________________
MAY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
159
proposed. How does the Mahavarisa characterise the conversion of Asoka ? It is by the fact that he dismissed the sixty thousand Brahmaņs whom, according to the custom of his father, he had fed every day, and substituted for them sixty thousand Buddhist Sramanas. It characterises the conversion, therefore, by an evident manifestation of the disfavour with which he regarded Brahmans. By this conduct, by this example, he could indeed flatter himself with having inflicted a deep wound on their prestige. Tradition, therefore, comes positively to our aid, and has moreover the advantage of replying beforehand to an objection, feeble enough in itself, which we might be tempted to found upon the tone with which the king generally speaks of Brahmans, continually associating them with Sramanas. We must evidently see in this fact only the results of the spirit of tolerance which animates his edicts : but surely, it is not more difficult to reconcile this tolerance with our translation of the present sentence, than with the tradition handed down by the Sinhalese analist.
4. There is no doubt as to the characters required to complete the two lacunas ; pala[kamasi hi] iyan and phalé [n]ó [cha i]yan. The words which follow present greater difficulties. Dr. Bühler translates no cha iyori &c., by 'and it ought not to be said to be an effect of (my) greatness. It is quite possible that pávatavé shonld correspond to a Sanskrit pravaktavya, although it must at least be admitted that the á long is out of place. But it is a pity that Dr. Bühler has not been more explicit as to the supposed phrase mahatatávachakiye, the analysis of which is far from clear. He himself states his doubts as to the derivation of vachakiya, from vdchala + the guffix iya. I fancy that what has induced Dr. Bühler to adhere to this analysis of the text, is the apparently nearly concordant reading of Bairât, mahátane vachakayé ; but that inscription has snffered so greatly, and is so fragmentary, and the reproduction of it is so plainly incomplete, that it appears to me to be very unwise to take it as a point of departure : on the contrary, it is much more probable that the reading of Sahasaram has had an influence on its decipherment. Under these circumstances, I cannot but incline towards another analysis ; I read sakiyê for chakiyé, which gives us no cha iyak mahatatá va sakiye pávatavé. This closely approaches the turn of the sentence at Rûpnåth, abont which there can be no doubt. Dr. Bühler has correctly recognised the pápôtavé of that inscription as corresponding to the Sanskțit práptavyaḥ. We have the same root here in pávatavé, which, transcribed according to the rales of Sanskrit orthography, would be práptavé. The v stands for p as elsewhere, - e. g. lower down in this same inscription we have avaladhiyena for apaladhio: the substitution of the infinitive is rendered necessary to the sentence by the addition of sakyan, and this (fruit) cannot be obtained by mere power alone.'
5. We shall have exactly the same construction in this sentence as in the preseding one, if we (following Dr. Bühler's example) add the syllable sa after svage and before kiyé, both here and at Bairât. Judging from the facsimiles, it does not appear to be likely that the stone has really ever had the character; but, even if it has not been inadvertently omitted, Dr. Bühler, who has had more of the original documents in his hands than we have, is the best judge of these possibilities. Moreover, Räpnåth certainly confirms this conjecture, and I think that, for the present, it is best to adhere to it. As regards the form palakamaminéná, which also seems to occur at Bairât, and perhaps, too, at Rūpnåth, see above, note 19 to the first Dhauli detached edict. We know that vipulê is in antithesis to khudakéna, 'even the small can conquer svarga, however great it may be, that is to say, however great the recompense may be.
6. It is important to fix accurately, before we proceed further, the exact meaning of the word sávané. I do not here refer to the litoral meaning of proclamation, promulgation,' which need not form the subject of any discussion. We have already met it twice in the 7th
* I have indicated the reasons which appear to me to demand that munisa should be taken as a subject. It is almost useless to remark expressly that, if it is preferred to take it as an attribute, my explanation would not be essentially modibed. We should then translate the people who were in reality the gods in Jambudvipe. I have reduced to become simply) men, and usurpers of the title of Diva.'
