Emperor Aśoka's Bilingual Rock Inscription in Kandahar

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

Here is emperor Aśoka’s bilingual rock inscription in Greek and Aramaic from Kandahar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_Bilingual_Rock_Inscription 

Interesting to note these: 

1. “Dharma” is translated into Greek as “εὐσέβεια” (eusebeia meaning piety) 
2. 
   
3. “Priyadarśin” is not translated but transliterated as Πιοδασσης (Piodasses) most probably from a Prakrit version Piyadasi or Piyadassi.  Interestingly, the Aramaic transliteration of the name seems to be directly from Sanskrit as it is Priyadarśi and not Piyadasi (pryd’rš mlk - Priyadarśi malik or King Priyadarśi.  Aramaic, like modern Arabic, does not generally show short vowels unless it is word initial. Incidentally, Aramaic mlk (king) may be etymologically related to mālik, malik and mulk).  Since the word is transliterated and not translated, it could be considered as one of the personal names of Aśoka. 
4. 
   
5. It appears that Aśoka prohibited slaughter of animals and hence meat eating. “And the king abstains from (killing) living beings, and other men and those who (are) huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted from hunting.”  However, a vast majority of present-day Buddhists are non-vegetarians.  Perhaps Buddhism and Jainism owe much to pre-existing Śramaṇa traditions of which vegetarianism might have been a part. 

 

Regards, 

Radhakrishna Warrier 

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

On < “Dharma” is translated into Greek as “εὐσέβεια” (eusebeia meaning piety) > :

Classical definitions of ‘Dharma’ even in works prior to Ashoka include ‘ahimsaa’ ( including meaning shades of krupaa, dayaa, abhaya) .

The ‘ten classical list of  values covered under  ‘Dharma (- dashakam dharma lakshanam) includes ten yogaangas of yama- niyama; and higlights ‘ ahimsaa’.

‘Ahimsaa’ was a common ‘Dharma factor’  for Vedic traditions, Buddhist and Jains. ‘Ahimsaa’ becomes the basis for ‘shaanti’- peace.

So the highlighting of ‘Core common value in translation seems appropriate.

Regards

BVK Sastry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CO6PR04MB765144F1B84D898D1B07AFADD0E29%40CO6PR04MB7651.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

What is धर्म -- how the term धर्म is understood / seen --

1. सांख्याः -- यागाद्यनुष्ठानजनितः अन्तःकरणवृत्तिविशेषः ।

2. सौगताः -- ज्ञानस्य वासना (संस्कार) विशेषः ।

3.आर्हताः -- पुण्यविशेषजाताः देहारंभकाः पुद्गलाख्याः परमाणवः ।

4. नैयायिकाः -- विहितकर्मानुष्ठानजनितः अदृष्टपर्यायः आत्मविशेषगुणः ।

5. मीमांसकैकदेशिनः -- अपूर्वम्

अत्र प्रमाणम् --

अन्तःकरणवृत्तौ वा वासनायां च चेतसः ।

पुद्गलेषु च पुण्येषु  नृगुणे’पूर्वजन्मनि ॥

प्रयोगो धर्मशब्दस्य .......।                  श्लोकवार्तिकम् , चोदनासूत्रम् , 195-6

6. जैमिनिः - शबरस्वामी - कुमारिलः  -- वेदबोधितः यागादिक्रियाकलापः --

चोदनालक्षणॊ’र्थो धर्मः ( जै सू  ) |  ’ य एव श्रेयस्करः स एव धर्मशब्देनोच्यते ’ ।  ’ यो हि यागमनुतिष्ठति तं धार्मिकं समाचक्षते ’ ( शाबरभाष्यम् ) ।

धर्मं चरति इति धार्मिकः -- ’ धर्मं चरति ’ पा 4-4-41 , ठक्

श्रेयो हि पुरुषप्रीतिः सा द्रव्यगुणकर्मभिः ।

चोदनालक्षणैः साध्या तस्मात् तेष्वेव धर्मता ॥ श्लोकवार्तिकम् , चोदनासूत्रम् , 191

7.  केचन आगमानुयायिनः -- चैत्यवन्दनम् ।

8. भागवताः -- योगजन्यात्मसाक्षात्कारः ।

9.ऐतिह्यवादिनः -- आचार  एव  मुख्यो धर्मः ।

10.  काणादाः -- अभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससिद्धेः हेतुभूतः ।

11. केचन  अभियुक्ताः -- सत्यमेव धर्मः ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/01b601d77d27%246369e5c0%242a3db140%24%40gmail.com.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Interestingly, the Aramaic transliteration of the name seems to be directly from Sanskrit as it is Priyadarśi and not Piyadasi (pryd’rš mlk - Priyadarśi malik or King Priyadarśi)

प्रा॒चीने॒षूत्की॑र्णेषु॒ लेखे॒ष्वल॑पतराक्षरा विका॒रा लिपे॑रपर्याप्त॒त्वाद्दृ॑श्यन्ते॒ न तु भा॑षाविका॒रादिति॑ म॒होद॑यस्य रामकृष्णसूर्यनाराय॒णस्य॑ वच॒नमुप॑पन्नमिव॒ प्रति॑भात्य॒नेन॑। तत्रापि॑ ग्रीग्भा॒षाया॒ विवि॑धाभि॒र्लिपि॑भिः कृ॒ताल्ँलेखा॒न्पठ॑द्भिर्वि॒द्वद्भि॒र्लिपे॑रपर्याप्त॒त्वं शङ्क॑मानैर्लिखि॒ताच्छब्द॒मनु॑मातुं प्रया॒सः क्रि॑यते। क॒थं तर्ही॒ह लि॑खिताक्ष॒रं शब्द॑स्य प्रति॒मानं॑ मन्यते? क॒थं नात्रापि॑ ता॒दृशी॑ विचिकि॒त्सा? वि॒शे॒षतो॑ माधवमहोद॒याज्ज्ञातु॑मिच्छामि।

This seems to support the view of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Sūryanārāyaṇan that the deviations from Sanskrit phonology seen in ancient Indian inscriptions are primarily due to orthographic constraints and do not represent the actual phonology of the spoken language. Ancient Greek scholars investigating Greek writings in various scripts take into account the inadequacy of scripts and try to reconstruct the spoken word from the written. Why then do we take the written to be representative of the spoken here and not do the same kind of inquiry? Would especially like to listen from Śrī Mādhava Deśapāṇḍe on this.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Ujjwal Ji,

     I have not personally worked on the Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts. However, if one consults the modern research on Ashokan inscriptions, origin of Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts, etc. by M. A. Mehendale, K.R. Norman, Richard Salomon, Oskar von HInuber, Hartmut Scharfe and many others, there is clear awareness and explicit demonstration of the slow development of these scripts and the inadequacy of the earlier forms of these scripts to fully represent the underlying languages. All the same, the same Brahmi script in Ashokan inscriptions ranging from the northwest to east shows local variations, for example rācā in the northwest to lājā in the east, and this gives us glimpses of the local language differences. That is the best I can say. With best regards,

Madhav M. Deshpande

Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies

Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/df47864c-cbd0-4fb6-a391-da52c16a3790n%40googlegroups.com.

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

That is an interesting view.  Kalidasa’s time would not have been far removed from Ashoka’s time. The script in which his dramas were written would obviously have been quite capable of writing all Sanskrit sounds. Yet, Prakrit as spoken by some of the characters is written with all the phonological changes from Sanskrit that we expect of Prakrit. Another point is that Greek is quite capable of representing the ‘r’ sound with the character‘rho’. Yet the scribes chose not to use it.

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 2:29 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Emperor Aśoka's Bilingual Rock Inscription in Kandahar

 

Interestingly, the Aramaic transliteration of the name seems to be directly from Sanskrit as it is Priyadarśi and not Piyadasi (pryd’rš mlk - Priyadarśi malik or King Priyadarśi)

प्रा॒चीने॒षूत्की॑र्णेषु॒ लेखे॒ष्वल॑पतराक्षरा विका॒रा लिपे॑रपर्याप्त॒त्वाद्दृ॑श्यन्ते॒ न तु भा॑षाविका॒रादिति॑ म॒होद॑यस्य रामकृष्णसूर्यनाराय॒णस्य॑ वच॒नमुप॑पन्नमिव॒ प्रति॑भात्य॒नेन॑। तत्रापि॑ ग्रीग्भा॒षाया॒ विवि॑धाभि॒र्लिपि॑भिः कृ॒ताल्ँलेखा॒न्पठ॑द्भिर्वि॒द्वद्भि॒र्लिपे॑रपर्याप्त॒त्वं शङ्क॑मानैर्लिखि॒ताच्छब्द॒मनु॑मातुं प्रया॒सः क्रि॑यते। क॒थं तर्ही॒ह लि॑खिताक्ष॒रं शब्द॑स्य प्रति॒मानं॑ मन्यते? क॒थं नात्रापि॑ ता॒दृशी॑ विचिकि॒त्सा? वि॒शे॒षतो॑ माधवमहोद॒याज्ज्ञातु॑मिच्छामि।

This seems to support the view of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Sūryanārāyaṇan that the deviations from Sanskrit phonology seen in ancient Indian inscriptions are primarily due to orthographic constraints and do not represent the actual phonology of the spoken language. Ancient Greek scholars investigating Greek writings in various scripts take into account the inadequacy of scripts and try to reconstruct the spoken word from the written. Why then do we take the written to be representative of the spoken here and not do the same kind of inquiry? Would especially like to listen from Śrī Mādhava Deśapāṇḍe on this.

--

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

Left out mentioning that in Kalidasa’s plays, the phonological features of both Sanskrit and Prakrit are represented correctly.

Another point is grammar.  I have read that the languages of the edicts match the grammar of the Prakrits than that of Sanskrit.

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Radhakrishna Warrier <radwa...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 8:04 AM
To: उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com>; भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Emperor Aśoka's Bilingual Rock Inscription in Kandahar

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CO6PR04MB7651BB6AFCE2D795D100E00DD0E29%40CO6PR04MB7651.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

का॒लि॒दा॒सस्ताव॑त् स॒प्तभिः॑ श॒तैर्व॑त्स॒रैर॒शोका॑त् पश्चि॒मः स्या॑त्। तस्मा॒त् पूर्व्या॑ण्य॒न्यान्यपि॑ संस्कृतप्राकृतनाट॒कानि॑ स्युः। अथापी॒दं मे॑ वक्त॒व्य॑म्। न खल्वेक॑रूपाः प्राकृतविका॒राः। न वे॑दा॒हं का॑लिदासनाट॒काना॑म् अ॒शोक॑स्य च॒ प्राकृ॑तेषु॒ यत् स॒मं यच्च॒ विशि॑ष्टम्। का॒लि॒दा॒सस्य॑ लिखि॒ते प्राकृ॑ते॒ केचि॑द् अक्षरविका॒रा अ॒शोक॑स्य॒ कस्मिं॑श्चिल्लिखि॒ते प्राकृ॑ते दृ॒श्येरं॒श्चेदपि॒ न जा॑नीमः कु॒वित् तस्मि॑न्न॒शोक॑स्य का॒लेऽपि॒ सा भा॒षासी॒दिति॑। अ॒यमर्थो॒ न मया॑ल्प॒ज्ञेन॒ निरा॑कर्तुं शक्यते॒ यत् तस्मि॑न्नशोकका॒ले भा॒षाया॑म॒क्षरा॑णि॒ रक्ष॑द्भि॒र्लेख॑ने॒ तेषां॑ स॒श्रुत्त॑मानि ले॒ख्या॑नि॒ प्रयु॑क्तानि। प॒श्चात्तेषां॑ विका॒राणा॑मकृत्रिम॒त्वाद् भा॒षाया॒मपि॒ त आग॑ताः। लिपे॑रपर्याप्त॒त्वाद् व॑च॒नस्य॑ च पर्याप्त॒त्वादुत्त॑रा॒ अकृ॑त्रिमा विका॒रा लेख॑ने॒ प्रागे॒वोप॑लक्षिता॒ इत्यर्थः॑। कल्प॑नमेवे॒दं मे॒ न स॒त्यतो॑ जानामि। रा॒म॒कृ॒ष्ण॒म॒हो॒द॒यस्यार्थो॒ मया॑ स॒म्यग्गृ॑ही॒तो न वे॒दमपि॑ संश॒य ए॒व ज्ञा॑त॒व्य॑म्।

Kālidāsa would be around seven hundred years later to Aśoka. There are surely older dramas incorporating Sanskrit and Prakrits. But here is the point. Prakrits are irregular. I don't know whatever is common between the Prakrits of Kālidāsa and those of the inscriptions of Aśoka. And even if we can determine that there is a pair of languages of which one is from Kālidāsa's works and the other from Aśokan (written) Prakrits which have similar looking phonology, still we cannot say that the phonological peculiarities would have been present in one of the spoken languages at the time of Aśoka. From whatever I know, it can very well be possible that even though Sanskrit phoneme diversity was preserved in speech, due to writing constraints the letters were approximated with representations that sounded close and later these approximations actually took concrete form of sound changes in spoken language due to their naturalness. That is to say, due to inadequacy of script and adequacy of vocal faculty, the forthcoming natural sound changes were earlier anticipated in writing. This is just a possibility I imagine. I may be wrong. I may even be wrong in capturing the view of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Sūryanārāyaṇan.