________________
MAY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
163
presence of the pronoun is awkward, as the king wishes to say 'pillars' rather than these pillars.' On the other hand, it appears that at Rûpnath we have the adverb hidha, that is to say, down here, on the earth, in the world. It is perhaps proferable to admit that we have here its equivalent in hétú, i. e. atra, éttha. Cf. G. VIII. I. 3; Kb. VIII, 23 and the notes.
RUPNATH 11. We have seen that it is adhatiyáni which we must read (see above, note 1); so also kaká and not lúka, and, further on, bádhaw and not büdhim. Regarding the characters following sumi, I cannot agree with Dr. Bühler, who reads, or restores, så[valki. From his own facsimile it is clear that between the letter which he rends sá, and that which he reads ki, and which I read le, there are wanting two characters, and not one. The first sign, which he reads sa is by no means clear. It is rather su which should be read, if the traces visible on the facsimile were above all suspicion. But numerous examples bear witness that it is not so, and, under these conditions, I have little hesitation in maintaining that the stone had really, here as at Sahasarim, updeaké. Moreover, sivaké, meaning a layman, is a Jain expression, the presence of which here would surprise us. The reading sanghapápité, translated 'having reached the Samgha, being entered into the Samgha,' is a very ingenious conjecture of Dr. Bühler's. But, if I am inclined to accept this reading, I am not ready to concur in its interpretation as given by Dr. Bühler. The expression songham praptus, for the precise idea of 'entering into the monastic order,' is vague and not sanctioned by the ordinary terminology, necessarily fixed at an early date in such a matter; besides, this situation of a king, who, while preserving his royal prerogatives and his royal life, enters into a religions order, is far removed from the idea which we are accustomed to form with regard to Buddhist monachism in the ancient period. I shall later on come to this matter again, and shall explain why I prefer to take this 'entering' in a material, physical meaning, and the phrase as commemorating the first solemn visit paid by the king to the assembly of monks, after his conversion.
12. It is probable enough that the complete reading is that indicated by the facsimile of the Corpus, -kkudakéna hi pi ka-. Dr. Bühler corrects to kivipi palea, in which he is very probably right. I suspect that pipulé of the facsimile does not represent a variant orthography, but that the variation is only apparent, and that the stone had in reality vipulé. The reading árôdhave is also, I am persuaded, only apparent. Everywhere in this inscription, r is replaced by l, and it is álddhave which has been engraved on the rock. The inspection of the facsimile appears to me to greatly favour this correction, which, under any circumstances, would have to be made conjecturally.
13. I pass over evident rectifications such as étâya. It will be remarked that the absence of the pronoun iduin, or some such, giving an indeterminate shade to the substantive, tends to favour the interpretation which I have given for the corresponding sentence at Sahasaram.
14. The reading palaré, admitted by Dr. Bühler, appears to me to give little satisfaction as regards sense. Moreover, I can discover in the facsimile no trace of the d long. I think that there can be no doubt that the stone bore in reality pakamé, corresponding to the palakame of Sahasarâm, and I translate in conformity with this conjecture. For kiti read leiinto. As for vadhi I cannot recognise it as an accusative. We must either read athavadhi as a nominative, or admit that the two syllables vadhi have been repeated by an error of the engraver. I confess that the perfect agreement which it would establish with Sahasarâm causes me to lean to the second alternative.
15. Dr. Bühler has, I think, been led astray by his not recognising the two future participles passive which the sentence contains. At the end we must certainly read lékhápétaviyati. As for the exact form of the first one, the evident errors in the facsimile as regards the characters which follow, throw the matter into some uncertainty. For Tékhápétaválata, we inust certainly read the consonants: 1, kh, p, t, v, y, t. But, according to
