________________
158
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1891.
False gods' are phrases not only strange to what we know of both Buddhist and Hindu phraseology, bat directly contradictory to all that we know of the Buddhist writings and teachings. We never find in them any polemics against the popular deities. They have their recognised place in the cosmological system, and in the legends are put into continual connexion with Buddha and his disciples. It was the Dêvas, Indra and Brahma, who received Buddha at his birth; it was to the fellowship of the Devas that the mother of Buddha was raised when she died; and it was from among the Dêvas Tushitas that, according to all schools of tradition, Sakyamuni descended to become incarnate; his future successor is, pending the hour of his mission, the very Chief of the Devas. Without doubt, these Dôvas play but a subordinate part in the general system of Buddhism ; but that is as much the case in those systems of philosophy reputed the most orthodox. I may add, with the reserve which an argument of this nature demands, that it would be singular for the king to thus pride himself on having waged a war of extermination against the Devas, while he thought it proper, in this same inscription to call himself dévánápriya. This is not a real name, a personal or family name, which could not be arbitrarily changed, and of which the exact meaning might have been obliterated or worn out by use; but a surname, a title chosen freely, and of which the meaning dear unto the Dêvas' was evident to every mind. Evidently Dr. Bühler's translation is but a last resource, and cannot be held to be satisfactory. So far, we can venture to be certain; but it is not so easy to shew what alternative explanation is to be given. We cannot turn to the parallel phrase at Rūpnåth, for it is less explicit than the present one, and it rather requires to borrow light from it, than is able to lend any of its own. I may add that I cannot but agree with Dr. Bühler so far as regards the analysis of each single word of the sentence, especially of the words misd (or misan) and amisá (or anisain), which are the only ones about which there can be any doubt. Like him, I consider them as equivalent to the Sanskrit mrishd and amrisha. An initial difficulty arises as to the syntactic part played by munisá, - whether we should take it as a subject or as an attribute. If I am right in reading saihte, the present participle, the mere position of the words places the matter beyond doubt, and we must take munisd as the subject : the reading husari té, although it would not make this conclusion so certain, would certainly not exclude it; even in that case it would be the more natural one. It is on the other hand, indirectly confirmed by the absence of the word at Rûpnåth. The king could not omit a word which was characteristic of the work which he boasts of having accomplished; while he could very easily do so, if the word were merely a general designation of the people to whom it is applied. I consider, therefore, that we must translate, the men who were really the Dêvas (or the gods) have been rendered falsely gods,' or in other words, have been dispossessed of their rank,'? The king, therefore, had here in view a category of men who, while they were all the time mere men, were in reality gods. Who are these men, gods of Jambudvipa ? It appears to me that we oan have no hesitation in recognising them as the Brahmaṇs. To call a witness who is beyond suspioion, I cite the St. Petersburg Dictionary, which, in the article déva, has a special paragraph for the case, in which the word means 'a god upon the earth,' who is, says Dr. Böhtlingk, properly the Brâhman. We meet, moreover, in a similar sense, the synonyms kshitidava, bhudeva, bhusura, all of which mean literally a 'terrestrial god,' and which commonly mean "Brahman.' I will only refer to that passage, quoted by Aufrecht,3 of the Sarkshépasarpkarajaya, in which the anthor refers to Brâhmans and Buddhists by the expression bhuleura-saugatah, "the terrestrial gods, and the disciples of the Sugata." That the expression is a very customary and very old one, may be seen from numerous passages. It will suffice to refer to Weber, Ind. Stud. X. pp. 35 and ff., and H. Zimmer, Altind. Leben, p. 205. But there is more than this, we have some historioal confirmation of the interpretation here
? We could, however, even with taking munist as subjeot, get a translation, not very different from that of Dr. Bühler's, provided we considered misadiva, and amisddvd a bah uurihis. But, besides this translation having against it the same objections as those which appear to me to condemn Dr. Buhler's rendering, it will sufioe, in order to exclude it from consideration, to point out that R. bas not amisddbud kata but amiadkata.
Catal. Bodl. p. 254, 3.
