________________
JULY, 1891.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
245
most convincing proof could lead us to consider as probablu a change of belief in the common author of both. All indications contradict such an idea.
But not only do certain columnar edicts form the natural development of the principles contained in the older tables, -(thus, the 5th Columnar edict is directed to the protection of animal life, and may be compared with the prohibition of bloody sacrifices and of samd jas46 ordained by the first of the fourteen edicts), - but the days set apart in this same 5th edict are consecrated as holidays amongst Buddhists, and the uposatha, to which he appeared to shew a special respect, is known to every one as their weekly festival. The 8th Columnar edict extends the supervision of the dharmamahamatras over every sect, from the Brâhmaņs to the Nirgranthas or Jainas; but, when he refers to the sangha, to the Buddhist clergy, the king changes his expression. He desires that his officers should watch the interests of the saragha' (samghaIhasi); it is evident that here, and here only, his sympathies are specially aroused. I will only allude to one more fact, which in the light of the preceding, takes a definite meaning, and becomes really instructive. It will be remembered that, at Khálsi, the second part of the 14th edict is accompanied by the figure of an elephant, between the legs of which one reads, in characters the same as those of the tables gajatame; I have proposed to translate this, the elephant par excellence. This inscription is in a fashion commented upon by that which we have referred to as at Girnar, in nearly the same place, and which probably accompanied also the figure of an elephant, which has been worn away from the surface of the rock ;- the white elephant who is in truth the benefactor of the entire world (or of all the worlds).' It is the less permitted to imagine an arbitrary and accidental addition, because, at Dhauli, we again find the same figure of an elephant beside the edicts. It is impossible to doubt that these images and these legends are contemporary with the inscriptions. Nor is the meaning doubtful. Not only are we here in the presence of a Buddhist symbol, but the accompanying legends contain a clear allusion to the history of the birth of Buddha descending in the form of a white elephant into the womb of his mother."
In conclusion; - It is certain that Piyadasi, at least during the entire portion of his reign to which our monuments refer, from the ninth year after his coronation and more particularly from the thirteenth, in which he began having inscriptions engraved) to the twenty-eighth, and very probably up to the end of his life, was a declared adherent to Buddhism. This is the fixed point, the necessary starting point, for all legitimate deductions. Doubtless a certain difference of tone may be suspected between the Edict of Bhabra, or even that of Sahasarâm, and all the
46 I content myself with transcribing the term used by Piyadasi. I am not convinced that a definitive translation of it has yet been discovered, in spite of various ingenious attempts. The meaning battue' (treibjogd) proposed by Dr. Pischel (Gött. Gel, Ans., 1881, p. 1324) has not the authority of the knows usage of the language. Dr. Bühler has clearly shews that samdja must have a meaning connected with festival, rejoicing,' but the meaning must be more precise and circumscribed than this. In the sentence in the 1st edict it cannot well be admitted that with the very positive and precise prohibition na.... prajuhitaviyah, should be closely connected one so different, so vague, as *ye mast hold no festivals. Besides, it is plain that the whole edict is entirely devoted to the protection of animal life. Samaja must refer directly to some act by which that life was compromised. The connexion of the details which the king gives soncerning his kitchen would, on any other hypothesis, be altogether inexplicable. It is this exact shade of the meaning of samdja,' sacrifice, fenet, or some other, which Dr. Buhler has failed to identify. Nor ean I accept bis translation of the sentence asti pi tu, &c.; for, if Piyadasi had meant to approve of certain samájas,' he would have specified to wbat samdjas he referred. He would at least have continued his sentence under the form of an antithesis, as he does under other circumstances, and would have spoken of dharmasamdjas, or of something of the kind.
67 Cf. Kern, loc. cit. IT, 205 and ff.
# I am afraid that I should injure conclusions, which I believe are firmly established, if I were to bring forward arguments of love value, so I content myself with reminding my readers of, for instance, the use of dainava, corresponding to the technical term derava of the Buddhists, and that of avavad to mean'to preach,' 'to teacb,' which was familiar to the Buddhists (Barnouf, Lotus, p. 804 and ff.), &e.
19 I can only withdraw, before the corrected readings and the new translation of Dr. Bühler, the conjecture which I hazarded with regard to the oth odiot (in Dh. n. 2.), in which I believed that I had discovered an allusion to a certain incident of the legend of 8Akyamuni. The explanation of Dr. Bühler establishes, with a natural sense, completo harmony among the different versions. It certainly deserves acceptance, in spite of the little difficulties of detail which oxiat, and of which a final revision of the texts will perhape reduce the number.
