________________
254
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1891.
that regularly overy fifth year, etc. If we compare closely the two passages which relate to the anusarnyána, what do we find ? In the first, the yutas, the rajjúkas and the prádésikas are every five years, to set out for the anusanyána. In the second, it is only stated that the mahámátras are to set out for it. It has been rather hastily admitted that the two categories must necessarily be equivalent; I myself have fallen into the mistake. It was under this impression that, in order to establish a complete concordance between the two passages, I originally proposed to take,74 in the first, the phrase imaya dhaimánusasliya in a passive sense, but I should never have admitted this conjecture, which I have since withdrawn.75 Tt 18, indeed, an arbitrary supposition that there two recommendations, which are intended for different persons, should necessarily be identical. The second is addressed to the mahåmatra wlio are destined, in the anusamydna, to receive instruction and encouragement, while the first can very well be addressed to the functionaries charged with imparting them, - to the prádésika, the governor, as immediate and direct representative of the king, and to the rajjikas, of whom we know that the proper function was religious and moral teachingFrom this point of view the passage of the fourth columnar edict, which has been discussed several times, shows itselt under a new light. It becomes clear why the zeal of the officers is there considered as guaranteed by that of the rajjúkas, as these are specially charged with reminding them of their duties. Under these circumstances it is evident that the anusarnyána to which the king wishes the mahám atras to repair, can only have been an assembly. Perhaps, after all, both theories might be reconciled, if we suppose that reference is made to a series of meetings convoked by the rajjika and the prádésika on tour, for the king certainly supposes a considerable number of such assemblies. It will be admitted, at any rate, that a tour of inspection could hardly be changed into a tour of instruction, except with the convocation of numerous successive meetings. Is not also a special assembly necessarily implied by the king's command that his edict should be read (Dh., J., Ed det., I) on the day of the festival in honour of Tishya P I may add that the agreement, established by this explanation, with the custom mentioned for a more modern period by the Chinese pilgrims (and to which I have drawn attention in my commentary), does not appear to me, supposing it necessary, to be an argument by any means to be despised.
There is, too, another agreement which is even more to the point. The 3rd edict invites to the anusaiyana the yutas. I have stated above my opinion as to the meaning of this word. If I am right that we must consider it as equivalent, in a general sense, to all the faithful of the true religion, it is clear that the anusarnyána to which they are invited cannot be a . tour of administration. But, even supposing that my explanation of the word is not considered convincing, and that the translation is not admitted without some reserve, it appears to me that it is impossible to seriously contest the identity of the yuta of the 3rd edict with the janadhanizmayıta of the 8th colamnar edict. That name must designate at least a considerable category of people, and not merely officials, and would consequently exclude every kind of idea of a 'tour of inspection.'
These assemblies had therefore, in my opinion, the altogether special characteristic, that they were not meant for the entire population. Besides the snperior officials who were responsible for them, and who took an active part in them (rojjáka and prádézika), they comprised only the yntas, that is to say, the faithful Buddhists. This furnishes the key to difficulty which o.. urred to me in the first detached edict at Dhauli (n. 25), and of which I did not originally offer a sufficient solution. The reader will remember the phrase, I shall summon to the anusasnyána every mahámátni, who will be mild, patient, and a respecter of life.' It, 26 the reader can see from my revised commentary in this translation, appears to me that we must understand the phrase as having a shade of possibility', - every mahdmátra who may be endowed with these qualities; and in these qualities I only see à developinent of the idea
14 Dh., det. Ed. I, -. 28. 76 The constant use in our texts of dhamónneasti in the active sense, entirely condemns such an bypothesis.
