Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:26:34.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XV. The Rummindei Inscription and the Conversion of Asoka to Buddhism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

J. F. Fleet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The text of the Rummindēī inscription, styled at first “the Aśōka edict of Paḍariā,” appears to have been first published by Professor Bühler, in the Anzeiger for the 7th January, 1897, of the Philosophical and Historical Section of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Vienna. A translation of it was given by M. Barth in the Journal des Savants, 1897. 73. The record was fully edited by Professor Bühler, with an excellent facsimile, in the Epigraphia Indica, 5. 1 ff.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1908 , pp. 471 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 472 note 1 The name Rummindēī appears to be not unique. Babu P. C. Mukherji's sketch-map, Antiquities in the Taraị, plate 1, shews a village ‘Rumin-dei’ about twenty-four miles towards the west-by-south from the place where the inscribed pillar is. It may give an indication of the stretch of the ancient Lumbinī district.

page 475 note 1 Quite possibly, of course, it was this identical tour that provided the basis for the story in the Divyāvadāna, ed. Cowell and Neil, 389 ff., of how Aśōka went round, under the guidance of the Sthavira Upagupta, to the various places at which Buddha had resided, commencing with the Lumbinīvana, ‘in order to honour them and to mark them out for the benefit of future generations.’

page 476 note 1 And, in fact, in accordance with the general behaviour of ancient Indian kings. The inscriptions give us numerous instances of Vaishṇava kings making or sanctioning grants to Śaiva and other temples or priests, and vice, versâ.

page 478 note 1 It may be observed that in gāme we might find the locative quite as much as the nominative, and so the text might mean:— “at the village Lummini an ubalika was made, and an aṭhabhāgiya.” It is, however, difficult to suggest any meanings for the two words in question from that point of view: moreover, we should then expect kālāpite, ‘was caused to be made,’ rather than kaṭe.

page 479 note 1 In our text, the Anusvāra is shewn in bhayavaṁ and luṁmini, but is omitted from dēvānaṁpiyēna.

page 479 note 2 It would appear that grammarians propose to derive from uṇ, ‘to eat, enjoy,’ with in the sense of ‘a gift, a present;’ so that the primary meaning is ‘an enjoyment-gift.’ But we need not regard that proposal as conclusive; especially as it does not seem to account satisfactorily for the second component, except in the form baḷi. More noteworthy is the use of the Dräviḍian in the Kanarese forms: instances can be cited, however, in which that letter has been substituted for a Sanskṛit l.

page 480 note 1 It is hardly necessary to point out that, while ashṭabhāga might mean ‘eight shares,’ i.e. ‘eight per cent.,’ it also means ‘an eighth share’ just as freely: compare pañchāśad-bhāga in the verse quoted above, and shaḍ-bhaga, ‘a sixth share,’ in, e.g., 8. 304, 305, 308.

page 481 note 1 So also Buddhaghōsha: see his Samantapāsādikā, in Oldenberg';s Vinayapiṭaka, 3. 321, quoted in this Journal, 1906. 985,Google Scholar note. The Mahāvaṃsa (Turnour, , p. 21, line 11) gives 34 years; but there can be no doubt that this is the result of some early copyist's mistake.Google Scholar

page 483 note 1 The restoration of the full style from simply the extant syllables dēvā in line 1 can hardly be admitted against the use of simply “Dēvānampiya” in line 6 and in the face of so many other indications to the contrary. It may also be remarked that it is by no means certain that the syllables pāṭa in line 3 may be restored into Pāṭalipute.

page 483 note 2 This appellation appears to be found elsewhere, either in Sanskṛit or in Pāli, only in the eases of a Thēra (Dīpavariisa, 19. 5) and one of the previous Buddhas (Nidānakathā, , 38 f.;Google ScholarMahāvaṁsa, , 2).Google Scholar

The other form, Piyadassana, presented by the Dīpavarṁsa, is not found in the inscriptions of Aśōka, and seems to have been used in the Ceylonese work simply for metrical conveniences. It has not the same purport; its meaning being ‘dear or grateful to the sight.’ It is found elsewhere as an ordinary epithet. In one of the Nāsik inscriptions (ASWI, 4. 108, No. 18; EI, 8. 60; line 3–4) king Gōtamīputta-Siri-Sātakaṇṇi is described as paṭipuṇa-chaḍa-maḍala-sasirīka-piya-dasana, “lovely and grateful to the sight like the orb of the full moon.” The epithet is applied to Sītā in the Rāmāyaṇa (Gorresio), 5. § 24, 1, and is probably of frequent occurrence in literature. As a proper name, it is presented in the case of a mythical Chakravartin by the Mahāvastu, ed. Senart, 1. 114, line 12.

page 484 note 1 The curious later use of this word in the sense of ‘dull, stupid, silly, simple, foolish,’ is well known: Hēmachandra in his Abhidhānachintā-maṇi, verse 353, gives it as synonymous with mūḍha, mūrkha, and similar words. The idea underlying that seems to be a fairly universal one; that people of weak intellect are under the special protection of heaven.

The promiscuous use of the Jain variant dēvāṇuppiya is well illustrated in the Antagaḍa-Dasāo, which I quote from Dr. Barnett's appreciative translation in our Oriental Translation Fund Series. The epithet is there applied to kings, of course, and to queens and princes; but also to chamberlains (19), to “ the readers of tokens of dreams” (23), to city-folk in general (36), to a prince';s waiting-man (37), to a saint (38), to a king's barber (45), to friars (65), and even to the members of a gang of hooligans (87).

page 484 note 2 Except that Mr. Vincent Smith would regard Dēvānaṁpiya as “a mere formal title of kings” and Piyadassi as “a mere epithet or title,” and would substitute for both “His Sacred and Gracious Majesty” (IA, 1905. 4), which words do not preserve any reminiscence of the original terms.Google Scholar

page 486 note 1 The question of the extent to which we must or may restore or complete forms which are presented more or less imperfectly in original texts in consequence of peculiarities of spelling, is liable to be somewhat complex. In the present case, we must certainly write “Buddha” for the “Budha” of the original, and supply the omitted Anusvāra of “ Dēvānaṁpiya;” and it is proper to write “Piyadassi” with the double ss. But there is neither necessity nor authority for substituting, as previous translators of this record have done, “Śákya” for the “Sakya” of the original: the latter form is well substantiated by the Mahāpari-nibbāna-Sutta, the Vinayapiṭaka, and other early texts; and there is no eviḍence in support of the form “Śákya” until very much later times. On the general question of this tribal name, see my remarks in this Journal, 1905. 645 ff.; 1906. 161 ff.Google Scholar

page 486 note 2 Compare Buddhaghōsha in his Samantapāsādikā; see the Vinayapiṭaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 301.Google Scholar

page 487 note 1 Compare, again, Buddhaghōsha, ; loc. cit., 294 f.Google Scholar

page 487 note 2 It has, however, been inferred from pillar-edict 6 that no edicts were issued before the thirteenth year.

page 487 note 3 This and similar passages in the edicts of both series have sometimes been translated as if the records were subsequent ones, registering past events: for instance, the above words have been rendered thus (EI, 2. 466):— “When I had been anointed twelve years, this following order was given by me.” But the edicts were certainly framed and actually issued by proclamation, as synchronous records of current acts, before being brought together on the rocks and pillars; and the dates are better translated accordingly.

page 488 note 1 Those miseries are indicated in the edict: “150,000 living beings were carried away (as captives); 100,000 were slain; and many times as many died;” etc.

page 488 note 2 It seems hardly necessary to treat this word as an irregular spelling of niyyāsu. The ñ implies an original ny: Childers gives nīyā, as well as niyyā, as = niryā, ‘to go forth:’ and from nīyā we might surely have nyayāsu, which would become ñayāsu.

page 489 note 1 For instance, in the Vinayapiṭaka, Mahavagga, I. 6, 17, 18.

page 489 note 2 With the qualification, which applies also just below, that the word is illegible in the Jaugada text.

page 491 note 1 The word apāsinave is difficult. One component of it, āsinava, occurs again twice in pillar-edict 3. M. Senart has explained it as = āsrava, through such forms as *āsirava, *āsilava (Inscrs. de Piyadasi, 2. 13). And the Pāli equivalent, āsava, is given by Childers as meaning ‘human passion, sin, corruption, depravity.’

M. Senart has taken apāsinave as = app-āsinave = alp-āsravaḥ, and has rendered the term by “le moins de mal possible” (op. cit., 2. 15). Professor Bühler took it as = apāsravam (with apa as the first component) in the sense of apāsravatvam, and rendered it by “sinlessness” (EI, 2. 249).

The bahu in bahu-kayāne seems to point clearly to apa standing for appa = alpa. And āsinava, whatever may be its etymology, is explained in the second passage in the third pillar-edict, where we are told (EI, 2. 250 f.):— Imāni āsinava-gāmāni nāmā = ti atha chaṁḍiye niṭhūliye kōdhe māne isyā; “these things verily constitute āsinava; namely, hot temper, harshness, anger, pride, envy.”

page 491 note 2 Rājñaá = cha dharmam = akhilaṁ;“ and the whole duty of a king:” this is Professor Bühler's rendering, The Laws of Manu, SBE, 25. 28.

page 493 note 1 It is assumed that the reference here really is to the Buddhist Saṁgha. But the word saṁgha may denote any community whatsoever, and is explained by Mēdhātithi under Mānavadharmaśāstra, 8. 219, as meaning ‘communities and corporations of merchants, mendicants or monks, Chaturvēdins, and so forth' (SBE, 25. 293, note). The term in the text of the seventh pillar-edict, saṁghaṭhasi, might be taken as meaning “the affairs of (all recognized) communities.”

page 494 note 1 Cunningham's, lithograph in Inscriptions of Asoka, CII, 1.Google Scholar plate 15, shews tavitave: and the alteration of that into taṁ vatave does not seem either necessary or satisfactory. I take the word as tavitavē = tavitum, tōtum, the infinitive of tu, ‘to have authority, be strong.’ Or we might perhaps take it as = stavitum, stōtum,— “I ought to give praise,” —with an exceptional change of st to tt, t, instead of tth, th,

In the preceding clause we seem to have disēyaṁ as = dṛiśēyam, the Vēdic potential of dṛiś, ‘to see.’

page 495 note 1 For the Mysore texts, see also Epigrwphia Carnatica, 11. Mk. 14. 21, 34, and plates.

page 495 note 2 The meaning, of course, is ‘at some time in the 257th year current, when 256 years had been completed.’

page 495 note 3 As regards some remarks by Professor Norman on page 13 f. above, I think I have made it clear (see this Journal, 1907. 521, and note 2) that I am prepared to concede that my proposal to render the appellation Vivutha, etc., by “the Wanderer” is not to be regarded as final: the meaning which we must assign to lākhāpetavaya indicates that we must find for vivasetavāya, and so perhaps for Vivutha, etc., some meaning which is not connected with the idea of ‘wandering forth.’ But the points will remain, that the appellation denotes Buddha, and that the 256 years mean the period elapsed since his death.Google Scholar

page 496 note 1 I still hope to find leisure, some day, to demonstrate this matter by a critical comparison of the texts. Meanwhile, I think that anyone, able to read the originals, who will examine them in the light of what I say, will readily see that the facts were as I state them.

page 496 note 2 The word in the Rūpnāth text is perhaps sāvake: in the Sahasrām, Bairāt, and Śiddāpura texts, it is upāsake. In the Jaṭiṅga-Rāmēśvara text, this part of the record is hopelessly illegible. In the Brahmagiri text, while all the rest is remarkably clear, this word cannot be decided either way; owing apparently to some exceptional hardness of the rock at this point, it seems to have been left unincised, or almost so: but the preference is in favour of upāsake.

page 496 note 3 Takakusu, , Records of the Btiddhist Religion, 73.Google Scholar

page 497 note 1 So also, practically, Professor Bühler, basing the result on his later and mature consideration of the Sahasrām, Rūpnāth, and Bairāt texts: “his conversion falls about the twenty-ninth year of his reign” (IA. 22. 302; compare EI, 3. 138). Originally, guided by the Mahāvaṁsa, he had placed it in the fourth year (IA, 6. 153a).

Professor Kern, treating the expression dāyādo sāsanē in the Dīpavaṁsa, 7. 13 ff., as meaning that Aśōka was still, in the seventh year, only a “pretender” to the Faith, but holding it to be not improbable that he had become a convert in the twenty-eighth year when the seventh pillar-edict was issued, has nevertheless expressed the opinion that the Sahasrām, etc., edict must be placed after the latter date, because it stamps Aśōka as a decided Buddhist zealot (Manual of Buddhism, 114, and note 3).

It has been shewn above that the Sahasrām, etc., edict was framed 256–218 = 38 years after the anointment of Aśōka. On the other side we have 29½ + 2½ + 6 = 38, with an indefinite but small “somewhat more” to be added in connexion with the 2½ and the 6.

page 497 note 2 The statement of the Dīpavaṁsa, that he reigned for thirty-seven years (from the date of his anointment), of course does not mean thirty-seven years exactly to the day; but it does mean that he had completed thirty-seven years.