________________
MAY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
161
with any opponent. I can offer a further confirmation in the future participle vivasétaviyé, which has not hitherto been recognised at Rûpnåth, and to which I shall come back again immediately. The second consequence is that sati at Sahasaram cannot be, as Dr. Bühler would have it, the noun of nunber hundred,' because that translation is, as all agree, inadmissible at Räpnåth; we must therefore give up the translation proposed by Dr. Bühler for the characters duvé saparindiati sata which he renders in Sansksit by dvé shatpanchasadadhisata, while at the same time recognising the difficulties of the explanation. Of these I see two principal ones: the first is phonetic; parnálati for panchasadadhi is without analogy or example in the phonetics of our inscriptions. In the second place, the intercalation of the number fifty-six between the number two and the number hundred, in order to express two hundred and fifty-six, would be opposed to all practice, and, it seems to me, contrary to the most elementary logic. Dr. Oldenberg accordingly reads e for
J a very simple correction (I must allow that Ph. E. is not very favourable to this reading, although the character u is by no means above all suspicion), and, admitting that, as often happens, the numbers are written in an abridged form, he transcribes duvé sa (i. e. sata) parina (i. e. puiindsa, Skr. pañchasat) chha (i. e. sha!) ti. I concur entirely with his conjecture, and do so the more easily because, in all particulars, I had previously independently arrived at the same conclusions. If I state this, it is certainly not to claim the honour of an hypothesis which I think to be a happy one. In the present case, the priority of the suggestion is not a matter of discussion, and unquestionably belongs to Dr. Oldenberg. I only lay stress upon the coincidence in order to add probability and credit to the explanations proposed. Dr. Oldenberg has again rightly perceived that it is impossible, in two short sentences closely connected like these, to attribute to one and the same word, vivutha, two applications so different as those which Dr. Bühler proposed. Having come so far, I am now obliged, as to the true meaning of this word, vivutha, to differ equally from both my learned predecessors. I have just above touched on its derivation; -- we have to deal with a participle of vi-vas. I have pointed out that Rûpnåth gives us a further proof in the word vivasétaviyd, Skr. vivasayitavyan, regarding which reference may be made to the commentary on that text (n. 6). It will there be seen that the king recommends vivasayitun, or, in other words, the being, the becoming viyatha. That ought at once to cause us to distrust the proposed interpretations. In the vyutha, both Drs. Bühler and Oldenberg search for the head, the one of the Buddhist doctrine, the other of a doctrine perhaps analogous but different, the word not being sanctioned as & technical term in Buddhism. We know now, from what I have said above (n. 1) that our inscription is certainly Buddhist. It is certain, on the other hand, that vyutha, meaning the Buddha, would be a name absolutely new to us. It remains to be seen if the conclusion to be drawn from these premises is not simply that vyutha in no way refers to the Buddha at all; and it is, in fact, this to which we are led by all the other indications. I have previously drawn attention to the fact that the 8th Columnar Edict presents, when compared with the present one, analogies of which I am astonished that advantage has not been taken: 'that men may make rapid progress in the Religion, it is for this reason that I have promulgatod religious exhortations, that I have given various directions in regard to the Religion. I have appointed numerous [officers] over the people .. .. that they may spread abroad my instructions, and develope (my wishes). I have also appointed rajjúkas over hundreds of thousands of living beings, and they have been ordered by me to instruct the faithful. Thus saith Piyaclasi, dear unto the Dêvas: it is with this object alone that I have erected columns [covered with] religious (inscriptions], instituted overseers of the Religion, and spread abroad religious exhortations. We are here in the presence of the same ideas, of the same stage of development as in our present edict in both cases the same terms are found, - especially the word sávana. At Delhi, as here we are informed about the instructions which the king promulgates, and the inscriptions which he scatters far and wide to insure that his teaching should be the more lasting. There we are told further about the officers who in this propaganda lend him an essential aid, who go forth spreading abroad and developing his intentions. I believe that, in this particular also, the agreement continues in our text. We have seen
