his coronation, which disagrees with the evidence of Khâlsi; but it places the king's coronation in the fifth year after his coming to the throne, which gives for his conversion the ninth year of his effective rule. There is, therefore, in this partial agreement between authentic documents, the trace of an exact tradition. We need not decide here as to what cause can be assigned for the mistake; whether the coronation has been arbitrarily separated from the coming to the throne, or whether the epoch from which the nine years were counted has been unduly moved back by the Sinhalese annals from the coronation to the coming to the throne of the king.
3. In my opinion this is one of the most difficult sentences of the ediet. In the first place, it presents a little uncertainty as to the reading of the character which follows dévé. Dr. Bühler reads hu, which gives husam, corresponding to the husu (Pâli ahumsu) of Rupnath. But Rupnâth gives a correlative ya to the pronoun té, which we could scarcely do without, and which is wanting here. Moreover, to judge from the traces of the facsimile, the character hu must have taken the form U instead of the of the ordinary method of writing. Under these conditions, I think that in the vertical mark we can only recognize the sign of separation, common both in our present text and in that of Khâlsi, and that the two horizontal marks are only two accidental scratches on the rock. Moreover, an inspection of Ph. B. appears to me to do away with all uncertainty on this point. I accordingly take santa for santé, as equivalent to santaḥ, the nominative plural of the participle sat. At the same time, it is clear that the choice between the two alternatives is not of a nature to influence the general interpretation of the phrase. It is the meaning, which it is most important to determine. Dr. Bühler translates: During this interval, the gods that were [held to be] true gods in Jambudvipa, have been made (to be regarded as) men and as false.' I should have been much surprised had not Dr. Bühler, with his vast experience of the turn of Hindu thought and expression, been himself taken aback by such a manner of speaking. He adds, in a note, this phrase probably alludes to the Buddhist belief that the Devas also have shorter or longer terms of existence, after which they die, and are born again in other stages of existence, according to their karma.' But this belief, as a whole, is quite as much Brahmanical as Buddhist, and Piyadasi, if he preached it, would have said nothing new. Besides, such an expression would be extremely inexact and insufficient: it is not only as men, but as animals, as dwellers in the infernal regions, &c., that the Dôvas, like other living beings, are liable to be born again. On the other hand, how could we admit that a Buddhist should characterise his conversion by saying that he had reduced the Brahmaṇical Dâvas to the rank of false gods. True gods' and
