1863. ] R:mirks on the Taxila Inscription. 423 
but I unhesitatingly reject the reading “ Rachite (na)”. The first 
letter is certainly 7, but it is completely curled round at the point in 
a way that I have supposed to represent the vowel 7 in the word 
Chhatrapast. There is this difference, however, between the two 
words; both occur twice, but while the curled point is distinctly re- 
peated in the s it is not 60 in the 7. In the short line at the foot, the 
word is clearly written “ sangharame.” ‘This leads me to believe that 
the curl of the r in this passage is simply an exaggeration. ‘The next 
character is “mam. General Cunningham has failed to recognize the 
anuswara here, like as he has failed to observe it as subjoined to the & 
in the word mahantasa. For these reasons I hold to the reading “ san- 
gharam cha,” taking the final syllable of the first word to represent 
a Gen. pl. I may also add, that it seems clear to my mind, that 
Liako Kusuluko himself, and no other person, performed the deed 
which the Inscription commemorates. There are other minor points 
of difference in the transliteration which may be passed over at present, 
TI will only remark that the final letters of the body of the Inscrip- 
tion which General Cunningham has passed over as illegible, and 
which I have read as weajae, are perhaps better brought out in the 
copy seat to India than in the lithograph published at home. They 
are at best only doubtful, and my reading can only be looked upon 
as plausible. 
Babu Rajendra Lal has already suggested some emendations of 
General Cunningham’s translation which bring it more into conformity 
with my own. Thus, he proposes pijd, instead of puiiya, as the equi- 
valent of puyaye ; and he is disposed to reject the idea of ayu-bala- 
vardhia* being a name. With the analogies of raya for rdjé and 
Kuyula for Kujula it is needless to argue in favour of pijd being the 
night word. It may, however, be observed that puiiia not puya is the 
Prakrit and Pali form of pujiya. This emendation will require that 
the rendering of sarva-buddhana should be changed from “all Bud- 
dhists” into “all the Buddhas” as I translated it, and which seems in 
every way preferable. 
IT will now proceed to notice that portion of General Cunningham’s 
rendering which I consider more accurate than my own. It is the 
beginning of the Inscription, where he refers the phrase “ etaye 
* The final of this word is clearly a not ka. The lithograph of this Journal 
is inferior to the home one in this spot. 
3 
