Professor H. H. Wilson to doubt the generally accepted identification of Asoka with the Priyadarsi who published the edicts.* The learned professor rests his scepticism on the following grounds, which it is necessary to examine in detail, out of respect for one who has rendered such distinguished services in every branch of Indian literature. 1st. "It is doubtful whether the edicts of Priyadarsi have any connection with Buddhism, the meaning of the inscriptions, to say the least, being equivocal." Again, "There is nothing in the injunctions promulgated that is decidedly and exclusively characteristic of Buddhism."† 2nd. The total omission of any allusion to Buddha himself by any of his appellations, Sugata, Tathúgata, Gautama, or Sákya.‡ 3rd. The identification (of Asoka with Priyadarsi) rests upon a passage in the Dipawanso, "a work of rather doubtful character," which is besides a composition of the fourth century of our era.‡ 4th. "It seems very inexplicable, why in none of the inscriptions his own appellation Asoka, or Dharmasoka, should ever be mentioned."§ 5th. Chronological difficulties of which it is not easy to dispose. || * Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, xii. 236. + Ibid. p. 288. t Ibid. p. 241. Ibid. p. 243. 6. The first objection appears to me to rest entirely upon the translation of a single word, Dharma, which, as James Prinsep truly observed, is the "keystone" of all the edicts. By translating Dhar· ma, wherever it occurs, sometimes as "piety," or "religion," and sometimes as "morality," or "virtue," the whole scope and purport of the edicts of Priyadarsi are entirely lost sight of. These ordinances, on all the pillars, and on the rocks, both at Girnar and at Kapurdigiri, are styled by the king himself, dhamalipi, or "edicts-on-Dharma." James Prinsep translates this word as "religious edict ;" and Professor Wilson omits all mention of dharma, and simply calls the inscription an "edict;" but to obtain the full force and meaning of the term, it should be rendered as I have given it above, "edict or ordinance on Dharma," that is on the "religious law" of BUDDHA. If the word Dharma had occurred but once or twice in these inscriptions, it might have been rendered by any one of the ordinary meanings given above; but in the rock inscriptions it occurs no less than thirty-seven times; and in combinations with other terms which prove it to be wholly and emphatically Buddhistical. Thus, in the 5th Tablet, we have Dhamma-vúdhiya, which Prinsep translates "increase of religion," and Professor Wilson, "augmentation of virtue," but which ought to be rendered "advancement of Dharma"-that is, the propagation of the Religious Law of Buddha. This is still more clearly shown in the opening of the 11th Tablet, in which Dharma has been translated by both as "virtue."* "Devanampiyo PIYADASI rája evam áha: násti etárisam dánam yárisam Dhamma-dánam "Thus saith King PRIYADARSI, the beloved of the Devas-There is no gift like the gift of Dharma; whether it be knowledge of Dharma, or inheritance of Dharma, or close union with Dharma." And towards the end of the same Tablet: "idam sádhu, idam katavyam sotathá parato vú anantam punam bhavati tena Dhammadánena.” "This is well this should be done: (and for him) who doeth thus, there is happiness in this world; and everlasting holiness hereafter is obtained by this gift of Dharma." 7. Other passages of similar force and value might be quoted at length; but it will be sufficient to mention that the whole of Priyadarsi's edicts are dedicated to the attainment of one object, Dharma-varddhana, the "advancement of Dharma." For this purpose he directed that "men learned in Dharma" should be appointed to "establishments of Dharma," to preach "sermons on Dharma," to * Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, xii. p. 213. the "people united in Dharma."* These doctors of Dharma were also directed to penetrate amongst the unbelievers, to mix with high and low, rich and poor, hermits and worldly men, for the purpose of instructing them in the perfect observance of Dharma.t 8. Throughout all these edicts, both on the pillars and on the rocks, Priyadarsi announces his own adherence to Dharma (or the law of Buddha), and his belief that the love of Dharma (Dhammakáma) would continue to increase. He inculcates that Dharma consists in the strict observance of moral duties, in the performance of pious acts, and in the entire subjection of the passions; and he declares that Dharma will be advanced by the prohibition (ahinsa or avihinsa) against taking life.§ Dharma is in fact the only key by which the meaning of these inscriptions can be unlocked; and its frequent and emphatic use, throughout these royal edicts, shows that their promulgator was a firm and zealous adherent of Dharma, or the law of Buddha. Asoka was the same; for which reason the people called him Dharmasoka. • Prinsep's Journal, vi. 602. men, or doctors of Dharma.” Dhamma-mahámatá, "learned ments-for-Dharma." Janam-Dhammayutum, "people-joined-by Dharma." Dhamma-sávánáni, " lectures-on-Dharma." + Dhammapadána, perfect observance of Dharma; from apadán well-doing, or complete performance. Prinsep's Journal, vi. 582. Prinsep's Journal, vi. 608. 9. I may observe here that Mr. Turnour, the translator of the Páli Annals of Ceylon, appears to have felt the full force and meaning of Dharma, which he always gives in its Páli form of Dhammo. Had he translated it simply as 66 religion," the true sense of many passages would have been utterly lost. But he was living in a Buddhist country, and in daily intercourse with Buddhist monks, and he therefore knew and appreciated the peculiar significance of the term; which stamps the follower of Dharma as an undoubted Buddhist, or observer of the "Religious Law" of Buddha. 10. Professor Wilson's second objection is the omission of any mention of Buddha himself, by any of his well-known appellations. But this is met by the frequent and emphatic use of Dharma, the name of the second person of the orthodox Buddhist Triad. Bhagaván is also twice mentioned in the 13th Tablet of the Kapurdigiri inscription; but this title, although very commonly used by the Buddhists, is only an epithet for the Supreme Being, and might therefore have been used by the Brahmans of those days as well as by the Buddhists. The common Brahmanical term, however, is Bhagavat, and I believe that the use of Bhagaván is almost peculiar to the Buddhists. But though the omission of Buddha's own name in these inscriptions cannot, perhaps, be now explained, yet the Buddhistical faith of Priyardarsi is placed beyond all doubt by his mention of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, the three |