________________
246
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULİ, 1891.
others. But between these two very unequal groups, there is no contradiction, there is only a mere difference of degree. It is explained by the difference of the persons whom the king addressed: at Bhabra, he spoke to the Buddhist clergy; elsewhere he speaks to his people at large, or at least to all his officers without distinction.50 Religious toleration is not an exceptional occurrence in India, but is the customary rule of her sovereigns. From the indications of coins down to the direct evidence of the chronicles, from the inscriptions down to the account of the Chinese travellers, there are abundant proofs of this. Piyadasi made no exception to the rule; he forms, on the contrary, one of its most illustrions examples, one of its most positive witnesses. It is therefore, very natural that, in addressing himself to the generality of his subjects, without regard to religion or sect, he should have avoided using too exclusive manifestations of his own private faith, and strictly dogmatical statements. We can at least be certain that none of his inscriptions contains anything contradictory to the Buddhist doctrine, and it is essential to remember this, if we would endeavour to picture to our selves from the monuments the condition of Buddhism at the time of Piyadasi.
Now that we have determined, both from a chronological and from a religious point of view, the ground on which our monuments lead us, it remains to consider the data which they supply regarding the administration, the history, and the religious ideas of PiyadasiAsoka; comparing them at the same time with those which have been preserved for us by the tradition of literature.
The epigraphical records do not in any way, give us the materials for a biographical sketch. even on the most meagre scale: All we can do is to group the various items of information which they contain under certain general heads, such as the empire and the family of the king, his administrative procedure and his relations with foreign countries, his life and his religious opinions.
Piyadasi gives us no information regarding his lineage. We only learn from a passage of the 5th (Rock) edict, in which the surveillance exercised by the dharmamahamdtras is under consideration, that he had brothers, sisters, and other relatives, settled both in his capital and in other towns. Moreover (Col. Ed. VIII) he pays attention to the distribution of the alms made by all his children who live, some near him, and others in the provinces (disásu), and in particular to those made by the princes, sons of the queen,' who are thus distinguished as holding a superior rank. It is to this last category that belong 'the Kumaras' who represent.
60 He exhibits now and then a particular care for his co-religionists, but he does so in order to direct special officers to devote themselves to them, and to give thom suitable instruction. It is in this way that I still understand the last sentence of the 3rd edict. Dr. Bühler, following Dr. Kern, combats the meaning which I still continue to attribute to yuta, and which is approved of by Dr. Pischel (p. 1825). I cannot accept his amendment. Dr. Bübler is compelled to admit a different meaning for the word in each of the two passages in which it occurs in the 9th edict. That is a first objection, but there are more serious ones. It will shortly appear in what close relationship the rojjakas generally appeared with the dharmayutas. This is a first reason for thinking, as has always been done, that yuta is only an abridged equivalent for dhash mayuta, 'sealota, ent for dharmayuta, zealota, equivalent to
equivalent to zealota for the dharma' nothing is more natural. What is true for the first yutd is not less so for the second yutani Associated with the parishad, which is nothing else than the assembly of the rajjilkar. But in the first passage it is wished to take yutd as an adjective applied to rajka and to paddsika (Dr. Bühler actually approve of my construction of the sentence and defenda it against Dr. Pischel). We must then omit the cha which, at G., follows yutd. This procedure is in itself violent and suspicions. but it is still insufficient. The turn of the phrase at Kh., yuta lajuka padleika, and the corresponding words at K. without cha, imply the co-ordination of the three terms, and not only of the two last; if this were not so, we must have As at Dh., yuta lajuki cha pådesik& cha. It is unnecessary to remark that, on the other band, this last mode speaking very well agrees with my interpretation. Yuth is therefore a substantive, or at least used substantively. Here we must oopolnde that it is the equivalent of dharmayuta. So also with yutd Or yutani in the last line. I hay given one reason, founded on its being associated with paried. The comparison with the sentence of the 8th Columnar edict (1. 1-2), lajaka ... paliyovadisariti janan dharmayutan, is very striking. There are also other reasons. First Ain Apavati is much more easily translated with a personal subject. It inust be admitted that the exprersion the assembly will teach suitable matters? is singularly feeble and vague, even for our inscriptions. Of course, the neater form yutani of several versions offers no difficulty; have we not, at Col. Ed. IV. 8, pulisdns equivalent to purushah; do. Perhaps yute of G. also reprosents the neuter; and we shall thus bave side by side a te of the singalar and of the plural, exactly as dharmayuta is by turns wed in the plural and in the singular without alteration in the sense.
