1852.] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society, 637 



ant bearing on the state of Buddhism at the time the Inscriptions were 

 made. For instance at the close of the East compartment is the anoma- 

 lous character and word 



H?. 



This Prinsep proposed to read as a compound for ft A agnim, fire. No 



such divinity is known to the Pali Buddhist books, so far as I am acquainted 

 with them ; and I am of opinion that that word is intended for ^j ^ • aggan, 

 an epithet often applied to Gaudama, in the books, in the signification of 

 being the first and most superior of beings. It is the Sanscrit word ^pf, 

 and the r may be represented possibly in some way on the Inscription, 

 though in book Pali it is always compensated by doubling the g. Nothing 

 however can be determined from the passage with certainty till the word is 

 more accurately represented. 



It seems to me that some of the inscriptions which have been regarded 

 as contemporaneous, are of different ages. For instance the inscription 

 from Bhabra, in the Journal No. 102 (1840), which Capt. Kittoe referred 

 to the age of Asoka, but, as it seems to me, on insufficient ground. It 

 teems with modern Buddhistic theological terms, not one of which is found 

 in Prinsep's inscription. Here we have ({j'W sangha the congregation, [] y 

 budha, the Budha, r/ A O bhagava, the Lord, and not only the common 

 names of the begging priests and priestesses, but also [_ \j Jlj-f- upasaka&nd 

 LU Xj"\~upasika 3 men and women who perform their religious duties ; with 



several other terms common to modern Buddhism. There is some differ- 

 ence too in the language. In the other inscriptions the causative verb is 



made by \j pi, but in this by jj \, piya. But a more exact copy is desir- 

 able to determine many words with certainty. The conjunction is repeat- 

 edly written J cha, which is probably an error of transcription for J cha. 

 I fancy the Pundit's Sanscrit version will not be found an accurate trans- 

 lation of the Pali ; although he is undoubtedly correct in the principal 

 words on which the chief interest depends.'' 



The Secretary explained to the meeting that as yet he had been 

 unable to trace the receipt by Mr. Prinsep, of the further copies of 

 the inscription alluded to by Mr. Mason. 



Read letters from J. Barlow, Esq., Secretary to the Royal Insti- 

 tution, London, acknowledging receipt of the Journal Nos. 226 and 

 227. 



4.m 2 



