KnI 417. Slab from Sannati — reign of Vāseṭṭhīputta Sivasiri-Puḷumāvi

dhamāraṃṇe tentatively interpreted it as a wilderness, where the Dharma is practiced. 456 noticed the occurrence of the word dharmāraṇya in the first act of Abhijñānaśakuntalā, referring to the forest where Kaṇva takes refuge: bhavati vedavid asmi pauraveṇa rājñādharmādhikāre niyuktaḥ so’ham āśramiṇām avighnakriyopalambhāya dharmāraṇyam idam āyātaḥ (Abhijñānaśakuntala 1.125). While Ollett acknowledged that the ascetics mentioned in KnI0417 may well have been Brahmins, as in Kaṇva’s hermitage 457, he argued that Buddhist monks could be referred to as āraṇyakas wilderness-dwelling, and that the Buddhist monk Saṅkhalika is, in Śūdraka’s Padmaprābhṛtaka as dharmāraṇyanivāsī, who lives in the religious wilderness. Based on this, he suggested that the edicts were likely addressed to Buddhists, although not exclusively to them, given the proximity of KnI0417 to Kanaganahalli stūpa. Apart from the first act of Abhijñānaśakuntala, where dharmāraṇya was used again (1.181) as a synonym of tapovana (1.182), it is also attested in Mahābhārata 14.96.13 in the sentence yajñāni deśān dharmāraṇyāni caiva. In Mahāvastu 2.195, dharmāraṇya is further used to refer to the hermitage of the (non-Buddhist) seer Vaśiṣṭha (bodhisatvo dharmāraṇyaṃ vaśiṣṭhasya ṛṣisya āśramapadaṃ praviṣṭaḥ). The interpretation of dharmāraṇya as a toponym in this context is ruled out, as it is replaced by its synonym tapovanam (sarvam imaṃ tapovanam obhāsitaṃ) in the same paragraph, which attests exactly the similar context in Abhijñānaśakuntala. Therefore, we can conclude that, at least until the 4th–5th century CE, the term dharmāraṇya most commonly referred to the wilderness used as the shelter by Brahmanical ascetics. In inscriptions from Gandhāra, to be sure, several Buddhist inscriptions use terms corresponding to Skt. araṇya to refer to a monastic residence, with a meaning close to ārāma 80(Strauch 2007: 80). Other terms in this inscription however reinforce our interpretation that the royal edict concerns a non-Buddhist community. kaṁdamūlaphaḷanivāro kaṁdamulaphaḷanivāro Nakanishi and von Hinüber relate the term to kandamūlaphalabhojana in canonical Pāli texts. More specifically, in the Ambaṭṭhasutta of the Dīghanikāya, the Buddha uses the term to describe a certain group of śramaṇa and brāhmaṇa, who plunge into the depths of the forest araññe vanam ajjhogāhati and be one of those who live only on bulbs and roots and fruitslive only on bulbs, roots and fruits (kandamūlaphala-bhojano bhavissāmīti) (Dīghanikāya III.2.3). In this context the Buddha refers to this practice as one of the four “leakages” (apāyamukha) for śramaṇa and brāhmaṇa, i.e. causes of ruin leading to one’s failure attaining the supreme perfection of wisdom and conduct, among other three: living on fruits that have fallen off themselves (pavattaphalabhojana), serving the fire-shrine, and entertaining other śramaṇa and brāhmaṇa. Thus, in this context kandamūlaphalabhojana is very clearly associated with non-Buddhists ascetism. A similar term kandamūlaphalāśin is attested in Mahābhārata 13.14.82, to refer to ascetics (muni) who dwell in the forest (vane nivasata). Combining this with the interpretation of dhamāraṃṇa, it seems most likely that the community of ascetics (tāpasa) addressed in this edict are not Buddhist monks, but rather Brahmanical ascetics characterized by a distinct diet and living in the wilderness. At the moment, the fragmentary state of the inscription and KnI0416 does not allow us to identify more precisely the identity of this group. tāpaso sa tāpasasa