________________
AUGUST, 1991.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
261
...., dhaimacharana necessarily refers to the conversion of the king, and specially signifies his adhesion to the Buddhist dharma. It finds its expression in the ceremonies peculiar to the calt, though, almost immediately afterwards, dharmacharana signifies merely the practice of moral duties, in accordance with the ordinary value which the word dhaima has in the mouth of the king.
Ought we, therefore, to conclude that dhanma, in our inscriptions, takes successively two different meanings. They would, in that case, be brought together and confounded in such a manner that, à priori, such a theory is hardly probable. On the other hand, Piyadasi certainly does profess a large spirit of tolerance; ho desires that all religious sects may live overywhere in perfect liborty, because all of them aim at the subjection of the senses and at purity of soul (VII). Bit, however liberal his intentions may be, they do not reach to indifference. He does not kesitate to interdict bloody sacrifices, dear as they must have been to those very Brahmans to whom he boasts that he made alms, and he dissuades from, and ridicules, the rites and ceremonies consecrated by Brahmanical usage, which were celebrated at marriagos and births, in cases of sickness, and at the moment of setting out on a journey.
In the Edict of Sahasarâm, the sentence regarding the misantérd and the amisdiulévá, supposing that my translation is accepted as correct, certainly expresses an idea of polemics in regard to beliefs differing from that of the king.97 It is true that, as Dr. Bühler has remarked (p. 15), respect for the life of animals is a trait common in India to soveral religions, but it novertheless appears to me to be proved, by the very care with which the king limits and points out his desires in this respect (Col. Ed. V), that he did not obey a general feeling, but a dogma dear to his personal doctrines, and the practice of which he imposed even on people who did not consider themselves bound by it. The choice of days reserved is specially characteristic, referring as it does to the festivals of the religious calendar of the Buddhists.09
This conflict of opinions, or of expressions, is only apparent. There is a means, and I think onl; one means, of reconciling them. It is certain that the meaning of dharma or dhamma has been gradually circumscribed and brought within definite limits by the Buddhists as a techni. cal term. In place of 'law, moral law, virtue,' in general, the word, taking for them a special bearing, signified at first 'the law peouliar to Buddhists,' - the moral rules and the dogmatic principles as they understood them, and finally the writings themselves in which these principles and these rules are recorded But nothing compels us to assume that such an
# Dr. Bühler, who disputns certain details of my translation, is in substantial agroement with me on this point. Whether we translate with him, in Folge seiner (Bekehrung zur Erfüllung dor Gasetzes,' or, as I have done literally, thanks to the observance of the religion by Piyadagi,' the meaning is essentially tho same, and, in both casos, it is considered that the allusion is to the king's conversion to Buddhism, and that, consequently, the expres. sion dharmacharang is, in the eyes of the king, suficiently characteristic of tho practice of the Buddhist religion. It is in regard to the way in which we ought to understand the conjunctive participle dasayit, that Dr. Bühler and I cease to be at one. He lays stress on the past sense which tho form implies, and refora the allusion to the fosţivals given by the king before his conversion. The point is, indeed, of molerate importance, but I cannot refrain from adhering to my original interpretation. It seems to me to be indisputable that, if the king had intended to lay Stross on the distinction which is maintained between the actual bhrighisi and his formor religious feasts, he would have marked it more clearly by his latgange, and by the turn of the sentence. As for the use of tho conjunctive participle with a sense equivalent to that of a participle present, Dr. Bühler knows better than I do that it is of every day occurrence.
The new readings farnished by Pandit Bhagwanlal and Dr. Babler put boyond doubt the interpretation wbich they have given of prajdhitaviyath and its equivalents. In this respect, it is necessary to correct my translation.
OT Prof. Korn (pp. 312 and f.) considers that the terms in which Piyadasi expresses himself in regard to the BrAhmans, entitle us to rejoot the statement of the Sinhalesa chroniolo, according to which Asöka is said to have, at the moment of his conversion, ceased to feed brahmanas, and to have substituted in their place draman 18. This is, I think, going too far. It is one thing to tolerate the Brahmans and to give them alms, and another thing to surround oneself with them regularly and constantly, even in one's own palace. For my part I see no absolute incompatibility between the language of the king and the reminiscences of the Southern Buddhists. It is uale. cessary to add that I do not attach any grare importanoe to this matter of detail. The disfavour which I belie. the king himself admits to have shown to Brahmans, could evidently have been manifested in other ways.
» Cf. Kern, Geschied. tan het buddh., II., 206 and ff.
