South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

TRANSLATION.

(Line 1.) ─ [His sacred Majesty king Piyadasi] . . . . (1. 3) at Pâṭaliputta . . . .

Whatsoever (l. 4) monk or nun begs his food(?), let him be provided with clean (or white) cloths and reside in another residence (or monastery). (L. 5) Thus should this order be made known in the congregation of the monks and in the congregation of the nuns. (L. 6.) Thus speaks His sacred Majesty. Not only has such an edict been laid down (by me) for you so that you should remember “ So be it ! ” (L. 7.) But you must also lay down exactly such an edict for the lay-members. Let the lay-members also go on each Sabbath (l. 8) in order to familiarize themselves with this order. Also on each Sabbath regularly will each superintendent go to the Sabbath (service) (l. 9) in order to familiarize himself with this order and to understand it. And as far as your district (reaches), (l. 10) walk ye everywhere according to this proclamation. In like manner cause (others) in all towns and provinces (l. 11) to walk according to this proclamation.

REMARKS.

Line 3, bhetave.─ Dr. Bloch remarks : “ I felt inclined at first to explain this word as bhêttavyaḥ or bhêttum from bhinatti and I supposed that the order (śâsanam) in the beginning contained injunctions against quarrelsome monks or nuns, who tried to cause schisms in the Saṅgha (Pâli : saṅghaṁ bhiṁdituṁ). I tried to get out of bh[i]khati some similar word of the same meaning, and to translate the sentence : “ A monk or nun who cause schisms in the Saṅgha, let them put on white cloths (instead of the ordinary yellow robe) and take their living in some other place” (ânâvâsasi=anyâvâsê). This would enable us to translate the end of the edict, from Âvatake-cha-tuphâkaṁ-âhâle (l. 9) thus : “ As far as your district (? âhâle) goes, everywhere turn ye out (vinâsayâtha) [a monk or nun creating disturbances] with this mark (etena viyaṁjanena, viz. white cloths).” But I confess that I cannot see how bhikhati, or whatever the reading may be, can be made to convey a similar meaning.”─ Chuṁ-kho, as Dr. Bloch notes, “ stands for chu-kkho (Skr. tu khalu), the group ṁkh having taken the place of kkh (Prkt. kkho), as we have ṁna for nna in viṁnapayitaviye (l. 5).”

L. 4, bhikhati.─ The vowel-stroke of the first syllable is broken, but from the little that remains I feel inclined to read rather i than o. On the Allâhâbâd pillar the akshara is missing, but was restored by Bühler as bho on the strength of the Sâñchi inscription. But on the latter also, judging from the facsimile, the vowel-stroke is far from certain and can as well be read bhi. Another difficulty is presented by the word saṁghaṁ, which Bühler took to be a Nominative used as an apposition with bhikhû-vâ-bhikhuni-vâ, “ the community, both monk and nun.” In the light of the Sârnâth inscription this interpretation can hardly be maintained. It should be noticed that the word saṁghaṁ is connected with the following bhikhati, and not with the preceding bhikhû-vâ-bhikhuni-vâ.─ Dusâni is the Plural of dusaṁ, Pâli dussaṁ, Skr. dûshya.

Saṁnaṁdhâpayiyâ (for which Kôsambi and Sâñchi have saṁnaṁdhâpayitu) belongs, according to Prof. Kern, to the causative of saṁnandhati= Skr. saṁnahyati. Compare Pâli pilandhati=Skr. pinahyati, originally pinadhyati, from the root nadh (past participle naddha, and Latin nodus from noddhus*) ; causative pilandhâpeti. “ The difference in meaning,” Prof. Kern remarks, “ between pilandhâpeti and saṁnaṁdhâpeti cannot be great. We may, therefore, render it by ‘ to provide with’ (cloths in the Accusative case).”

L. 5, viṁnapayitaviye (Skr. vijñâpayitavyam), from viṁnapeti, Pâli viññapeti (Skr. vijñâpayati), the causative of Sanskṛit-Pâli vijânâti. It should be noticed that Aśôka, in making his wishes known to the Saṅgha, uses the respectful term viṁnapeti, and not ânapeti (compare ânapitâni in pillar edict VII.). For the transition of vijña to viṁna- compare chhaṁdaṁnâni in pillar edict IV. for Skr. chhandôjñâni.