________________
JULY, 1891.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
255
which is expressed in an equivalent manner by the compound dharmayuta. In the 3rd edict, addressed to every one in general, Piyadasi convokes to the anusarnyána all the faithful without distinction; here, where he addresses himself specially to the mahámátras, he specifies those only among them who fall under the category of dharmayutas. The two passages agree in establishing that the anusanyána was reserved for Buddhists. It was one of the principal occasions when the rajjúkas were given the mission of exercising their ministry of teaching, which was specially conferred upon them over those of the people who believed (Col. Ed. VIII, 1). It will be remarked that this peculiarity agrees very well with the purely religious name of mókshaparishad, assemblies of deliverance,' given by Hiuen Tsiang to those quinquennial or annual assizes which we compare with our anusanyána.76
It is curious that these assemblies of the anusamyang should have been convoked at different periods, - every five years in the countries directly administered by the king, and every three years or less in the provinces governed by the princes who lived at Ujjayini and at Takshasila. For Tôsalî, which we see to have been also ruled by a kumdra (Dh. J., Det. Ed. II), we find no special instructions, and it is therefore probable that the convocation took place there only every five years. It is difficult to see the reasons of this variation. One conjecture only appears to me to present some probability, viz. that towards his west and south-west frontier the king wished to multiply the occasions of meeting and instruction, in the interests of his co-religionists belonging to the vassal populations surrounding his borders, and over whom his usual action would necessarily be less direct and less efficacious.
Of the other measures f which the initiation belongs to Piyadasi, some have already been noticed, - such, for instance, as the three days respite which he gives to the condemned, before their execution, that they may prepare for death; while others, such as the planting of trees along the roads, the construction of wells and tanks, -are common to most of the kings of India.
We have spoken of the suppression of bloody sacrifices (I). The 5th of the Columnar edicts states the restrictions imposed by the king upon the slaughter and mutilation of animals, and on the consumption of their flesh, and we know that in this respect, he practised in his palace what he preached (I). We have already discussed the honour which he claims of having spread abroad, in all places, medicines and useful plants (II). As for certain acts of an altogether religious character, such as the sending forth of missionaries, they will be considered in the concluding portion of these observations.
We learn that he entertained certain relations with foreign countries, and more especially with the Greek kings. It is unfortunate that he gives us no particulars concerning this subject. The employment of ambassadors (dútas), whom he mentions in the 13th edict, is to be expected and teaches us nothing. These relations with other lands, and the influences which resulted from them, were certainly no new thing, and our inscriptions, unless I am mistaken, preserve a piece of evidence regarding them, which, althongh indirect, is worth drawing attention to.
The rescripts of Piyadasi commence, all or nearly all, with this phrase, Thus saith the king Piyadasi, dear unto the Devas. Now, so far as I know, this formula is an absolutely isolated example in Indian epigraphy. It makes its appearance with our inscriptions, and, after them, appears no more, in spite of the influence which the example of so powerful a sovereign would be expected to exercise. The fact is curious, and is worthy of having its explanation sought for. Now we do find this formula elsewhere. In the entire series of the inscriptions of the Achæmenides, from Darius to Arta zerxes Ochus, the phrase thatiy Darayavaush kshayathiya, 'thus saith the king Darius,' or its equivalent, thaliy Kshayárshá, &c., inevitably forms the frame of each of the proclamations. In both cases, this phrase in the third person is immediately succeeded by the use of the first person, and we are still further justified in drawing attention to this curions
76 Beal ; Si-yu-ki, I, 52, &c.
