South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

its presented portion─ does not contain any reference to the event which, in all probability, it was meant to commemorate. But at the time of its erection such a reference must have appeared superfluous. It is noteworthy that, though the Rummindêî inscription twice refers to the Buddha’s birth, the reference is, in reality, incidental. The pillar was erected, not to commemorate this fact, but to record Aśôka’s visit and his liberality on that occasion.

The language of the Sârnâth inscription presents the same characteristics, peculiar to the Mâgadhî dialect, as are found in the rock edicts of Kâlsi, Dhauli and Jaugaḍa, the pillar edicts of Radia, Mathia and Râmpûrva, the Rûpnâth, Bairât and Sahasrâm edicts, and in the Barâbar cave inscriptions. These characteristics are the Nominative Singular Masculine ending in e, the substitution of l for r and of n for ṇ, the exclusive use of the dental sibilant, and of forms like hevaṁ for êvam and hedise for îdṛiśa :

It will be seen that our epigraph contain several words not met with in any of the other Aśôka inscriptions─ a point which, though adding to its interest, increases the difficulty of its interpretation. On the other hand, the fact that in the beginning we find a passage corresponding to the fragmentary Kôsambi-Sâñchi edict, and at the end one which recurs in the Rûpnâth edict, is important for the interpretation not only of the Sârnâth inscription, but also of the parallel passages quoted.

In publishing my version of the inscription I wish to acknowledge thankfully the great benefit derived from a number of explanatory notes which I owe to the kindness of Prof. Kern, who has authorised me to give them publicity here. Dr. T. Bloch has also favoured me with some valuable remarks to be noticed in the sequel. In my transcript I have followed Dr. Bühler’s system of joining by a hyphen such words as are written continuously in the original.

TEXT.

1 Devâ[naṁ-piye Piyadasi lâjâ*] . . . . . .
2 e [la^[1]] . . . . .
3 Pâṭa[lipute*] . . . . . ye-kena=pi saṁghe-bhetave-e-chuṁ-kho
4 [bhikhû-vâ-bhikhuni-vâ] saṁghaṁ-bh[i]khati se-odâtâni-dus[â]ni saṁnaṁdhâ- payiyâ-ânâvâsasi
5 âvâsayiye [|*] Hevaṁ-iyaṁ-sâsane bhikhu-saṁghasi-cha bhikhuni-saṁghasi-cha viṁnapayitaviye [|*]
6 Hevaṁ-devânaṁ-piye-âhâ [|*] Hedisâ-cha-ikâ-lipî tuphâkaṁtikaṁ-huvâ-ti saṁsala- nasi-nikhitâ [|*]
7 Ikaṁ-cha-lipiṁ-hedisam=eva upâsakânaṁtikaṁ-nikhipâtha [|*] Te-pi-cha-upâsakâ anuposathaṁ-yâvu
8 etam=eva-sâsanaṁ visvaṁsayitave [|*] Anuposathaṁ-cha-dhuvâye ikike-^[2] mahâmâte- posathâye
9 yâti etam=eva-sâsanaṁ visvaṁsayitave âjânitave-cha [|*] Âvatake-cha- tuphâkaṁ-âhâle
10 savata-vivâsayâtha-tuphe etena-viyaṁjanena [|*] Hem-eva-savesu-koṭa-visavesu etena
11 viyaṁjanena vivâsâpayâthâ [||*]
____________________________________________________________

^[1] The meaning of this letter is doubtful. It resembles most the sign for l, but the stroke to the proper right is slanting downward, and not horizontal as in saṁsalanasi (l. 6).
^[2] It will be noticed that initial i is expressed here in another way then in iyaṁ (l. 5), ikâ (l. 6) and ikaṁ (l. 7). In the latter two dots are beneath and the third above ; in ikike (for êkaika) we have just the reverse. It is possible that in the second case î has to be read. We find post-consonantic î in lipi (l. 6).