________________
JULY, 1891.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
251
Colamnar edicts, stipulates for them, and for them alone, an altogether special privilege, that of being only subject to his direct jurisdiction. Although this edict does not, strictly speaking, make them superior in the hierarchy to the purushas, still it attributes at least an authority, a special importance, to the teaching conveyed by them. The king considers it their duty to stimulate the zeal of his functionaries properly so called, so as to make them in their turn active propagators of the good doctrine.
It will be remarked that, wherever the rajjikas are mentioned, they are put in close relationship on the one hand with the teaching of the dharma, and on the other hand with the yuta or the dharmayuta. It is for them alone that the king reserves the technical term for,
preaching' (vi-ava-vad, pari-ava-vad). They are to instruct specially the dharmayuta people, that is to say the faithful, but with them also all people (Col. Ed. IV and VIII); if they, proceed to the anusarnyána, it is in company with the yutas.68 In the last sentence of the 3rd edict, yutas are spoken of, without apparently any mention being made of rajjúkas; but, even here, nevertheless, I think that they are directly referred to. The parishad is charged with the duty of instructing the yutas or the faithful. I originally understood parishad as an equivalent of sanngha, and I was not, I think, much mistaken. The two Jain texts which mention the rajjis, refer to them in the compound rajjúsabha (Kalpasútra, I, 122, 147). Judging from the context, sabhá cannot mean specially the assembly itself, but rather the place of the assembly; it, however, supposes a meeting, a college, of rajjús, for the use of which the sabhá was set apart. I feel little hesitation in identifying the parishad of the 3rd Edict with this meeting of rajakas. It will be recognised that the position which the word occupies, beside an order given to the rajjúlas, is favourable to this opinion. The parishad reappears in the 6th edict. According to the division of the sentences which has been established by Dr. Bühler, the king says, -.With regard to all that I personally order to be given away or to be promulgated, or to everything that, in urgent cases, the mahdmdtras have to undertake on their own responsibility, every dissent or blame which may arise concerning that must be immediately reported in the parishad. It would be unreasonable to contend, à priori, that this parishad is different from that of the 3rd edict. This assembly of rajjakas thus appears to constitute a sort of council, of a more specially religious character, on which the care of the propaganda and of religious works specially devolved, and to which the piety of the king gave a considerable influence over his own actions. The expression of the 8th edict, according to which the rajjúkas were appointed over many thousands of men, and, still more, the indications of the 3rd edict, which applies to all parts of the vast empire of Piyadasi, go far to prove that there was not only one of these colleges, but that they existed in more or less number. The peculiar functions of these persons, perhaps also their religious character, clearly explain both the importance which Piyadasi'attaches to their creation and their actions, and the privileged position with which he endowed them, as compared with his other officers. It would be interesting if we could establish a palpable agreement between their name and their office, but unfortunately, though the form rajjika appears to be certain, the etymology of the word remains obscure. The very meaning which the Jain commentator attributes to it, even if we admit that he is right, cannot be the primitive one, and can be no authority for the time of Piyadasi. All that we can state positively is this, that between the meaning of 'scribe,' however it arose, and the application of the word to persons whose duties as teachers suppose a complete religious education, the distance is far from impassable.
It now remains to say a word regarding a last category of persons, the pradėsikas, According to Prof. Kern, they were probably local governors. This interpretation is conformable with the use of the word in the classical language, and, basing his inquiries on this use, Dr. Bühler (p. 20) seeks in them for the local princes, in whom India, with its feudal system
68 It is unnecessary to remark how this allusion favours my interpretation of the words yuta and dhammayuta. It proves at least that, in translating, we cannot separate the two terms from each other.
- J. R. A. S., N. 8., XII. p. 398.
