Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 36
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Previous | Next

Page 132
________________ 120 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [MAY, 1907. being that of the Buddha whose relics it contains, as well as that of the Sakyas, whose work it is. Professor Pischel, nevertheless, seeks for this superfluous word, and finds it in sutiti, which, according to him, stands for the Sanskrit sukriti, "pious foundation." No one will deny either the sense of the Sanskrit word or the possibility of the Prakrit equivalent, although according to the analogies of the Pali and of the Magadhi of the inscriptions one would rather have expected sukati or sukați. But all the same the expression is found now here in the numerous inscriptions of that period, which are nearly all deeds of gift or of consecration and in which stylistic formulas abound; so we find in them dana, danamukha, deyadhamma, dhammadeya, dhamma, but nothing resembling sukriti. However, passing by these objections, which certainly make one suspicions, we have the translation: "This receptacle of the relics of the blessed Buddha is the pious foundation of the Sakyas, of the brothers with their sisters, with their children and their wives." In this translation we at once feel the halting character in the original of the construction proposed by Professor Pischel, The genitive bhatinam stands in the air. We are not "the Sakya brothers," any more than we are "the French brothers" or "the German brothers;" we are "the brothers of somebody." It is necessary that this genitive, striding not only over sukiti but also over sakiyanam, should go on to attach itself to budhasa bhagavate, where it has not even a grammatical connection, a kind of verbal gymnastics perhaps admissible in the artificial style of the poets, but one which would be surprising in this language of the inscriptions which, though often elliptical and involved, is always direct. For surely this is how Prof. Pischel takes the matter: these Sakyas are the brothers, that is to say the distant relatives of the Buddha; and as he is accustomed to speak out plainly, he asserts as an established fact that the Stupa is "the very tomb of the Buddha," and that the inscription, the most ancient hitherto found [547] in India, was engraved immediately, or shortly, after his death, exactly in the year 480 B. C. After what has been stated above, namely, that there is little suitability in this fraternal relationship and that it is practically impossible to date the writing so far back, I hardly need add that Professor Pischel's interpretation appears inadmissible to me. Professor Sylvain Lévi, too, has turned his attention to this patient, so obstinate in not allowing himself to be cured.13 Pursuing the course of investigation started by Professor Pischel, he also sets upon the word sukiti, but he makes it an adjective corresponding to the Sanskrit sukritin, "meritorious, pious," and qualifying "the brothers." From the point of view of the dictionary, nothing could be more legitimate; what is much less so is the joining together, in a compound, of this adjective with bhatinam. For, in this language of the oldest inscriptions, an adjective which is simply used as an epithet does not ordinarily compound with the substantive it qualifies, unless the two together constitute a standing expression. These "Sakyas, pious brothers," then, are naturally the brothers of the Buddha, which produces another difficulty to which I need not return again. I shall only remark that Professor Lévi, who points out the "awkwardness" of Professor Pischel's construction, proposes another which also is not very good, for with him, too, bhatinam is separated in a most untoward fashion from the word by which it is really or logically governed. Professor Lévi gives us the choice of two interpretations. According to one we should have the relies of the Buddha consecrated by the Sakyas, his pious brothers, together with their families. This, on the whole, is the conclusion of Professor Rhys Davids, with a less easy construction, and I think I have explained why I cannot accept it. In one point, however, a single one, Professor Lévi has improved it: he has clearly seen the difficulty of dating back this writing to the time of the Buddha, and he has not failed to warn us against the robust faith that allowed Professor Pischel to set it aside. He therefore supposes that the inscription merely recalls a more ancient consecration, and that it was probably cut on the occasion of 13 Journal des Savants, 1905, p. 640 f.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430