________________
244
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
have seen that the former group of these inscriptions alleges two successive evolutions in Piyadasi's religious life, the first in the ninth, and the second towards the end of the eleventh year after his coronation. We have now to determine the two poles, the point of departure, and the point of arrival. Regarding the former, I believe that no one has any hesitation; the leading statement in this respect, in the text of Sahasarâm-Rûpnath, has not perhaps all the clearness we should wish; but, whether the translation proposed by me, or that of Dr. Bühler is accepted, it cannot be doubted that, in this first period of his reign, previous to the prohibition of bloody sacrifices (1st edict), Piyadasi had, as the written traditions affirm, accepted the supremacy of the Brahmans. On the second point, there is no longer the same agreement. The king declanes that he has become an upúsaka; 43 this word can indicate a Jain layman, as well as a Buddhist one; nevertheless, the manner in which we find it used at Bhabra, where it is certainly applied to Buddhism, ought à priori to incline us towards the same interpretation here. Doubts have been inspired by the use of the word vivutha at Sahasarâmı, and by the idea that this inscription might not emanate from the Piyadasi who was author of the other edicts. The latter are dissipated by the certainty we have now acquired, that all our edicts must be referred to one and the same author; and the former must fall with the purely arbitrary interpretation proposed for vivutha. Whatever reserve may be advisable with regard to the expression sam he papayité, or whatever be its true reading, it is clear that the king mentions here certain relations which his conversion has established between him and the samgha; that word can designate nothing but the Buddhist clergy; the Edict of Bhabra shews moreover, that this application of it was well established from the time of Piyadasi. We have, however, another proof still more decisive, the passage of the 8th edict, in which Piyadasi speaks of his practical and active conversion. He defines it by saying that, in the eleventh year from his coronation, he set out for the sambodhi.'45 No doubt as to the meaning is here possible. The word sambodhi inevitably links Piyadasi with Buddhism. Before it was fully understood, the expression appeared to imply a usage of the word different from that which is authorised by literature; but the more exact interpretation, which I have given above, does away with all difficulties; it establishes, on the contrary, a curious agreement with the literary nse of the equivalent phrase sambodhi prast hátum, to which the passage refers.
[JULY, 1891.
It is, therefore, certainly to Buddhist ideas that Piyadasi was converted. But did he become unfaithful to them? Did he subsequently vary in his opinions? The second group, that of the columnar inscriptions, is very far from furnishing the slightest pretext for such a conjecture. The one which it was deemed possible to draw from the first phrase of the Cth edict, is quite illusory. Nay more; the passage in question, understood as I believe I have shewn If the that it should be understood, turns directly contrary to any hypothesis of this description. king referred expressly to his dhammalipis of his thirteenth year, it is certainly a proof that his ideas regarding the dhamma, his religious opinions; had not in the interval undergone any essential change. Besides, when the two scries of inscriptions are compared, the absolute identity of tone and style, the common allusions to the same deeds and the same institutions, the perfect resemblance between the moral exhortations, are such that only the strongest and
43 I do not speak of the word såvaka which Dr. Bühler restores at Rûpnâth. I have already explained why I do not consider this restoration as admissible.
One
4
It will be understood that I here refer to the translation of Dr. Oldenberg. I may be permitted to take this opportunity to add, with regard to that of Dr. Bihler, a remark which I had omitted in the proper place. of the arguments which he brings forward to uphold the meaning of the passed,' which he attributes to virutha, is the use of the phrase vivuth vas in the Khandagiri inscription (1. 5). This argument must be abandoned. It is to be feared that this important monument, which is in so bad a state of preservation, will never become perfectly intelligible to us. One thing is visible, that it contains, year by year, an enumeration of the actions of the In line 5 king dutiy rasd (1. 4), panchams ....... VIS (1. 6), satamê ras (1. 7), athame vase (ib.), &c. where the facsimile of Prinsep gives tatha vivuthe vast, that of the Corpus gives i-tath vise. It ought certainly to be read na tatha (?) chatuth visé, in the fourth year.' This indeed is the reading given by BALA RajendralAla Mites, Antig, of Orissa, II. p. 22.
45 See above, p. 234 and ff.
