Re: Asoka pillar

--- In palistudy@..., "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson_on@...> wrote:
> Dear Amara,
>
> >Thank you both for this very much, I really appreciate the
discussion,
> >and Jim's great translation, which I would like to ask about;  I
would
>
> I'd like to clarify that it wasn't my translation. It was done by E.
> Hultzsch which S. Dutt quotes (possibly) from Inscriptions of Asoka,
1925.
> (Dutt doesn't give the book's title and I'm only thinking that this
might be
> the one).
>
> >like know more about the 'stone horse or wall'.  In Thai we use the
> >word 'ma' - high tone- to indicate not only the animal but
something
> >with generally four 'legs' on which one sits or sets an object.  Is
> >there any possibility that in Pali this is also the case, say the
> >'horse' being the pedestal for something?  In which case could it
be
> >the stone dug up under the Maha Maya statue in the temple, which is
> >said not to be a local stone, and not found within hundreds of
miles
> >around?  The archeologists reported that although the temples built
> >over one another varied in shape and size, the statue has always
been
> >in the same spot, right over the stone.
>
> The word(s) in the inscription for the stone wall or horse is
> 'silaaviga.dabhiicaa' which doesn't seem to make much sense in Pali
or
> Sanskrit. All I can make of it so far is 'sila' for stone and
'ga.da' (Skt.)
> for wall or fence. 'caa' at the end might be 'ca' for 'and'. I don't
see any
> word in it suggesting a horse ('assa' in Pali). On the same page
from where
> I quoted the translation of the inscription there is also mentioned
a much
> defaced relief in stone discovered near the shrine showing Queen
Maya
> holding the branch of a tree. It says that this stone is made of
yellowish
> sandstone like that of the Asokan pillar. Could this be the same
stone that
> you're referring to (the one dug up under the statue)? I'm afraid I
have
> very little in the way of specialized information on Asokan
inscriptions to
> help us out. However, tt does sound plausible that the discovered
stone
> might be related to that troublesome word in the inscription.
>
> Jim


Dear Jim,

I wouldn't be able to tell you for certain, but I doubt it is the same
one because the one I saw in the picture in the archeological article
was of a large uncarved grey stone.  But it might have changed color,
although there was definitely no carving as I remember.  I hope to be
able to see it this trip and if possible will report more,

Thanks for everything, anumodana,

Amara