Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 42

88
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[FEBRUARY, 1912.
Now we find described in the Sangiti-sutta, not only the dasa ariya-vásd (Digha, Vol. 3, p. 269), but also the cattaro ariya-ramsá (Digha, Vol. 3, p. 224). And since this mutta is in fact (like adhyaya 33 of Udyaga-parvan of Mahd-bharata, Vidûra-niti) a true One-more' or 'Anguttara' sulta, we may properly expect to find both descriptions in the Angutiara nikuya; and so indeed we do find them-the dasa ariyardsd in the Dasaka-nipáta, Vol 5, p. 29, and the chattáro ariyaramed in the Chatukka-nipdia, Vol. 2, p. 27. The Sangiti-sutta is put into the mouth of Sariputta (see Digha, Vol. 8, p. 209), while both Anguttara-suttas are put into the mouth of Buddha. Whichever way we decide our first question, the identification should be-not with one of the Digha passages, but-with one of the Anguttara passages, since the edict implies that the aliya-rasani are the words of Buddha.
Prof. Rhys Davids in 1898 (J. R. A. S. 1898, p. 640) says: "No. 2 is no doubt the passage on the ten Ariyavásd;" but in 1899 (Sacred Books of the Buddists, Vol. 2, p. xiii) he equates it with "Ariya-vásáni" probably not having in mind our present difficulty; and in his Buddhist India (1908) he prints the title" Ariya-vasdni. Vincent A. Smith in his Asoka (2nd ed., Oxford, 1999, p. 154), renders the title by The Supernatural Powers of the Aryas,' following Senart's suggestion given at Vol. 2, p. 208 (cf. p. 205). Senart gives it with all due indication of his own doubts, thus: les pouvoirs surnaturels (?) des Aryas." Perhaps he had vaguely in mind the rasis or masteries. But to read an exhortation to the study of acquiring powers like magical powers or the like into an edict of Asoka would be entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the edicts as a whole, for these are in general the simplest expositions of matters touching the very fundamentals of the moral law.
4
But even if we take aliyarasani as meaning the dasa ariyavásd or ten holy ways of living' (of Aiguttara, Vol. 5, p. 29), it would seem that these "ways" are too numerous and artificially elaborate to be suitable for Asoka's purpose. They involve matters quite beyond the laity, and the tenth (suvimutta-pañño) implies nothing less than Arhatship. The Digha text later on (Vol. 3, p. 291) recurs to the ten ariyavásé, and calls them hard to master' duppaticiijhá; although this, I admit, may be said of the simplest essentials of morality. The four ariyaramsa (of Anguttara, Vol. 2, p. 27), on the other hand, are in the hightest degree worthy to be reconmended by the Emperor as fit subjects of study for all, both monks and laity. The text applies to ariyavamsa, the adjectives noble,' ancient (aggaññd, porána), and others. And the Anguttara commentary (Colombo ed., 1898-1909, p. 530, 1. 31) glosses the word tans by tantiyo, lines'; by pareniyo, successions' or also old customs'; by añjasd, straight roads or ways (to the goal of the religion)'; and by vatumani, courses: according to which vanso might mean either ancient and noble family' or also time-honoured course of conduct.' If ramso means family then it seems to carry nearly the same meaning as household' in the English version of St. Paul's phrase, them who are of the household of faith' (Galatians vi, 10). The practical use of vasd in this sutta is to designate four households or else four courses of conduct, a typical illustrations of which the sutta givs four descriptions of monk; to wit, (1) a monk who is content with simple clothing, (2) one who is content with the simplest food got in a proper way, (3) one who is satisfied with the humblest habitation, and (4) one who delights in meditation.
1 The Pali vaso, like the Sanskrit vançaḥ, is masculine. But of heterogeneous nouns there are not a few in Pali. Thus in this very ediot we have dhamma-paliyayani as equivalent to the usual masculine plural paryaya at Diammapada, stanza 188, ooours pabbatani vandni cha; and in the Patisambhida (the numerous archaisms of which deserve a careful study) we actually find, at 1.81 chattari ariyavamsâni the precise equivalent of the form which appears in the Bhabra edict. As for the lack of the anusvira in aliya-vasdni, it may be a dialectic peculi. arity; or it may be set down as a stone-cutter's blunder (see Senart, 2, 349, 931, and the end of Roak-edict, No. 14).