________________
JULY, 1912.]
EPIGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUESTIONS
171
Here Agoka says that he exerts himself strenuously (pardkramate). But with what object in ricw! He replies: paratrikdya, i.e., with reference to the next world. But for whose sake? He answers : sakale apaparisrave asa, ie, in order that all men should be free from parisrava, which he further explains by apunnan=sin. Similarly, when in the S.-R.-B. edict Asoka says that for the period of more than a year that he was in the Sanghanhe exerted himself strenuously (badhan yalakaite), we must understand that it is not for himself that he was unflaggingly zealous but for others, or rather for the welfare pertaining to their next world. And consequently when he says that he made gods commingled with men and men with gods, this must be interpreted to mean that he made men like gods apaparisrava, i. e., free from all apunya (sin). It is only by interpreting the passage in this way that the full significance of the words khudakenani paleamami nena vipule svage sakye aradhetave which occur in and which form the main purport of the S.-R.-B. edict is brought out. This edict, in fact, is such a close repetition of Rock Edict X that there is a perfect harmony even in their concluding portions, which insist upon parákrama being put forth both by the great and the lowly.
The same idea we find expressed in Rock Edicts VII and IX. A passage from the first of these is :
Ya [vn] cha kinchi parákranámi aham [] kinti [?] bhutanan anarnai gachheyan idha cha nani sukha paydmi paratrd cha svagani arddhayantu.
Here also Asoka informs us that the object of his strenuous exertion is to make people happy in this world and enable them to gain heaven in the next. It deserves to be noticed that the word paratra bere distinctly refers to svarga (heaven). In Rock Edict IX Asoka compares ordinary mangalas (auspicious rites) with dhanna-mangala, i. e., the auspicious rite consisting in the performance of dhanma. He says that the performance of ordinary ma igalas is of doubtful efficacy. It may or may not fulfil the desired object. But the practice of dhama, even if it does not lead to the attainment of temporal object, is sure to breed endless merit in the next world (palata chd anaintah punnan pasavati). If we thus compare Rock Edicts VI,IX, and X with one another, we find that, according to Asoka's theology also, the performance of dhainma leads to punya or apa-parisravatva, and the accumulation of punya to the attainment of svarga. What, therefore, Asoka means by saying that he made gods and men commingled with one another is that by teaching dhamma to people he has rendered them punyavat and made them like gode svargadhikarinah, claimants of heaven, and consequently one another's compeers.
II. The second passage that we have to deal with runs thus in the three differont recensions. Sahasram :-Iyam cha sdvane pivuthena duve sapaináldli satd vivutha ti 256. Rūpnath :--Vyüthend sdrane kate 256 satavivasd ti. Brahmagiri :-Iyan cha sdvane sávd pite vydthena 256.
The latest interpretation that has been proposed of this passege is that by Dr. Thomas. And this has been accepted both by Dr. Fleet and Proi. Fultzsch. He has shown that the passage contains not the slightest allusion to Buddha's death and that it makes mention, not of years, but of 256 nights, duve sapaind-lati-sata (of the Sahasram text) during which Asoka was away from his home. I wonder how it is possible to maintain this interpretation in the Rūpnath text, where the word sata of satavivasi must correspond to satd of láti-sata in the Sahasråm as Dr. Thomas understands it. The Rūpnath text at best can be interpreted to refer to not 256 but only 100 nights, supposing that the word lati is here understood. Again, what can be the meaning of the words ldli-satd virutha ? Can vivutha be here taken in the sense of "departed from home"? I am afraid, not. For what can be meant by saying that 256 nights departed from home? Prof. Hultzsch has no doubt seen through this difficulty and proposes to take vivuthd as an ablative singular. But then I fail to understand how even this ablative can give the sense of " after (the king) had left home." It can only mean " from the vinutha, i. c., (the king) who had left home." These are some of the difficulties to which the new interpretation in my opinion gives rise.
Jour. R. As. Soc. for 1910, p. 1309.
