682 Note on the language of the Buddhist Scriptures. [Aue» 



marked in the facsimile with more strength, could readily be copied 

 by the eye. 



There is another thing worthy of being noticed, which is, that after 

 a few days' work, we discovered that when the sun was descending in 

 the west, a palpable shadow was thrown into the letter, from which 

 great assistance was derived, no doubtful letter has been admitted in 

 the facsimile sent for your supervision, and it may be fairly doubted 

 whether you will ever get a better or more honest copy. 



As to the character in which the inscription is written, speaking 

 from a very limited knowledge of the subject, my opinion the very 

 first day, was, that it is in the ancient Ceylonese, or Pali ; but as you 

 have lately, with great perseverance and deserved success, made plain 

 inscriptions hitherto perfectly a dead letter, I have great hopes you will 

 be able to make something out of this celebrated stone of Singapore. 



I may as well mention that tradition among the Malays, point to 

 Telinga and Ceylon as its origin, which may be seen more at length in 

 Leyden's Malayan Annals. 



W. Bland." 



V. — Note on the Primary language of the Buddhist writings. By 



B. H. Hodgson, Esq. Resident in Nipal. 



To the Editor, Journal As. Soc. 



I have read article II. of the 66th No. of your Journal with great 

 interest. With regard to the language in which the religion of Sa'kya, 

 ' was preached and spread among the people/ I perceive nothing 

 opposed to my own opinions in the fact that that language was the 

 vernacular. 



There is merely in your case, as priorly in that of Mr. Turnour, 

 some misapprehension of the sense in which I spoke to that point. 



The preaching and spreading of the religion is a very different 

 thing from the elaboration of those speculative principles from which 

 the religion was deduced. In the one case, the appeal would be to 

 the many ; in the other, to the few. And whilst I am satisfied that 

 the Buddhists as practical reformers addressed themselves to the peo- 

 ple, and as propagandists used the vulgar tongue, I think that those 

 philosophical dogmata which formed the basis of the popular creed, 

 were enounced, defended and systematised in Sanskrit. I never 

 alleged that the Buddhists had eschewed the Prakrits : I only denied 

 the allegation that they had eschewed the Sanskrit ; and I endea- 

 voured, at the same time, to reconcile their use of both, by drawing a 



