Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Gangaridai [Gandaridai] [Gandaridae] [Gandaritae] [Gandridae] [Gangaridae] [Gargaridae]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 7/6/21

47. The country inland from Barygaza is inhabited by numerous tribes, such as the Arattii, the Arachosii, the Gandaraei and the people of Poclais, in which is Bucephalus Alexandria. Above these is the very warlike nation of the Bactrians, who are under their own king. And Alexander, setting out from these parts, penetrated to the Ganges, leaving aside Damirica and the southern part of India; and to the present day ancient drachmae are current in Barygaza, coming from this country, bearing inscriptions in Greek letters, and the devices of those who reigned after Alexander, Apollodorus and Menander. [Librarian's Comment: A significant and presumably knowing omission from the Wikipedia article on the Periplus is paragraph 47, missing along with everything from 42-48, this extraordinary piece of testimony that cuts against the general trend of Indian pseudo-history that contends Alexander never reached the Ganges. Indeed, never crossed the Indus, spooked by Sandrocottus' herd of war elephants.]

-- The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean by a Merchant of the First Century, Translated & edited by W.H. Schoff (London, Bombay & Calcutta 1912).

Gangaridai in Ptolemy's Map

Gangaridai (Greek: Γανγαρίδαι; Latin: Gangaridae) is a term used by the ancient Greco-Roman writers to describe a people or a geographical region of the ancient Indian subcontinent. Some of these writers state that Alexander the Great withdrew from the Indian subcontinent because of the strong war elephant force of the Gangaridai. The writers variously mention the Gangaridai as a distinct tribe, or a nation within a larger kingdom (presumably the Nanda Empire).

A number of modern scholars locate Gangaridai in the Ganges Delta of the Bengal region, although alternative theories also exist. Gange or Ganges, the capital of the Gangaridai (according to Ptolemy), has been identified with several sites in the region, including Chandraketugarh and Wari-Bateshwar.

Names

The Greek writers use the names "Gandaridae" (Diodorus), "Gandaritae", and "Gandridae" (Plutarch) to describe these people. The ancient Latin writers use the name "Gangaridae", a term that seems to have been coined by the 1st century poet Virgil.[1]

Some modern etymologies of the word Gangaridai split it as "Gaṅgā-rāṣṭra", "Gaṅgā-rāḍha" or "Gaṅgā-hṛdaya". However, D. C. Sircar believes that the word is simply the plural form of "Gangarid" (derived from the base "Ganga"), and means "Ganga (Ganges) people".[2]

Greek accounts

Several ancient Greek writers mention Gangaridai [rather, "Gandaridae; Gandaritae and Gandridae"???], but their accounts are largely based on hearsay.[3]

Diodorus

The earliest surviving description of Gangaridai ["Gandaridae"????] appears in Bibliotheca historica of the 1st century BCE writer Diodorus Siculus. This account is based on a now-lost work, probably the writings of either Megasthenes or Hieronymus of Cardia.[4]

In Book 2 of Bibliotheca historica, Diodorus states that "Gandaridae" (i.e. Gangaridai[???]) territory was located to the east of the Ganges river, which was 30 stades wide. He mentions that no foreign enemy had ever conquered Gandaridae, because of its strong elephant force.[5] He further states that Alexander the Great advanced up to Ganges after subjugating other Indians, but decided to retreat when he heard that the Gandaridae had 4,000 elephants.[6]

This river [Ganges], which is thirty stades in width, flows from north to south and empties into the ocean, forming the boundary towards the east of the tribe of the Gandaridae, which possesses the greatest number of elephants and the largest in size. Consequently no foreign king has ever subdued this country, all alien nations being fearful of both the multitude and the strength of the beasts. In fact even Alexander of Macedon, although he had subdued all Asia, refrained from making war upon the Gandaridae alone of all peoples; for when he had arrived at the Ganges river with his entire army, after his conquest of the rest of the Indians, upon learning that the Gandaridae had four thousand elephants equipped for war he gave up his campaign against them.

-- Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 2.37.2-3. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather.[7]

37. The land of the Indians has also many large navigable rivers which have their sources in the mountains lying to the north and then flow through the level country; and not a few of these unite and empty into the river known as the Ganges. This river, which is thirty stades in width, flows from north to south and empties into the ocean, forming the boundary towards the east of the tribe of the Gandaridae, which possesses the greatest number of elephants and the largest in size. Consequently no foreign king has ever subdued this country, all alien nations being fearful of both the multitude and the strength of the beasts. In fact even Alexander of Macedon, although he had subdued all Asia, refrained from making war upon the Gandaridae alone of all peoples; for when he had arrived at the Ganges river with his entire army, after his conquest of the rest of the Indians, upon learning that the Gandaridae had four thousand elephants equipped for war he gave up his campaign against them.1 [A fuller account of this incident is given in Book 17. 93. But Alexander did not reach the river system of the Ganges, the error being due to a confusion of the Ganges with the Sutlej, a tributary of the Indus; cp. W. W. Tarn, “Alexander and the Ganges,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, 43 (1923), 93 ff.]

The river which is nearly the equal of the Ganges and is called the Indus rises like the Ganges in the north, but as it empties into the ocean forms a boundary of India; and in its course through an expanse of level plain it receives not a few navigable rivers, the most notable being the Hypanis,2 [In Book 17. 93. 1 and Arrian, 6. 24. 8, this river is called the Hyphasis, which is the name preferred by most modern writers. Strabo (15. 1. 27, 32), however, calls it the Hypanis, and Quintus Curtius (9. 1. 35), Hypasis.] Hydaspes, and Acesinus. And in addition to these three rivers a vast number of others of every description traverse the country and bring it about that the land is planted in many gardens and crops of every description. Now for the multitude of rivers and the exceptional supply of water the philosophers and students of nature among them advance the following cause: The countries which surround India, they say, such as Scythia, Bactria, and Ariana, are higher than India, and so it is reasonable to assume that the waters which come together from every side into the country lying below them, gradually cause the regions to become soaked and to generate a multitude of rivers. And a peculiar thing happens in the case of one of the rivers of India, known as the Silla, which flows from a spring of the same name; for it is the only river in the world possessing the characteristic that nothing cast into it floats, but that everything, strange to say, sinks to the bottom.

-- Diodorus of Siciliy in Twelve Volumes, Volume I, Books II (continued) 35-IV, 58, with an English translation by C.H. Oldfather, Professor of Ancient History and Languages, The University of Nebraska, 1935 (p. 9-13)

In Book 17 of Bibliotheca historica, Diodorus once again describes the "Gandaridae", and states that Alexander had to retreat after his soldiers refused to take an expedition against the Gandaridae. The book (17.91.1) also mentions that a nephew of Porus fled to the land of the Gandaridae,[6] although C. Bradford Welles translates the name of this land as "Gandara".[8]

Beyond the Hydaspes was the powerful kingdom of Porus, who held sway as far as the Acesines, which we know as the Chenab, the next of the "Five Rivers." East of the Chenab, in the lands of the Ravee and the Beas, were other small principalities, and also free "kingless" peoples, who owned no master.



-- Chapter XVIII: The Conquest of the Far East, Excerpt from "History of Greece for Beginners", by J. B. Bury, M.A.

He [Alexander] questioned Phegeus about the country beyond the Indus River, and learned that there was a desert to traverse for twelve days, and then the river called Ganges, which was thirty-two furlongs in width and the deepest of all the Indian rivers. Beyond this in turn dwelt the peoples of the Tabraesians [misreading of Prasii[1]] and the Gandaridae, whose king was Xandrames. He had twenty thousand cavalry, two hundred thousand infantry, two thousand chariots, and four thousand elephants equipped for war. Alexander doubted this information and sent for Porus, and asked him what was the truth of these reports. Porus assured the king that all the rest of the account was quite correct, but that the king of the Gandaridae was an utterly common and undistinguished character, and was supposed to be the son of a barber. His father had been handsome and was greatly loved by the queen; when she had murdered her husband, the kingdom fell to him.

-- Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 17.93. Translated by C. Bradford Welles.[8]

In Book 18 of Bibliotheca historica, Diodorus describes India as a large kingdom comprising several nations, the largest of which was "Tyndaridae" (which seems to be a scribal error for "Gandaridae"). He further states that a river separated this nation from their neighbouring territory; this 30-stadia wide river was the greatest river in this region of India (Diodorus does not mention the name of the river in this book). He goes on to mention that Alexander did not campaign against this nation, because they had a large number of elephants.[6] The Book 18 description is as follows:

…the first one along the Caucasus is India, a great and populous kingdom, inhabited by many Indian nations, of which the greatest is that of the Gandaridae, against whom Alexander did not make a campaign because of the multitude of their elephants. The river Ganges, which is the deepest of the region and has a width of thirty stades, separates this land from the neighbouring part of India. Adjacent to this is the rest of India, which Alexander conquered, irrigated by water from the rivers and most conspicuous for its prosperity. Here were the dominions of Porus and Taxiles, together with many other kingdoms, and through it flows the Indus River, from which the country received its name.

-- Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 18.6.1-2. Translated by Russel M. Geer.[9]

Diodorus' account of India in the Book 2 is based on Indica, a book written by the 4th century BCE writer Megasthenes, who actually visited India. Megasthenes' Indica is now lost, although it has been reconstructed from the writings of Diodorus and other later writers.[6] J. W. McCrindle (1877) attributed Diodorus' Book 2 passage about the Gangaridai to Megasthenes in his reconstruction of Indica.[10] However, according to A. B. Bosworth (1996), Diodorus' source for the information about the Gangaridai was Hieronymus of Cardia (354–250 BCE), who was a contemporary of Alexander and the main source of information for Diodorus' Book 18. Bosworth points out that Diodorus describes Ganges as 30 stadia wide; but it is well-attested by other sources that Megasthenes described the median (or minimum) width of Ganges as 100 stadia.[4] This suggests that Diodorus obtained the information about the Gandaridae from another source, and appended it to Megasthenes' description of India in Book 2.[6]

Plutarch

Plutarch (46-120 CE) mentions the Gangaridai as "'Gandaritae" (in Parallel Lives - Life of Alexander 62.3) and as "Gandridae" (in Moralia 327b.).[1]

The Battle with Porus depressed the spirits of the Macedonians, and made them very unwilling to advance farther into India... This river [the Ganges], they heard, had a breadth of two and thirty stadia, and a depth of 1000 fathoms, while its farther banks were covered all over with armed men, horses and elephants. For the kings of the Gandaritai and the Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him (Alexander) with an army of 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 war-chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants.

-- Plutarch[11]

Other writers


A modern map identifying the places depicted in the Periplous of the Erythraean Sea

Ptolemy (2nd century CE), in his Geography, states that the Gangaridae occupied "all the region about the mouths of the Ganges".[12] He names a city called Gange as their capital.[13] This suggests that Gange was the name of a city, derived from the name of the river. Based on the city's name, the Greek writers used the word "Gangaridai" to describe the local people.[12]

The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea does not mention the Gangaridai, but attests the existence of a city that the Greco-Romans described as "Ganges":

There is a river near it called the Ganges, and it rises and falls in the same way as the Nile. On its bank is a market-town which has the same name as the river, Ganges. Through this place are brought malabathrum and Gangetic spikenard and pearls, and muslin of the finest sorts, which are called Gangetic. It is said that there are gold-mines near these places, and there is a gold coin which is called caltis.

-- Anonymous, Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Translated by Wilfred Harvey Schoff.[14]

Dionysius Periegetes (2nd-3rd century CE) mentions "Gargaridae" located near the "gold-bearing Hypanis" (Beas) river. "Gargaridae" is sometimes believed to be a variant of "Gangaridae", but another theory identifies it with Gandhari people. A. B. Bosworth dismisses Dionysius' account as "a farrago of nonsense", noting that he inaccurately describes the Hypanis river as flowing down into the Gangetic plain.[15]

Gangaridai also finds a mention in Greek mythology. In Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautica (3rd century BCE), Datis, a chieftain, leader of the Gangaridae who was in the army of Perses III, fought against Aeetes during the Colchian civil war.[16] Colchis was situated in modern-day Georgia, on the east of the Black Sea. Aeetes was the famous king of Colchia against whom Jason and the Argonauts undertook their expedition in search of the "Golden Fleece". Perses III was the brother of Aeetes and king of the Taurian tribe.

I took notice that the Oreitae and Oxydracae pretended to be descended from Dionusus. The like was said of the Gargaridae, who lived upon the Hypanis [Beas River], near Mount Hemodus, and are mentioned by the poet Dionysius.

82 [Dionys. Perieg. v. 1143. Pompon. Mela speaks of the city Nusa in these parts. Urbium, quas incolunt, Nysa est clarissima et maxima: montium, Meros, Jovi sacer. Famam hic prjecipuam habent in illa genitum, in hujus specu Liberum arbitrantur esse nutritum: unde Graecis auctoribus, ut semori Jovis insitum dicerent, aut materia ingessit, aut error. L. 3. c. 7. p. 276. The most knowing of the Indi maintained that Dionusos came from the west. (Google translate: Nysa is the most famous and the largest of the cities which they inhabit: mountains, Meros, sacred to Jupiter. They have a special reputation here, begotten in it, they think in this cave that they had been brought up; whence, according to Greek authors, to say that it was implanted in the seed of Jupiter, it either caused the matter, or an error.)] [x]

He styles them from their worship and extraction "the servants of Dionusos." As there was a Caucasus in these parts, so was there also a region named 83 [Colchis mentioned by AEthicus, and styled Colche: also by Ptolemy.] Colchis; which appears to have been a very flourishing and powerful province. It was situated at the bottom of that large isthmus, which lies between the Indus and Ganges: and seems to have comprehended the kingdoms, which are styled Madura, Tranquebar, and Cochin. The Gargaridae, who lived above upon the Hypanis, used to bring down to the Colchians the gold of their country, which they bartered for other commodities. The place, where they principally traded, was the city Comar, or Comarin, at the extremity of the isthmus to the south. The Colchians had here the advantage of a pearl fishery, by which they must have been greatly enriched. A learned commentator upon the ancient geographers gives this account of their country. 84 [Geographi Minores. Prolegom.] Post Barim amnem in Aiorum regione est Elancon emporium, et Cottiara metropolis, ac Comaria promontorium; et oppidum in Periplo Erythrari [c] et [c], nunc servato nomine Comarin. Ab hoc promontorio sinus Colchicus incipit, cui Colchi, [x], emporium adjacens, nomen dederunt [Google translate: Next to the river Bari, in the region of the Aii, is Elancon, the commercial port. and Cottiara the metropolis, and Comaria the promontory; and a town in the Periplo of Erythrarus, now being maintained by the name of Comarin. From this promontory the bay of Colchicus begins to whom the Colchis, adjoining the bazaar, gave their name.]. The Periplus Maris Erythraei, here spoken of, is a most valuable and curious treatise, whoever may have been the author: and the passage chiefly referred to is that which follows: 85 [Arriani Peripl. Maris Erythraei, apud Geograph. Graecos Minores. v. i. P. 33. Dionysius calls this region [x] instead of [x]. [x]. Perieg. v. 1148. And others have supposed it was named Colis from Venus Colias. But what has any title of a Grecian Goddess to do with the geography of India? The region was styled both Colica, and Colchica. It is remarkable, that as there was a Caucasus and Regio Colica, as well as Colchica, in India: so the same names occur among the Cutheans upon the Pontus Euxinus. Here was Regio Colica, as well as Cholcica at the foot of Mount Caucasus. Pliny L. 6. c. 5. p. 305. They are the same name differently expressed.] [x]. "From Elabacara extends a mountain called Purrhos, and the coast styled Paralia" (or the pearl coast), "reaching down to the most southern point, where is the great fishery for pearl, which people dive for. It is under a king named Pandion; and the chief city is Colchi. There are two places; where they fish for this 86 [Paralia seems at first a Greek word; but is in reality a proper name in the language of the country. I make no doubt, but what we call Pearl was the Paral of the Amonians and Cuthites. Paralia is "the Land of Pearls." All the names of gems, as now in use, and of old, were from the Amonians: Adamant, Amethyst, Opal, Achates or Agate, Pyropus, Onyx, Sardonyx, AEtites, Alabaster, Beril, Coral, Cornelian. As this was the shore, where these gems were really found, we may conclude, that Paralia signified the Pearl Coast. There was pearl fishery in the Red Sea, and it continues to this day near the island Delaqua. Purchass. v. 5. p. 778. In these parts, the author of the Periplus mentions islands, which he styles [x], or Pearl Islands. See Geogr. Gr. Minores. Periplus. v. i. p. 9.] commodity: of which the first is Balita: here is a fort, and an harbour. In this place, many persons who have a mind to live an holy life, and to separate themselves from the world, come and bathe, and then enter into a state of celibacy. There are women, who do the same. For it is said that the place at particular seasons every month is frequented by the Deity of the country, a Goddess who comes and bathes in the waters. The coast, near which they fish for pearl, lies all along from Comari to Colchi. It is performed by persons, who have been guilty of some crime, and are compelled to this service. All this coast to the southward is under the aforementioned king Pandion. After this there proceeds another tract of coast, which forms a gulf."

The author then proceeds to describe the great trade, which was carried on by this people, and by those above, upon the Hypanis and Ganges: and mentions the fine linen, which was brought down from Scythia Limyrica, and from Comara, and other places. And if we compare the history, which he gives, with the modern accounts of this country, we shall find that the same rites and customs still prevail; the same manufactures are carried on: nor is the pearl fishery yet exhausted. And if any the least credit may be afforded to etymological elucidation, the names of places among the Cuthite nations are so similar in themselves, and in their purport, that we may prove the people to have been of the same family; and perceive among them the same religion and customs, however widely they were scattered. The mountains Caucasus and 87 [The mountain Pyrrhus, [x], was an eminence sacred to Ur, or Orus; who was also called Cham-Ur, and his priests Chamurin. The city Ur in Chaldea is called Chamurin by Eupolemus, who expresses it [x]. Euseb. Praep. Evang. L. 9. p. 418. Hence this promontory in Colchis Indica is rendered Comar by the author of the Periplus; and at this day it is called Comorin. The river Indus is said to run into a bay called Sinus Saronicus. Plutarch. de Flumin. Sar-On, Dominus Sol.] Pyrrhus, the rivers Hypanis, Baris, Chobar, Soana, Cophis, Phasis, Indus, of this country, are to be found among the Cuthite nations in the west. One of the chief cities in this country was Cottiara. This is no other than Aracotta reversed; and probably the same that is called Arcot at this day. The city Comara, and the promontory Comarine are of the same etymology as the city Ur in Chaldea; which was called Camar and Camarina from the priests and worship there established. The region termed Aia above Colchis was a name peculiarly given by the Amonians to the places, where they resided. Among the Greeks the word grew general; and Aia was made to signify any land: but among the Egyptians, at least among the Cuthites of that country, as well as among those of Colchis Pontica, it was used for a proper name of their country:

-- A New System, Or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt is Made to Divest Tradition of Fable; and to Reduce the Truth to its Original Purity, by Jacob Bryant, 1775

Latin accounts

The Roman poet Virgil speaks of the valour of the Gangaridae in his Georgics (c. 29 BCE).

On the doors will I represent in gold and ivory the battle of the Gangaridae and the arms of our victorious Quirinius.

-- Virgil, "Georgics" (III, 27)

Quintus Curtius Rufus (possibly 1st century CE) noted the two nations Gangaridae and Prasii:

Next came the Ganges, the largest river in all India, the farther bank of which was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and, what was the most formidable of all, a troop of elephants which he said ran up to the number of 3,000.

-- Quintus Curtius Rufus[17]

Pliny the Elder (23–79 CE) states:

... the last race situated on its [Ganges'] banks being that of the Gangarid Calingae: the city where their king lives is called Pertalis. This monarch has 60,000 infantry, 1000 cavalry and 700 elephants always equipped ready for active service. [...] But almost the whole of the peoples of India and not only those in this district are surpassed in power and glory by the Prasi, with their very large and wealthy city of Palibothra [Patna], from which some people give the name of Palibothri to the race itself, and indeed to the whole tract of country from the Ganges.

-- Pliny the Elder, Natural History 6.65-66. Translated by H. Rackham.[18][19]

Identification

The ancient Greek writers provide vague information about the centre of the Gangaridai power.[3] As a result, the later historians have put forward various theories about its location.

[T]he Gargaridae, who lived upon the Hypanis [Beas River], near Mount Hemodus, and are mentioned by the poet Dionysius.

He styles them from their worship and extraction "the servants of Dionusos." As there was a Caucasus in these parts, so was there also a region named Colchis; 83 [Colchis mentioned by AEthicus, and styled Colche: also by Ptolemy.] which appears to have been a very flourishing and powerful province. It was situated at the bottom of that large isthmus, which lies between the Indus and Ganges: and seems to have comprehended the kingdoms, which are styled Madura, Tranquebar, and Cochin. The Gargaridae, who lived above upon the Hypanis, used to bring down to the Colchians the gold of their country, which they bartered for other commodities. The place, where they principally traded, was the city Comar, or Comarin, at the extremity of the isthmus to the south. The Colchians had here the advantage of a pearl fishery, by which they must have been greatly enriched.

-- A New System, Or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt is Made to Divest Tradition of Fable; and to Reduce the Truth to its Original Purity, by Jacob Bryant, 1775

Gangetic plains

Pliny (1st century CE) in his NH, terms the Gangaridai as the novisima gens (nearest people) of the Ganges river. It cannot be determined from his writings whether he means "nearest to the mouth" or "nearest to the headwaters". But the later writer Ptolemy (2nd century CE), in his Geography, explicitly locates the Gangaridai near the mouths of the Ganges.[15]

A. B. Bosworth notes that the ancient Latin writers almost always use the word "Gangaridae" to define the people, and associate them with the Prasii people. According to Megasthenes, who actually lived in India, the Prasii people lived near the Ganges. Besides, Pliny explicitly mentions that the Gangaridae lived beside the Ganges, naming their capital as Pertalis.[/b] All these evidences suggest that the Gangaridae lived in the Gangetic plains.[15]

37. The land of the Indians has also many large navigable rivers which have their sources in the mountains lying to the north and then flow through the level country; and not a few of these unite and empty into the river known as the Ganges. This river, which is thirty stades in width, flows from north to south and empties into the ocean, forming the boundary towards the east of the tribe of the Gandaridae, which possesses the greatest number of elephants and the largest in size. Consequently no foreign king has ever subdued this country, all alien nations being fearful of both the multitude and the strength of the beasts. In fact even Alexander of Macedon, although he had subdued all Asia, refrained from making war upon the Gandaridae alone of all peoples; for when he had arrived at the Ganges river with his entire army, after his conquest of the rest of the Indians, upon learning that the Gandaridae had four thousand elephants equipped for war he gave up his campaign against them.1 [A fuller account of this incident is given in Book 17. 93. But Alexander did not reach the river system of the Ganges, the error being due to a confusion of the Ganges with the Sutlej, a tributary of the Indus; cp. W. W. Tarn, “Alexander and the Ganges,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, 43 (1923), 93 ff.]

-- Diodorus of Siciliy in Twelve Volumes, Volume I, Books II (continued) 35-IV, 58, with an English translation by C.H. Oldfather, Professor of Ancient History and Languages, The University of Nebraska, 1935 (p. 9-13)

Rarh region

Diodorus (1st century BCE) states that the Ganges river formed the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai. Based on Diodorus's writings and the identification of Ganges with Bhāgirathi-Hooghly (a western distributary of Ganges), Gangaridai can be identified with the Rarh region in West Bengal.[3]

Larger part of Bengal

The Rarh is located to the west of the Bhāgirathi-Hooghly (Ganges) river. However, Plutarch (1st century CE), Curtius (possibly 1st century CE) and Solinus (3rd century CE), suggest that Gangaridai was located on the eastern banks of the Gangaridai river.[3] Historian R. C. Majumdar theorized that the earlier historians like Diodorus used the word Ganga for the Padma River (an eastern distributary of Ganges).[3]

Pliny names five mouths of the Ganges river, and states that the Gangaridai occupied the entire region about these mouths. He names five mouths of Ganges as Kambyson, Mega, Kamberikon, Pseudostomon and Antebole. These exact present-day locations of these mouths cannot be determined with certainty because of the changing river courses. According to D. C. Sircar, the region encompassing these mouths appears to be the region lying between the Bhāgirathi-Hooghly River in the west and the Padma River in the east.[12] This suggests that the Gangaridai territory included the coastal region of present-day West Bengal and Bangladesh, up to the Padma river in the east.[20] Gaurishankar De and Subhradip De believe that the five mouths may refer to the Bidyadhari, Jamuna and other branches of Bhāgirathi-Hooghly at the entrance of Bay of Bengal.[21]

According to the archaeologist Dilip Kumar Chakrabarti, the centre of the Gangaridai power was located in vicinity of Adi Ganga (a now dried-up flow of the Hooghly river). Chakrabarti considers Chandraketugarh as the strongest candidate for the centre, followed by Mandirtala.[22] James Wise believed that Kotalipara in present-day Bangladesh was the capital of Gangaridai.[23] Archaeologist Habibullah Pathan identified the Wari-Bateshwar ruins as the Gangaridai territory.[24]

North-western India

William Woodthorpe Tarn (1948) identifies the "Gandaridae" mentioned by Diodorus with the people of Gandhara.[25] Historian T. R. Robinson (1993) locates the Gangaridai to the immediately east of the Beas River, in the Punjab region. According to him, the unnamed river described in Diodorus' Book 18 is Beas (Hyphasis); Diodorus misinterpreted his source, and incompetently combined it with other material from Megasthenes, erroneously naming the river as Ganges in Book 2.[26] Robinson identified the Gandaridae with the ancient Yaudheyas.[27]

Yaudheyas (in the north-west) and their contemporaries as part of the Gupta Empire around 375 CE

Yaudheya or Yoddheya Gana (Yoddheya Republic) was an ancient militant confederation. The word Yaudheya is a derivative of the word from yodha meaning warriors. They were principally kshatriya renowned for their skills in warfare, as inscribed in the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman by the Indo-Scythian ruler Rudradaman of the Western Satraps. The Yaudheyas emerged in the 5th century BCE and governed independently until being incorporated into the Maurya Empire....The Yaudheya Republic reformed and flourished up to the middle to the 4th century when it was ultimately conquered by Samudragupta and incorporated into the Gupta Empire until being disestablished.

-- Yaudheya, by Wikipedia

A. B. Bosworth (1996) rejects this theory, pointing out that Diodorus describes the unnamed river in Book 18 as the greatest river in the region. But Beas is not the largest river in its region. Even if one excludes the territory captured by Alexander in "the region" (thus excluding the Indus River), the largest river in the region is Chenab (Acesines). Robison argues that Diodorus describes the unnamed river as "the greatest river in its own immediate area", but Bosworth believes that this interpretation is not supported by Diodorus's wording.[28] Bosworth also notes that Yaudheyas were an autonomous confederation, and do not match the ancient descriptions that describe Gandaridae as part of a strong kingdom.[27]

Other

According to Nitish K. Sengupta, it is possible that the term "Gangaridai" refers to the whole of northern India from the Beas River to the western part of Bengal.[3]

Pliny mentions the Gangaridae and the Calingae (Kalinga) together. One interpretation based on this reading suggests that Gangaridae and the Calingae were part of the Kalinga tribe, which spread into the Ganges delta.[29] N. K. Sahu of Utkal University identifies Gangaridae as the northern part of Kalinga.[30]

Political status

Diodorus mentions Gangaridai and Prasii as one nation, naming Xandramas as the king of this nation. Diodorus calls them "two nations under one king."[31] Historian A. B. Bosworth believes that this is a reference to the Nanda dynasty,[32] and the Nanda territory matches the ancient descriptions of kingdom in which the Gangaridae were located.[27]

According to Nitish K. Sengupta, it is possible that Gangaridai and Prasii are actually two different names of the same people, or closely allied people. However, this cannot be said with certainty.[31]

Historian Hemchandra Ray Chowdhury writes: "It may reasonably be inferred from the statements of the Greek and Latin writers that about the time of Alexander's invasion, the Gangaridai were a very powerful nation, and either formed a dual monarchy with the Pasioi [Prasii], or were closely associated with them on equal terms in a common cause against the foreign invader.[33]

References

Citations

1. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 75.
2. Dineschandra Sircar 1971, p. 171, 215.
3. Nitish K. Sengupta 2011, p. 28.
4. A. B. Bosworth 1996, pp. 188-189.
5. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 188.
6. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 189.
7. Diodorus Siculus (1940). The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Loeb Classical Library. II. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Harvard University Press. OCLC 875854910.
8. Diodorus Siculus (1963). The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Loeb Classical Library. VIII. Translated by C. Bradford Welles. Harvard University Press. OCLC 473654910.
9. Diodorus Siculus (1947). The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Loeb Classical Library. IX. Translated by Russel M. Geer. Harvard University Press. OCLC 781220155.
10. J. W. McCrindle 1877, pp. 33-34.
11. R. C. Majumdar 1982, p. 198.
12. Dineschandra Sircar 1971, p. 172.
13. Dineschandra Sircar 1971, p. 171.
14. Wilfred H. Schoff (1912). The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea; Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean. Longmans, Green and Co. ISBN 978-1-296-00355-5.
15. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 192.
16. Carlos Parada (1993). Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology. Åström. p. 60. ISBN 978-91-7081-062-6.
17. R. C. Majumdar 1982, pp. 103-128.
18. Pliny (1967). Natural History. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. Rackham. Harvard University Press. OCLC 613102012.
19. R. C. Majumdar 1982, p. 341-343.
20. Ranabir Chakravarti 2001, p. 212.
21. Gourishankar De; Shubhradip De (2013). Prasaṅga, pratna-prāntara Candraketugaṛa. Scalāra. ISBN 978-93-82435-00-6.
22. Dilip K. Chakrabarti 2001, p. 154.
23. Jesmin Sultana 2003, p. 125.
24. Enamul Haque 2001, p. 13.
25. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 191.
26. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 190.
27. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 194.
28. A. B. Bosworth 1996, p. 193.
29. Biplab Dasgupta 2005, p. 339.
30. N. K. Sahu 1964, pp. 230-231.
31. Nitish K. Sengupta 2011, pp. 28-29.
32. A. B. Bosworth 1993, p. 132.
33. Chowdhury, The History of Bengal Volume I, p. 44.

Sources

• A. B. Bosworth (1993). Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge University Press. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-1-107-71725-1.
• A. B. Bosworth (1996). Alexander and the East. Clarendon. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-19-158945-4.
• Biplab Dasgupta (2005). European Trade and Colonial Conquest. Anthem Press. ISBN 978-1-84331-029-7.
• Dilip K. Chakrabarti (2001). Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-7824-016-9.
• Dineschandra Sircar (1971). Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0690-0.
• Enamul Haque (2001). Excavation at Wari-Bateshwar: A Preliminary Study. International Center for Study of Bengal Art. ISBN 978-984-8140-02-4.
• J. W. McCrindle (1877). Ancient India As Described By Megasthenes And Arrian. London: Trübner & Co.
• Jesmin Sultana (2003). Sirajul Islam; Ahmed A. Jamal (eds.). Banglapedia: Kotalipara. 6. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. ISBN 978-984-32-0581-0.
• N. K. Sahu (1964). History of Orissa from the Earliest Time Up to 500 A.D. Utkal University.
• Nitish K. Sengupta (2011). Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib. Penguin Books India. ISBN 978-0-14-341678-4.
• Carlos Parada (1993). Genealogical Guide to Greek Mythology. Åström. p. 60. ISBN 978-91-7081-062-6.
• Ranabir Chakravarti (2001). Trade in Early India. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-564795-2.
• R. C. Majumdar (1982). The Classical Accounts of India, Greek and Roman. South Asia Books. ISBN 978-0-8364-0858-4.
• Singh, Upinder (2016), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson PLC, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9

[admin]

Alexander and the Ganges1 [This paper is the conclusion of a study dealing with Diod. 18. chs. l-6, of which the first part, relating to chs. 1-4, was published J.H.S. 1921. 1. These six chapters are important, as they professedly lie round about that point in the tradition where Ptolemy ends and Hieronymus begins.]
by William Woodthorpe Tarn
The Journal of Hellenic Studies
The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Volume XLIII, p. 93
1923

47. The country inland from Barygaza is inhabited by numerous tribes, such as the Arattii, the Arachosii, the Gandaraei and the people of Poclais, in which is Bucephalus Alexandria. Above these is the very warlike nation of the Bactrians, who are under their own king. And Alexander, setting out from these parts, penetrated to the Ganges, leaving aside Damirica and the southern part of India; and to the present day ancient drachmae are current in Barygaza, coming from this country, bearing inscriptions in Greek letters, and the devices of those who reigned after Alexander, Apollodorus and Menander. [Librarian's Comment: A significant and presumably knowing omission from the Wikipedia article on the Periplus is paragraph 47, missing along with everything from 42-48, this extraordinary piece of testimony that cuts against the general trend of Indian pseudo-history that contends Alexander never reached the Ganges. Indeed, never crossed the Indus, spooked by Sandrocottus' herd of war elephants.]

-- The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean by a Merchant of the First Century, Translated & edited by W.H. Schoff (London, Bombay & Calcutta 1912).

Maurya ... it seems that Chandragupta went by that name, particularly in the west; for he is known to Arabian writers by the name of Mur, according to the Nubian geographer, who says that he was defeated and killed by Alexander; for these authors supposed that this conqueror crossed the Ganges; and it is also the opinion of some ancient historians in the west.

-- Essay III. Of the Kings of Magadha; their Chronology, by Captain Wilford, Asiatic Researches, Volume 9, 1809. pgs. 94-100.

Highlights:

When Alexander turned back at the Hyphasis (Beas), how much did he know about what lay before him? And why, in the vulgate tradition, does he know of the distant Ganges and the distant kingdom of Magadha, but not of the next great river to the Beas, the Sutlej (a question often asked), or of anything else between the Beas and the Ganges?...

We possess one contemporary document bearing on the matter which has escaped notice, a satrapy-list or gazetteer of ‘Asia,' i.e. Alexander's empire, [‘Asia’ or ’all Asia’ means, in the later part of the fourth century, the Persian Empire which Alexander claimed to rule...]... We can date this document with certainty. It includes the Indian provinces, and so is later than Alexander's return from India. The ‘Hyrcanian sea’ (not Caspian) is still a lake, so it is earlier than Patrocles. Chandragupta is unknown, so it is certainly earlier than Megasthenes and probably earlier than circ. 302. Porus is still alive, so it is earlier than 317. Susiana ‘happens to be' part of Persis, i.e. it was under the same satrap, which can only have happened at one point in the story: the satrap is Peucestas... Media is still undivided; so the document is earlier than the partition of Babylon in 323, when Media was divided between Peithon and Atropates. Lastly, Armenia still appears as a satrapy of the empire, whereas the fiction of an Armenian satrapy was abandoned at the partition of Babylon, and this is decisive. The gazetteer then dates between spring 324 and June-July 323...

It begins in 18, 6. 1 on the southern provinces, working from east to west; India therefore comes first. What it says about India, in Diodorus’ version, is this: India lies along the Caucasus, and is a large kingdom of several peoples, the greatest of them being the Tyndaridae (or Gandaridae), whom Alexander did not attack because of their elephants. A river, the greatest in that district, 30 stades broad, divides this country from the India that comes next, i.e. further westward. Bordering on this country is the rest of India which Alexander conquered, through the middle of which runs the Indus... Note especially that the gazetteer, like the sources used by Arrian in his narrative, does not mention the two names which play such a part in the vulgate tradition, the Ganges and the Prasii: and, looking at what the gazetteer does say about India, this shows conclusively that neither was known to its author, that is, to those about Alexander in 324/3. Alexander then can have known nothing of the Ganges or of Magadha, but it remains to see how the vulgate tradition arose...

The first Greek to visit and describe the Ganges and the Prasii was Megasthenes...The Prasii are his name for Magadha, as is shown by Pataliputra being their capital...Magadha in actual fact lay on this side of (i.e. south and west of) the Ganges, and its empire (before Chandragupta) lay further west still...

Cleitarchus, who fixed the vulgate tradition about Alexander, did not accompany Alexander to Asia and was not with him in India; he was not one of the contemporary historians of the expedition, and is not a primary source, but was a literary compiler belonging to a later generation. It is certain now that he cannot have written earlier than the decade 280-270; and there are grounds, though not conclusive grounds, for putting his book even later, after 260....The points proven are that Cleitarchus used Berossos, Patrocles, and Timaeus, and had never himself seen Babylon...he wrote much later than Megasthenes....

in the vulgate, Alexander, when he reaches the Beas, hears of the Ganges and the Prasii, whom he desires to conquer; the story is given by both Diodorus and Curtius, and is our only professed account of what he knew when he turned back, though the good tradition, as we shall see, has a very different account of what the army believed....Diodorus, Book 17, primarily represents Cleitarchus... Diodorus and Curtius agree here, among other things, in one most extraordinary perversion, which therefore goes back to Cleitarchus also, and which is the key of the whole matter; the Prasii are beyond the Ganges. This strange mistake also occurs in Plut. Alex. 62, where the Prasii hold the further bank...

Cleitarchus must have had before him, among the other documents which we know he used, the two we have here noticed, the gazetteer of 324/3, and Megasthenes.... In the first he found an unnamed river, called the greatest in the district, and a named kingdom beyond it. In the second he found the greatest river in India, the Ganges, and a kingdom whose capital stood on its bank, though in fact the kingdom stretched out westward. Like Fischer in his edition of Diodorus, he identified the two rivers and called the unnamed river the Ganges; and the kingdom of the Tyndaridae or Gandaridae, beyond the unnamed river, he then naturally identified with that of the Prasii, which he then necessarily placed beyond the Ganges; hence in the Cleitarchean vulgate this kingdom regularly appears as ‘the Gandaridae (or Gangaridae) and Prasii.' Starting from this identification, he then wrote up Alexander in his usual fashion, not knowing that he had left out most of Northern India....he was a very bad geographer in any case, and the man who could confuse two such well-known rivers as the Hydaspes and the Acesines would have had no difficulty in confusing the unnamed river and the Ganges....

Fortunately he left untouched an easy means of checking his mistake: the breadths of the rivers. The unnamed river of the gazetteer is 30 stades broad. Megasthenes' Ganges is not less than 100 stades broad.... The breadth alone then is sufficient proof that the ‘Ganges’ of Cleitarchus-Diodorus is only the unnamed river of the gazetteer....

On the other hand, Diod. 17, 108, 3 — the Macedonians refuse to cross the Ganges — has nothing directly to do with this identification: it is a reference, not part of the narrative, and is therefore not Cleitarchus; it belongs to a later legend...As 2, 37, 2 represents the gazetteer, it is interesting to note that it gives one detail not given in 18, 6, 1: the river in question, the unnamed river, runs from north to south. It was well enough known since Megasthenes that all the middle Ganges, above Pataliputra, ran roughly west and east....

Before leaving Cleitarchus, one other point may be noticed. His story about the Ganges and the Prasii is told to Alexander by a rajah on the Beas named Phegeus, who begins by saying that across the river is a desert of eleven (Curtius) or twelve (Diodorus) days’ journey. No Indian living on the upper Beas could have said this. If Phegeus, who is unknown to the good tradition, ever existed, he lived much further south, near the Rajputana desert; but he may be as mythical as some other characters in the vulgate. That Cleitarchus put his Ganges story in the mouth of a man who begins by placing the great desert on the east bank of the upper Beas is itself a good test of what that story is worth...

The statement that Alexander turned back from fear of the elephants is a late legend inserted by Diodorus himself...

Strictly construed, the gazetteer imports that Alexander claimed India up to the Sutlej; and it is possible enough that he did. Across the Beas, says Arr. 5, 25, 1, was a people aristocratically governed (i.e. an Aratta people) with many elephants. [Amplified in Strabo, 15, 702: a ruling oligarchy of 5000, each of whom gave an elephant to the State!] This can hardly go back to the Journal, from its form; probably it is Aristobulas repeating camp gossip, for the Aratta known to us had no elephants... we get some support for the suggestion that the rule of Darius I. had ended at the Beas, where Alexander's men refused to go on...

The conclusion then is that Alexander, when he turned back, knew of the Sutlej, and vaguely of some kingdom beyond it, with which the name Gandaridae or Tyndaridae was connected. He never knew of the Ganges or of Magadha, any more than he ever knew of the vast Middle Country between the Sutlej and the Ganges. What he did know was not of a nature to shake his conviction, based primarily on the Aristotelian geography, that Ocean lay at quite a short distance in front of him, as is proved by his desire still to advance in spite of the great reduction in his small striking force by troops left on communications... The story that he knew of the Ganges and Magadha, which is unknown to the good tradition, has been written into the vulgate from Megasthenes through a mistake which I have traced; and by means of this story the vulgate has attributed to Alexander a scheme of conquest [The vulgate's idea that Alexander meant to cross the Ganges, involving a conflict with Magadha, would almost arise naturally from its substitution of the Ganges for the Sutlej] which has no basis in fact, because he knew nothing of the existence of the place whose conquest was the object of the scheme. The legend of the plan to conquer Magadha, however, matured much faster than the parallel legend of the plan to conquer Carthage and the Mediterranean, whose growth I have previously traced; for while the latter was not actually accomplished till the Romance, Alexander conquered Magadha long before that. The first step was that someone forged a letter from Craterus to his mother (Strabo 15, 702) in which Alexander reaches the Ganges. Then follow two stories; in the one, preserved by Diodorus, 2, 37, 3, Alexander reaches the Ganges but dare not attack the Gandaridae (sic) because of their 4000 elephants; in the other, given in Plut. Alex. 62 and alluded to in Diodorus 17, 108, 3, he reaches the Ganges and desires to cross, but the army refuses. (As in Plutarch the ‘Gandaritae and Prasii hold the further bank, which represents the blunder made by Cleitarchus which this paper has been tracing, we have here an excellent instance of later legend springing from the Cleitarchean vulgate; it is illuminating for Plutarch's indiscriminate use of material.) Finally, in Justin 12, 8, 9, Alexander does conquer Magadha: Praesios, Gangaridas, caesis eorum exercitibus expugnat. The statement in Diodorus' version of the gazetteer, 18, 6, 1, that Alexander did not attack the Gandaridae because of their elephants, is then a mere remark of Diodorus' own, quoted from his own version of the legend in 2, 37, 3. Like many legends, it possesses a minute substratum of fact; the report about the elephants across the Beas. Arr. 5, 25, 1, was one of the causes which decided Alexander's army to go no further.

-- Alexander and the Ganges, by William Woodthorpe Tarn

When Alexander turned back at the Hyphasis (Beas), how much did he know about what lay before him? And why, in the vulgate tradition, does he know of the distant Ganges and the distant kingdom of Magadha, but not of the next great river to the Beas, the Sutlej (a question often asked), or of anything else between the Beas and the Ganges? The answer is not difficult, once the elements of our tradition are sorted out chronologically; that, as in so many questions, is the real problem.

We possess one contemporary document bearing on the matter which has escaped notice, a satrapy-list or gazetteer of ‘Asia,' i.e. Alexander's empire,2 [‘Asia’ or ’all Asia’ means, in the later part of the fourth century, the Persian Empire which Alexander claimed to rule; so used both by Alexander himself (Arr. 2, 14, 8, in 333; Lindian Chron. c. 103. in 330; and Nearchus ap. Arr. Ind. 35, 8, in 32.5) and in common parlance (e.g. Syll.3 326, in 307 '6).] dating from the last year of his life; very possibly Hieronymus used it by way of introduction to his history of the Successors, and it now forms the basis of Diodorus 18, 5 and 6.3 [I called attention briefly to this document in J.H.S. 1921, p. 8, n. 36a. As to Hieronymus, see Reuss’ acute suggestion, Rh. Mus, 57, 1902, p. 586, n. 1. If so, Diodorus got it from Hieronymus.] We can date this document with certainty. It includes the Indian provinces, and so is later than Alexander's return from India. The ‘Hyrcanian sea’ (not Caspian) is still a lake, so it is earlier than Patrocles. Chandragupta is unknown, so it is certainly earlier than Megasthenes and probably earlier than circ. 302. Porus is still alive, so it is earlier than 317. Susiana ‘happens to be' part of Persis.4 [18, 6, 3; Persis [x].] i.e. it was under the same satrap, which can only have happened at one point in the story: the satrap is Peucestas,5 [Dexippus fr. 1 (on the partition of Babylon), with von Gutschmid's emendation of [x]; Sogdiana has already been mentioned, so the corruption is certain, and the emendation is certain also on geographical grounds, the order being Carmania, Persis [x], Babylonia, Mesopotamia. What Dexippos says is this: — as to the Susians, after death overtook 'Oropios’ (name admittedly corrupt) for rebellion, 'then he had the authority over them jointly with‘ something, [x]. The subject of [x], whether [x] has fallen out before [x] or not, is the person last mentioned before 'Oropios,’ i.e. Peucestas, satrap of Persis; and [x] means ‘as well as over Persis.' The fact that, at the time of the partition of Babylon, Susiana was reckoned part of Persis explains the omission of Susiana from all our lists (except Justin’s) of the satrapies dealt with at that partition, the lists being otherwise complete (see the table of lists in Beloch 3. 2. 240). Justin 13, 4, 14 does give gens Susiana Coeno, but 'Coeno' is merely a corruption of [x] and not vice versa, as Beloch, 3, 2, 242 curiously suggested (repeated by Lehmann-Haupt. art. Satrap in Pauly- Wissowa): Coenus was dead (Arr. 6. 2, 1), and no one else of the name is known, and one cannot suppose that Coenus left a younger son of the same name who became a satrap and is never otherwise heard of, seeing that his heir Perdiccas (Syll.3 332), i.e. his eldest or only son, never held any office. Justin's version of the list contains other blunders, and Droysen (Kl. Schr. 2 201) saw long ago that Coeno must be corrupt, though he did not see the solution.] and the date must therefore be before the partition of Triparadeisos in 321, when Susiana was given to Antigenes. The Hyrcanian sea ‘happens to be embraced by‘ Parthia;6 [8, 5, 4. [x]. Fischer's addition of [x] in his text is as indefensible as his insertion of [x] in 18, 6, 2.] that is, Parthia and Hyrcania are still one satrapy, as they were under Phrataphernes, an arrangement which terminated in 321, when Philippus received Parthia alone. Media is still undivided; so the document is earlier than the partition of Babylon in 323, when Media was divided between Peithon and Atropates. Lastly, Armenia still appears as a satrapy of the empire, whereas the fiction of an Armenian satrapy was abandoned at the partition of Babylon,7 [Details collected in Beloch 3. 2. 245.] and this is decisive. The gazetteer then dates between spring 324 and June-July 323. It may or may not be official.

This document divides the empire into north and south of the Taurus-'Caucasus‘ line.8 [Eratosthenes took his similar division from this document, and not vice versa; apart from the date, which is certain, it contains no trace of the real characteristic of his geographical scheme, the [x].] After dealing with the northern provinces, it begins in 18, 6. 1 on the southern provinces, working from east to west; India therefore comes first. What it says about India, in Diodorus’ version, is this: India lies along ([x]) the Caucasus, and is a large kingdom of several peoples, the greatest of them being the Tyndaridae (or Gandaridae), whom Alexander did not attack because of their elephants. A river, the greatest in that district ([x]), 30 stades broad, divides ([x]) this country ([x]) — I think this means the India already described, but it might mean the Tyndaridae — from the India that comes next, i.e. further westward ([x]). Bordering on this country ([x]) — i.e. either on the India already described or on the Tyndaridae — is the rest of India which Alexander conquered ([x] above), through the middle of which runs the Indus. That is to say, Alexander's conquests are divided from the rest of India by an unnamed river: independent India beyond this river is a single kingdom, associated with a name. Note especially that the gazetteer, like the sources used by Arrian in his narrative, does not mention the two names which play such a part in the vulgate tradition, the Ganges and the Prasii: and, looking at what the gazetteer does say about India, this shows conclusively that neither was known to its author, that is, to those about Alexander in 324/3. Alexander then can have known nothing of the Ganges or of Magadha; but it remains to see how the vulgate tradition arose.

The first Greek to visit and describe the Ganges and the Prasii was Megasthenes, who left India for the last time not later than Chandragupta's death, circ. 297, and must have written at latest soon after that date, while he may have written earlier. The Prasii are his name for Magadha, as is shown by Pataliputra being their capital.9 [Strabo, 15, 702; Arr. Ind. 10, 5; both explicitly from Megasthenes.] Magadha in actual fact lay on this side of (i.e. south and west of) the Ganges, and its empire (before Chandragupta) lay further west still, occupying part of the vast district of Northern India known as the Middle Country.10 [See Cambridge History of India. Vol. I. (1922), Map no. 5.]

1. The Greek scholars recorded the names of kings of India as Xandrames, and Sandrocottus. Western historians deliberately identified these names with those of Mahapadmananda or Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. Xandrames was said to be the father of Sandrocottus. According to John W. McCrindle, Diodorus distorted the name "Sandrocottus" into Xandrames and this again is distorted by Curtius into Agrammes. It is totally absurd to link Xandrames with Mahapadmananda and Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya. Most probably, Greeks called Chandra (Chandragupta) as Xandrames and Samudragupta as Sandrocottus. Moreover, the description given by the Greek scholars about Sandrocottus his father Xandrames are quite inapplicable to Chandragupta Maurya and could only apply to Samudragupta too. According to Greeks, Xandrames was the king of Gangaridai and Prasii whereas Dhanananda was the ruler of entire Northwest, central and eastern India. It is also said that Sandrocottus (Samudragupta) killed his father Xandrames (Chandragupta). This fact has been wilfully ignored by the biased western historians and their followers.

2. All Greek writers mentioned that Sandrocottus, the king of Prasii, whose capital was Palibothra i.e. Pataliputra. Megasthenes, Deimachos and other Greek ambassadors of Seleucus Nikator were sent in the court of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II at Palibothra. Pataliputra became the capital of Magadha Empire only during the reign of Chandragupta I around 335 BCE. According to Puranas, Girivraja or Rajagriha (Rajgir) was the capital city of Magadha during the reign of Nandas and Mauryas. Thus, Pataliputra was not the capital city of Chandragupta Maurya. From 3rd century BCE onwards, the city of Pataliputra became famous as the capital of Magadha....

3. According to Megasthenes, Sakas or Scythians were living in the northern side of India. "India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Scythia which is inhabited by those Scythians who are called the OEakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile." Many other Greek scholars also wrote about Scythians. Thus, it seems that Northern Saka Ksatrapas were ruling in the North-western frontier region during the time of Megasthenes. It is well known that Saka Ksatrapas were contemporaries of Guptas not Mauryas. Asoka inscriptions mention about only Yavana kings named Antikina, Alikasundara, Maga, Turamaya and Gongakena (not Greeks but indigenous Yavana kings of Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan) ruling in the western frontier regions. Western historians speculated about these kings to be Antiochus Theos II of Syria, Alexander of Epirus, Magas of Cyrene, Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt and Antigonus Gonatus of Macedonia. These baseless speculations are simply based on the resemblance of names without any direct or indirect evidence. The references of Yavana kings in Asoka inscriptions indicate that Yavanas were the rulers in the western frontier regions not Sakas. There is no reference of Saka Ksatrapas in the entire account of Mauryan history. Therefore, Sandrocottus can only be Samudragupta who was the contemporary of Saka Ksatrapas not Chandragupta Maurya.

4. Seleucus Nikator also sent Deimachos on an embassy to Allitrocades or Amitrocades, the son of Sandrocottus. Western historians identified Allitrocades or Amitrocades to be Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta and concocted that Bindusara was also known as "Amitraghata". None of the Indian sources ever referred Bindusara as Amitraghata. Western historians deliberately created the word "Amitraghata" with some sort of resemblance. According to Puranas, Samudragupta was also known as "Asokaditya" and Chandragupta II was also known as "Vikramaditya". Probably, Allitrocades or Amitrocades referred to "Vikramaditya", the son of Sandrocottus (Samudragupta).

5. Megasthenes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthenes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthenes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra's Chapter 65 named "Dasakalpa" is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthenes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

6. Megasthenes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrocottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthenes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

7. Greek scholars often mentioned that Sandrocottus was the king of the country called as Prasii (Prachi or Prachya). Pracha or Prachi means eastern country. During the Nanda and Mauryan era, Magadha kings were ruling almost entire India. Mauryan Empire was never referred in Indian sources as only Prachya desa or eastern country. Prachya desa was generally referred to Gupta Empire because Northern Saka Ksatrapas and Western Saka Ksatrapas were well established in North and West India. Megasthenes mentioned that Sandrocottus is the greatest king of the Indians and Poros is still greater than Sandrocottus which means a kingdom in the North-western region is still independent and enjoying at least equal status with the kingdom of Sandrocottus. Chandragupta Maurya and his successors were the most powerful kings of India. It was impossible for any other Indian king to enjoy equal status with Mauryan kings because Mauryans inherited a strongest and vast empire from Nandas. Therefore, Sandrocottus, the king of Prasii can only be Samudragupta not Chandragupta Maurya.

8. The Greek historian Plutarch mentioned that Androkottus (Sandrocottus) marched over the whole of India with an army of 600 thousand men. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Nandas under the leadership of Chanakya. There was no need for him to go on such expedition to conquer the whole of India because he has already inherited the Magadha kingdom of Nandas covering entire India. Actually, it was Samudragupta who overran the whole of India as details given in Allahabad pillar inscription.

9. According to Greek historians like Justinus, Appianus etc., Seleukos made friendship with Sandrocottus and entered into relations of marriage with him. Allahabad pillar inscription tells us that Samudragupta was offered their daughters in marriage (Kanyopayanadana ... ) by the kings in the North-west region. There is nothing in Indian sources to prove this fact with reference to Chandragupta Maurya.

10. The Jain work "Harivamsa" written by Jinasena gives the names of dynasties and kings and the duration of their rule after the nirvana of Mahavira. Jinasena mentions nothing about Mauryas but he tells us that Gupta kings ruled for 231 years. Western historians fixed the date of Mahavira-nirvana in 527 BCE which means Mauryas ruled after Mahavira-nirvana but Jaina Puranas and Jaina Pattavalis had no knowledge of Mauryas after Mahavira-nirvana. Thus, Mauryas ruled prior to Mahavira-nirvana. Therefore, Sandrocottus can only be identified with Samudragupta.

11. If Sandrocottus was indeed Chandragupta Maurya, why do none of the Greek sources mentioned about Asoka, the most illustrious and greatest of Mauryan kings? It is evident that Greek sources had no knowledge of Asoka. Therefore, the ancient Greeks were contemporaries to Gupta kings not Mauryas.

-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya? The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya

Now Cleitarchus, who fixed the vulgate tradition about Alexander, did not accompany Alexander to Asia and was not with him in India; he was not one of the contemporary historians of the expedition, and is not a primary source, but was a literary compiler belonging to a later generation. It is certain now that he cannot have written earlier than the decade 280-270; and there are grounds, though not conclusive grounds, for putting his book even later, after 260.11 [ F. Reuss. Rh. Mus. 57 (1902), 581 and 63 (1909) 58: P. Schnabel, Berossos und Kleitarchos, 1912. Cf. Th. Lenschau, Berucht uber grich. Geschichte, 1907-1914. p. 191, in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1919; R. V. Pohlmann, Griech, Gesch.5 1914, p. 287, (in Muller's Handbuch): C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, Klio, 15, 1918, 255, n. 3. I do not agree with Reuss and Schnabel on all their points; but I regard their main position, that Cleitarchus was not a primary source, as conclusively established. (The latest exposition of the traditional view that Cleitarchus was a contemporary and companion of Alexander is F. Jacoby's article Kleitarchos in Pauly-Wissowa, 1921 (very full); a careful perusal will show that there is no single one among the suppositions urged in support of the traditional view that is a valid or compelling argument.) The points proven are that Cleitarchus used Berossos, Patrocles, and Timaeus, and had never himself seen Babylon; add perhaps that he used the name Galatai, unknown before 279. Make every deduction you please: say that he might have used Timaeus' chronology before Timaeus had finished his history (though we do not know that it was published in sections), that [x] in Diod. 17, 113, 2 may be a later addition (which I myself find incredible), and that the argument from the first official use of the name Soter in Egypt (on which and on Timaeus Niese's date of ’after 260’ depends) is uncertain: there still remains three things that cannot be explained away: two of these are Berossos and Babylon, and the third is that a named fragment of Cleitarchus (Pliny. N.H. 6. 36) quotes a named fragment of Patrocles (Strabo 11, 508, and that on a matter (the size of the Caspian) as to which no writer before Patrocles could even have attempted a guess.] But in any case, and this is what matters here, he wrote much later than Megasthenes.

The Beas River (Sanskrit: Vipāśā; Hyphasis in Ancient Greek) is a river in north India. The river rises in the Himalayas in central Himachal Pradesh, India, and flows for some 470 kilometres (290 mi) to the Sutlej River in the Indian state of Punjab. Its total length is 470 kilometres (290 mi) and its drainage basin is 20,303 square kilometres (7,839 sq mi) large.

-- Beas River [Hyphasis], by Wikipedia

Now in the vulgate, Alexander, when he reaches the Beas, hears of the Ganges and the Prasii, whom he desires to conquer; the story is given by both Diodorus and Curtius, and is our only professed account of what he knew when he turned back, though the good tradition, as we shall see, has a very different account of what the army believed. The sections of Diodorus (17. 93. 1-3 inclusive) and Curtius (9. 1. 36-2. 7 inclusive) which are material here agree so very closely that their derivation from a common original is certain; and as it is equally certain that Diodorus, Book 17, primarily represents Cleitarchus, that common original can only be Cleitarchus; no one, I think, now doubts this. But Diodorus and Curtius agree here, among other things, in one most extraordinary perversion, which therefore goes back to Cleitarchus also, and which is the key of the whole matter; the Prasii are beyond the Ganges.12 [[x] (Diod.); ulteriorem ripaim colere (Curt.).] This strange mistake also occurs in Plut. Alex. 62 (see post), where the Prasii hold the further bank.

What led Cleitarchus to displace Megasthenes' Prasii in this way, and put them beyond the Ganges? There can only be one explanation. Cleitarchus must have had before him, among the other documents which we know he used, the two we have here noticed, the gazetteer of 324/3, and Megasthenes. (He need not necessarily have used the gazetteer directly.) In the first he found an unnamed river, called the greatest in the district, and a named kingdom beyond it. In the second he found the greatest river in India, the Ganges, and a kingdom whose capital stood on its bank, though in fact the kingdom stretched out westward. Like Fischer in his edition of Diodorus, he identified the two rivers and called the unnamed river the Ganges (see post on Diod. 2. 37, 1); and the kingdom of the Tyndaridae or Gandaridae, beyond the unnamed river, he then naturally identified with that of the Prasii, which he then necessarily placed beyond the Ganges; hence in the Cleitarchean vulgate this kingdom regularly appears as ‘the Gandaridae (or Gangaridae) and Prasii.'13 [Diod. 17, 93, 2; Curt. 9. 2, 3; Just. 12, 8. 9; Plut. Alex. 62.] Starting from this identification, he then wrote up Alexander in his usual fashion, not knowing that he had left out most of Northern India. Whether the mistake was an honest muddle, or a deliberate attempt at panegyric [a public speech or published text in praise of someone or something], is immaterial; probably the former, for he was a very bad geographer in any case, and the man who could confuse two such well-known rivers as the Hydaspes and the Acesines would have had no difficulty in confusing the unnamed river and the Ganges.14 [On the confusion of Hydaspes and Acesines cf. Diod. 17, 89, 4 with 95. 3 (see Arr. 6, 1, 1). On Cleitarchus as a geographer see Jacoby op. cit., who gives instances.]

The Jhelum River is a river that flows from the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, through the Pakistani-administered territory of Azad Kashmir, and into Pakistani Punjab. It is the westernmost of the five rivers of the Punjab region, and passes through the Kashmir Valley. It is a tributary of the Chenab River and has a total length of about 725 kilometres (450 mi).

-- Jhelum River [Hydaspes], by Wikipedia

Fortunately he left untouched an easy means of checking his mistake: the breadths of the rivers. (I refer, of course, to the conventional breadths.) The unnamed river of the gazetteer is 30 stades broad. Megasthenes' Ganges is not less than 100 stades broad.15 [Arr. Ind 4. 7; Strabo, 15, 702, [x]. (Both Megasthenes.)] But the ‘Ganges’ in Diodorus is 30 stades broad (2. 37. 2) or 32 stades (17. 93. 2): 32 also in Plut. Alex. 62. from the same source ultimately as Diod. 17. 93. That 32 is merely an (old) error for 30 is certain: partly because it is 30 in Diod. 2. 37. 2: partly because Strabo 15. 702. after giving Megasthenes’ figure, adds that some called it 30, and we know of nothing to which this can refer except Diodorus' source (Cleitarchus):16 [The other figures we have all give a very different breadth from 30 stades. Mela 3, 68, 10, ten Roman miles (= 100 stades); Pliny. N. H. 6, 65, on a moderate estimate 100 stades, on the lowest 7 miles (= 70 stades); Solinus 52, 7, minimum 80 stades, maximum 200; Aelian, [x] 12, 41, minimum 80, maximum 400. Mela and Pliny of course reproduce the 100 of Megasthenes; I do not know what the other figures represent.] partly because these big rivers were naturally always given in round figures.17 [E.g. the Indus: Ctes, ap. Arr. 5. 4. 2. 100 stades to 40; Strabo, 15, 700, either 100 or 50; Arr. 6. 14, 5, perhaps 100 at Patala; Pliny. N.H. 6. 71, fifty. For the Ganges see n. 16.] (I have only found one other case of a river in India 30 stades broad: Arr. Ind. 3. 10 suggests that the Acesines (Chenab), after receiving the other rivers, is 30 stades broad when it joins the Indus: but obviously the Chenab is not the unnamed river of the gazetteer.) The breadth alone then is sufficient proof that the ‘Ganges’ of Cleitarchus-Diodorus is only the unnamed river of the gazetteer.

And in fact we can probably trace the actual process of identifying this river with the Ganges. In 2, 37, 2 Diodorus gives by anticipation18 [Such anticipations are common enough in Diodorus; e.g. 17, 23. 2 (Agathocles), 17, 57, 2 (the Argyraspids); 18, 4, 1 compared with 18, 12, 1; 18, 4, 8 compared with 18, 7. 1 seq.] a bit of his own version of the gazetteer which he was to give in its place in 18, 6, 1: — a river 30 stades broad, with the Gandaridae (not Prasii) to the east of it; but in 2, 37, 1 he calls this 30-stade river the Ganges, just as Cleitarchus does in 17, 93, 2; this shows that 2, 37, 1 is from Cleitarchus also, and it seems that here we have reproduced the actual identification by Cleitarchus.19 [This identification is clearly seen again in the late rhetorical composition which figured as Alexander’s speech at the Beas; Arr. 5, 26, [x], so markedly inconsistent with what follows in 5, 26, 3, — between the Beas and the eastern sea are many war-like nations. On the other hand, Diod. 17, 108, 3 — the Macedonians refuse to cross the Ganges — has nothing directly to do with this identification: it is a reference, not part of the narrative, and is therefore not Cleitarchus; it belongs to a later legend, see post. — That Diodorus did use Cleitarchus in Book 2 is shown by the reference to him in 2, 7, 3.] As 2, 37, 2 represents the gazetteer, it is interesting to note that it gives one detail not given in 18, 6, 1: the river in question, the unnamed river, runs from north to south. It was well enough known since Megasthenes that all the middle Ganges, above Pataliputra, ran roughly west and east;20 [Strabo 13, 690 and 719. It is to be remembered that, for a long period subsequent to Megasthenes, the Ganges to Greeks meant primarily the Ganges at Pataliputra (Patna).] the remark should therefore be older than Megasthenes, and probably belongs to the original gazetteer.

The Ganges River

Before leaving Cleitarchus, one other point may be noticed. His story about the Ganges and the Prasii is told to Alexander by a rajah on the Beas named Phegeus, who begins by saying that across the river is a desert of eleven (Curtius) or twelve (Diodorus) days’ journey. No Indian living on the upper Beas could have said this. If Phegeus, who is unknown to the good tradition, ever existed, he lived much further south, near the Rajputana desert; but he may be as mythical as some other characters in the vulgate.21 [For example, the eunuch Bagoas, who was merely part of the revenge which the Peripatetics took on Alexander for Callisthenes’ death; see Dicaearchus. fr. 19 - Athen. 13, 603 b.] That Cleitarchus put his Ganges story in the mouth of a man who begins by placing the great desert on the east bank of the upper Beas is itself a good test of what that story is worth.

Rajputana: An area northwest of the Arāvalli Range including part of the Great Indian (Thar) Desert, with characteristics of being sandy and unproductive.

To return to the gazetteer. The unnamed river, 30 stades broad, running north and south, and separating Alexander's India from what lay beyond, cannot be the well-known Beas (which, incidentally, Diodorus, 17, 93, 1, calls 7 stades broad), and must therefore be the Sutlej, which very likely did not then join the Beas at all, but flowed down the Hakra channel and was one constituent of the ‘lost river.’

Sutlej River

Now was the kingdom of the Tyndaridae or Gandaridae, which lay across (east of) the Sutlej and ‘along the Caucasus,' an old tradition? In the gazetteer, Diod. 18, 6, 1, the MSS. have [x], in the parallel passage, Diod. 2, 37, 2, it is [x], with MS, variants [x] and [x]. In the Cleitarchus passage, Diod, 17, 93, 2, we have [x], and, in the parallel passages. Gangaridas in Curt. 9, 2, 3 (so in Just. 12. 8, 9), and [x] (an obvious confusion with Gandhara) in Plut. Alex. 62. Now Gangaridas and [x] are from Megasthenes' Gangaridae in lower Bengal; is the name Gandaridae then merely a mistake of Diodorus', and is the whole thing taken from Megasthenes? I think not. In Diod. 17, 91. 1 the bad Porus flies [x]; while Strabo 15, 699 has a version that Gandaris was his country. Now Porus really did fly eastward before Alexander across the Ravi (Arr. 5. 21, 4), and as Alexander never caught him he must have gone further east than Alexander ever went, i.e. across the Beas, or further; and whatever the confusion in Strabo, I think these passages make it difficult to say that Diodorus' version of the gazetteer is wrong, and that there was not across the Sutlej a real people called Gandaridae or Tyndaridae, or however their name got transcribed.22 [Kiessling, s.v. Gandaridai in Pauly-Wissowa, makes the people of Gandhara, the Gandaridae, and the Gangaridae, three sections of one tribe, which had moved across India leaving parts of itself behind.] Whether they were part of a confederacy, or whether the mention of a confederacy got written into the gazetteer later, must remain uncertain...

Beyond the Hydaspes was the powerful kingdom of Porus, who held sway as far as the Acesines, which we know as the Chenab, the next of the "Five Rivers." East of the Chenab, in the lands of the Ravee and the Beas, were other small principalities, and also free "kingless" peoples, who owned no master.



-- Chapter XVIII: The Conquest of the Far East, Excerpt from "History of Greece for Beginners", by J. B. Bury, M.A.

...but the part of the gazetteer given in Diod. 18, 6. 1 seems to be given with substantial accuracy, subject, of course, to this, that the statement that Alexander turned back from fear of the elephants is a late legend inserted by Diodorus himself; I shall return to this.

Strictly construed, the gazetteer imports that Alexander claimed India up to the Sutlej; and it is possible enough that he did. Across the Beas, says Arr. 5, 25, 1, was a people aristocratically governed (i.e. an Aratta people) with many elephants.23 [Amplified in Strabo, 15, 702: a ruling oligarchy of 5000, each of whom gave an elephant to the State!] This can hardly go back to the Journal, from its form; probably it is Aristobulas repeating camp gossip, for the Aratta known to us had no elephants. But there may really have been an Aratta people there, and a great one, the Oxydracae, whom the late V. A. Smith did for other reasons place along the Beas.24 [J.R.A.S. 1903, 685. — Arr. 5, 22. 1. [x] may mean that it was the Oxydracae who adjoined the Cathaeans.] (The maps in the Cambridge History of India put them east of the lower Ravi; but Arrian shows that this was Malli country.) It is probably impossible to ascertain for certain where the Oxydracae really lived, though Arrian 6. 11. 3 implies that their centre was some distance away from that of the Malli; but if they did stretch north between Sutlej and Beas we can understand Arr. 5. 25, 1, and also justify the gazetteer's claim (if it be one) of the country up to the Sutlej; for the Oxydracae submitted and were (nominally) placed under a satrap. It leads also to a most interesting hypothesis. Strabo. 15, 687 ( ? from Megasthenes), says that the Persians got mercenaries from the [x]. If this, as I suppose, means the Oxydracae (Kshudraka),25 [So Muller in F.H.G. n. p. 415, where the numerous variants of the name are collected.] why did any Achaemenid go to so distant a people for mercenaries? Clearly because the nearer peoples were his subjects; i.e. we get some support for the suggestion26 [By A. V. Williams-Jackson in Camb. Hist. India, i, 341.] that the rule of Darius I. had ended at the Beas, where Alexander's men refused to go on.

This finishes the deductions to be drawn from the gazetteer; but it remains to notice two possible objections to the conclusion that Alexander never knew of the Ganges. One is the suggestion27 [Kiessling, Ganges in Pauly-Wissowa.] that Aristotle (and therefore presumably Alexander) knew of it, because it is the ‘fluvius alter' of the Liber de inundacione Nili.28 [Rose,3 fr. 248; a Latin summary of Aristotle's lost [x]. For its genuineness, see Partsch. Abhandlungen d. k. sachsischen Ges. d. Wiss., Ph. -h. Kl., 27, 1909, p, 551; it dates from before Alexander's expedition, Bolchert, Neue Jahrb. 27, 1911, 150.] A perusal of the Liber disposes of this idea at once. Aristotle is considering whether the Erythrean sea be a lake or part of the circumfluent ocean. Artaxerxes Ochus, he says, thought that it was a lake [that India joined Ethiopia], and that the Indus was the upper Nile; some Indians, however, told him that the Indus flowed into the Erythrean sea, but that there was a second river, fluvius alter, rising in the same mountain as the Indus, and flowing into (or through) the same parts of India, ad illas partes Indie fluens, which did flow round the Erythrean lake, circumfluere exterius rubrum mare (as Ochus had supposed the Indus to do). It is clear, therefore, that the ‘fluvius alter' was in the same part of India as the Indus, quite apart from the fact that ‘India’ meant to Aristotle only the country of the Indus and the Punjab; and if this river has any real meaning,— and one must bear in mind the darkness in which, for Western men, 'India' had become enshrouded during the fourth century, — it is one of the Punjab rivers, possibly enough the river of the gazetteer, the Sutlej-Hakra: for the Sutlej alone of the Punjab rivers rises, like the Indus, beyond the Himalaya and bursts through. However, I am only concerned here with what the ‘fluvius alter' was not.

The other objection is an a priori argument: traders and students from the east came to Taxila, and therefore Alexander must have heard of the Ganges and its kingdoms. It is not much good setting up an a priori argument against the evidence of a contemporary (and perhaps official) document like the gazetteer of 321/3; but, apart from that, one may well ask what sort of information Alexander would really have got from a trader, after it had trickled through two different interpreters, via Persian. The way to answer that question is to look (say) at the sort of information the early Spanish voyagers got in America, and the queer manner in which it sometimes fitted in with their preconceived notions. If the Staff did question some trader, or even Taxiles, we may be sure that the answer did not fit in badly with Alexander's Aristotelian geography, because the same thing had actually happened elsewhere; Pharasmanes of Khiva knew the Aral well enough, but what he tried to tell Alexander merely confirmed Aristotle. [v]It is, too, possible that we do possess an earlier piece of trade information of the sort here suggested, the river Hypobaros in Ctesias (Plin. N.H. 37, 39). What river the name ‘bringer of good things’ suggests no man can say; the Ganges is periodically suggested,29 [Most recently by Kiessling, s.v. Ganges and Hypobaros in Pauly-Wissowa.] in spite of Ctesias’ statement that the river was ‘not large,’ and one can only say what Lassen said seventy years ago, — it may be, but it is extremely doubtful. Essentially, the river is the Greek fairy river, the Eridanos, transferred to the east.30 [Kiessling, Hypoboros, above.] But what Ctesias has to say about the gum suggests that so much of the story as he did not invent is a trade story, i.e. came to Persia with the gum; and what one can say for certain about it is, that if Ctesias really got hold of a Persian translation of an epithet, unknown in Sanskrit, which belonged to the Ganges, he did not with the epithet get the faintest notion of where the Ganges was or what it was like. That Alexander also heard some ‘travellers’ tales is possible enough; but that has nothing to do with any real information about the real Ganges.

The conclusion then is that Alexander, when he turned back, knew of the Sutlej, and vaguely of some kingdom beyond it, with which the name Gandaridae or Tyndaridae was connected. He never knew of the Ganges or of Magadha, any more than he ever knew of the vast Middle Country between the Sutlej and the Ganges. What he did know was not of a nature to shake his conviction, based primarily on the Aristotelian geography, that Ocean lay at quite a short distance in front of him, as is proved by his desire still to advance in spite of the great reduction in his small striking force by troops left on communications.31 [We have not the context of Nearchus’ obscure statement (Strabo 15, 689) that the [x] took four months; but it cannot have anything to do with the real size of India, and must relate in some way to Alexander’s march.] The story that he knew of the Ganges and Magadha, which is unknown to the good tradition, has been written into the vulgate from Megasthenes through a mistake which I have traced; and by means of this story the vulgate has attributed to Alexander a scheme of conquest32 [The vulgate's idea that Alexander meant to cross the Ganges, involving a conflict with Magadha, would almost arise naturally from its substitution of the Ganges for the Sutlej.] which has no basis in fact, because he knew nothing of the existence of the place whose conquest was the object of the scheme. The legend of the plan to conquer Magadha, however, matured much faster than the parallel legend of the plan to conquer Carthage and the Mediterranean, whose growth I have previously traced;33 [J.H.S. 1921, 1.] for while the latter was not actually accomplished till the Romance, Alexander conquered Magadha long before that. The first step was that someone forged a letter from Craterus to his mother (Strabo 15, 702) in which Alexander reaches the Ganges. Then follow two stories; in the one, preserved by Diodorus, 2, 37, 3, Alexander reaches the Ganges but dare not attack the Gandaridae (sic) because of their 4000 elephants; in the other, given in Plut. Alex. 62 and alluded to in Diodorus 17, 108, 3, he reaches the Ganges and desires to cross, but the army refuses. (As in Plutarch the ‘Gandaritae and Prasii hold the further bank, which represents the blunder made by Cleitarchus which this paper has been tracing, we have here an excellent instance of later legend springing from the Cleitarchean vulgate; it is illuminating for Plutarch's indiscriminate use of material.) Finally, in Justin 12, 8, 9, Alexander does conquer Magadha: Praesios, Gangaridas, caesis eorum exercitibus expugnat. The statement in Diodorus' version of the gazetteer, 18, 6, 1, that Alexander did not attack the Gandaridae because of their elephants, is then a mere remark of Diodorus' own,34 [Diodorus' habit of occasionally interpolating remarks or quotations of his own is now well established, anyhow for the later books; for instances see Jacoby, Hieronymos in Pauly-Wissowa: Schubert Die Quellen zur Geschicte der Diadochenzeit, passim.] quoted from his own version of the legend in 2, 37, 3. Like many legends, it possesses a minute substratum of fact; the report about the elephants across the Beas. Arr. 5, 25, 1, was one of the causes which decided Alexander's army to go no further.

W. W. Tarn.  

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

VII. On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum
by Professor H. Luders
Excerpt from The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Pp. 153-179
1912

-- The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1912

H. Luders, ‘On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (UK) 1912, fn., p. 167. Fuhrer was then Assistant Editor (to Burgess) on the Epigraphia Indica...

Luders neglects to mention that Fuhrer had supplied Buhler with the details of these and other inscriptions – almost 400 in all – for Buhler’s assessment in the Epigraphia Indica, and epigraphists will now have the unenviable task of establishing the authenticity of these items. Immediately following Fuhrer’s exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Fuhrer’s supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental.

-- Lumbini On Trial: The Untold Story. Lumbini Is An Astonishing Fraud Begun in 1896, by T. A. Phelps

-- The Piprahwa Deceptions: Set-ups and Showdown, by T.A. Phelps
-- The Buddha and Dr. Fuhrer: An Archaeological Scandal, by Charles Allen -- Alois Anton Führer, by Wikipedia -- Georg Bühler, by Wikipedia -- Epigraphia Indica, by Wikipedia
-- Monograph On Buddha Shakyamuni's Birth-Place: The Nepalese Tarai, by Alois Anton Fuhrer

VII. On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum

by Professor H. Luders

In a recent number of the Ep. Ind., vol. x, p. 106 ff., Mr. R. D. Banerji has edited twenty-one Brahmi inscriptions of the “Scythian” period, of which nine had been already published by him, under the name of R. D. Bandhyopadhyaya, in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, N.S., vol. v, pp. 243 f., 271 ff. We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to him for making these records accessible, although the way in which he has acquitted himself of his task cannot meet with unreserved praise. I do not undervalue the difficulties which beset these inscriptions. I know that it cannot be expected that the first reading and interpretation of an inscription of this class should be always final. But what may be reasonably expected, and what, I am sorry to say, is wanting in Mr. Banerji’s paper, is that carefulness and accuracy that have hitherto been a characteristic feature of the publications in the Epigraphia Indica. It would be a tedious and wearisome business to correct almost line for line mistakes that might have been easily avoided with a little more attention. The following pages will show that this complaint is not unjustified.

All the twenty-one inscriptions are in the Provincial Museum of Lucknow. Of eight of them the find-place is unknown; nine are, or are said to be, from Mathura; while four are assigned by Mr. Banerji with more or less confidence to Ramnagar. Among the Mathura inscriptions there are three, No. 7 = B, 42;1 [B refers to my “List of Brahmi Inscriptions” in Ep. Ind., vol. x, appendix, where the full bibliography is given.] No. 10 = B, 66; No. 11 = B, 75, which were previously edited by Buhler. As far as the dates are concerned, Mr. Banerji's readings are undoubtedly an improvement on those of his predecessor (astapana instead of 40 4 hana in No. 7, hamava 1 instead of hana va 1 in No. 10, sam 90 9 and di 10 6 instead of sam 90 5 and di 10 8 in No. 11). But the rest of his new readings seems to me only partly correct. I will quote here only one point which is linguistically interesting. In No. 11 the name of the nun at whose request the gift was made, read Dhama[tha]ye by Buhler, is read Dhama[si]r[ i]ye by Mr. Banerji, who adds that the reading of the third syllable is certain though the crossbar of the sa is not distinct in the impression. Mr. Venkayya has already remarked in a note that in the plate the reading appears to be Dhamadharaye. The impression before me leaves no doubt that it really is Dharmadharaye. This is a new instance of the lengthening of an a before r + consonant in the Mathura dialect, on which I have commented, Bruchstucke Buddhistischer Dramen, p. 31.

Of the rest of the Mathura inscriptions, No. 2 = B, 88, and No. 6 = B, 52, were brought to notice by Growse, and No. 13 = B, 140, by Dowson; No. 14 = B, 109, was read by Mr. V. A. Smith; No. 18 was mentioned by Buhler, Ep, Ind., vol. ii, p. 311. I will pass over Nos. 2, 6, and 18, as I have no impressions of them. But of the very interesting inscription No. 13, which is engraved on a large slab of red sandstone, there is an impression among the materials collected by Dr. Hoernle for the intended second volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. It is not a very good one, but it is nevertheless very valuable as it was taken at a time when the inscription was in a more complete state than at present. I read it: —

1. . . .apavane1 Srikunde2 svake3 vihare Kakatikanam pacanah niyatakah4 nanatra vastussi5 samkkalayitavyah sanghaprakitehi vyavaharihi upathapito yesam ni[pa]6.

2. . . [ya]7 -- Sthavarajatra— B[u]d[dh]araksita— Jivasiri — Buddhadasa — Sangharaksita

3. — Dhammavarmma8 — Buddhadeva — Akhila9

1. Bn. navan[e]. As to the first letters, the impression entirely differs from the collotype. The impression reads as above, but the vowel of the lost aksara may have been an o of which only the right half is preserved. Above the last aksara there is a short stroke which I should take to be meant for the anusvara if this were not grammatically impossible.

2. Bn. reads Srikande, adding that ‘‘the word may he taken to be kanthe". This, of course, is impossible as the nde is just as distinct as the u of ku.

3. Bn. reads stake, adding that the word may be read as svaka. The reading svake is beyond doubt.

4. On this word Bn. makes a note which really seems to apply to the ya. However, it is superfluous as there is no e-stroke at the top of the ya. The two large horizontal strokes left unnoticed by Bn. I take to be the anusvara, though they are rather below the line.

5. Bn. has wrongly separated these words. Perhaps the true reading is vastussi.

6. The last aksara is uncertain. It may have been also ha or la.

7. The ya is mutilated and uncertain.

8. Bn. Dharmma°, but the a-stroke is distinct; cf. above, p. 154.

9. Bn. su[kha]la. The vowel-sign of the kha undoubtedly is i.

Mr. Banerji has not translated this inscription, because "it contains some peculiar words''. I venture to offer a translation, although owing to the mutilated state of the inscription the connexion between the first and the second line is not clear, and moreover the exact meaning of some terms cannot yet be settled —

"The fixed cooking-place of the Kakatikas, not to be put up in any other house, . . . in the grove ... at Srikunda (Srikunda), in their own Vihara, has been set up by the merchants entrusted with (taking care of) the Order, whose . . . Sthavarajatra, Buddharaksita, Jivasiri (Jivasri), Buddhadasa, Sangharaksita, Dharmmavarmma (Dharmavarman), Buddhadeva, Akhila . . . "

The pacana which forms the object of the donation apparently is the slab itself, and I do not see how the word can have any other meaning but ''cooking-place", although the Sanskrit dictionaries assign that meaning only to pacana as a neuter. The words nanatra vastussi samkkalayitavyah, which apparently stand in contrast to niyatakah, seem to represent Sanskrit nanyatra vastuni samkalayitavyah, but I am by no means sure that in translating them I have hit the right meaning. The term occurs several times in the Buddhist inscriptions of Mathura edited by Dr. Vogel in the Catalogue of the Archaeological Museum at Mathura.

Probably the names in lines 2 and 3 are the names of these sanghaprakrtas. It is more dificult to say who is meant by Kakatikanam. I take this to be a proper name, and as a cooking-place in a Vihara can hardly be intended for anybody but the monks living there, Kakatika would seem to be the name of those monks, though I cannot say why they were called so. Srikunda, where the Vihara was situated, is mentioned as the name of a tirtha in the Mahabharata (iii, 5028), but, of course, it does not follow that the two localities are identical.

No. 14, incised on the waistband of a female figure, was read by Mr. Banerji: —

1. Pusabalaye dane Dhama-

2. vadhakasa [bha]yaye

But in the impression as well as in the plate the first word is clearly Pusabalaye (= Pusyabalayah) and the last bharyaya.

We next turn to the inscriptions of unknown origin. Nos, 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21. In No. 3, incised on the base of a Jaina image, the arrangement of the lines is irregular. It seems that it was intended at first to record only the gift and that the statement about the nivartana was added afterwards to the left.  I read the inscription from an impression: —

1. siddham sam 9 he 3 di 10 Grahamitrasya dhitu Avasirisya1 vadhue Kalalasya2

2. kutubiniye3

3. Grahapalaye4 dati — 5

4. Koleyato6 ganato7

5. Thaniyato kulato Vairato8 [sakha]to

6. Arya-Taraka[s]ya9

7. [n]iva[r]tana

1. Bn. reads Sivasirisya and adds that “the first syllable of the word Sivasiri may also be read as Avasiri" [sic!]. The first syllable of the word is undoubtedly a.

2. Bn. reads vadhu Ekradalasya and remarks that the last word may also be Ekradalasya, There is certainly no subscript ra, but there is a small horizontal stroke which makes the ka almost look like kka. As, however, the word cannot begin with a double consonant, it is apparently accidental. The second letter of the word is la; see my paper on the lingual la in the Northern Brahmi script, above 1911, pp. 1081 ff.

3. Bn. kutu[m]biniye, but there is no trace of the anusvara.

4. Bn. Gahapalaye. The subscript ra is quite distinct, but there is no a-stroke attached to the la.

5. Bn. does not take any notice of the sign of punctuation.

6. Bn. Kottiyato. Cf. note 2 above.

7. Bn. ganato. There is no trace of the a-stroke.

8. Bn. Thaniyato kulato Vair[a]to. There is not the slightest trace of an a-stroke in the three words.

9. Bn. Tar[ i]ka[s]ya. The i-sign is not visible in the impression.

“Hail! In the year 9, in the 3rd month of winter, on the 10th day, the gift of Grahapala (Grahapala), the daughter of Grahamitra, the daughter-in-law of Avasiri (Avasri), the wife of Kalala, at the request of the venerable Taraka out of the Koleya gana, the Thaniya (Sthaniya) kula, the Vaira (Vajra) sakha."

Of the short inscription between the feet of the statue I have no impression. It seems to refer to Grahapala and to characterize her as the pupil of some Jaina monk.

No. 5 is engraved on the pedestal of a Jaina statue. I read it from an impression: —

1. maharajasya Huveksasya1 savacara2 40 8 va 2 d[ i] 10 7 etasya puvayam K[o]l[ i]ye gana3 Bama4 . .

2. [si]ye k[u]le5 Pacanagariya6 sakhaya7 Dhanavalasya8 sisiniya9 Dhanasiriya10 nivatana

3. Budhikasya11 vadhuye12 Savatratapotriya13 Yasaya14 dana15 Sa[m]b]havasya prodima pra-

4. t[ i]stapita17

1. Bn. Huvaksasya, but the e-stroke is quite distinct.

2. Bn. sa[m]vacar[e]. There is no trace of the anusvara in the impression, and the last letter is distinctly ra.

3. Bn. K[otti]ye [gane]. Regarding the first word see note 2 on p. 157. The last letter is clearly na, not ne, though gane, of course, would be the correct form. Above the line, between the ye and the ga, there is a small ta. Perhaps the engraver intended to correct Koliye gana into the ordinary Koliyato ganato, but gave the task up again.

4. The ma is missing in the impression, but distinct on the plate. Read Bamada.

5. The ku is very small and has been inserted afterwards.

6. Bn. °nagariye, but there is no trace whatever of the e-stroke. Read Ucanagariya.

7. Bn. sakaya. This certainly was the original reading, but the ka has been altered afterwards to kha.

8. Bn. Dhujhavalas[yal The second letter is as clearly as possible na, and there can be only a doubt whether the small stroke at the top is to be read as a or not. The first letter may be dhu, but as the prolongation of the vertical line in the dha occurs again in Budhikasya, where it cannot denote u, and as Dhunavalasya would be an etymologically unaccountable form, I am convinced that it is dha.

9. Bn. sisin[ i]y[e], but the e-stroke is quite improbable.

10. Bn. Dh[ujhas]iriy[e]. The remarks on the first two aksaras of Dhanavalasya apply also to the first two aksaras of this word. There is no e-stroke on the ya.

11. Bn. [Bu]dhukasya. See note 8; the i-stroke is distinct.

12. Bn. vadhuye. The a-stroke of va is perfectly clear.

13. Bn. Savatrana(?)potr[ i]y[e]. The a-stroke of tra is distinct. The fourth aksara is clearly ta; cf. e.g. the word nivatana. There is no e-stroke on the ya.

14. Bn. Yasay[e]. There is no e-stroke on the ya.

15. Bn. dana. The a-stroke is distinct.

16. Bn. protima, but the second aksara is undoubtedly di; pro, of course, is a mistake for pra.

17. Bn. °ta(ti)stape(pi)ta. The i-stroke of ti is rather indistinct.

"In the year 48, in the 2nd month of the rainy season, on the 17th day, of maharaja Huveksa, on that (date specified as) above, at the request of Dhanasiri (Dhanayasri), the female pupil of Dhanavala (Dhanyavala) in the Koliya gana, the Bama[da*]siya (Brahmadasika) kula, the Pacanagari (Uccanagari) sakha, an image of Sambhava was set up as the gift of Yasa, the daughter-in-law of Budhika, the granddaughter of Savatrata (Sivatrata ?)."

Mr. Banerji takes Pacanagari as a Prakrit form of Vajranagari. Leaving aside the phonetical difficulties, this interpretation is impossible as the Vajranagari, or rather Varjanagari, sakha is a subdivision of the Varana gana, not of the Koliya gana. There can be no doubt that Pacanagariya is a mistake of the engraver for Ucanagariya.

The remaining inscriptions of unknown origin are but small fragments. No. 12, which consists of but two words and a half, is correctly read. No. 15, incised on the fragment of a slab, is read by Mr. Banerji: —

Gosalasya dhita Mitraye [danam*]

Linguistically and palaeographically the form Gosalasya is striking. In sa, ta, tra, the a is expressed by a long slanting line, whereas in sya the sign would seem to consist of a short and perfectly vertical stroke. Now, on the reverse of the two impressions before me just this stroke is entirely invisible, whereas the rest of the inscription is quite distinct. I have therefore no doubt that it is only an accidental scratch. Why, at the end, danam should be supplied instead of danam, is unintelligible to me. I read: —

Gosalasya dhita Mitraye ...

"[The gift] of Mitra, the daughter of Gosala.’’

Of Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 21, I have no impressions. But in the case of No. 19 even the collotype is sufficient to show that Mr. Banerji’s readings are incorrect. He reads: —

1. . . . sya [v]rta Ku[tu]kasya ku[tu][mbini*] . . .

2. . . . na putrehi dhitihi natti pau[ttrehi*] . . .

The collotype shows: —

1. . . . sya . rtakundakasya kutu ...

2. . . . na putrehi dhitihi nattipau ...

"... of the wife of [Gh]rtakundaka, . . . sons, daughters, daughter’s sons (or great-grandsons ?) and son’s sons ...”

It is extremely unlikely that the second aksara of the first line should have been vr, as the base of the letter is far too long for a va. Nor will it appear likely to anybody familiar with these inscriptions that the husband of the donatrix should bear the epithet "the chosen” as supposed by Mr. Banerji. I would restore the name to Ghrtakundaka.

On No. 20 Mr. Banerji remarks— "The inscription is of some interest as it contains the number 800 expressed both in words and by numerical symbols, viz. by the symbols for 8 and 100 [sic!]." This statement refers to the second line of the fragment, which runs —

. . . n = astasata 100 8 gandhi . . .

The two symbols are not joined in any way, and it therefore appears to me impossible that they should represent 800. The term astasata is ambiguous. It certainly may mean 800, but just as well it may mean 108, as proved by the passages quoted in the PW. sub voce astan. Under these circumstances I cannot admit that we have here an instance of the symbol for 800.

***

The most important inscriptions, from an historical point of view, would seem to be that group which is supposed to come from Ramnagar. Before we can discuss them, it will be necessary to enter into the history of the Ramnagar excavations, though I do so reluctantly. It certainly is an unpleasant task, but it must be performed as we cannot allow science to be led astray by statements which apparently are not true.

In the Progress Report of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh for 1891-2, Epigraphical Section, Dr. Fuhrer gives a short account of the excavations at Ramnagar in the Bareli District. He first describes the remains of two Saiva temples. With these we are not concerned here, as no inscriptions were found in them. He then speaks of the excavation of a mound which "brought to light the foundation of a brick temple, dedicated to Parsvanatha, . . . dating from the Indo-Scythic period”. These statements rest on epigraphical finds about which Fuhrer says — During the course of the excavations a great number of fragments of naked Jaina statues were exhumed, of which several are inscribed, bearing dates ranging from Samvat 18 to Samvat 74, or A.D. 96 to 152. An inscription on the base of a sitting statue of Neminatha records the following: — 'Success! The year 50, second month of winter, first day, at that moment, a statue of divine Neminatha was set up in the temple of the divine lord Parsvanatha as a gift of the illustrious Indrapala for the worship of the Arhats and for the welfare and happiness of the donor's parents and of all creatures.”'

In my opinion there can be no doubt that this inscription has been invented by the author of the Report. The date has been copied from the Mathura inscription Ep. Ind., vol. ii, p. 209, No. 36, which is dated [sam.] 50 he 2 di 1 asya purvvaya. The name of the donor and the phrase “for the worship of the Arhats” have been taken from the Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind., vol, ii, p. 201, No. 9, which records the gift of Idrapala (Indrapala), the son of a Goti (Gaupti), for the worship of the Arhats. And the phrase “for the welfare and happiness of the donor's parents and of all creatures" has probably been taken from the Buddhist Kaman inscription, Ep. Ind., vol. ii. p. 212, No. 42, which ends: matapitrnam sarvvasa[ta]na ca hitasukharttha, “for the welfare and happiness of (the donors) parents and of all creatures" (Buhler's translation).

The account of the excavation of the Jaina mound is followed by the description of “another extensive mound, . . . which on exploration was found to hide the remains of a very large Buddhist monastery, called Mihiravihara, and dating from the middle of the first century A.D. . . . Externally the temple was decorated with elaborate brick carvings and numerous figures of terra-cotta, representing scenes from the life of Buddha, some of which bear short inscriptions and masons' marks. . . . An inscription on the base of a terra-cotta statue of Buddha records the following: — ‘Success! In the year 31 (A.D. 109), in the first month of the rainy season, on the tenth day, at that moment, a statue of divine Sakyamuni was set up within the precincts of the Mihiravihara as a gift of the monk Nagadatta, for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadin teachers, for the welfare and happiness of the donor’s parents and of all creatures.'"

In this case, also, the document supposed to give evidence for the name and the date of the building has been manufactured by Fuhrer. The date comes from the Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind,, vol. ii, pp. 202 f., No. 15, which is dated sa 30 1 va 1 di 10. The rest, with the exception of the name of the donor, is an almost literal copy of the Kaman inscription just mentioned, or rather of Buhler's translation of that inscription: “ . . . at that moment, a statue of divine Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni, was set up as) the gift of the monk Nandika in the Mihiravihara, for the acceptance of the Sarvastivadi (Sarvastivadin) teachers, for the welfare and happiness of (the donor's) parents and of all creatures."

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Fuhrer next announces the discovery of another Buddhist monastery: — "The carved bricks found on the spot are of the same period as those of the Mihiravihara, as they show the same patterns and bear short donative inscriptions.” And he reports that ‘‘during these excavations 1,930 relics of antiquities have been exhumed and deposited in the Lucknow Provincial Museum”, and again he states that the collection comprises among other things “numerous carved bricks and terra-cotta statuettes of Buddha and Siva, inscribed”, and “inscribed Jaina images of red sandstone".

To the inscriptions on the carved bricks and terra-cottas he devotes a special paragraph where the audacity of the author emulates the clumsiness of his fabrication. The whole paragraph is nothing but an abstract of Buhler’s introduction to his edition of the Sanci inscriptions, Ep. Ind., vol. ii, pp. 91 ff., with a few alterations necessary to serve the new purpose.

In order to show that this is not saying too much I put the two accounts side by side —

Fuhrer

The inscriptions on the carved bricks and terra-cottas offer, in spite of their brevity, a good many points of interest. Some record donations by corporate bodies or families, others give the names of individual donors, as monks, nuns, or laymen.

As the Buddhist ascetics could not possess any property, they must have obtained by begging the money required for constructing the large temples and monasteries of Adhichhatra. This was, no doubt, permissible, as the purpose was a pious one. But it is interesting to note the different proceedings adopted by the Jaina ascetics of Mathura and Adhichhatra, who as a rule were content to exhort the laymen to make donations, and to take care that this fact was mentioned in the votive inscriptions.

Among the individual monks named there are none who can be identified with any of the great men in Buddhist scriptures. As regards the persons who are not marked as monks, and presumably were laymen, the specifications of their position, which, are sometimes added, possess some interest. To the highest rank belongs Indrapala1; [Indrapala apparently refers to the donor of the inscription of Samvat 50. The author has entirely forgotten that he has represented this man as a Jaina layman.] descending lower in the social scale, we have a tillage landholder, gahapati; next we find numerous persons bearing the title sethi or alderman; simple traders, vanika; a royal scribe, rajalipikara; a professional writer, lekhaka; a royal foreman of artisans, avesani; a trooper, asavarika; and a humble workman, kamika, are mentioned.

The prevalence of merchants and traders seems to indicate, what indeed may be gathered also from the sacred books of the Buddhists, that this class was the chief stronghold of Buddhism. The mention of professional writers is of some importance on account of the great age of the inscriptions. Among the epithets given to females the repeated occurrence of the old Pali title pajavati, literally “a mother of children”, is not without interest, and the fact that some females are named merely the mother of N.N.”, and that others proudly associate the names of their sons with their own, is worthy of note. The names of various lay donors and of a few monks furnish also some valuable information regarding the existence of the Pauranik worship during the second and first centuries B.C.

There are some names, such as Agnisarma, Brahmadatta, Visvadeva, Yamarakshita, etc., which are closely connected with the ancient Vedic worship; and some, as Naga, Nagadatta, and so forth, bear witness for the existence of the snake-worship, which was common to the Brahmanists and the heterodox sects. Finally, names like Vishnudatta, Balamitra, furnish evidence for the development of Vaishnavism, while Nandigupta, Kumaradatta, Sivanandin, do the same service to Saivism. The occurrence amongst the Buddhists of Adhichhatra of names connected with the ancient Vedic religion, as well as of such as are connected with Vaishnavism and Saivism, has, no doubt, to be explained by the assumption that their bearers or their ancestors adhered to these creeds before their conversion, and that they received their names in accordance with the established custom of their families.

The rules regarding the giving of names were probably then as lax amongst the Buddhists as they are in the present day among the heterodox sects of India, which by no means restrict themselves to the lists of their particular saints or deities. Their historical value consists therein that they form a link in the chain of evidence which enables us to trace the existence, nay the prevalence of Vaishnavism and Saivism, not only during the second and first centuries B.C., but during much earlier times, and to give a firm support to the view now held by a number of Orientalists, according to which Vaishnavism and Saivism are older than Buddhism and Jainism.

The traditional view30 [E.g., Gombrich (1996: 51).] is that the Buddha reinterpreted existing Indian ideas found in the Upanishads, but the Upanishads in question cannot be dated to a period earlier than the Buddha, as shown by Bronkhorst31 [Bronkhorst (1986).] and discussed below. Just as Early Buddhism cannot be expected to be similar to the Normative Buddhism of a half millennium or more later, so Early Brahmanism cannot be expected to be similar to Late Brahmanism (not to speak of Hinduism), attested even later. "Zoroaster was ... the first to teach the doctrines of ... Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body ... , and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body",32 [Boyce (1979: 29).] and Early Zoroastrianism was the faith of the ruling nation of the Persian Empire. Both Early Buddhism and Early Brahmanism are the direct outcome of the introduction of Zoroastrianism into eastern Gandhara by Darius I. Early Buddhism resulted from the Buddha's rejection of the basic principles of Early Zoroastrianism, while Early Brahmanism represents the acceptance of those principles. Over time, Buddhism would accept more and more of the rejected principles....

While, not surprisingly, the ordinary generic human contrast between truth and falsehood is found in the Vedas, the specifically Early Zoroastrian form of the ideas, including the result of following one or the other path, is completely alien to them. In the early Vedic religion, ritually correct performance of blood sacrifices was believed to be rewarded in this life, but the reward had nothing to do with one's virtuous actions or one's future in the afterlife. These ideas thus seem to have been introduced by the Achaemenid Persians into eastern Gandhara and Sindh, the western limits of the ancient Indic world and southeastern limits of the Central Asian world, just as they were introduced into Near Eastern parts of the vast Persian Empire. In fact, Early Zoroastrianism is attested in Achaemenid Central Asia and India in the earliest Persian imperial written documents from the region.35ii [Benveniste et al. (1958: 4), based on two inscriptions in Aramaic. Cf. Bronkhorst (2007: 358), who remarks, "In the middle of the third century BC, it was Mazdaism, rather than Brahmanism, which predominated in the region between Kandahar and Taxila". For Bronkhorst's views on Brahmanism and early Magadha, see Endnote ii.]

These specific "absolutist" or "perfectionist" ideas are firmly rejected by the Buddha in his earliest attested teachings, as shown in Chapter One. In short, the Buddha reacted primarily (if at all) not against Brahmanism,36 [Cf. Bronkhorst (1986; 2011: 1-4), q.v. the preceding note. From his discussion it is clear that even the earliest attested Brahmanist texts reflect the influence of Buddhism...

This brings up the problem of the Buddha's birthplace. Not only are his dates only very generally definable, his specific homeland is unknown as well. Despite widespread popular belief in the story that he came from Lumbini in what is now Nepal, all of the evidence is very late and highly suspect from beginning to end. Bareau has carefully analyzed the Lumbini birth story and shown it to be a late fabrication.43 [Bareau (1987). The lone piece of evidence impelling scholars to accept the Lumbini story has been the Lumbini Inscription, which most scholars believe was erected by Asoka. However, the inscription itself actually reveals that it is not by Asoka, and all indications are that it is a late forgery, possibly even a modern one. See Appendix C.] There are reasons to put the Buddha's teaching period -- most of his life, according to the traditional accounts -- somewhere in northern India, in a region affected by the monsoons. In particular, the eventual development of the primitive arama, the temporary seasonal shelter of the Buddha's lifetime, into the samgharama (an arama specifically for Buddhist monks)44 [This is the traditional understanding. Later, in the Kushan period, the fully developed monastery (eventually called the vihara) was introduced from Central Asia, as known from the excavations at Taxila (Marshall 1951). The idea of the "monastery" must have developed slowly within Buddhism -- no other religious or philosophical system anywhere is known to have developed it earlier. It clearly cannot be dated until well after the time of Megasthenes' account, which mentions explicitly where the sramanas lived but says nothing about monasteries or anything similar. The earliest identifiable group living centers, even if they were samgharamas (unlikely, since the stories about them are clearly ahistorical), are primitive affairs that can hardly be called "monasteries", as pointed out by Schopen (2004: 219; 2007: 61; cf. Bronkhorst 2011), partly on the basis of the early donative inscriptions at Sanci, which -- unlike later donative inscriptions -- do not mention viharas, indicating that the monks lived in villages. It is now clear that fully developed organized monasticism must have come first, and preceded any samgharamas, but it developed in Central Asia, whence it was introduced to India and China in the Kushan period (Beckwith 2014; forthcoming-a). Cf. Chapter Two.] -- the received historical trajectory, based on tradition, the "early" sutras, and archaeological data45 [Dutt (1962); see Chapter Two and the discussion in Beckwith (2012c).] -- actually requires an original location in the monsoon zone. That is to say, if aramas were necessary, then monsoons were necessary too, meaning Early Buddhism must have developed in a monsoon zone region of early India. However, that could be almost anywhere from the upper Indus River in the west -- including ancient eastern Gandhara -- to the mouths of the Ganges in the east.

-- Gautama Buddha, The Scythian Sage, Excerpt from Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith

Buhler

Turning to the contents of the inscriptions, the latter offer, in spite of their extreme brevity, a good many points of interest . . . there are ten, recording donations by corporate bodies of families. The remainder give the names of individual donors . . . we find among them fifty-four monks and thirty-seven nuns, as well as ninety-one males and forty-five or forty-seven females, who probably were lay-members of the Buddhist sect ... As the Buddhist ascetics could not possess any property, they must have obtained by begging the money required for making the rails and pillars. This was no doubt permissible, as the purpose was a pious one. But it is interesting to note the different proceedings of the Jaina ascetics, who, according to the Mathura and other inscriptions, as a rule, were content to exhort the laymen to make donations and to take care that this fact was mentioned in the votive inscriptions . , . Among the individual monks named in the inscriptions there are none who can be identified with any of the great men in the Buddhist scriptures ... As regards the persons who are not marked as monks, and presumably were laymen, the specifications of their social position, which are sometimes added, possess some interest.  

To the highest rank belongs the Vakaladevi ... Descending lower in the social scale, we have a gahapati or village landholder ... Next we find numerous persons bearing the title sethi, sheth, or alderman ... Simple traders, vanija or vanika, are mentioned ... A royla scribe, rajalipikara, occurs ... a professional writer, lekhaka ... a (royal) foreman of artisans, avesani, ... a trooper, asavarika, ... and a humble workman, kamika ... The prevalence of merchants and traders seems to indicate, what indeed may he gathered also from the sacred books of the Buddhists, that this class was the chief stronghold of Buddhism. The mention of professional writers is of some importance on account of the great age of the inscriptions. Among the epithets given to females the repeated occurrence of the old Pali title pajavati, literally "a mother of children”, ... is not without interest, and the fact that some females are named merely ‘‘the mother of N.N.”, and that others proudly associate the names of their sons with their own, is worthy of note . . . The names of various lay donors and, I may add, of a few monks, furnish also some valuable information regarding the existence of the Pauranik worship during the third and second centuries B.C. . . . There are further some names, such as Agisima (Agnisarma), . . . Bahadata (Brahmadatta), . . . Visvadeva, Yamarakhita, which are closely connected with the ancient Vedic worship; and some, Naga, . . .Nagadatta, and so forth, bear witness for the existence of the snake- worship, which was common to the Brahmanists and the heterodox sects. Finally, the names Vinhuka, an abbreviation for Vishnudatta . . . Balamitra . . . furnish evidence for the development of Vaishnavism, while Nadiguta (Nandigupta), . . . Samidata (Svami-, i.e. Kumara-datta) . . . Sivanadi (Sivanandi) do the same service to Saivism. The occurrence among the Buddhists of names connected with the ancient Vedic religion, as well as of such as are connected with Vaishnavism and Saivism, in these early inscriptions, has no doubt to be explained by the assumption that their bearers or their ancestors adhered to these creeds before their conversion, and that they received their names in accordance with the established custom of their families. The rules regarding the giving of names were probably then as lax among the Buddhists as they are in the present day among the heterodox sects of India, which by no means restrict themselves to the lists of their particular saints or deities. Their historical value consists therein that they form a link in the chain of evidence which enables us to trace the existence, nay the prevalence of Vaishnavism and Saivism, not only during the third century B.C., but during much earlier times, and to give a firm support to the view now held by a number of Orientalists, according to which Vaishnavism and Saivism are older than Buddhism and Jainism.

I have quoted this paragraph at full length in order to establish clearly the nature of this Report.1 [At first sight my assertion would seem to be in conflict with the fact that Fuhrer’s Report is dated July 16, 1892, whereas parts x and xii of Ep. Ind., vol. ii, containing Buhler’s papers on the Sanci and Mathura inscriptions, were issued in August and December, 1892, respectively. But it must be borne in mind that Fuhrer was assistant editor of the first two volumes of the Ep. Ind,, and in this capacity knew Buhler’s papers before they were published.] It is highly desirable that some competent person should give us an account of the real results of the excavations of Ramnagar. Meanwhile, as all statements about epigraphical finds that admit of verification have proved to be false, it is very probable that no inscriptions at all have turned up at that place. Ai any rate, it seems to me impossible to make this Report the base of any identification as Mr. Banerji does. On p. 107 he says: — ''None of the inscriptions from Ramnagar have ever been properly edited. Translations of three of them have appeared in Dr. Fuhrer's Report of the Epigraphical Section for 1901-2, out of which only one has been found. The rest could not be traced either in the galleries or the Tahkhana of the Lucknow Provincial Museum.” These remarks are full of inaccuracies. In 1902 Fuhrer could write no reports, because he was no longer in the Government’s service. So Mr. Banerji apparently refers to the Report for 1891-2. This Report, however, contains translations of only two inscriptions, and that the originals of these cannot be traced will cause no surprise after what has been said above. Now from the introductory remarks on No. 9, dated in Samvat 74, it appears that this is the inscription that Mr. Banerji supposes "to have been found”. He says: — "The discovery of this inscription was announced by Dr. Fuhrer in his Progress Report for the year 1891-2. But all the details have been omitted.'’ As there is no particular reference to this inscription in the Report, Mr. Banerji's statement can refer only to the general phrase quoted above, that "a great number of fragments of naked Jaina statues were exhumed, of which several are inscribed, bearing dates ranging from Samvat 18 to Samvat 74”. I need not repeat why this identification carries no weight. There is, moreover, an internal reason that makes it almost impossible that the inscription should come from Ramnagar. The inscription, which is engraved on the four sides of a pedestal of a sarvatobhadrika1 [Mr. Banerji calls it a caturmukha image, referring to Buhler as his authority. Buhler, it is true, occasionally used this term (e.g. Ep. Ind., vol. i, p. 382, n. 51, but as far as I know it is not warranted by the inscriptions.] image of a Tirthamkara, runs according to an impression: —

A. 1. [sam 70]1 [ ] 4 gr2 [ ] 1 di 5 aya-Varanato gana[to]...

2. [ku]lato3 [ ] Vajanakarito4 [ ] sakhato aya-Sirika[to] ...

B. 1... nadhanasya vacakasya sisiniye5 [ ] a[ryya] ...

2. ... susa6 [ ] ...

C. 1. G[r]ahavilaye7 [ ] panatidhariye sisiniye A[r]hadasiy[e]8 [ ]

2. ...

D. 1. ... sya9 [ ] kutubiniye10 [ ] Dharavalaye11 [ ] dati12 [ ]

2. ... sasuye

1. The sa and the symbol for 70 are indistinct in the impression.

2. Bn. gra; but the r is as distinct as possible.

3. Bn. [ku]lato; but the a-stroke is quite distinct.

4. Bn. Vajanakarito, Here, again, the a-stroke of na is distinct. As there is a flaw in the stone below the ja, the true reading may be Vajra°.

5. The stroke to the right on the top of the ya seems to be accidental.

6. Bn. sasa; but the u-stroke of the first letter is beyond doubt. The second aksara may be se.

7. Bn. Gahavalaye. The subscript ra is not quite distinct, but probable. The i-stroke of the third aksara is certain. The impression does not show an a-stroke attached to the la.

8. Bn. Aryadasiye. The second aksara is not quite distinct, but it cannot possibly be rya.

9. Bn. [deva]sya.

10. Bn. kutu[m]biniye; but there is not the slightest trace of an anusvara.

11. Bn. Dharavalaye. The a-stroke of ra is distinctly visible.

12. Bn. dati. The a-stroke attached to the middle of the matrka is perfectly clear.

“In the year 74, in the first month of summer, on the fifth day, [at the request] of Arhadasi (Arhaddasi), the female pupil of the panatidhari Grahavila . . . venerable . . . the female pupil of the preacher . . . nadhana out of the venerable Varana (Varana) gana, the . . . kula, the Vajanakari (Varjanagari) sakha, the venerable Sirika (Srika) [sambhoga], . . . the gift of Dharavala the wife of . . . the mother-in-law (?) . . ."

The style of this inscription is exactly the same as that of the Jaina inscriptions from Mathura. The inscription closely agrees in particular with Ep. Ind., vol. ii, p. 209, No. 36, where Buhler's reading of the third line . . vasya Dinarasya sisini ayya-Jinadasi-panatidharitaya sisinia ... has to be corrected to ... vasya Dinarasya sisini ayya-Jinadasi panatidhari taya sisini a[yya]1 [This passage shows that also in the inscription above panatidhariye is the epithet of Grahavilaye and not of sisiniye Arhadasiye. The real meaning of panatidhari has not yet been found.] ... Of greater importance and almost decisive is the mentioning of the Sirika sambhoga. The Srigrha or Srika sambhoga has hitherto been found only in Mathura inscriptions, and as it is probably the name of a territorial division it is extremely unlikely that it should ever be found outside of that territory. If, in the absence of all outward testimony, internal evidence may claim any credit, the inscription has to be assigned, not to Ramnagar, but to Mathura.

A second inscription that Mr. Banerji supposes to come from Ramnagar is No. 4 of his paper. He says: — ''Nothing is known about the provenance of this image. It is now standing on a masonry pedestal without a label close to the entrance of the Jaina section. In his report for the month of April, 1892, Dr. Fuhrer, as the Curator of the Lucknow Museum, reports the presentation of '1 pedestal [sic] of a statue of a Tirthamkara, inscribed Saka-Samvat 10, excavated from the ancient site of a Digambara temple at Ramnagar in Rohilkhand.'2 [N.W.P. and Oudh Provincial Museum Minutes, vol. v, p. 6, Appendix A. This book is not accessible to me.] It is possible that our image is referred to by these words of Dr. Fuhrer.” I am quite at a loss to understand how it is possible to arrive at such a conclusion. The report speaks of a pedestal with an inscription of Samvat 10. Here we have the statue of a seated Jina completely preserved with the exception of the left arm, and the inscription which is engraved on the upper and lower rim of the throne is dated in Samvat 12.1 [The symbol for 2 is quite distinct.] I may add, perhaps, that I should consider it a waste of time to search for that inscription of Samvat 10. We may rest assured that it existed just as little as the inscriptions mentioned in the Progress Report. Mr. Banerji’s inscription itself is interesting as being of an unusual type. I read it from an impression:—

1. ... sa[m]1 10 2 va 4 d[ i] 10 12 eta[s]ya purvv[a]yam3 Koliyato4 ganato5 Ba[m]bha[d]asiyato kulato U[ce]-6

2. nagarito7 sa[kh]ato gani[s]ya Aryya-Pusilasya sisini De[va] panatihari Nand[ i]sya8 bhaginiye9 ni[va]-10

3. rtana savikanam11 vaddhaddhininam12 Jinadasi Rudradeva13 Dattagali14 Rudradevasamini15 Rud[r]ad ... 16 data17 Gahamitr[a]18 [Rud]ra ... n.a 19

4. Kumarasiri Vamadasi Hastisena Grahasiri Rudradata Jayadasi Mit[r]asiri ... 20

1. There is an indistinct symbol before sam, not noticed by Bn.

2. The last figure is possibly 2.

3. Bn. purvvayam. There is no a-stroke on the ya in the impression.

4. Bn. Kottiyato. Regarding my reading see note 2 on p. 157.

5. Bn. [ga]nato. The a-stroke is visible in the impression.

6. Bn. U[cena]- ; but the na stands clearly at the beginning of line 2.

7. Possibly °nagarito.

8. Bn. Datila . ti Harinan[di]sya. There is a distinct vowel-stroke on the first da, but it may be i. The va is not certain. In the ri the length of the vowel is not quite certain, but probable. The a-stroke of na is pretty clear, but the i-stroke of ndi is indistinct.

9. Bn. bhaginiye. The length of the vowel of the third syllable is very probable.

10. Bn. ni[var*]-. The va is not visible, but the r is quite distinct at the top of the ta of the following line.

11. Bn. savikanam. There is no a-stroke in the last aksara.

12. Bn. reads vaddha[ki]ninam, assuming that the ki was corrected from ka by the engraver himself. The second aksara shows at the top a long stroke to the left which may be accidental. The third aksara bears no resemblance whatever to ki, although the reading ddhi cannot be called absolutely certain.

13. Properly Rudradova, but the second stroke of the da may be accidental.

14. Bn. Dattagala. The vowel-sign of the last letter is clearly i or possibly i. The third aksara may be rga.

15. Bn. °sami[na]. The reading ni is certain.

16. About four aksaras are missing.

17. Bn. omits these two aksaras, which are distinct in the impression.

18. Bn. [Gahami]tra. The a-stroke is not quite certain.

19. Bn. omits this word. Only the lower portion of the first two aksaras is preserved.

20. Bn. reads Kumarasiri, Grahasiri, Jayadasi, Mit[r]asiri, but in all these cases the length of the final vowel is distinct in the impression. Bn. besides Vamadasi. The a-stroke is distinct.

"In the year 12, in the fourth month of the rainy season, on the eleventh day, on that (date specified as) above, at the request of Deva, the panatihari, the sister of Nandi (Nandin), the female pupil of the venerable Pusila (Pusyala), the ganin out of the Koliya gana, the Bambhadasiya (Brahmadasika) kula, the Ucenagari (Uccairnagari) sakha, [a gift] of the female lay-hearers, the vaddhaddhinis(?), Jinadasi, Rudradeva(?), Dattagali(?), Rudradevasamini (°svamini), Rudrad. . . data (°datta), Gahamitra (Grahamitra), Rudra . . n.a, Kumarasiri (°sri), Vamadasi, Hastisena, Grahasiri (°sri), Rudradata (°datta), Jayadasi, Mitrasiri (°sri) ...”  

For panatihari = panatidhari cf. panatihara in Ep. Ind., vol. ii, p. 209, No. 36, line 4, and the remarks above. The term vaddhaddhini I cannot explain. It may be a family name or the designation of a caste or profession or a geographical name. I have remarked already that Mr. Banerji's reading vaddhakininam cannot be upheld, and even the supposition that vaddhaddhininam is a clerical error for vaddhakininam is quite improbable as the word in the Prakrit dialects always shows a lingual ddh. In the list of the sravikas the names from Rudradeva to Rudradevasamini present some difficulties.1 [Mr. Banerji thinks it possible that the two names Jinadasi and Rudradeva have to he taken as one name, Jinadasi-Rudradeva. He says: The mother's name might have been prefixed to distinguish her from others bearing the name Rudradeva." I am not aware that anything of this kind ever occurs in the inscriptions, and it is therefore hardly necessary to discuss this opinion.] Perliaps Rudradeva and Dattagali form one word, dattagali has some meaning unknown to me. At any rate, if Rudradeva was the name of a sravika, we ought to expect Rudradeva, and Dattagali sounds rather strange as a proper name. Mr. Banerji's translation "Rudradevasami (Rudradevasvamin) of Dattagala" partly based on wrong readings, of course is impossible. The name of a male person would be quite out of place in this list of female lay-hearers. Rudradevasamini possibly belongs to the following name, now lost, and means '‘the wife of Rudradeva.”

The third inscription that Mr. Banerji assigns to Ramnagar is his No. 16. In the heading he speaks of a “fragment from the lower part of an image from Ramnagar", but on p. 107 he says with regard to the inscription: “while another inscription (No. xvi) evidently from the same place refers to the name of the capital city [Adhi]chchhattra. The identity of Ramnagar with Adhichchhatra seems to be certain.” From these words it appears that the find-place is by no means warranted by any original document, but is merely conjectural. And the only reason why the inscription is held to come from Ramnagar seems to be the mentioning of Adhicchattra, which is supposed to be identical with Ramnagar. Before we can examine this argument, we must turn to the text of the record itself. Strange to say, Mr. Banerji expressly states that “the inscription consists of a single line while immediately afterwards he gives the text as standing, in the original in two lines. He reads: —

1. ... naka gana (?) Dhananyanasya ta . . . aya[ye] ... [ye A]dh[ i]cchatrakaye

2. [nivar*]tana.

It is self-evident that this cannot be correct. The first words yield no sense at all, and it requires but a very slight familiarity with the language to see that a form like Dhananyanasya, with a guttural n before ya, is simply impossible. M own reading, based on an impression, is: —

1. . . . m[ i]kat[o]1 ku[la]t[o2 Vajra]nagar[ i]to3 [sakhat]o4 ayaye5 ... t.[s]iy[e]6 [A]dh[ i]cchatrakaye7

2. [nivar]tana[m] — 8

1. The first matrka is doubtful. On the reverse of the impression it looks like ma. The i-sign is indistinct.

2. The first sign of this word has been simply omitted by Bn. I take it to be ku, with the u-sign attached to the right horizontal bar of the matrka. The last sign is certainly not dha as read by Bn., as it is quite different from the dha occurring later on.

3. Only the first two aksaras of this word are not quite distinct. On the reverse of the impression the first letter looks like va, but I admit that in itself it might also be na, as read by Bn. The second letter I take to be jra. The upper horizontal line of the letter is indistinct. Below the letter there are some scratches that give the subscript ra the appearance of a subscript ya. Bin’s reading sya, instead of gari, is impossible.

4. Only the upper half of this word is preserved.

5. The a-stroke of the first letter is quite distinct. Also the reading aryaye is possible.

6. The sa is not certain.

7. The vowel-signs are destroyed and the original reading may therefore have been Adhicchatrikaye.

8. The r and the anusvara is not certain, but the last aksara is certainly not na. The sign of punctuation has been omitted by Bn.

The translation would be --

"The request of the venerable . . t.si, the native from Adhicchatra, out of the [Petiva]mika (Praitivarmika) kula, the Vajranagari sakha ..."

In my opinion the mentioning of Adhicchattra in this case by no means proves that the inscription comes from Adhicchattra. On the contrary, if any conclusion is to be drawn from the fact, it is rather apt to show that the inscription is not from Adhicchattra, as the characterizing of a person as the native of a certain place would certainly seem superfluous in that place itself.

The fourth and last inscription which, according to Mr. Banerji "most probably" came from Ramnagar, is No. 1, found on the top of a split coping-stone. Here, also, Mr. Banerji’s arguments do not convince me. He refers again to the Curator’s (i.e. Fuhrer's) Report for the month of April, 1892, which mentions "1 coping stone with inscription of the Saka era (dated Samvat 5) . . . Excavated from the old site of a large Buddhist temple at Ramnagar, Rohilkhand." Even apart from the fact shown above that the statements of that Report are liable to grave suspicion, I do not see how that description can be said to suit the stone bearing the present inscription. The inscription contains nothing to indicate that it belonged to a "Buddhist temple”, and it is certainly not dated in Samvat 5. In order to remove this latter objection Mr. Banerji assumes that “Dr. Fuhrer most probably took the word Pamchaliye, ‘of Pamchala,’ in line 8 for a date." To me it seems incredible that anyone able to read that script at all should not have recognized that the date stands in 11. 3 and 4. In these circumstances I think that, until fresh evidence has been brought forward, this inscription also has to be classed as being of unknown origin, which is to be regretted all the more because, in spite of its mutilated state, it has some historical interest. Not beng in possession of an impression, I do not wish to enter into details, but I think it quite possible that it records the donation of some rajan of Pancala.

For reasons that will appear later on I have reserved the inscription No. 8. It is engraved on a Jaina image which is supposed to come from Mathura. According to Mr. Banerji the discovery of this image was announced by Fuhrer in his Annual Progress Report for the year 1890-1 (p. 17), and in his Annual Report of the Provincial Museum for the year 1891-2. As neither of these reports is accessible to me,1 [According to the list printed at the end of the Annual Reports, a special Progress Report for the year 1890-1 does not exist. The list mentions only a Progress Report from October, 1889, till 30th June, 1891.] I cannot decide whether the identity of the inscription is established. Palaeographically this is a most remarkable inscription.2 [My remarks are based on two impressions.] The whole writing is extremely clumsy, showing that the engraver certainly was not accustomed to such work, and there are a number of peculiar signs. In the beginning of 1. 2 we find an e, of which Mr. Banerji says that it is unlike any Brahmi letter, but resembles the Kharosthi va. I cannot discover any resemblance to the Kharosthi va, but the letter is nevertheless peculiar, as it is a cominon e with the base line omitted. The same line contains an ordinary pu with a large hook placed below the letter. This seems to be meant to represent u, though it can hardly be paralleled in the Mathura inscriptions of this time. At the end of the line we find a ha with an abnormal downstroke and what appears to be the left half of a ya, the right half of which can never have existed. The second letter of the third line, which puzzled Mr. Banerji, may be taken as a ya with the left curve touching the middle vertical, but it differs from the same letter as it appears twice in 1. 2. The strangest sign is the fourth one of the third line. Mr. Banerji transcribes it by the guttural na, without adding any remark. How the sign can ever be thought to represent na I am unable to see. I do not believe that any similar sign can be found in a Brahmi inscription, though it is just possible that the engraver intended to write a ligature, the first part of which was na. The last sign of the third line seems to be again the left half of a ya. In the fourth line we find a sa with the right horizontal prolonged. Mr. Banerji thinks we ought to read so, the o being formed by the combination of a and u, but I am afraid there will not be many palaeographers able to follow him in this bold flight of fancy. The last sign of 1. 4, read tu by Mr. Banerji, seems to be meant for ttr, but the ligature is formed in an extraordinary way, a small ta with the serif being placed inside a ta of the ordinary size. The first letter of the last line is read he by Mr. Banerji, which is possible only on the assumption that the e-stroke may be turned also in the opposite direction, and that we have here an entirely new type of ha not found hitherto in any other inscription. To me it seems that instead of he we have before us two signs, the second of which bears a certain resemblance to da, whereas of the first it can only be said that it shows an a-stroke at the top. The last two signs, read saya, by Mr. Banerji, may just as well be anything else.

As far as it can be read at all the inscription runs: — 1 [In the notes I have not repeated those of Mr. Banerji’s different readings which I have discussed above.]

1. sa1 70 1 va 1 di 10 5

2. etaya2 puvaya3 gaha[ya]4

3. tiyamu . . . simina[ya]'5

4. maniravasusatidhittr6

5. adamadava7 ...

1. Bn. sa[m], adding that the anusvara is indistinct. In the impression there is no anusvara at all.

2. Bn. etaye, but there is no e-stroke at the top of the ya.

3. Bn. puvaye, but the a-strokes of the two last letters are quite distinct.

4. Bn. reads only ha, but there is a distinct letter, which I take to be ga, before the ha.

5. Bn. °taye. There is no e-stroke on the last letter.

6. Bn. mi°, which is possible.

7. Bn. °deva°, but the vowel stroke goes to the right.

Mr. Banerji has attempted to translate this text. He does not shrink from explaining susoti, with the help of modern Bengali, as ''an apabhramsa [a term used by vyākaraṇin (native grammarians) since Patañjali to refer to languages spoken in North India before the rise of the modern languages. In Indology, it is used as an umbrella term for the dialects forming the transition between the late Middle and the early Modern Indo-Aryan languages, spanning the period between the 6th and 13th centuries CE.] of the Sanskrit svasriya [Cologne Digital Sanskrit Dictionaries: Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary 1) Svasrīya ([x] [from svasṛ] m. a sister’s son, nephew, [Taittirīya-saṃhitā] etc.; 2) Svasrīyā ([x] [from svasrīya > svasṛ] f. a sister’s daughter, niece, [Manu-smṛti xi, 171.]]". I am not sure whether the pages of the Epigraphia Indica are really the proper place for such linguistic jokes. I confess my inability to extract any sense out of that portion of the inscription which follows the date. Of course, it is possible that dhittr . adamadava was meant for something like dhitra patima data, but I think that we shall never advance beyond such guesses. Considering the state of the script and the text, I distinctly doubt the genuineness of this inscription. And there are some more facts that point to the same conclusion. The inscription is engraved on a piece of sculpture which is undoubtedly genuine. It is a fragment of a standing naked figure of a Jaina. The preserved portion reaches from the loins to the knees. At the back there is a piece of a pilaster or of the shaft of an umbrella. The inscription is engraved at the lower end of this extant portion of the pilaster, with a roughly cut arch at the top. As far as I know, there is no other instance — at any rate not for that time — of a votive inscription being placed at the back of a statue. And if really, out of modesty or for some other reason, the donor selected that side for his inscription, why did he not have it engraved as usual on the pedestal, but rather on the statue itself? This 'certainly looks suspicious, and our suspicion will increase if we examine the condition of that portion of the stone that bears the inscription. From the photograph and the impression it appears that a good deal of the surface, especially on the right side, has peeled off. In these places the inscription ought to be indistinct; but that is not the case, the letters standing out here just as clear as in the rest of the inscription. In these circumstances I cannot help declaring this inscription to be a forgery. The decision of the question who is responsible for it I leave to the readers of this paper.  

[admin]

Gautama Buddha, The Scythian Sage
Excerpt from Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia
by Christopher I. Beckwith
2015

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

GAUTAMA BUDDHA, THE SCYTHIAN SAGE

The dates of Gautama Buddha are not recorded in any reliable historical source, and the traditional dates are calculated on unbelievable lineages including round numbers such as one hundred, so they are not reliable either, as noted already by Fleet, Hultzsch, and many others.11 [ Fleet, in JRAS 1909: 333, 335, cited in Hultzsch (1925: xxxiii): Scholars' continued insistence on following such dates anyway led to a 1988 conference devoted specifically to reconsideration of the dates of the Buddha, which however largely continued to take the fanciful, ahistorical, traditional accounts as if they were actual historical accounts, with the significant exceptions of the papers by Hartel (1995) and Bareau (1995).] His personal name, Gautama, is evidently earliest recorded in the Chuangtzu, a Chinese work from the late fourth to third centuries BC.12 [See Chapter Three.] His epithet Sakamuni (later Sanskritized as Sakyamuni), 'Sage of the Scythians ("Sakas")', is unattested in the genuine Mauryan inscriptions13 [See Chapter Two and Appendix C.] or the Pali Canon.14 [However, it has been demonstrated that the caretakers of the Pali tradition systematically expunged references to various ideas and practices to which they objected, especially things thought to be non-Indian (Sven Bretfeld, p.c., 2012).] It is earliest attested, as Sakamuni, in the Gandhari Prakrit texts, which date to the first centuries AD (or possibly even the late first century BC).15 [Baums and Glass (2010), a work in progress, when checked in July 2013, included three occurrences, each in a different manuscript. It also occurs in Sanskrit in much later texts from Gandhara, as well as once, in a fifth-century AD Bactrian Buddhist text, as [x], without the characteristic -y- of the Sanskritized form of the name (Sims-Williams 2010: 73).] It is thus arguable that the epithet could have been applied to the Buddha during the Saka (Saka or "Indo-Scythian") Dynasty -- which dominated northwestern India on and off from approximately the first century BC, continuing into the early centuries AD as satraps or "vassals" under the Kushans -- and that the reason for it was strong support for Buddhism by the Sakas, Indo-Parthians, and Kushans.

However, it must be noted that the Buddha is the only Indian holy man before early modern times who bears an epithet explicitly identifying him as a non-Indian, a foreigner. It would have been unthinkably odd for an Indian saint to be given a foreign epithet if he was not actually a foreigner. Moreover, the Scythians-Sakas are well attested in Greek and Persian historical sources before even the traditional "high" date of the Buddha, so the epithet should presumably have been applied to him already in Central Asia proper or its eastern extension into India-eastern Gandhara. There are also very strong arguments -- including basic "doctrinal" ones -- indicating that Buddhism had fundamental foreign connections from the very beginning, as shown below. It is at any rate certain that Buddha has been identified as Sakamuni ~ Sakyamuni "Sage of the Scythians" in all varieties of Buddhism from the beginning of the recorded Buddhist tradition to the present, and that much of what is thought to be known about him can be identified specifically with things Scythian.16 [Walter (2012). The tradition by which Buddha was from a local Nepalese Sakya "clan" in the area of Lumbini is full of chronological and other insuperable problems, as shown by Bareau (1987); it is a very late development.]

Moreover, it must not be overlooked that we have no concrete datable evidence that any other wandering ascetics preceded the Buddha. The Scythians were nomads (from Greek [x]; 'wanderers in search of pasture, pastoralists') who lived in the wilderness, and it is thus quite likely that Gautama himself introduced wandering asceticism to India, just as the Scythians had earlier invented mounted steppe nomadism.17 [Beckwith (2009: 58ff.). Considering the mostly Anatolian origins of Greek philosophy, and the long domination of that region by the Medes and Persians, it must be wondered if the peripatetic tradition in Greek philosophy also reflects the Iranic penchant for wandering.] One way or the other, it would seem that the Buddha's teachings were unprecedented mainly because they opposed new foreign ideas -- the Early Zoroastrian ideas of good and bad karma, rebirth in Heaven (for those who were good), absolute Truth versus the Lie, and so on -- which were previously unknown in "India proper". He did this because he himself was foreign, and people actually understood and accepted that by calling him Sakamuni.

Buddha therefore must have lived after the introduction of Zoroastrianism in 519/518 BC, when the Achaemenid ruler Darius I invaded and conquered several Central Asian countries and then continued to the east, where he conquered Gandhara and Sindh, which were Indic-speaking, in about 517/516 BC.18 [Shahbazi (1994). Although the exact date of his invasion of Gandhara and Sindh is unknown, it probably happened shortly after his Central Asian campaign, so around 517 (Briant 1996: 153). In any case, there is no doubt about the conquest of the region during the early part of his reign (Kuhrt 2007: 182, 188-189). See also the extensive complementary treatment in the Epilogue of the present book.] In the process of firming up his rule over the new territories, he stationed subordinate feudal lords, or satraps, over them, and some of the army was garrisoned there. Darius had come from conquering much of Central Asia proper, including Bactria and Arachosia, as well as the Saka Tigraxauda 'the Scythians wearing pointed hats', a nation of Scythians whose king, Skunkha, he captured19 [Kuhrt (2007: 157n122, 150, figure 5.3).] and is portrayed in a captioned relief accompanying the Behistun Inscription. From then on Scythians formed the backbone of the imperial forces together with the Medes and Persians,20 [Briant (1996: 50).] so some of the soldiers in the Indian campaign must have been Scythians, that is, Sakas. Herodotus details the dress and equipment of the Central Asian and Indian troops, who are listed by nation including, among others, Bactrians, Sakas ("that is, Scythians"), Indians (Indoi), Arians (more correctly Hareians,21 [Herat, in modem northwestern Afghanistan, preserves the ancestral name of the region, Old Persian Haraiva.] neighbors of the Bactrians), Parthians, Khwarizmians, Sogdians, and Gandharans.22 [Herodotus VII; 64.1 to VII, 66.1.]

Gandhara became an important part of the empire. It is regularly included in the lists of provinces from the beginning of Darius's reign on to the end of the empire along with Bactria, Arachosia, the Sakas, and other neighboring realms.23 [Briant (1996: 50).] There was a Persian satrap in Taxila, and official travellers went frequently between the Persian capital and one or another provincial locality in India,24 [Briant (1996: 777, 370).] as attested by accounts preserved in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, which detail the payments in kind to the travellers.25 [Meadows (2005: 186).] Moreover, "the Indians", one of the twenty financial districts of the Persian Empire recorded by Herodotus, paid by far the greatest sum in "tribute".26 [Meadows (2005: 183).] The Achaemenid influence in Gandhara was strong and long-lasting.27 [Briant (1996: 778).]

The conquest by Darius introduced the Persians' new religion, reformed Mazdaism, or Early Zoroastrianism,28 [I call it "Early Zoroastrianism" because it did not exist for very long in its pristine state, but also because it was very different from fully developed Late Zoroastrianism (one could call it "Normative Zoroastrianism", following the terminology developed in this book for Buddhism). Soudavar (2010: 119), emphasis added, remarks, "Zoroastrianism as we now know [it], with its complicated rituals and canonical laws, had not enough time to develop between the lifetime of its prophet and the advent of Darius in the year 522 BC."] a strongly monotheistic faith with a creator God, Ahura Mazda, and with ideas of absolute Truth (Avestan asa, Old Persian arta) versus 'the Lie' (druj), and of an accumulation of Good and Bad deeds -- that is, "karma" -- which determined whether a person would be rewarded by "rebirth" in Heaven. These ideas are all found in the Gathas, the oldest part of the Avesta, which are attributed to Zoroaster himself, and all are expressed openly and repeatedly in the Old Persian royal inscriptions as well. Essentially the same ideas occur in the Major Inscriptions of the Mauryas in the third century BC in India.29 [See Chapters Two and Three.] The traditional view30 [E.g., Gombrich (1996: 51).] is that the Buddha reinterpreted existing Indian ideas found in the Upanishads, but the Upanishads in question cannot be dated to a period earlier than the Buddha, as shown by Bronkhorst31 [Bronkhorst (1986).] and discussed below. Just as Early Buddhism cannot be expected to be similar to the Normative Buddhism of a half millennium or more later, so Early Brahmanism cannot be expected to be similar to Late Brahmanism (not to speak of Hinduism), attested even later. "Zoroaster was ... the first to teach the doctrines of ... Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body ... , and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body",32 [Boyce (1979: 29).] and Early Zoroastrianism was the faith of the ruling nation of the Persian Empire. Both Early Buddhism and Early Brahmanism are the direct outcome of the introduction of Zoroastrianism into eastern Gandhara by Darius I. Early Buddhism resulted from the Buddha's rejection of the basic principles of Early Zoroastrianism, while Early Brahmanism represents the acceptance of those principles. Over time, Buddhism would accept more and more of the rejected principles.

Darius also sponsored the creation of a completely new writing system -- Old Persian cuneiform script, which is partly modeled on Aramaic script, one of the main administrative scripts of the Persian Empire -- and the practice of erecting monumental inscriptions.33 [In addition, he built imperial roads with rest houses provisioned for travellers. These three actions were prominently imitated by the early rulers of the Mauryan Empire in India, the northwestern part of which had been part of the Persian Empire until Alexander's conquest.] In the great Behistun Inscription at the top of Mount Bagastana,34 [This is the ancient name, which means 'place of gods' (Razmjou 2005: 153) or 'the place of God'.] Darius I repeats over and over how he achieved what he did because the early Achaemenids' monotheistic God of Heaven, Ahura Mazda 'Lord Wisdom', helped him. He insists that what he did was True, it was not a Lie, and repeatedly says that those who opposed him "lied". Druj 'the Lie' made them rebel and deceive the people, they were "lie-followers", and so on. The obsessive repetition of this litany throughout the inscriptions is striking. Anyone familiar with these basic Zoroastrian concepts could hardly contend that Darius was not an Early Zoroastrian. He could not have been anything else.

While, not surprisingly, the ordinary generic human contrast between truth and falsehood is found in the Vedas, the specifically Early Zoroastrian form of the ideas, including the result of following one or the other path, is completely alien to them. In the early Vedic religion, ritually correct performance of blood sacrifices was believed to be rewarded in this life, but the reward had nothing to do with one's virtuous actions or one's future in the afterlife. These ideas thus seem to have been introduced by the Achaemenid Persians into eastern Gandhara and Sindh, the western limits of the ancient Indic world and southeastern limits of the Central Asian world, just as they were introduced into Near Eastern parts of the vast Persian Empire. In fact, Early Zoroastrianism is attested in Achaemenid Central Asia and India in the earliest Persian imperial written documents from the region.35ii [Benveniste et al. (1958: 4), based on two inscriptions in Aramaic. Cf. Bronkhorst (2007: 358), who remarks, "In the middle of the third century BC, it was Mazdaism, rather than Brahmanism, which predominated in the region between Kandahar and Taxila". For Bronkhorst's views on Brahmanism and early Magadha, see Endnote ii.]

These specific "absolutist" or "perfectionist" ideas are firmly rejected by the Buddha in his earliest attested teachings, as shown in Chapter One. In short, the Buddha reacted primarily (if at all) not against Brahmanism,36 [Cf. Bronkhorst (1986; 2011: 1-4), q.v. the preceding note. From his discussion it is clear that even the earliest attested Brahmanist texts reflect the influence of Buddhism, so it would seem that the acceptance of Early Zoroastrian ideas in Gandhara happened later than the Buddhist rejection of them, but before the Alexander historians and Megasthenes got there in the late fourth century BC.] but against Early Zoroastrianism. At the lower end of the chronological scale, the Buddha must have lived before the visit of the two best known and attested Greek visitors of the late fourth century, Pyrrho of Elis, who was in Bactria, Gandhara, and Sindh from 330 to 325 BC with Alexander the Great and learned an early form of Buddhism there, and two decades later the ambassador Megasthenes, who travelled from Alexandria in Arachosia (now Kandahar) to Gandhara and Magadha in 305-304 BC and recorded his observations on Indian beliefs, including Early Buddhism and Early Brahmanism, in his Indica.37 [See Chapter Two for a detailed study of the relevant fragments of his book preserved in Strabo's Geography.]

The word bodhi 'enlightenment', literally 'awakening', is first attested in the Eighth Rock Edict of the Mauryan ruler Devanampriya Priyadarsi (fl. 272-261 BC), who says that in the tenth year after his coronation he went to Sambodhi -- now known as Bodhgaya (located about fifty miles south of Patna, ancient Pataliputra) -- where according to tradition the Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree. The ruler says that after this visit he began to preach the Dharma around his empire.38 [Kalsi VIII, 22-23 (Hultzsch 1925: 36-37). Cf. Chapter Three.] The inscription thus can only refer to the ruler's acceptance of a form of the Early Buddhist Dharma -- not the more familiar Normative Buddhism, which is attested several centuries later. The inscription also establishes that reverence for the Buddha existed by this time at Bodhgaya, in Magadha.39 [This makes it likely that the comment in Megasthenes' account about the Sramanas interceding between the kings and 'the divine one' also refers to reverence for the Buddha. See Chapter Two.]

The dates of Darius's conquest of Gandhara and Sindh (ca. 517 BC), and the late fourth century -- marked by the visit of Alexander (330-325 BC) along with his courtier Pyrrho, followed by Megasthenes two decades later -- are the chronological limits bracketing the enlightenment-to- death career of Gautama Buddha. It is possible to further narrow this down to some extent.

The shock of the introduction of new, alien religious ideas in the traditionally non-Persian, non-Zoroastrian environment of Central Asia, eastern Gandhara, and Sindh must have happened fairly soon after Darius's conquest and the establishment of his satrapies, when the satraps were undoubtedly still ethnically Persian and strongly Zoroastrian, and would have needed the ministrations of their priests. That would place the most likely time for the Buddha's period of asceticism and enlightenment within the first fifty years or so of Persian rule, meaning ca. 515 to ca. 465 BC, and his death after another forty years or so -- following the dubious tradition that he lived eighty years40 [His traditional life span is undoubtedly fictitious, as 8, 80, 108, etc. are holy numbers in later, Normative Buddhism.] -- making the latest date for his death ca. 425 BC. This chronology would also leave enough time for Early Buddhism to spread from Magadha (the region where Sambodhi, or Bodhgaya, is located) -- assuming it was first preached there by the Buddha -- northwestward into western Gandhara, Bactria, and beyond, and (as shown in Chapter Three), for his name Gautama and some of his ideas and practices to travel all the way to China and become popular no later than the Guodian tomb's end date (terminus ante quem) of 278 BC. Among the things that the scenario presented here explains are the striking alienness of Buddhism in India proper,41 [Independently mentioned to me by Michael L. Walter (p.c., 2010) and Michael Willis (p.c., 2012).] its earliness in Gandhara and Bactria,42 [This is one of several problems with Bronkhorst's "Magadha" theory of the origin of Buddhism. Though he points out that Gandhara is one of the earliest regions in which Buddhism is attested (Bronkhorst 2011: 20-21), it is actually attested there far earlier than anywhere else; cf. above.] and the difficulty of showing that the Buddha was originally from Magadha.

This brings up the problem of the Buddha's birthplace. Not only are his dates only very generally definable, his specific homeland is unknown as well. Despite widespread popular belief in the story that he came from Lumbini in what is now Nepal, all of the evidence is very late and highly suspect from beginning to end. Bareau has carefully analyzed the Lumbini birth story and shown it to be a late fabrication.43 [Bareau (1987). The lone piece of evidence impelling scholars to accept the Lumbini story has been the Lumbini Inscription, which most scholars believe was erected by Asoka. However, the inscription itself actually reveals that it is not by Asoka, and all indications are that it is a late forgery, possibly even a modern one. See Appendix C.] There are reasons to put the Buddha's teaching period -- most of his life, according to the traditional accounts -- somewhere in northern India, in a region affected by the monsoons. In particular, the eventual development of the primitive arama, the temporary seasonal shelter of the Buddha's lifetime, into the samgharama (an arama specifically for Buddhist monks)44 [This is the traditional understanding. Later, in the Kushan period, the fully developed monastery (eventually called the vihara) was introduced from Central Asia, as known from the excavations at Taxila (Marshall 1951). The idea of the "monastery" must have developed slowly within Buddhism -- no other religious or philosophical system anywhere is known to have developed it earlier. It clearly cannot be dated until well after the time of Megasthenes' account, which mentions explicitly where the sramanas lived but says nothing about monasteries or anything similar. The earliest identifiable group living centers, even if they were samgharamas (unlikely, since the stories about them are clearly ahistorical), are primitive affairs that can hardly be called "monasteries", as pointed out by Schopen (2004: 219; 2007: 61; cf. Bronkhorst 2011), partly on the basis of the early donative inscriptions at Sanci, which -- unlike later donative inscriptions -- do not mention viharas, indicating that the monks lived in villages. It is now clear that fully developed organized monasticism must have come first, and preceded any samgharamas, but it developed in Central Asia, whence it was introduced to India and China in the Kushan period (Beckwith 2014; forthcoming-a). Cf. Chapter Two.] -- the received historical trajectory, based on tradition, the "early" sutras, and archaeological data45 [Dutt (1962); see Chapter Two and the discussion in Beckwith (2012c).] -- actually requires an original location in the monsoon zone. That is to say, if aramas were necessary, then monsoons were necessary too, meaning Early Buddhism must have developed in a monsoon zone region of early India. However, that could be almost anywhere from the upper Indus River in the west -- including ancient eastern Gandhara -- to the mouths of the Ganges in the east.

Of course, actual Early Buddhism (i.e., Pre-Normative Buddhism) did not entirely disappear in later times, and constitutes a significant element in the teachings and practices shared by most followers of Normative Buddhism and thus by most Buddhist schools or sects known from the Saka-Kushan period down to modern times. At the early end of the spectrum, the doctrinal content of the Gandhari documents dating to the early Normative period agrees closely with the doctrinal content of what are believed to be the earliest texts of the Pali Canon,46 [Stefan Baums (p.c., 2012); I am of course responsible for any misunderstanding about this.] with the main exception that some Mahayana texts have been found among the materials from Gandhara.47 [For some of the best-preserved examples, see Braarvig and Liland (2010). Most are however in Sanskrit and from about the fourth to the sixth century AD, approximately a millennium after the Buddha.] However, one may safely assume that the Buddha must have passed away well before 325 to 304 BC, the dates for the appearance of the earliest hard evidence on the existence of Buddhism or elements of Buddhism. This is still three centuries before even the earliest Gandhari texts and the traditional (high) date of the Pali Canon. Despite widespread belief that the latter collections of material, both of which are from the Saka-Kushan period or later, represent "Early Buddhism", the work of many scholars has shown that even by internal evidence alone it must be already quite far removed from the earliest Buddhism -- the teachings and practices of the followers of the Buddha himself and the next few generations after him, up to the mid-third century BC -- which is referred to in this book as Early Buddhism.

[admin]

Mahavagga, Khandaka 6, Chapter 28, Excerpt from Vinaya (2): The Mahavagga
by T.W. Rhys Davids
1881

Mahavagga, Khandaka 6, Chapter 28

On Medicaments [1] [Chaps. 28-30 are, with a few unimportant variations, word for word the same as Mahāparinibbāna Sutta I, 19-II, 3; II, 16-24. See Rh. D.'s Introduction to his translation of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, pp. xxxiv seq., and his note there at II, 16.]

[From this sentence down to the end of the verses at Chap. II, § 3, is, with a few unimportant variations, word for word the same as Mahâ Vagga VI, 28, 1, to VI, 29, 2.]

-- Buddhist Suttas, Vol. XI of The Sacred Books of the East, Translated from Pâli by T. W. Rhys Davids

1. And the Blessed One, after having dwelt at Rājagaha as long as he thought fit, went forth to Pāṭaligāma, accompanied by a great number of Bhikkhus, by twelve hundred and fifty Bhikkhus. Wandering from place to place the Blessed One came to Pāṭaligāma. Now the lay-devotees at Pāṭaligāma heard: 'The Blessed One has arrived at Pāṭaligāma.' And the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees went to the place where the Blessed One was; having approached him and respectfully saluted the Blessed One, they sat down near him. When they were seated near him, the Blessed One taught, incited, animated, and gladdened the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees by religious discourse.

2. And the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees, having been taught, incited, animated, and gladdened by the Blessed One by religious discourse, said to the Blessed One: 'Might the Blessed One, Lord, consent to come to our rest house together with the fraternity of Bhikkhus.' The Blessed One expressed his consent by remaining silent. Then the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees, when they understood that the Blessed One had accepted their invitation, rose from their seats, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and passing round him with their right side towards him, went away to the rest house. When they had arrived there, they strewed the whole floor of the rest house[2] [Perhaps we are to supply 'with sand.' Comp. Dīpavaṃsa VI, 64; XII, 71, &c.], placed seats in it, set up a water-pot, and fixed an oil lamp. Then they went to the place where the Blessed One was; having approached him and respectfully saluted the Blessed One, they stationed themselves near him.

3. Standing near him the Pāṭaliputta lay-devotees said to the Blessed One: 'We have strewn the whole floor of the rest house, Lord, (with sand), we have placed seats in it, set up a water-pot, and fixed an oil lamp. May the Blessed One, Lord, do now what he thinks fit.'

And in the forenoon the Blessed One, having put on his under-robes, took his alms-bowl, and, with his cīvara on, went to the rest house together with the Bhikkhus who followed him. When he had arrived there, he washed his feet, entered the rest house, and took . his seat against the centre pillar, with his face towards the east. And the Bhikkhus also washed their feet, entered the rest house, and took their seats against the western wall, with their faces towards the east, having the Blessed One before their eyes. And the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees also washed their feet, entered the rest house, and took their seats against the eastern wall, with their faces towards the west, having the Blessed One before their eyes.

4. Then the Blessed One thus addressed the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees: 'Fivefold, O householders, is the loss of the wrong-doer through his want of rectitude. And which is this fivefold loss? In the first place, O householders, the wrong-doer, devoid of rectitude, falls into great poverty through sloth; this is the first loss of the wrong-doer through his want of rectitude. And again, O householders, of the wrong-doer, devoid of rectitude, evil repute gets noised abroad; this is the second &c. And again, O householders, whatever society the wrong-doer, devoid of rectitude, enters—whether of noblemen, Brāhmaṇas, heads of houses, or Samaṇas—he enters shyly and confused; this is the third &c. And again, O householders, the wrong-doer, devoid of rectitude, is full of anxiety when he dies; this is the fourth &c. And again, O householders, the wrong-doer, devoid of rectitude, on the dissolution of his body, after death, is reborn into some state of distress and punishment, a state of woe, and hell; this is the fifth &c. This is the fivefold loss, O householders, of the wrong-doer through his want of rectitude.

5. 'Fivefold, O householders, is the gain of the well-doer through his practice of rectitude. And which is this fivefold gain? In the first place, O householders, the well-doer, strong in rectitude, acquires great wealth through his industry; this is the first gain of the well-doer through his practice of rectitude. And again, O householders, of the well-doer, strong in rectitude, good reports are spread abroad; this is the second &c. And again, O householders, whatever society the well-doer, strong in rectitude, enters—whether of noblemen, Brāhmaṇas, heads of houses, or Samaṇas—he enters confident and self-possessed; this is the third &c. And again, O householders, the well-doer, strong in rectitude, dies without anxiety; this is the fourth &c. And again, O householders, the well-doer, strong in rectitude, on the dissolution of his body, after death, is reborn into some happy state in heaven; this is the fifth &c. This is the fivefold gain, O householders, of the well-doer through his practice of rectitude.'

6. When the Blessed One had thus taught, incited, animated, and gladdened the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees far into the night with religious discourse, he dismissed them, saying, 'The night is far spent, O householders. May you do now what you think fit.' The Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees accepted the Blessed One's word by saying, 'Yes, Lord,' rose from their seats, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and passing round him with their right side towards him, went away.

7. And the Blessed One, not long after the Pāṭaligāma lay-devotees had departed thence, went to an empty place[3] [Suññāgāra. Comp. I, 78, 5; Suttavibhaṅga, Pārāj. IV, 4, 1.] (in order to give himself to meditation).

At that time Sunīdha and Vassakāra, two ministers of Magadha, were building a (fortified) town at Pāṭaligāma in order to repel the Vajjis. And the Blessed One, rising up early in the morning, at dawn's time, saw with his divine and clear vision, surpassing that of ordinary men, great numbers of fairies who haunted the ground there at Pāṭaligāma. Now, wherever ground is occupied by powerful fairies, they bend the hearts of powerful kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there. Wherever ground is occupied by fairies of middling power, &c.; of inferior power, they bend the hearts of middling kings and ministers, &c., of inferior kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there.

8. And the Blessed One said to the venerable Ānanda: 'Who are they, Ānanda, who are building a town at Pāṭaligāma?'

'Sunīdha and Vassakāra, Lord, the two ministers of Magadha, are building a town at Pāṭaligāma in order to repel the Vajjis.'

'As if they had consulted, Ānanda, with the Tāvatiṃsa gods, so (at the right place), Ānanda, the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra build this town at Pāṭaligāma in order to repel the Vajjis. When I had risen up early in the morning, Ānanda, at dawn's time, I saw with my divine and clear vision (&c., as in § 7, down to:) they bend the hearts of inferior kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there. As far, Ānanda, as Aryan people dwell, as far as merchants travel, this will become the chief town, the city of Pāṭaliputta. But danger of destruction, Ānanda, will hang over Pāṭaliputta in three ways, by fire, or by water, or by internal discords[4] [The event prophesied here, Pāṭaliputta's becoming the capital of the Magadha empire, is placed by the various authorities under different kings. Hwen Thsang and the Burmese writer quoted by Bishop Bigandet ('Legend of the Burmese Buddha,' third edition, vol. ii, p. 183) say that it was Kālāsoka who removed the seat of the empire to Pāṭaliputta. The Gains, on the other hand, state that it was Udāyi, the son of Ajātasattu. Most probably the latter tradition is the correct one, as even king Muṇḍa is mentioned in the Aṅguttara Nikāya as having resided at Pāṭaliputta. Comp. Rh. D.'s 'Buddhist Suttas,' Introd. pp. xv seq.; H. O.'s Introduction to the Mahāvagga, p. xxxvii; and the remarks of Professor Jacobi and of H. O. in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morg. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxiv, pp. 185, 751, 752, note 2.] .'

9. And the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra went to the place where the Blessed One was.; having approached him, they exchanged greeting with the Blessed One; having exchanged with him greeting and complaisant words, they stationed themselves near him; then standing near him the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra said to the Blessed One: 'Might the reverend Gotama consent to take his meal with us to-day together with the fraternity of Bhikkhus.'

The Blessed One expressed his consent by remaining silent. Then the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra, when they understood that the Blessed One had accepted their invitation, went away.

10. And the Magadha. ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra ordered excellent food, both hard and soft, to be prepared, and had meal-time announced (&c.[5] [See chap. 23. 5, &c. Instead of 'Lord,' read here, 'Reverend Gotama.'], down to:) on seats laid out for them. And the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra with their own hands served and offered excellent food, both hard and soft, to the fraternity of Bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head; and when the Blessed One had finished his meal and cleansed his bowl and his hands, they sat down near him. When they were sitting near him, the Blessed One gladdened the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra by these stanzas:

11. 'Wheresoe’er the prudent man shall take up his abode, let him support there good and upright men of self-control.

'Let him make offerings to all such deities as may be there. Revered, they will revere him; honoured, they honour him again;

'Are gracious to him as a mother to the son of her womb. And a man who has the grace of the gods, good fortune he beholds.'

And the Blessed One, having gladdened the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra by these stanzas, rose from his seat and went away.

12. And the Magadha ministers Sunīdha and Vassakāra followed the Blessed One from behind, saying, The gate the Samaṇa Gotama goes out by to-day shall be called Gotama's gate, and the ferry at which he crosses the river Ganges shall be called Gotama's ferry.' And the gate the Blessed One went out by was called Gotama's gate. And the Blessed One went on to the river. At that time the river Ganges was brimful and overflowing[6] [Samatitthikā. This word is replaced by samatīrthikā at Lal. Vist. pp. 501, 528. Compare, however, Rh. D.'s note on Tevijja Sutta I, 24 ('Buddhist Suttas,' p. 178).]; and wishing to cross to the opposite bank, some began to seek for boats, some for rafts of wood, while some made rafts of basket-work.

13. And the Blessed One saw those people who wished to cross to the opposite bank, some seeking for boats, some for rafts of wood, and some making rafts of basket-work. When he saw them, he vanished as quickly as a strong man might stretch his bent arm out, or draw back his outstretched arm, from this side of the river Ganges, and stood on the further bank with the company of the Bhikkhus.

And the Blessed One, perceiving all this, on this occasion, pronounced this solemn utterance:

'They who cross the ocean's floods making a solid path across the pools—

'Whilst the vain world ties its basket rafts: these are the wise, these are the saved indeed.'

[admin]

Asiatick Researches: or, Transactions of the Society; Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring Into The History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia
Volume IV
1795

Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit [Sanskrit] history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. ...

I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

Since these discussions would lead us too far, I proceed to the History of Nature...

But I should be led beyond the limits assigned to me on this occasion, if I were to expatiate farther on the historical division of the knowledge comprised in the literature of Asia; and I must postpone till next year my remarks on Asiatic Philosophy, and on those arts which depend on imagination; promising you with confidence, that in the course of the present year, your inquiries into the civil and natural history of this eastern world will be greatly promoted by the learned labours of many among our associates and correspondents.  

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones

ADVERTISEMENT.

The unfortunate Death of Sir William Jones, on the 27th April 1794, having deprived the Society of their Founder and President, a meeting of the Members was convened on the 1st May following, when it was unanimously agreed to appoint a Committee, consisting of Sir Robert Chambers, Mr. Justice Hyde, Colonel John Murray, John Bristow and Thomas Graham, Esqrs. to wait on Sir John Shore, and in the name of the Society, request his acceptance of the office of their President. With this request, he, in terms highly flattering to the Society, agreed to comply, and on the 22d May 1794, took his seat as President, and delivered the Discourse Number XII of this Volume.

EDMUND MORRIS, Secretary

***

I. The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, Delivered 28 February 1793 by The President on Asiatick History, Civil and Natural

Before our entrance into the Disquisition promised at the close of my Ninth Annual Discourse, on the particular Advantages which may be derived from our concurrent Researches in Asia, it seems necessary to fix with precision the sense in which we mean to speak of advantage or utility.....

-- Asiatick Researches: or, Transactions of the Society; Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring Into The History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia, Volume IV, 1795

It is at this period, about 300—302 B.C., that we first get a trustworthy account of the city. This is from the pen of the Greek ambassador, and it is unique in supplying the first fixed date for ancient India by the contemporary references through Greek history. In this first authentic glimpse into ancient India, it is remarkable that the influence of the Greeks should be so manifest at its capital.

The then reigning king, Chandra-gupta, or 'Sandrakottos,'as the Greeks called him,1 [The identity of the 'Sandrakottos' of the Greeks with Chandra-gupta was first shown by Sir W. Jones, Asiatick Researches, IV, 11 (1795); and Wilford noticed (As. Res., V, 262) that the form used by Athenaeus was even closer, namely, 'Sandrakoptus.' The 'Androkottos' of Plutarch is also this same person.] had, it seems, early come into intimate contact with the Greeks and into immediate relations with Alexander-the-Great in the Panjab, during the latter's invasion of Northern India in 326 B.C.

According to the historians of the Macedonian,2 [As noted in Plutarch's Life of Alexander under name of 'Androcottus,' also next note.] "this prince was of humble origin, but was called to royalty by the power of the gods; for having offended Alexander by his impertinent language he was ordered to be put to death and escaped only by flight and ... and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to renew the empire. In the wars which he waged with the captains of Alexander he was distinguished in the van mounted or an elephant of great size and strength. Having thus acquired power Sandrakottos reigned at the same time that Seleukos laid the foundation of his dominion."3 [Justin, XV, 4.] And Buddhist tradition places the original home of his family, the Mora or Mayura (known to the Brahmans as 'Maurya') on the slopes of the Himalayas in Northern India;1 [Mahavamso [Mahavamsa], Turnour, Introd. XXXIX. Two of the rail-bars of the Bharhut stupa dating almost to Asoka's epoch are inscribed as the gifts of Thupadasa and "Ghatila's mother," both of 'Mora' hill.] whilst another legend associates the Mayura raja and a stupa-building prince of the Sakya race with the country over the Mora pass in the Swat Valley,2 [Hiuen Tsiang's Records (Beal) 1, 126.] whence I secured for the Indian Museum many Buddhist sculptures,3 [Actes du Onzieme Congres Internat. des Orientalistes, Paris, 1897, Sect. I, p. 245. See also Asiatic Quarterly Review (October 1895).] nearly all of which curiously bear the 'Mora' symbol (a peacock); and certainly in this region, as these sculptures show, Greek influence was predominant two or three centuries later. In keeping also with this alleged northern origin of Chandra-gupta are the Brahmanical accounts, which refer to him as an outsider who with the aid of 'armed bands of robbers' and associated with the Yavanas (or Westerns) overran and conquered India.4 [See footnote, p. 6.]

The Greek account of him and of the military despotism which he established thus pithily describes his relations with Seleukos Nikator, the immediate successor of Alexander:—

"Seleukos Nikator first seizing Babylon, then reducing Baktriane, his power being increased by the first success: thereafter he passed into India, which since Alexander's death killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. Sandrakottos (i.e., Chandra-gupta) had made it free, but when victory was gained, he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Sandrakottos having thus gained the crown held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos ... waged war on Sandrakottos5 [Justinus, XV, 4. This must hare been in 313 B.C., as Seleukos returned to Babylon in 312 B.C., thus giving Chandra-gupta's accession as about 315 or 316 B.C., which is the first fixed date for Indian history. Cf, also Dr. Hoernle's note in Centenary Rept. As. Socy. (Beng.), 87.] ... "until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him,"6 [Appianus (Syriake, c. 55).] and "receiving in return five hundred elephants"1 [Strabo, Grog. XV, 724, Bohn's trans.] "and settling affairs on this side of India directed his march against Antigonus."2 [Justin XV, 4.]

Seleukos sent his personal friend Megasthenes as ambassador to Chandra-gupta's court at Pataliputra. That historian describes the city3 [Megasthenis Indica, a critical collection of translations from the Greek and Latin fragments of Megasthenes' lost work by Schwanbeck, Bonn, 1846, and partly translated into English by J. W. McCrindle in his Ancient India, 1877 and 1893. Megasthenes died 291 B.C.] as being about 9 miles in length. It was surrounded by a wooden wall, pierced by many towered gateways, and with numerous openings in front for the discharge of arrows, and in front a ditch for defence and as a city sewer. It had a population of about 400,000, and the retinue of the king numbered many thousands. It is remarkable that in describing in considerable detail the religion of the people he makes no reference to Buddhism,4 [The 'Sarmania' clad in the bark of trees were clearly Brahmanist Sramana ascetics as Lassen recognised by Indisch. Alt., ii, 700.] although Buddha had died about a century before; and the Sanskritic way in which he spells the proper names, especially in the retention of the letter r, seems to show that the Pali form of dialect was not in use, and presumably was later in origin, although it is customary to represent Buddha as speaking always in this dialect.

This intercourse with the Greeks appears to have been closely maintained, for it is recorded that the son of Sandrakottos, "Amitrochates (? Amitroghata),5 [Strabo gives this name as Allitrochades — it was probably meant for the Sanskrit title Amitra-ghata or 'Enemy-slayer.' Cf. Wilford As, Res., v, 286.] and 'Sophaga-senas'6 [If this be intended for Subhaga-sena, it also would be an official title and not a personal name. — Lassen, Ind. Alt., ii, 273.] reinforced the armies of Antiochos, the son of Seleukos, and of Antigonus-the-Great with elephants" in their wars with the Persians. The Greek account relates that this king of Pataliputra, Amitrochates, wrote to Antiochos asking the latter to buy and send him sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist; and that Antiochos replied: "We shall send you the figs and the wine, but in Greece the laws forbid a sophist to be sold."7 [Athenaios, XIV, 67.— Ancient India, ed. 1893, p. 409.]  

The pomp and chivalry, the intrigues at court and the battles fought around the strong fortifications of Pataliputra in these early days are vividly pictured in an Indian drama, which, although only composed about the middle ages, seems to have been based on earlier books now lost.1 [The Mudra Rakshasa, translated by Dr. H. H. Wilson, of the Indian Medical Service, in his Hindu Theatre.]

It was, however, at the splendid capital of the celebrated warrior-prince, Asoka (about B.C. 250), the grandson of Chandra-gupta, that it is most widely known. This greatest of Indian emperors, the Constantine of Buddhism, may almost be said to have made Buddhism a religion, that is to say, a real religion of the people. For previous to his day it seems to have been little more than a struggling order of mendicant monks, so few apparently in number about 300 B.C. that, as we have seen, the Greek historian does not even refer to them. When, however, Asoka was converted to this faith in his later life he made it the state-religion, and of a more objective and less abstract character, so that it appealed to the people in general, and he actively propagated it by missionaries and otherwise even beyond his own dominions. He was one of the most lavish devotees the world has ever seen. He covered his mighty kingdom, from Afghanistan to Mysore, from Nepal to Gujerat, with stately Buddhist monuments and buildings of vast size, regardless of expense. With his truly imperial and artistic instincts, so clearly derived more or less directly from the Greeks and Assyrians, his monuments were of the stateliest kind. His stupendous stupas or mounds of solid masonry to enshrine Buddha's relics or to mark some sacred spot are found all over India, and are almost like Egyptian pyramids in size. His colossal edict-pillars, single shafts of stone, thirty to forty feet in length and beautifully polished and sculptured, still excite the wonder and admiration of all who see them. How magnificent, then, must have been the capital of this great Indian monarch, who, as we learn from some of his stonecut edicts in the remoter parts of his empire, was the ally of the Greek kings Antiochus II of Syria, Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonos Gonatus of Macedon, Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander of Epirus, and how important for historical purposes are likely to be his edicts and other inscriptions in his own capital, which were seen there in the early part of our era, and are now in all probability buried in the ruins of the old metropolis.

The buildings previous to his epoch, as well as the walls of the city, seem all to have been of wood, like most of the palaces, temples and stockades of Burma and Japan in the present day. The change which he effected to hewn stone1 [See Appendix I.] was so sudden and impressive and the stones which he used were so colossal that he came latterly to be associated in popular tales with the giants or genii (yaksha)2 [The Asoka-avadana, Burnouf's Introd a l'Hist. du Buddhisme Indien, 373.] by whose superhuman agency it was alleged he had reared his monuments; and a fabulous romantic origin was invented for his marvellous capital.3 [Appendix II.]

It was possibly owing to Asoka's gigantic stone buildings that the Greeks ascribed the building of the city to Hercules, for they had several accounts of it subsequent to the time of Megasthenes.4 [Diodorus, writing in the 1st Century B.C., bases part of his account on the narrative of Jambulus, who after being seven years in Ceylon was wrecked "upon the Sandy shallows of India and forthwith carried away to the King, then at the city of 'Polybothia' many days' journey from the sea, where he was kindly received by the King who has a great love for the Grecians. * * * This Jambulus committed all these adventures to writing." — Sic. Hist. I, II, c. 4.] It is also possible that this legend of the giants may have partly arisen through Asoka having made use of sculptured figures of the giants to adorn his buildings. The two colossal statues of these 'builders' of his monuments, now in the Indian Museum, were unearthed in his capital, and bear their names inscribed in characters only a little later than his epoch.5 [Appendix III.] The stone out of which they are carved is identical with that of his pillars, and they exhibit the same high polish which is found on few Indian sculptures of a subsequent era.

-- Report on the Excavations At Pataliputra (Patna): The Palibothra of the Greeks, by L.A. Waddell, M.B., LL.D., Lieut.-Colonel, Indian Medical Service

ADVERTISEMENT.

The unfortunate Death of Sir William Jones, on the 27th April 1794, having deprived the Society of their Founder and President, a meeting of the Members was convened on the 1st May following, when it was unanimously agreed to appoint a Committee, consisting of Sir Robert Chambers, Mr. Justice Hyde, Colonel John Murray, John Bristow and Thomas Graham, Esqrs. to wait on Sir John Shore, and in the name of the Society, request his acceptance of the office of their President. With this request, he, in terms highly flattering to the Society, agreed to comply, and on the 22d May 1794, took his seat as President, and delivered the Discourse Number XII of this Volume. EDMUND MORRIS, Secretary

***

I. The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, Delivered 28 February 1793 by The President on Asiatick History, Civil and Natural

Before our entrance into the Disquisition promised at the close of my Ninth Annual Discourse, on the particular Advantages which may be derived from our concurrent Researches in Asia, it seems necessary to fix with precision the sense in which we mean to speak of advantage or utility. Now, as we have described the five Asiatic regions on their largest scale, and have expanded our conceptions in proportion to the magnitude of that wide field, we should use those words which comprehend the fruit of all our inquiries, in their most extensive acceptation; including not only the solid conveniences and comforts of social life, but its elegances and innocent pleasures, and even the gratification of a natural and laudable curiosity; for, though labour be clearly the lot of man in this world, yet, in the midst of his most active exertions, he cannot but feel the substantial benefit of every liberal amusement which may lull his passions to rest, and afford him a sort of repose, without the pain of total inaction, and the real usefulness of every pursuit which may enlarge and diversity his ideas, without interfering with the principal objects of his civil station or economical duties; nor should we wholly exclude even the trivial and worldly sense of utility, which too many consider as merely synonymous with lucre, but should reckon among useful objects those practical, and by no means illiberal arts, which may eventually conduce both to national and to private emolument. With a view then to advantages thus explained, let us examine every point in the whole circle of arts and sciences, according to the received order of their dependence on the faculties of the mind, their mutual connexion, and the different subjects with which they are conversant:...

"The ambiguous expression reliqua Seleuco Nicatori peragrata sunt, translated above as 'the other journeys made, for Seleukos Nikator,' according to Schwanbeck's opinion, contain a dative 'of advantage,' and therefore can bear no other meaning. The reference is to the journeys of Megasthenes, Deimachos, and Patrokles, whom Seleukos had sent to explore the more remote regions of Asia. Nor is the statement of Plinius in a passage before this more distinct. ('India,') he says, 'was thrown open not only by the arms of Alexander the Great, and the kings who were his successors, of whom Seleucus and Antiochus even travelled to the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, Patrocles being commander of their fleet, but all the Greek writers who stayed behind with the Indian kings (for instance, Megasthenes, and Dionysius, sent by Philadelphus for that purpose) have given accounts of the military force of each nation.' Schwanbeck thinks that the words circumsectis etiam ... Seleuco et Antiocho et Patrocle are properly meant to convey nothing but additional confirmation, and also an explanation how India was opened up by the arms of the kings who succeeded Alexander."

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A., Principal of the Government College, Patna, Member of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh, Fellow of the University of Calcutta, With Introduction, Notes and Map of Ancient India

... our inquiries indeed, of which Nature and Man are the primary objects, must of course be chiefly historical; but since we propose to investigate the actions of the several Asiatic nations, together with their respective progress in science and art, we may arrange our investigations under the same three heads to which our European analysis have ingeniously reduced all the branches of human knowledge: and my present Address to the Society shall be confined to History, civil and natural, or the observation and remembrance of mere facts, independently of ratiocinatios, which belongs to philosophy; or of imitations and substitutions, which are the province of art.

Were a superior created intelligence to delineate a map of general knowledge (exclusively of that sublime and stupendous theology, which himself could only hope humbly to know by an infinite approximation) he would probably begin by tracing with Newton the system of the universe, in which he would assign the true place to our little globe; and having enumerated its various inhabitants, contents, and productions, would proceed to man in his natural station among animals, exhibiting a detail of all the knowledge attained or attainable by the human race; and thus observing perhaps the same order in which he had before described other beings in other inhabited worlds; but though Bacon seems to have had a similar reason for placing the History of Nature before that of Man, or the whole before one of its parts, yet, consistently with our chief object already mentioned, we may properly begin with the Civil History of the Five Asiatic Nations, which necessarily comprises their geography, or a description of the places where they have acted, and their astronomy, which may enable us to fix with some accuracy the time of their actions: we shall thence be led to the history of such other animals, of such minerals, and of such vegetables, as they may be supposed to have found in their several migrations and settlements, and shall end with the uses to which they have applied, or may apply, the rich assemblage of natural substances.

I. In the first place, we cannot surely deem it an inconsiderable advantage that all our historical researches have confirmed the Mosaic accounts of the primitive world; and our testimony on that subject ought to have the greater weight, because, if the result of our observations had been totally different, we should nevertheless have published them, not indeed with equal pleasure, but with equal confidence; for truth is mighty, and, whatever be its consequences, must always prevail; but, independently of our interest in corroborating the multiplied evidences of revealed religion, we could scarce gratify our minds with a more useful and rational entertainment than the contemplation of those wonderful revolutions in kingdoms and states which have happened within little more than four thousand years; revolutions, almost as fully demonstrative of an all-ruling Providence, as the structure of the universe, and the final causes which are discernible in its whole extent, and even in its minutest parts. Figure to your imaginations a moving picture of that eventful period, or rather, a succession of crowded scenes rapidly changed. Three families migrate in different courses from one region, and, in about four centuries, establish very distant governments and various modes of society: Egyptians, Indians, Goths, Phenicians, Celts, Greeks, Latians, Chinese, Peruvians, Mexicans, all sprung from the same immediate stem , appear to start nearly at one time, and occupy at length those countries, to which they have given, or from which they have derived their names. In twelve or thirteen hundred years more, the Greeks overrun the land of their forefathers, invade India, conquer Egypt, and aim at universal dominion; but the Romans appropriate to themselves the whole empire of Greece, and carry their arms into Britain, of which they speak with haughty contempt. The Goths, in the fulness of time, break to pieces the unwieldy Colossus of Roman power, and seize on the whole of Britain, except its wild mountains; but even those wilds become subject to other invaders, of the same Gothic lineage. During all those transactions, the Arabs possess both coasts of the Red Sea, subdue the old seat of their first progenitors, and extend their conquests, on one side through Africa, into Europe itself; on another, beyond the borders of India, part of which they annex to their flourishing empire. In the same interval the Tartars, widely diffused over the rest of the globe, swarm in the north-east, whence they rush to complete the redaction of Constantine's beautiful domains, to subjugate China, to raise in these Indian realms a dynasty splendid and powerful, and to ravage, like the two other families, the devoted regions of Iran. By this time the Mexicans and Peruvians with many races of adventurers variously intermixed, have peopled the continent and isles of America, which the Spaniards, having restored their old government in Europe, discover, and in part overcome: but a colony from Britain, of which Cicero ignorantly declared that it contained nothing valuable, obtain the possession, and finally the sovereign dominion, of extensive American districts; whilst other British subjects acquire a subordinate empire in the finest provinces of India, which the victorious troops of Alexander were unwilling to attack. This outline of human transactions, as far as it includes the limits of Asia, we can only hope to fill up, to strengthen, and to colour, by the help of Asiatic literature; for in history, as in law, we must not follow streams when we may investigate fountains, nor admit any secondary proof where primary evidence is attainable: I should nevertheless make a bad return for your indulgent attention, were I to repeat a dry list of all the Musselman historians whose works are preserved in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, or expatiate on the histories and medals of China and Japan, which may in time be accessible to Members of our Society, and from which alone we can expect information concerning the ancient state of the Tartars; but on the history of India, which we naturally consider as the centre of our inquiries, it may not be superfluous to present you with a few particular observations.

Our knowledge of Civil Asiatic History (I always except that of the Hebrews) exhibits a short evening twilight in the venerable introduction to the first book of Moses, followed by a gloomy night, in which different watches are faintly discernible, and at length we see a dawn succeeded by a sunrise more or less early, according to the diversity of regions. That no Hindu nation but the Cashmirians, have left us regular histories in their ancient language, we must ever lament; but from the Sanscrit literature, which our country has the honour of having unveiled, we may still collect some rays of historical truth, though time and a series of revolutions have obscured that light which we might reasonably have expected from so diligent and ingenious a people. The numerous Puranas and Itihasas, or poems mythological and heroic, are completely in our powers and from them we may recover some disfigured but valuable pictures of ancient manners and governments; while the popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events as a future age might find in our own plays, if all histories of England were, like those of India, to be irrecoverably lost. For example: A most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instinctive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of king Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled, the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper. From these once concealed, but now accessible, compositions, we are enabled to exhibit a more accurate sketch of old Indian history than the world has yet seen, especially with the aid of well attested observations on the places of the colures. It is now clearly proved, that the first Purana contains an account of the deluge; between which and the Mohammedan conquests the history of genuine Hindu government must of course be comprehended: but we know from an arrangement of the seasons in the astronomical work of Parasara, that the war of the Pandavas could not have happened earlier than the close of the twelfth century before Christ; and Seleucus most therefore have reigned about nine centuries after that war. Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. As to the Mogul conquests, with which modern Indian history begins, we have ample accounts of them in Persian, from Ali of Yezd, and the translations of Turkish books composed even by some of the conquerors, to Ghulam Husain, whom many of us personally know, and whose impartiality deserves the highest applause, though his unrewarded merit will give no encouragement to other contemporary historians, who, to use his own phrase in a letter to myself, may, like him, consider plain truth as the beauty of historical composition. From all these materials, and from these alone, a perfect history of India (if a mere compilation however elegant, could deserve such a title) might be collected by any studious man who had a competent knowledge of Sanscrit, Persian, and Arabic; but even in the work of a writer so qualified, we could only give absolute credence to the general outline; for, while the abstract sciences are all truth, and the fine arts all fiction, we cannot but own, that in the details of history, truth and fiction are so blended as to be scarce distinguishable.

The practical use of history, in affording particular examples of civil and military wisdom, has been greatly exaggerated; but principles of action may certainly be collected from it; and even the narrative of wars and revolutions may serve as a lesson to nations, and an admonition to sovereigns. A desire indeed of knowing past events, while the future cannot be known, and a view of the present gives often more pain than delight, seems natural to the human mind: and a happy propensity would it be if every reader of history would open his eyes to some very important corollaries, which flow from the whole extent of it. He could not but remark the constant effect of despotism in benumbing and debasing all those faculties which distinguish men from the herd that grazes; and to that cause he would impute the decided inferiority of most Asiatic nations, ancient and modern, to those in Europe who are blessed with happier governments; he would see the Arabs rising to glory while they adhered to the free maxims of their bold ancestors, and sinking to misery from the moment when those maxims were abandoned. On the other hand, he would observe with regret, that such republican governments as tend to produce virtue and happiness, cannot in their nature be permanent, but are generally succeeded by oligarchies which no good man would wish to be durable. He would then, like the king of Lydia, remember Solon, the wisest, bravest, and most accomplished of men, who asserts in four nervous lines, that "as hail and snow which mar the labours of husbandmen, proceed from elevated clouds, and, as the destructive thunderbolt follows the brilliant flash; thus is a free state ruined by men exalted in power and splendid in wealth; while the people, from gross ignorance, choose rather to become the slaves of one tyrant, that they may escape from the domination of many, than to preserve themselves from tyranny of any kind by their union and their virtues." Since, therefore, no unmixed form of government could both deserve permanence and enjoy it, and since changes, even from the worst to the best are always attended with much temporary mischief, he would fix on our British constitution (I mean our public law, not the actual state of things in any given period) as the best form ever established, though we can only make distant approaches to its theoretical perfection. In these Indian territories, which Providence has thrown into the arms of Britain for their protection and welfare, the religion, manners, and laws of the natives preclude even the idea of political freedom; but their histories may possibly suggest hints for their prosperity, while our country derives essential benefit from the diligence of a placid and submissive people, who multiply with such increase, even after the ravages of famine, that in one collectorship out of twenty-four, and that by no means the largest or best cultivated (I mean Crishna-nagar) there have lately been found, by an actual enumeration, a million and three hundred thousand native inhabitants; whence it should seem, that in all India there cannot he fewer than thirty millions of black British subjects.

Let us proceed to geography and chronology, without which history would be no certain guide, but would resemble a kindled vapour without either a settled place or a steady light. For a reason before intimated, I shall not name the various cosmographical books which are extant in Arabic and Persian, nor give an account of those which the Turks have beautifully printed in their own improved language, but shall expatiate a little on the geography and astronomy of India; having first observed generally, that all the Asiatic nations must be far better acquainted with their several countries than mere European scholars and travellers; that consequently, we must learn their geography from their own writings: and that by collating many copies of the same work, we may correct blunders of transcribers in tables, names, and descriptions.  

Geography, astronomy, and chronology have, in this part of Asia, shared the fate of authentic history; and, like that, have been so masked and bedecked in the fantastic robes of mythology and metaphor, that the real system of Indian philosophers and mathematicians can scarce be distinguished: an accurate knowledge of Sanscrit, and a confidential intercourse with learned Brahmens, are the only means of separating truth from fable; and we may expect the most important discoveries from two of our members, concerning whom it may be safely asserted, that if our Society should have produced no other advantage than the invitation given to them for the public display of their talents, we should have a claim to the thanks of our country and of all Europe. Lieutenant Wilford has exhibited an interesting specimen of the geographical knowledge deducible from the Puranas, and will in time present you with so complete a treatise on the ancient world known to the Hindus, that the light acquired by the Greeks will appear but a glimmering in comparison of that he will diffuse; while Mr. Davis, who has given us a distinct idea of Indian computations and cycles, and ascertained the place of the colures at a time of great importance in history, will hereafter disclose the systems of Hindu astronomers, from Nared and Parasar to Meya, Varahamihir, and Bhascar; and will soon, I trust, lay before you a perfect delineation of all the Indian asterisms in both hemispheres, where you will perceive so strong a general resemblance to the constellations of the Greeks, as to prove that the two systems were originally one and the same, yet with such a diversity in parts, as to show incontestibly that neither system was copied from the other; whence it will follow, that they must have had some common source.

The jurisprudence of the Hindus and Arabs being the field which I have chosen for my peculiar toil, you cannot expect that I should greatly enlarge your collection of historical knowledge; but I may be able to offer you some occasional tribute; and I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palybothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Ancille had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

II. Since these discussions would lead us too far, I proceed to the History of Nature, distinguished, for our present purpose, from that of Man; and divided into that of other animals who inhabit this globe, of the mineral substances which it contains, and of the vegetables which so luxuriantly and so beautifully adorn it.

1. Could the figure, instincts, and qualities of birds, beasts, insects, reptiles, and fishes, be ascertained, either on the plan of Buffon, or on that of Linnaeus, without giving pain to the objects of our examination, few studies would afford us more solid instruction, or more exquisite delight; but I never could learn by what right, nor conceive with what feelings, a naturalist can occasion the misery of an innocent bird, and leave its young perhaps to perish in a cold nest, because it has gay plumage, and has never been accurately delineated; or deprive even a butterfly of its natural enjoyments, because it has the misfortune to be rare or beautiful; nor shall I ever forget the couplet of Firdausi, for which Sadi, who cites it with applause, pours blessings on his departed spirit: —

Ah! spare yon emmet, rich in hoarded grain;
tie lives with pleasure, and he dies with pain.

This may be only a confession of weakness, and it certainly is not meant as a boast of peculiar sensibility; but whatever name may be given to my opinion, it has such an effect on my conduct, that I never would suffer the Cocila, whose wild native woodnotes announce the approach of spring, to be caught in my garden, for the sake of comparing it with Buffon's description; though I have often examined the domestic and engaging Mayana, which bids us good morrow at our windows, and expects as its reward little more than security: even when a fine young Manis or Pangolin was brought me against my wish from the mountains, I solicited his restoration to his beloved rocks, because I found it impossible to preserve him in comfort at a distance from them. There are several treatises on Animals in Arabia, and very particular accounts of them in Chinese, with elegant outlines of their external appearance; but I met with nothing valuable concerning them in Persian, except what may be gleaned from the medical dictionaries; nor have I yet seen a book in Sanscrit that expressly treats of them. On the whole, though rare animals may be found in all Asia, yet I can only recommend an examination of them with this condition, that they be left as much as possible in a state of natural freedom; or made as happy as possible, if it be necessary to keep them confined.

2. The History of Minerals, to which no such objection can be made, is extremely simple and easy, if we merely consider their exterior look and configuration, and their visible texture; but the analysis of their internal properties belongs particularly to the sublime researches of Chemistry, on which we may hope to find useful disquisitions in Sanscrit, since the old Hindus unquestionably applied themselves to that enchanting study; and even from their treatises on alchymy we may possibly collect the results of actual experiment, as their ancient astrological works have preserved many valuable facts relating to the Indian sphere, and the procession of the equinox. Both in Persian and Sanscrit there are books on metals and minerals, particularly on gems, which the Hindu philosophers considered (with an exception of the diamond) as varieties of one crystalline substance, either simple or compound: but we must not expect from the chemists of Asia those beautiful examples of analysis which have but lately been displayed in the laboratories of Europe.

3. We now come to Botany, the loveliest and most copious division in the history of nature; and all disputes on the comparative merit of systems being at length, I hope, condemned to one perpetual night of undisturbed slumber, we cannot employ our leisure more delightfully than in describing all new Asiatic plants in the Linnaean style and method, or in correcting the descriptions of those already known, but of which dry specimens only, or drawings, can have been seen by most European botanists. In this part of natural history, we have an ample field yet unexplored; for, though many plants of Arabia have been made known by Garcias, Prosper Alpinus, and Forskoel; of Persia, by Garcin; of Tartary, by Gmelin and Pallas; of China and Japan, by Koempfer, Osbeck, and Thunberg; of India, by Rheede and Rumphias, the two Burmans, and the much lamented Koenig, yet none of those naturalists were deeply versed in the literature of the several countries from which their vegetable treasures had been procured; and the numerous works in Sanscrit on medical substances, and chiefly on plants, have never been inspected, or never at least understood, by any European attached to the study of nature. Until the garden of the India Company shall be fully stored (as it will be, no doubt, in due time) with Arabian, Persian, and Chinese plants, we may well be satisfied with examining the native flowers of our own provinces; but unless we can discover the Sanscrit names of all celebrated vegetables, we shall neither comprehend the allusions which Indian Poets perpetually make to them, nor (what is far worse) be able to find accounts of their tried virtues in the writings of Indian physicians; and (what is worst of all) we shall miss an opportunity which never again may present itself; for the Pandits themselves have almost wholly forgotten their ancient appellations of particular plants; and, with all my pains, I have not yet ascertained more than two hundred out of twice that number, which are named in their medical or poetical compositions. It is much to be deplored, that the illustrious Van Rheede had no acquaintance with Sanscrit, which even his three Brahmens, who composed the short preface engraved in that language, appear to have understood very imperfectly, and certainly wrote with disgraceful inaccuracy. In all his twelve volumes, I recollect only Bunarnava, in which the Nagari letters are tolerably right; the Hindu words in Arabian characters are shamefully incorrect; and the Malabar, I am credibly informed, is as bad as the rest. His delineations, indeed, are in general excellent; and though Linnaeus himself could not extract from his written descriptions the natural character of every plant in the collection, yet we shall be able, I hope, to describe them all from the life, and to add a considerable number of new species, if not of new genera, which Rheede, with all his noble exertions, could never procure. Such of our learned members as profess medicine, will no doubt cheerfully assist in these researches, either by their own observations, when they have leisure to make any, or by communications from other observers among their acquaintance, who may reside in different parts of the country: and the mention of their art leads me to the various uses of natural substances, in the three kingdoms or classes to which they are generally reduced.

III. You cannot but have remarked, that almost all the sciences, as the French call them, which are distinguished by Greek names, and arranged under the head of Philosophy, belong for the most part to History; such as philology, chemistry, physic, anatomy, and even metaphysics, when we barely relate the phenomena of the human mind; for, in all branches of knowledge, we are only historians when we announce facts; and philosophers only when we reason on them: the same may be confidently said of law and of medicine, the first of which belongs principally to Civil, and the second chiefly to Natural History. Here, therefore, I speak of medicine, as far only as it is grounded on experiment; and, without believing implicitly what Arabs, Persians, Chinese, or Hindus may have written on the virtues of medicinal subjects, we may surely hope to find in their writings what our own experiments may confirm or disprove, and what might never have occurred to us without such intimations.

Europeans enumerate more than two hundred and fifty mechanical arts, by which the productions of nature may be variously prepared for the convenience and ornament of life; and though the Silpasastra reduces them to sixty-four, yet Abulfazl had been assured that the Hindus reckoned three hundred arts and sciences; now, their sciences being comparatively few, we may conclude that they anciently practised at least as many useful arts as ourselves. Several Pandits have informed me, that the treatises on art, which they call Upavedas, and believe to have been inspired, are not so entirely lost but that considerable fragments of them may be found at Benares; and they certainly possess many popular, but ancient works on that interesting subject. The manufactures of sugar and indigo have been well known in these provinces for more than two thousand years; and we cannot entertain a doubt that their Sanscrit books on dying and metallurgy, contain very curious facts, which might indeed be discovered by accident in a long course of years, but which we may soon bring to light by the help of Indian literature, for the benefit of manufactures and artists, and consequently of our nation, who are interested in their prosperity. Discoveries of the same kind might be collected from the writings of other Asiatic nations, especially of the Chinese; but, though Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and Sanscrit are languages now so accessible, that in order to attain a sufficient knowledge of them, little more seems required than a strong inclination to learn them, yet the supposed number and intricacy of the Chinese characters have deterred our most diligent students from attempting to find their way through so vast a labyrinth. It is certain, however, that the difficulty has been magnified beyond the truth; for the perspicuous g rammar of M. Fourmont, together with a copious dictionary, which I possess in Chinese and Latin, would enable any man who pleased, to compare the original works of Confucius, which are easily procured, with the literal translation of them by Couplet; and having made that first step with attention, he would probably find that he had traversed at least half of his career. But I should be led beyond the limits assigned to me on this occasion, if I were to expatiate farther on the historical division of the knowledge comprised in the literature of Asia; and I must postpone till next year my remarks on Asiatic Philosophy, and on those arts which depend on imagination; promising you with confidence, that in the course of the present year, your inquiries into the civil and natural history of this eastern world will be greatly promoted by the learned labours of many among our associates and correspondents.  

[admin]

Genesis flood narrative
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 7/10/21

[C]onsistently with our chief object already mentioned, we may properly begin with the Civil History of the Five Asiatic Nations, which necessarily comprises their geography, or a description of the places where they have acted, and their astronomy, which may enable us to fix with some accuracy the time of their actions...

I. In the first place, we cannot surely deem it an inconsiderable advantage that all our historical researches have confirmed the Mosaic accounts of the primitive world; and our testimony on that subject ought to have the greater weight, because, if the result of our observations had been totally different, we should nevertheless have published them, not indeed with equal pleasure, but with equal confidence; for truth is mighty, and, whatever be its consequences, must always prevail; but, independently of our interest in corroborating the multiplied evidences of revealed religion, we could scarce gratify our minds with a more useful and rational entertainment than the contemplation of those wonderful revolutions in kingdoms and states which have happened within little more than four thousand years; revolutions, almost as fully demonstrative of an all-ruling Providence, as the structure of the universe, and the final causes which are discernible in its whole extent, and even in its minutest parts. Figure to your imaginations a moving picture of that eventful period, or rather, a succession of crowded scenes rapidly changed. Three families migrate in different courses from one region, and, in about four centuries, establish very distant governments and various modes of society: Egyptians, Indians, Goths, Phenicians, Celts, Greeks, Latians, Chinese, Peruvians, Mexicans, all sprung from the same immediate stem , appear to start nearly at one time, and occupy at length those countries, to which they have given, or from which they have derived their names. In twelve or thirteen hundred years more, the Greeks overrun the land of their forefathers, invade India, conquer Egypt, and aim at universal dominion; but the Romans appropriate to themselves the whole empire of Greece, and carry their arms into Britain, of which they speak with haughty contempt. The Goths, in the fulness of time, break to pieces the unwieldy Colossus of Roman power, and seize on the whole of Britain, except its wild mountains; but even those wilds become subject to other invaders, of the same Gothic lineage. During all those transactions, the Arabs possess both coasts of the Red Sea, subdue the old seat of their first progenitors, and extend their conquests, on one side through Africa, into Europe itself; on another, beyond the borders of India, part of which they annex to their flourishing empire. In the same interval the Tartars, widely diffused over the rest of the globe, swarm in the north-east, whence they rush to complete the redaction of Constantine's beautiful domains, to subjugate China, to raise in these Indian realms a dynasty splendid and powerful, and to ravage, like the two other families, the devoted regions of Iran. By this time the Mexicans and Peruvians with many races of adventurers variously intermixed, have peopled the continent and isles of America, which the Spaniards, having restored their old government in Europe, discover, and in part overcome: but a colony from Britain, of which Cicero ignorantly declared that it contained nothing valuable, obtain the possession, and finally the sovereign dominion, of extensive American districts; whilst other British subjects acquire a subordinate empire in the finest provinces of India, which the victorious troops of Alexander were unwilling to attack....

Our knowledge of Civil Asiatic History (I always except that of the Hebrews) exhibits a short evening twilight in the venerable introduction to the first book of Moses, followed by a gloomy night, in which different watches are faintly discernible, and at length we see a dawn succeeded by a sunrise more or less early, according to the diversity of regions. That no Hindu nation but the Cashmirians, have left us regular histories in their ancient language, we must ever lament; but from the Sanscrit literature, which our country has the honour of having unveiled, we may still collect some rays of historical truth, though time and a series of revolutions have obscured that light which we might reasonably have expected from so diligent and ingenious a people. The numerous Puranas and Itihasas, or poems mythological and heroic, are completely in our powers and from them we may recover some disfigured but valuable pictures of ancient manners and governments; while the popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events as a future age might find in our own plays, if all histories of England were, like those of India, to be irrecoverably lost...

It is now clearly proved, that the first Purana contains an account of the deluge; between which and the Mohammedan conquests the history of genuine Hindu government must of course be comprehended: but we know from an arrangement of the seasons in the astronomical work of Parasara, that the war of the Pandavas could not have happened earlier than the close of the twelfth century before Christ; and Seleucus most therefore have reigned about nine centuries after that war. Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. As to the Mogul conquests, with which modern Indian history begins, we have ample accounts of them in Persian, from Ali of Yezd, and the translations of Turkish books composed even by some of the conquerors, to Ghulam Husain, whom many of us personally know, and whose impartiality deserves the highest applause, though his unrewarded merit will give no encouragement to other contemporary historians, who, to use his own phrase in a letter to myself, may, like him, consider plain truth as the beauty of historical composition. From all these materials, and from these alone, a perfect history of India (if a mere compilation however elegant, could deserve such a title) might be collected by any studious man who had a competent knowledge of Sanscrit, Persian, and Arabic; but even in the work of a writer so qualified, we could only give absolute credence to the general outline; for, while the abstract sciences are all truth, and the fine arts all fiction, we cannot but own, that in the details of history, truth and fiction are so blended as to be scarce distinguishable.

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones

"The Deluge" redirects here. For other uses, see Deluge (disambiguation).







The Flood of Noah and Companions (c. 1911) by Léon Comerre. Musée d'Arts de Nantes.

The Genesis flood narrative is the flood myth[a] found in chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[1] The story tells of God's decision to return the Earth to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and then remake it in a reversal of creation.[2] The narrative has very strong similarities to parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the Book of Genesis.

A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.[6]

Composition

Sources

See also: Documentary hypothesis


Building the Ark (watercolor c. 1896–1902 by James Tissot)

The flood narrative is part of what scholars call the primeval history, the first 11 chapters of Genesis.[7] These chapters, fable-like and legendary, form a preface to the patriarchal narratives which follow, but show little relationship to them.[8][7][9] For example, the names of its characters and its geography—Adam ("Man") and Eve ("Life"), the Land of Nod ("Wandering"), and so on—are symbolic rather than real, and much of the narratives consist of lists of "firsts": the first murder, the first wine, the first empire-builder.[10] Few of the people, places and events depicted in the book are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.[10]

This has led scholars to suppose that the primeval history forms a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[11] At one extreme are those who see it as a product of the Hellenistic period, in which case it cannot be earlier than the first decades of the 4th century BCE;[12] on the other hand the Yahwist (Jahwist) source has been dated by others, notably John Van Seters, to the exilic pre-Persian period (the 6th century BCE), precisely because the primeval history contains so much Babylonian influence in the form of myth.[13][ b]

The flood narrative is made up of two stories woven together.[14] As a result many details are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted (40 days according to Genesis 7:17, 150 according to 7:24), how many animals were to be taken aboard the Ark (one pair of each in 6:19, one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 7:2), and whether Noah released a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up" or a dove which on the third occasion "did not return to him again," or possibly both.[15] Despite this disagreement on details the story forms a unified whole (some scholars see in it a "chiasm", a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second the second-last, and so on),[c] and many efforts have been made to explain this unity, including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influenced the other.[16][d]

The flood narrative at large is composed of the Jahwist and Priestly sources; the Elohist source that the Jahwist narrative was later conjoined to apparently lacked any of the narratives pertaining to events that preceded the strife between Sarai and Hagar.[17] The Jahwist narrative, centuries older than the Priestly,[18] appears to constitute all the similarities with the flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh: After being discovered as righteous in a world full of iniquity, Noah builds the Ark at Yahweh's behest. He receives instruction on the number of animals to store (seven of clean animals and fowls, but two of unclean beasts). A week-long torrent causes the Deluge, which lasts forty days, after which Noah releases a dove once a week for four weeks until the dove doesn't return. Noah takes this to mean that the bird has finally found dry land to nest on. So he leads his family out of the Ark, at which point he builds an altar to Yahweh, prompting the deity to establish the Noahic covenant. The Priestly source serves largely as a tool of promoting God's overall influence in the event, inserting a narrative where God speaks directly to Noah and extolls his virtues, before vowing to establish a covenant with him and providing strict instructions as to the structure of the Ark. He then commands Noah to take with him the more famous two of every animal onto the Ark, although because the Priestly source's urtext never actually described Noah doing this, it is immediately followed by the Jahwist's contradictory claim of Noah bringing sevens for most and two for some. The Priestly source then describes the flood as lasting for 150 days, without making mention of how the waters rose as the Yahwist had — although it then explains that God shut the windows of the firmament and the abyss in order to abate the waters, which would imply they were likewise its origin as well. The end of the Priestly source's Deluge is far more gradual than the Yahwist's; instead of taking seven days, it now takes a full year, and Noah sends out a raven at the end of the tenth month, as opposed to a dove after only 40 days of rain. Eventually, at the Ark's resting place, now clarified as Ararat, it is God, and not Noah, who commands the Ark's occupants to disembark.[19][failed verification]

In summary, the 'original', Jahwist narrative of the Great Deluge was modest; a week of ostensibly non-celestial rain is followed by a forty day flood which takes a mere week to recede in order to provide Noah his stage for God's covenant. It is the Priestly Source which adds more fantastic figures of a 150-day flood, which emerged by divine hand from the heavens and earth and took ten months to finally stop up. The Jahwist source's capricious and somewhat simplistic depiction of Yahweh is clearly distinguished from the Priestly source's characteristically majestic, transcendental, and austere virtuous Yahweh.[20]

Comparative mythology

Main article: Flood myth

The flood myth originated in Mesopotamia.[21] The Mesopotamian story has three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, dating from about 1600 BCE), and as episodes in two Babylonian epics, those of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh.[22]

Genesis 6:9–9:17

Summary




The Deluge by Gustave Doré (1865)

Noah was a righteous man and walked with God. Seeing that the earth was corrupt and filled with violence, God instructed Noah to build an Ark in which he, his sons, and their wives, together with male and female of all living creatures, would be saved from the waters. Noah entered the Ark in his six hundredth year, and on the 17th day of the second month of that year "the fountains of the Great Deep burst apart and the floodgates of heaven broke open" and rain fell for forty days and forty nights until the highest mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits, and all earth-based life perished except Noah and those with him in the Ark.

In Jewish folklore, the kind of water that was pouring to the earth for forty days is not common rainfall; rather, God bade each drop pass through Gehenna before it fell to earth, which 'hot rain' scalded the skin of the sinners. The punishment that overtook them was befitting their crime. As their sensual desires had made them hot, and inflamed them to immoral excesses, so they were chastised by means of heated water.[23]



1896 illustration of the symbol of the rainbow, which God created as a sign of the covenant

After 150 days, "God remembered Noah ... and the waters subsided" until the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. On the 27th day of the second month of Noah's six hundred and first year the earth was dry. Then Noah built an altar and made a sacrifice, and God made a covenant with Noah that man would be allowed to eat every living thing but not its blood, and that God would never again destroy all life by a flood.

The Flood and the creation narrative

The flood is a reversal and renewal of God's creation of the world.[24] In Genesis 1 God separates the "waters above the earth" from those below so that dry land can appear as a home for living things, but in the flood story the "windows of heaven" and "fountains of the deep" are opened so that the world is returned to the watery chaos of the time before creation.[25] Even the sequence of flood events mimics that of creation, the flood first covering the earth to the highest mountains, then destroying, in order, birds, cattle, beasts, "swarming creatures", and finally mankind.[25] (This parallels the Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where at the end of rain "all of mankind had returned to clay," the substance of which they had been made.)[26] The Ark itself is likewise a microcosm of Solomon's Temple.

Intertextuality

Intertextuality is the way biblical stories refer to and reflect one another. Such echoes are seldom coincidental—for instance, the word used for ark is the same used for the basket in which Moses is saved, implying a symmetry between the stories of two divinely chosen saviours in a world threatened by water and chaos.[27] The most significant such echo is a reversal of the Genesis creation narrative; the division between the "waters above" and the "waters below" the earth is removed, the dry land is flooded, most life is destroyed, and only Noah and those with him survive to obey God's command to "be fruitful and multiply."[28][full citation needed]

Religious views

Christianity

See also: Biblical literalism, Biblical inerrancy, and Biblical infallibility

The Genesis flood narrative is included in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (see Books of the Bible). Jesus and the apostles additionally taught on the Genesis Flood narrative in New Testament writing (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, 2 Peter 3:6, Hebrews 11:7).[29][30] Some Christian biblical scholars suggest that the flood is a picture of salvation in Christ—the Ark was planned by God and there is only one way of salvation through the door of the Ark, akin to one way of salvation through Christ.[31][29] Additionally, some scholars commenting on the teaching of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:18-22), connect the Ark with the resurrection of Christ; the waters burying the old world but raising Noah to a new life.[31][29] Christian scholars also highlight that 1 Peter 3:18-22 demonstrates the Genesis flood as a type to Christian baptism.[32][33][29]

Islam

Main article: Noah in Islam

The Quran states that Noah (Nūḥ) was inspired by God, believed in the oneness of God, and preached Islam.[34] God commanded Noah to build an Ark. As he was building it, the chieftains passed him and mocked him. Upon its completion, the Ark was loaded with the animals in Noah's care as well as his immediate household.[35] The people who denied the message of Noah, including one of his own sons, drowned.[36] The final resting place of the Ark was referred to as Mount Judi.[37]

Historicity

While some scholars have tried to offer possible explanations for the origins of the flood myth including a legendary retelling of a possible Black Sea deluge, the general mythological exaggeration and implausibility of the story are widely recognized by relevant academic fields. The acknowledgement of this follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history and especially the geology and paleontology of the planet.[3][38]

Noah's Ark historicity

Main article: Noah's Ark § Historicity

Commentators throughout history, including editions of Encyclopedia Britannica, have made attempts to demonstrate the Ark's existence, although a literal ark as described would not be practical[39] and geologic evidence of a biblical global flood is lacking.[40]

Setting

See also: Narrative criticism

The Masoretic Text of the Torah places the Great Deluge 1,656 years after Creation, or 1656 AM (Anno Mundi, "Year of the World"). Many attempts have been made to place this time-span at a specific date in history.[41] At the turn of the 17th century CE, Joseph Scaliger placed Creation at 3950 BCE, Petavius calculated 3982 BCE,[42][43] and according to James Ussher's chronology, Creation took place in 4004 BCE, dating the Great Deluge to 2348 BCE.[44]

Flood geology

Main articles: Flood geology, Scriptural geologist, and Antediluvian

The development of scientific geology had a profound impact on attitudes towards the biblical Flood narrative. By bringing into question the biblical chronology, which placed the Creation and the flood in a history which stretched back no more than a few thousand years, the concept of deep geological time undermined the idea of the historicity of the Ark itself. In 1823 the English theologian and natural scientist William Buckland interpreted geological phenomena as Reliquiae Diluvianae: "relics of the flood" which "attested the action of a universal deluge".[citation needed] His views were supported by others at the time, including the influential geologist Adam Sedgwick, but by 1830 Sedgwick considered that the evidence suggested only local floods. Louis Agassiz subsequently explained such deposits as the results of glaciation.[45]

In 1862, William Thomson (later to become Lord Kelvin) calculated the age of the Earth at between 24 million and 400 million years, and for the remainder of the 19th century, discussion focused not on the viability of this theory of deep time, but on the derivation of a more precise figure for the age of the Earth.[46] Lux Mundi, an 1889 volume of theological essays which marks a stage in the acceptance of a more critical approach to scripture, took the stance that readers should rely on the gospels as completely historical, but should not take the earlier chapters of Genesis literally.[47] By a variety of independent means, scientists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.

So-called "Flood Geology" was championed in the latter half of the twentieth and on into the twenty-first century by Christian fundamentalists who believe in Young Earth creationism. Historian Ronald Numbers argues that this ideological connection by Christians wanting to challenge aspects of the scientific consensus they believe contradict their religion was first established by the publication of the 1961 book, The Genesis Flood.[48] The scientific community maintains that flood geology is a pseudoscience because it contradicts a variety of facts in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology.[6][49][3][50][51][52][53][54] For example, in contrast to the catastrophism inherent in flood geology, the science of geology relies on the Charles Lyell's established principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces, uniformitarianism explains the formation of the Earth's features by means of mostly slow-acting forces seen in operation today. In contrast, there is a lack of evidence for the catastrophic mechanisms proposed by flood geologists, and scientists do not take their claims seriously.[55]

Species distribution

By the 17th century, believers in the Genesis account faced the issue of reconciling the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older scenario whereby all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat. The obvious answer involved mankind spreading over the continents following the destruction of the Tower of Babel and taking animals along, yet some of the results seemed peculiar. In 1646 Sir Thomas Browne wondered why the natives of North America had taken rattlesnakes with them, but not horses: "How America abounded with Beasts of prey and noxious Animals, yet contained not in that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange".[4]

Browne, among the first to question the notion of spontaneous generation, was a medical doctor and amateur scientist making this observation in passing. However, biblical scholars of the time, such as Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) and Athanasius Kircher (c.1601–80), had also begun to subject the Ark story to rigorous scrutiny as they attempted to harmonize the biblical account with the growing body of natural historical knowledge. The resulting hypotheses provided an important impetus to the study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals, and indirectly spurred the emergence of biogeography in the 18th century. Natural historians began to draw connections between climates and the animals and plants adapted to them. One influential theory held that the biblical Ararat was striped with varying climatic zones, and as climate changed, the associated animals moved as well, eventually spreading to repopulate the globe.[4]

There was also the problem of an ever-expanding number of known species: for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem finding room for all known animal species in the Ark. Less than a century later, discoveries of new species made it increasingly difficult to justify a literal interpretation for the Ark story.[56] By the middle of the 18th century only a few natural historians accepted a literal interpretation of the narrative.[50]

See also

• Noah's Ark
• Biblical cosmology
• Chronology of the Bible
• Noach (parsha)
• Panbabylonism

References

Footnotes

1. The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".
2. See John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (1992), pp. 80, 155-56.
3. The controversial existence of a chiasm is not an argument against the construction of the story from two sources. See the overview in R.E. Friedman (1996), p. 91.
4. The two sources are the Priestly and the Yahwist or "non-priestly". See Bill Arnold, "Genesis" (2009), p. 97.

Citations

1. Leeming 2010, p. 469.
2. Bandstra 2009, p. 61.
3. Montgomery 2012.
4. Cohn 1999.
5.
 Kuchment, Anna (August 2012). "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood". Scientific American. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
 Raff, Rudolf A. (20 January 2013). "Genesis meets geology. A review of the rocks don't lie; a geologist investigates Noah's flood, by David R. Montgomery". Evolution & Development. 15 (1): 83–84. doi:10.1111/ede.12017.
 "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood". Publishers Weekly. 28 May 2012. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
 Bork, Kennard B. (December 2013). "David R. Montgomery. The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood". Isis. 104 (4): 828–829. doi:10.1086/676345.
 McConnachie, James (31 August 2013). "The Rocks Don't Lie, by David R. Montgomery - review". The Spectator. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
 Prothero, Donald R. (2 January 2013). "A Gentle Journey Through the Truth in Rocks". Skeptic. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
6. Isaak 2007, pp. 237-238.
7. Cline 2007, p. 13.
8. Alter 2008, p. 13-14.
9. Sailhamer 2010, p. 301 and fn.35.
10. Blenkinsopp 2011, p. 2.
11. Sailhamer 2010, p. 301.
12. Gmirkin 2006, p. 240-241. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGmirkin2006 (help)
13. Gmirkin 2006, p. 6. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFGmirkin2006 (help)
14. Cline 2007, p. 19.
15. Cline 2007, p. 20— Which was it—40 or 150 days? ... And how many animals ... One pair of each ... Or seven pairs of each ... And did he release a raven ... until the waters were dried up ... or did he release a dove three different times ... ?
16. Arnold 2009, p. 97.
17. Carr, David M. (2014). "Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism". In Saeboe, Magne; Ska, Jean Louis; Machinist, Peter (eds.). Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-54022-0.
18. Gmirkin, Russell (2006). Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Bloomsbury. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-567-13439-4.
19. Genesis 7
20. Gilbert, Christopher (2009). A Complete Introduction to the Bible. Paulist Press. ISBN 9780809145522.
21. Chen 2013, p. 1.
22. Finkel 2014, p. 88.
23. Ginzberg, Louis (1909). The Legends of the Jews Vol I : The Inmates of the Ark (Translated by Henrietta Szold) Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
24. Baden 2012, p. 184.
25. Keiser 2013, p. 133.
26. Keiser 2013, p. 133 fn.29.
27. Bodner 2016, p. 95-96: "There is increasing recognition that the pentateuchal narrative is seldom careless or arbitrary," write John Bergsma and Scott Hahn, "and intertextual echoes are seldom coincidental."17
28. Levenson 1988, p. 10-11.
29. "Flood, the - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online". Bible Study Tools. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
30. "Creation Worldview Ministries: The New Testament and the Genesis Flood: A Hermeneutical Investigation of the Historicity, Scope, and Theological Purpose of the Noahic Deluge". http://www.creationworldview.org. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
31. W., Wiersbe, Warren (1993). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books. ISBN 978-0896938472. OCLC 27034975.
32. Matthew., Henry (2000). Matthew henry's concise commentary on the whole bible : nelson's concise series. [Place of publication not identified]: Nelson Reference & Electr. ISBN 978-0785245292. OCLC 947797222.
33. "The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament, by G.R. Schmeling". http://www.bible-researcher.com. Retrieved 18 July 2018.
34. Quran 4:163, Quran 26:105–107
35. Quran 11:35–41
36. Quran 7:64
37. Quran 11:44
38. Weber, Christopher Gregory (1980). "The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology". Creation Evolution Journal. 1 (1): 24–37.
39. Moore, Robert A. (1983). "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark". Creation Evolution Journal. 4(1): 1–43. Archived from the original on 17 July 2016. Retrieved 10 July 2016.
40. Dyken, JJ (2013). The Divine Default. Algora Publishing. Archived from the original on 1 July 2016. Retrieved 23 June 2016.
41. Timeline for the Flood. AiG, 9 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-24.
42. Barr 2013, p. 380.
43. Young & Stearley 2008, p. 45.
44. James Barr, 1984–85. "Why the World Was Created in 4004 BC: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology", Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:604 PDF document
45. Herbert, Sandra (1991). "Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author". British Journal for the History of Science (24). pp. 171–174. Retrieved 24 July 2009.
46. Dalrymple 1991, pp. 14–17
47. James Barr (4 March 1987). Biblical Chronology, Fact or Fiction? (PDF). The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987. University of London. p. 17. ISBN 978-0718708641. Retrieved 8 August 2010.
48. Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The creationists : from scientific creationism to intelligent design(Expanded, First Harvard University Press paperback ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. OCLC 69734583.
49. Senter, Phil. "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31:3 (May–June 2011). Printed electronically by California State University, Northridge. Retrieved 7 June 2014.
50. Young 1995, p. 79.
51. Isaak 2006, p. unpaginated.
52. Morton 2001, p. unpaginated.
53. Isaak 2007, p. 173.
54. Stewart 2010, p. 123.
55. Isaak 1998, p. unpaginated.
56. Browne 1983, p. 276.

Bibliography

• Alter, Robert (2008). The Five Books of Moses. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393070248.
• Arnold, Bill T. (2009). Genesis. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521000673.
• Baden, Joel S. (2012). The Composition of the Pentateuch. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300152647.
• Bandstra, Barry L. (2009). Reading the Old Testament : an introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Wadsworth/ Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0495391050.
• Barr, James (28 March 2013). Bible and Interpretation: The Collected Essays of James Barr. II: Biblical Studies. OUP Oxford. p. 380. ISBN 978-0-19-969289-7.
• Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2011). Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-37287-1.
• Bodner, Keith (2016). An Ark on the Nile: The Beginning of the Book of Exodus. Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-19-878407-4.
• Browne, Janet (1983), The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, p. 276, ISBN 0-300-02460-6
• Chen, Y.C. (2013). The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions. OUP Oxford. ISBN 9780199676200.
• Cline, Eric H. (2007). From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible. National Geographic. ISBN 978-1-4262-0084-7.
• Cohn, Norman (1999). Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300076486.
• Cotter, David W. (2003). Genesis. Liturgical Press. ISBN 978-0814650400.
• Dalrymple, G. Brent (1991), The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, ISBN 0-8047-2331-1
• Finkel, Irving (2014). The Ark Before Noah. Hachette UK. ISBN 9781444757071.
• Friedman, Richard E. (1996). "Non-Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis". In Fox, Michael V.; Hurowitz, V. A. (eds.). Texts, Temples and Traditions. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 9781575060033.
• Gmirkin, Russell E. (2006). Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Bloomsbury. ISBN 9780567134394.
• Habel, Norman C. (1988). "Two Flood Myths". In Dundes, Alan (ed.). The Flood Myth. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520063532.
• Isaak, M (1998). "Problems with a Global Flood". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 29 March 2007.
• Isaak, Mark (5 November 2006). "Index to Creationist Claims, Geology". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2 November 2010.
• Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press.
• Keiser, Thomas A. (2013). Genesis 1-11: Its Literary Coherence and Theological Message. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781625640925.
• Leeming, David A. (2010). Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia. 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781598841749.
• Levenson, Jon Douglas (1988). Creation and the persistence of evil : the Jewish drama of divine omnipotence. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780062548450. OCLC 568745811.
• Levenson, Jon D. (2004). "Genesis: introduction and annotations". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195297515.
• Middleton, J. Richard (2005). The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press. ISBN 9781441242785.
• Montgomery, David R. (2012). The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. Norton. ISBN 9780393082395.
• Morton, Glenn (17 February 2001). "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2 November 2010.
• Sailhamer, John H. (2010). The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830878888.
• Stewart, Melville Y. (2010). Science and religion in dialogue. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-4051-8921-7.
• Young, Davis A. (1995). "Diluvial Cosmogonies and the Beginnings of Geology". The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Eerdmans. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-8028-0719-9. Archived from the original on 31 March 2007.
• Young, Davis A.; Stearley, Ralph F. (18 August 2008). The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. InterVarsity Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-8308-2876-0.

Further reading

• Hamilton, Victor P (1990). The book of Genesis: chapters 1–17. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802825216.
• Kessler, Martin; Deurloo, Karel Adriaan (2004). A commentary on Genesis: the book of beginnings. Paulist Press. ISBN 9780809142057.
• McKeown, James (2008). Genesis. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802827050.
• Rogerson, John William (1991). Genesis 1–11. T&T Clark. ISBN 9780567083388.
• Sacks, Robert D (1990). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Edwin Mellen.
• Towner, Wayne Sibley (2001). Genesis. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664252564.
• Wenham, Gordon (2003). "Genesis". In James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson (ed.). Eerdmans Bible Commentary. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802837110.
• Whybray, R.N (2001). "Genesis". In John Barton (ed.). Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198755005.

[admin]

Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 7/10/21

For the Mahayana sutra, see Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.

19. When the Blessed One had stayed at Nalanda as long as he pleased, he addressed the Venerable Ananda thus:

"Come, Ananda, let us go to Pataligama."

"So be it, Lord."

And the Blessed One took up his abode at Pataligama together with a large community of bhikkhus.

20. Then the devotees of Pataligama came to know: "The Blessed One, they say, has arrived at Pataligama." And they approached the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, sat down at one side, and addressed him thus: "May the Blessed One, Lord, kindly visit our council hall." And the Blessed One consented by his silence.

21. Knowing the Blessed One's consent, the devotees of Pataligama rose from their seats, respectfully saluted him, and keeping their right sides towards him, departed for the council hall. Then they prepared the council hall by covering the floor all over, arranging seats and water, and setting out an oil lamp. Having done this, they returned to the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and standing at one side, announced: "Lord, the council hall is ready, with the floor covered all over, seats and water prepared, and an oil lamp has been set out. Let the Blessed One come, Lord, at his convenience.

22. And the Blessed One got ready, and taking his bowl and robe, went to the council hall together with the company of bhikkhus. After rinsing his feet, the Blessed One entered the council hall and took his seat close to the middle pillar, facing east. The community of bhikkhus, after rinsing their feet, also entered the council hall and took seats near the western wall, facing east, so that the Blessed One was before them. And the devotees of Pataligama, after rinsing their feet and entering the council hall, sat down near the eastern wall, facing west, so that the Blessed One was in front of them.

The Fruits of an Immoral and a Moral Life

23. Thereupon the Blessed One addressed the devotees of Pataligama thus: "The immoral man, householders, by falling away from virtue, encounters five perils: great loss of wealth through heedlessness; an evil reputation; a timid and troubled demeanor in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; death in bewilderment; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a realm of misery, in an unhappy state, in the nether world, in hell.

24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

25. And the Blessed One spent much of the night instructing the devotees of Pataligama in the Dhamma, rousing, edifying, and gladdening them, after which he dismissed them, saying: "The night is far advanced, householders. You may go at your convenience.

"So be it, Lord." And the devotees of Pataligama rose from their seats, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and keeping their right sides towards him, departed. And the Blessed One, soon after their departure, retired into privacy.

26. At that time Sunidha and Vassakara, the chief ministers of Magadha, were building a fortress at Pataligama in defense against the Vajjis. And deities in large numbers, counted in thousands, had taken possession of sites at Pataligama. In the region where deities of great power prevailed, officials of great power were bent on constructing edifices; and where deities of medium power and lesser power prevailed, officials of medium and lesser power were bent on constructing edifices.

27. And the Blessed One saw with the heavenly eye, pure and transcending the faculty of men, the deities, counted in thousands, where they had taken possession of sites in Pataligama. And rising before the night was spent, towards dawn, the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "Who is it, Ananda, that is erecting a city at Pataligama?"

"Sunidha and Vassakara, Lord, the chief ministers of Magadha, are building a fortress at Pataligama, in defence against the Vajjis."

28. "It is, Ananda, as if Sunidha and Vassakara had taken counsel with the gods of the Thirty-three. For I beheld, Ananda, with the heavenly eye, pure and transcending the faculty of men, a large number of deities, counted in thousands, that have taken possession of sites at Pataligama. In the region where deities of great power prevail, officials of great power are bent on constructing edifices; and where deities of medium and lesser power prevail, officials of medium and lesser power are bent on constructing edifices. Truly, Ananda, as far as the Aryan race extends and trade routes spread, this will be the foremost city Pataliputta, a trade-center. [16] [Puta-bhedanam. Comy. explains as the breaking open, the unpacking, of boxes (puta) of merchandise for the purpose of distribution. But probably it refers to the bursting open of the seed-box of the patali flower.] But Pataliputta, Ananda, will be assailed by three perils — fire, water, and dissension."

-- Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha, translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story

The Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta महापरिनिर्वाण सुत्त'' is Sutta 16 in the Digha Nikaya, a scripture belonging to the Sutta Pitaka of Theravada Buddhism. It concerns the end of Gautama Buddha's life - his parinibbana - and is the longest sutta of the Pāli Canon. Because of its attention to detail, it has been resorted to as the principal source of reference in most standard accounts of the Buddha's death.[1][full citation needed]

Content

The sutta begins a few days before the rainy retreat when Vassakara, the minister, visited the Buddha in Rajgir on the initiative of Ajatashatru, a king of the Haryanka dynasty of Magadha. The narrative continues beyond the three months of the rainy retreat and records the passing away of the Buddha, his cremation and the division of relics finally ending with the erection of eight cetiyas or monuments enshrining the relics of the Buddha.[2] This shows the Indian origin of Buddhist funeral customs.[3]

Versions

There are numerous versions of the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta. Among them, the Pali version is of an early date in respect of language and contents. The Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta is of utmost historical and cultural value and therefore it has become a sourcebook for students of Buddhism, Buddha biography and history of Buddhist thought and literature. Other versions of the text exist in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese.

Date of Composition

On the basis of philological evidence, Indologist and Pali expert Oskar von Hinüber says that some of the Pali suttas have retained very archaic place-names, syntax, and historical data from close to the Buddha's lifetime, including the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta. Hinüber proposes a composition date of no later than 350-320 BCE for this text, which would allow for a "true historical memory" of the events approximately 60 years prior if the short chronology for the Buddha's lifetime is accepted (but also reminds us that such a text was originally intended more as hagiography than as an exact historical record of events).[4][5]

The contents of narratives about the First Buddhist Council follow closely the narrative presented in the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta, leading scholars like Louis Finot and Erich Frauwallner to conclude that they originally formed a single continuous narrative.[6] These narratives of the First Council and found in part or in whole in all six extant Vinaya traditions, whose organization and basic contents are believed by many scholars to stem from before the earliest schisms in the Buddhist Sangha.[6][7] In some versions, the contents of the Sutta are included before the narrative of the First Council that ends the Skandhaka section of the Vinaya Pitakas. In other cases, the sutta narrative and the council narrative are divided between the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka.[6]

See also

• Pāli Canon
• Sutta Piṭaka
• Digha Nikāya
• Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
• Shinnyo-en

References

1. Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Paul Williams, Published by Taylor & Francis, 2005. page 190
2. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/missi ... lished.pdf
3. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... #ref888742
4. Oskar von Hinüber "Hoary past and hazy memory. On the history of early Buddhist texts", in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Volume 29, Number 2: 2006 (2008), pp.198-206
5. see also: Michael Witzel, (2009), "Moving Targets? Texts, language, archaeology and history in the Late Vedic and early Buddhist periods." in Indo-Iranian Journal 52(2-3): 287-310.
6. Frauwallner, Erich (1956). The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. pp. 41–46. ISBN 8857526798.
7. Schopen, Gregory (2004). "Vinaya". MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. 1. New York: MacMillan Reference USA. pp. 885–89. ISBN 0-02-865719-5.

Bibliography

• Buswell, Robert Jr; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2013). "Mahāparinibbānasuttanta", in Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 502–504. ISBN 9780691157863.
• Rhys Davids, T. W. and C. A. F. trans. (1910). Dialogues of the Buddha, part II, Oxford University Press, pp. 78–191.
• von Hinüber, Oskar (2009). Cremated like a King: The Funeral of the Buddha within the Ancient Indian Cultural Context, Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 13, 33-66
• Walshe, Maurice, trans. (1987). “Mahaparinibbana Sutta: The Great Passing.” In Thus Have I Heard: The Long Discourses of the Buddha. London: Wisdom Publications.

External links

Pali text

• Mahāparinibbānasutta in the original Pali SuttaCentral

Translations

• The Great Discourse on the Buddha's Extinguishment, translation by Bhikkhu Sujato
• The Discourse about the Great Emancipation, translation by Bhikkhu Ānandajoti
• "Maha-parinibbana Sutta," or PDF, translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story
Essays
• "Mahaparinibbana-sutta and Cullavagga," article by Louis Finot, published in the "Indian Historical Quarterly" (8:2, 1932 June 1, pp. 241–46), concerning the Mahaparinibbana Sutta and a related text.
• "Did Buddha die of mesenteric infarction?" by Ven. Dr. Mettanando Bhikkhu, a Thai monk and former medical doctor, published in the "Bangkok Post" (2000 May 17).

[admin]

Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 7/10/21

For the sutta of the Pāli Canon, see Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

The Buddha said: "O Manjushri! Do not enter into the all-wonderful depths of the “Paramartha-satya” of all dharmas. Explain things by means of secular truth." Manjushri said: "O World-Honoured One! To the east, beyond worlds as numerous as the sands of 20 Ganges, is a world called "Acala". The site where the Buddha of that country resides is extensive and all-equal and is as large as 12,000 yojanas lengthwise and crosswise. The ground is made of jewels and has no earth or stones. All is flat and soft, and there are no ditches or pits. All the trees are made of the four gems, namely, gold, silver, beryl, and crystal. Flowers and fruits are in abundance, and there is no time when these are not present. As people come into contact with the flowers and their fragrance, their body and mind experience peace and bliss, which can be likened to a bhiksu sitting in the third dhyana. And there are 3,000 great rivers that surround the land. The water is delicate and wonderful and is perfect in the eight tastes. The people who bathe in it experience joy and bliss comparable to the state of a bhiksu in the second dhyana. The rivers contain various flowers, such as the utpala, padma, kumuda, pundarika, the fragrant, the greatly fragrant, the wonderfully fragrant, the nitya, and the bloom that unhinderedly protects all beings. Also, on both banks are numerous flowers, such as the atimuktaka, campaka, pataliputra, varsika, mallika, mahamallika, simmallika, sumana, yukthika, dhanika, nitya, and the bloom that unhinderedly protects all beings. The river-bed is of golden sand, and there are flights of stairs on the four sides, made of gold, silver, beryl, and crystal of mixed colours. Numerous birds fly over these. Also, there live many tigers, wolves, lions, and all kinds of evil birds and beasts [there], all of whom, however, regard one another with the mind of a baby. There is in that land no one who carries out the grave offences, nor are there those who slander Dharma, nor are there any icchantikas, nor those who have committed the five deadly sins. The land is good and fit, so that there is no cold or heat, and no sufferings from famine or thirst; no greed, anger, indolence or jealousy reign there; there is no talk of sun and moon, no day and night, and there are no seasons; all obtains as in Trayastrimsa Heaven. The people of that land shine and have no arrogance in their mind. All are Bodhisattvamahasattvas; all possess divine powers and great virtues, and their minds look up to Wonderful Dharma. They ride in the Mahayana, love the Mahayana, die for, and protect, the Mahayana. They are accomplished in great Wisdom, are perfect in the Mahayana, and always pity all beings. The Buddha of that land is Tathagata-Full-Moonlight, who is an Alms–Deserving, All-Enlightened One, an All-Accomplished One, a Well-Gone, an All-Knower, an Unsurpassed One, Best Trainer, and Teacher of Gods and Humans, a Buddha-World-Honoured One. He delivers sermons where he resides. And there is not a single land that cannot indeed hear [them]. He delivers a sermon on the Great Nirvana Sutra to Bodhisattva Vaiduryaprabha. "O good man! If a Bodhisattva-mahasattva thoroughly practises the Way of the Great Nirvana Sutra, those who cannot actually hear can also hear." This Bodhisattva-mahasattva Vaiduryaprabha questions Buddha Full-Moonlight as Bodhisattva All-Shining Highly-Virtuous King [questions me]. All is the same, and there is nothing different.

-- The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto, from Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, 1973

A Sui dynasty manuscript of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (महापरिनिर्वाण सूत्र, traditional Chinese: 大般涅槃經; pinyin: Dàbānnièpán-jīng; Japanese: Daihatsunehan-gyō, Tibetan: མྱང་འདས་ཀྱི་མདོ་[1]) or Nirvana Sutra is a Tathāgatagarbha sūtra of Mahāyāna Buddhism.[note 1] Its precise date of origin is uncertain, but its early form may have developed in or by the second century CE. The original Sanskrit text is not extant except for a small number of fragments, but it survives in Chinese and Tibetan translation. It was translated into Chinese twice from two apparently substantially different source texts, with the 421 CE translation of Dharmakṣema being about four times longer than the 416 translation of Faxian. The two versions also differ in their teachings on Buddha-nature: Dharmakṣema's indicates all sentient beings have the potential to attain Buddhahood, but Faxian's states some will never attain Buddhahood. Ultimately, Dharmakṣema's version was far more popular in East Asia and his version of the text had a strong impact on East Asian Buddhism.[2] this sutra is not a context in Digha Nikaya's The Mahaparinibbana sutta of the Hinayanists (Theravada).

History

Versions

The text of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra in the original Sanskrit has survived only in a number of fragments, which were discovered in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Japan. It exists in Chinese and Tibetan versions of varying lengths. There are four extant versions of the sūtra, each translated from various Sanskrit editions:[3]

1. The "six fascicle text",[note 2] the translation into Chinese by Faxian and Buddhabhadra, translated during the Jin dynasty (266–420) between 416 and 418, containing six fascicles, which is the shortest and earliest version;
2. The "northern text", with 40 fascicles,[note 3] translated by Dharmakṣema between 421 and 430 in the Northern Liang kingdom, containing forty fascicles. This version was also translated into Classical Tibetan from the Chinese.
3. The "southern text",[note 4] with 36 fascicles, in approximately 453 by Huiguan and Huiyan during the Liu Song dynasty, integrated and amended the translations of Faxian and Dharmakṣema into a single edition of thirty-six fascicles;
4. The Tibetan version (c790CE) by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha, and Devacandra;

According to Hodge, some other versions have also existed:[3]

• a secondary Chinese version of Dharmakṣema's translation, completed in 453 CE. This was produced "by polishing the style and adding new section headings";[3]
• Chinese catalogues of translations mention two other Chinese translations, slightly earlier than Faxian, which are no longer extant.[3]

Origins and development

According to Shimoda Masahiro, the authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra were leaders and advocates of stupa-worship. The term buddhadhātu originally referred to śarīra or physical relics of the Buddha. The authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra used the teachings of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra to reshape the worship of the śarīra into worship of the inner Buddha as a principle of salvation: the Buddha-nature. "Buddhadhātu" came to be used in place of tathagatagarbha, referring to a concrete entity existing inside the person.[4] Sasaki, in a review of Shimoda, conveys a key premise of Shimoda's work, namely, that the origins of Mahayana Buddhism and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra are entwined.[5]

The Indian version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra underwent a number of stages in its composition. Masahiro Shimoda discerns two versions:[5]

1. a short proto-Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which was, he argues, probably not distinctively Mahāyāna, but quasi-Mahāsāṃghika in origin and would date to 100 CE, if not even earlier;
2. an expanded version of this core text was then developed and would have comprised chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Faxian and Tibetan versions, though it is believed that in their present state there is a degree of editorial addition in them from the later phases of development.

The sutra was further developed in China by the Chinese translator Dharmakṣema in the fifth century CE, who added a thirty extra fascicles to the original core text.[6]:124–5[7]

Dating


Cave complex associated with the Mahāsāṃghika sect. Karla Caves, Mahārāṣtra, India

Scholars believe that the compilation of the core portion (corresponding to the Faxian and Tibetan translations) must have occurred at an early date, during or prior to the 2nd century CE, based on internal evidence and on Chinese canonical catalogs.[6][8]

Using textual evidence in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and related texts, Stephen Hodge estimates a compilation period between 100 CE and 220 CE for the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Hodge summarizes his findings as follows:[9]

[T]here are strong grounds based on textual evidence that the MPNS (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), or a major portion of it, together with related texts were compiled in the Deccan during the second half of the 2nd century CE, in a Mahāsāṃghika environment, probably in one of their centres along the western coastal region such as Karli, or perhaps, though less likely, the Amaravatī-Dhanyakaṭaka region.

Place of origin and Indian dissemination

The history of the text is extremely complex, but the consensus view is that the core portion of this sutra[note 5] was compiled in the Indian subcontinent, possibly in Andhra, South India.[10][11][12][9]

The language used in the sūtra and related texts seems to indicate a region in southern India during the time of the Śātavāhana dynasty. The Śātavāhana rulers gave rich patronage to Buddhism, and were involved with the development of the cave temples at Karla and Ajaṇṭā, and also with the Great Stūpa at Amarāvati. During this time, the Śātavāhana dynasty also maintained extensive links with the Kuṣāṇa Empire.[9]

According to Stephen Hodge, internal textual evidence in the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, Mahābherihāraka Parivarta Sūtra, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra indicates that these texts were first circulated in South India and they then gradually propagated up to the northwest, with Kashmir being the other major center. The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra gives a more detailed account by mentioning the points of distribution as including South India, the Vindhya Range, Bharuch, and Kashmir.[9]

Translations

China

Earliest translations

According to early Chinese sutra catalogues such as the Lidai Sanbao ji (歷代三寶紀), a part of the core portion of the sutra was translated previously into Chinese by Dharmarakṣa (fl. c260-280), though this version is now lost.[6]:124

Faxian

Though the translation of the "six fascicle" version is conventionally ascribed to Faxian (法顯), this attribution is probably inaccurate. According to Faxian's own account, the manuscript copy forming the basis of the six juan Chinese version was obtained by him in Pāṭaliputra from the house of a layman known as Kālasena, during his travels in India. The earliest surviving Chinese sutra catalogue, Sengyou's Chu Sanzang Jiji (出三藏記集), which was written less than 100 years after the date of this translation, makes no mention of Faxian. Instead it states that the translation was done by Buddhabhadra and his assistant Baoyun (寶雲), quoting earlier catalogues to corroborate this attribution. The idea that Faxian was involved in the translation only emerges in later catalogues, compiled several hundred years after the event.[13]

Zhimeng

Chinese canonical records also mention that a now lost translation was made by the Chinese monk Zhimeng who studied in India from 404-424 CE. According to Zhimeng's own account, he also obtained his manuscript from the same layman in Pataliputra as Faxian did some years earlier.[6][14]:231

Dharmakṣema

The translation done by Dharmakṣema from 421 CE onwards may for a large part be based on a non-Indian text.[15]

The first ten fascicles may be based on a birch-bark manuscript of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra from North-Western India that Dharmakṣema brought with him, which he used for the initial translation work of his version. This version corresponds overall in content to the "six fascicle" version and the Tibetan version.[16]:157[17][6]:104

Dharmakṣema's translation of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra extends for a further thirty fascicles, beyond the first ten fascicles of this sutra. Many scholars doubt if these thirty fascicles are based on an Indian Sanskrit text. The chief reasons for this skepticism are these:[18]:12–13

• no traces of an extended Sanskrit text has ever been found, while Sanskrit manuscript fragments of twenty four separate pages distributed right across the core portion of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra have been found over the past hundred years in various parts of Asia;[18]:12–13
• no quotations are known from this latter portion in any Indian commentaries or sutra anthologies;[15]
• no other translator in China or Tibet ever found Sanskrit copies of this portion.[15]
• In addition, these doubts correspond with an account from the Chinese monk-translator Yijing,[note 6] who mentions that he searched for a copy of the enlarged Mahaparinirvāṇa-sūtra through all that time, but only found manuscripts corresponding to the core portion of this work.[6]

In addition, these doubts correspond with an account from the Chinese monk-translator Yijing,[note 6] who mentions that he searched for a copy of the enlarged Mahaparinirvāṇa-sūtra through all that time, but only found manuscripts corresponding to the core portion of this work.[6]
For these reasons, textual scholars generally regard the authenticity of the latter portion as dubious. It may have been a local Central Asian composition at best, or else written by Dharmakṣema himself, who had both the ability and the motive for doing so.[6]:124–5[7] On the strength of their investigations, certain specialist scholars have formulated and expressed a theory in which they suggest that this latter portion of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra translated by Dharmakṣema may not represent a definitive source, for scholars, for the history of the development, in India, of the Buddha-nature concept and related doctrines.[18][19]

English translations

• Yamamoto, Kosho, trans. (1973-1975). The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, 3 Volumes, Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan.[note 7]
• Blum, Mark, trans. (2013). The Nirvana Sutra: Volume 1 (of a projected 4), Berkeley, Calif. : BDK America (distr.: Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). ISBN 978-1-886439-46-7.
• Kato, Yasunari, trans. (2014). Daihatsunehankyou Vol.2: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra Vol.2, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781499284355
• Yamamoto & Page, Dr. Tony, trans. (2015). Nirvana Sutra: A Translation of Dharmakshema's Northern version, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1517631727

Teachings

See also: Two truths doctrine

According to Sallie B. King, the sutra does not represent a major innovation, and is rather unsystematic,[21] which made it "a fruitful one for later students and commentators, who were obliged to create their own order and bring it to the text".[21] According to King, its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhātu[note 8] with tathagatagarbha.[21] The "nature of the Buddha" is presented as a timeless, eternal "Self", which is akin to the tathagatagarbha, the innate possibility in every sentient being to attain Buddha-hood and manifest this timeless Buddha-nature.[22] "[I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, and indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so."[23]

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontological status is, however, open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the receptacle of the seeds of awakening.[24]

Context

The Nirvana Sutra is an eschatological text.[9] Its core was written in India in a time which was perceived as the age in which the Buddha-dharma would perish, and all the Mahayana sutras disappear. The sutra responds to this awaited end with the proclamation of the tathagatagarbha, the innate Buddhahood present in all man:[9]

[T]he tathâgata-garbha doctrine was promoted precisely as a means to save as many people as possible in a short time. Put simply, this doctrine teaches that Buddhahood already lies within all beings as an innate spiritual nature. This spiritual nature is concealed by ignorance and multitudes of afflictive factors – the kleśas – and needs to be awakened and revealed. The presence of this nature implies that all beings, in theory, may awaken to Buddhahood quite rapidly, if only they would recognize the presence of that nature within themselves. The role of the MPNS itself is not only to inform people about this innate spiritual nature, but also to act as a trigger which engenders the necessary willingness in people to uncover their inherent Buddhahood, provided they listen to the sûtra with open-mindedness, faith and confidence in its veracity [...] the MPNS itself claims to have a salvific role due to its own numinous power as the last teachings of the Buddha before his parinirvâna.[9]

The existence of the tathagatagarbha must be taken on faith:

Essentially the Buddha asks his audience to accept the existence of buddha-nature [tathagatagarbha] on faith [...] the importance of faith in the teachings of the Nirvana Sutra as a whole must not be overlooked.[25]

Buddhadhātu

A central focus of the Nirvana Sutra is the Buddha-nature,[note 8] "the nature of the Buddha", that which constitutes a Buddha.[22] According to Sally King, the sutra speaks about Buddha-nature in so many different ways, that Chinese scholars created a list of types of Buddha-nature that could be found in the text.[21]

Buddha-nature, "true Self" and Emptiness

The buddhadhātu is described as a true self, due to its eternal nature.[26] It is what remains when "non-Self" is discarded:

What the Buddha says here is that he spoke thus to meet the occasion. But now the thought is established [of non-Self], he means to say what is true, which is about the inner content of nirvana itself [...] If there is no more any non-Self, what there exists must be the Self.'[27]

According to Dharmakṣema's extended version of the sutra, this "true Self" is eternal, unchanging, blissful, pure, inviolate and deathless:

... if the non-eternal is made away with [in Nirvana], what there remains must be the Eternal; if there is no more any sorrow, what there remains must be Bliss; if there is no more any non-Self, what exists there must be the Self; if there is no longer anything that is impure, what there is must be the Pure.[27]

Paul Williams notes:

Nevertheless the sutra as it stands is quite clear that while [...] we can speak of [the tathagatagharba] as Self, actually it is not at all a Self, and those who have such Self-notions cannot perceive the tathagatagarbha and thus become enlightened.[28][23]

Williams also comments:

One thing anyway is clear. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches a really existing, permanent element (Tibetan: yang dag khams) in sentient beings. It is this element which enables sentient beings to become Buddhas. It is beyond egoistic self-grasping -– indeed the very opposite of self-grasping -– but it otherwise fulfils several of the requirements of a Self in the Indian tradition. Whether this is called the Real, True, Transcendental Self or not is as such immaterial, but what is historically interesting is that this sutra in particular (although joined by some other Tathagatagarbha sutras) is prepared to use the word ‘Self’ (atman) for this element. However one looks at it, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is quite self-consciously modifying or criticizing the not-Self traditions of Buddhism ...[29]

Mark Blum speaks both of the fictitious discursive self and the real Self of the Buddha-nature. Commenting both on the non-Self and Emptiness teachings of the Nirvana Sutra, he states:

For the Nirvana Sutra, nonself is treated like another negative expression of truth, emptiness. That is, nonself is a very important doctrine to be expounded when the listener is attached to his or her notion of selfhood or personality, because it deconstructs that object of attachment, revealing its nature as a fantasy. Emptiness likewise performs the function of deconstructing attachments to notions of identity in things or ideas. But both are merely tools, or upaya (skillful means) and not final truths in and of themselves. Regarding emptiness, we find a strong assertion of the sacred nature of nonemptiness ... [and] although the discursive, evaluating self is fiction, there does exist a genuine self and that, according to the sutra, is precisely the buddha-nature.[30]

Eternal Buddha

Main article: Dharmakāya

Mark Blum stresses the fact that the Buddha in this sutra is presented, on the eve of his Great Nirvana, as one who is not subject to the processes of birth and death, but abides undying forever:

He [the Buddha] makes it clear that while he will disappear from their [i.e. beings'] sight, he is not going to die, because in fact he was never born in the first place. In other words, buddhas are not created phenomena and therefore have no beginning and no end.[31]

The Buddha is presented as (an) eternal Being, transcending normal human limitations:

What is the Tathagata [Buddha]? [...] He is one who is eternal and unchanging. He is beyond the human notion of "is" or "is-not". He is Thusness [tathata], which is both phenomenon and noumenon, put together. Here, the carnal notion of man is sublimated and explained from the macrocosmic standpoint of existence of all and all. And this Dharmakaya is at once Wisdom and Emancipation [moksha]. In this ontological enlargement of the concept of existence of the Buddha Body [buddhakaya], this sutra and, consequently, Mahayana, differs from the Buddha of Primitive Buddhism.[32]

Kosho Yamamoto gives a series of equations:

Thus, there comes about the equation of: Buddha Body = Dharmakaya = eternal body = eternal Buddha = Eternity.[32]

Tathagatagarbha

The Buddha-nature is equated with the Tathagatagarbha. According to Sally King, the term tathāgatagarbha may be understood in two ways:[33]

1. "embryonic tathāgata", the incipient Buddha, the cause of the Tathāgata,

2. "womb of the tathāgata", the fruit of Tathāgata.

The Chinese translated the term tathāgata in its meaning as "womb", c.q. "fruit". It was translated as Chinese: 如來藏; pinyin: rúlái zàng,[33] "tathāgata storehouse" [34] "Buddha-matrix", or "Buddha embryo", the innate possibility of every sentient being to attain awakening[21] in every sentient being. According to Mark Blum, Dharmaksema translates tathāgatagārbha as Chinese: 如來密藏; pinyin: rúlái mìzàng or simply mìzàng,[25] "tathagata's hidden treasury". He notes that the two major Chinese versions of the sutra don't use the literal Chinese term for embryo or womb, but speak of the "wondrous interior treasure-house of the Buddha" found in all beings. "We never see a word that specifically means embryo or womb used for garbha in either Chinese translation of this sutra."[25]

This "hidden treasury" is present in all sentient beings: "[the Buddha] expounds the doctrine that this quality [of the hidden interior, wondrous treasury] is not only common to buddhas but to all living beings as well."[25] The Buddha-nature is always present, in all times and in all beings. According to Liu, this does not mean that sentient beings are at present endowed with the qualities of a Buddha, but that they will have those qualities in the future.[22] It is obscured from worldly vision by the screening effect of tenacious negative mental afflictions within each being. Once these negative mental states have been eliminated, however, the buddhadhātu is said to shine forth unimpededly and can then be consciously "entered into", and therewith deathless Nirvana attained:[35]

[T]he tathagatagarbha is none but Thusness or the Buddha Nature, and is the originally untainted pure mind which lies overspread by, and exists in, the mind of greed and anger of all beings. This bespeaks a Buddha Body that exists in a state of bondage.[36]

Icchantikas

Despite the fact that the Buddha-nature is innate in all sentient beings, there is a class of people who are excluded from salvation, the Icchantikas, "extremists":[9]

[A]ny person, no matter whether they are a monk, a nun, a lay-man or lay-woman, who rejects this sûtra with abusive words, and does not even ask for forgiveness afterwards, has entered the icchantika path.[9]

The longer versions of the Nirvana Sutra additionally give expression to the new claim (not found in the shorter Chinese and Tibetan versions) that, because of the Buddha-dhatu, absolutely all beings without exception, even icchantikas (the most incorrigible and spiritually base of beings), will eventually attain liberation and become Buddhas.[37][38]

The Nirvana Sutra in Mahayana Schools

In the introduction to his translation of the Nirvana Sutra (Chinese: 大般涅盘经; Jyutping: da4ban1Nie4pan2jing1), Mark Blum speaks of the tremendous importance of this sutra for East-Asian Buddhism:

It would be difficult to overstate the impact of [the] Nirvana Sutra in East Asian Buddhism. Not only did it inspire numerous commentaries on the sutra itself in China, Korea, and Japan, it is cited extensively in the works of untold numbers of Buddhist writers and frequently appears in 'secular' literature as well [...] the very idea of Chan [Buddhism] without the concept of buddha-nature is unthinkable.[2]

There is one story in the Nirvana Sutra about a blind man feeling an elephant (Chinese: 盲人摸象; Jyutping: maang4yaan4mok3cheung6). The elephant in this tale symbolizes the "Buddha nature". A group of blind men reach touch a different part of the elephant—one feels the tusk and thinks it is a carrot, another mistakes the elephant's belly for an urn, and so on. The king seeks that Shakyamuni illuminate their limited perception (symbolized by blindness in the parable) that permits only partial truths.[39]

Nichiren Buddhism

In Nichiren Buddhism the Nirvana Sutra, with the Lotus Sutra, make up what Tiantai called the Fifth of the Five Periods of Teaching.[40] The Nirvana Sutra is seen as inferior to the Lotus Sutra however, based on the passage in Nichiren´s writings that reads:

When this sutra was preached . . . the prediction had already been made in the Lotus Sutra that the eight thousand voice-hearers would attain Buddhahood, a prediction that was like a great harvest. Thus, the autumn harvest was over and the crop had been stored away for winter [when the Nirvana Sutra was expounded], and there was nothing left for it [but a few gleanings]."[41]

Shin Buddhism

The Nirvana Sutra is among the most important sources and influences on Shinran's magnum opus, Kyogyoshinsho, which is the foundational text of the Japanese Jōdo Shinshū Pure Land School. Shinran relies on crucial passages from the Nirvana Sutra for the more theoretical elaboration of the meaning of shinjin. The Nirvana Sutra and the Pure Land Sutras are quoted extensively in the Kyogyoshinsho.

See also

• Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa
• Ātman (Buddhism)
• Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
• Faith in Buddhism
• God in Buddhism
• Kulayarāja Tantra
• Parinirvana
• Mahāyāna sūtras
• Nirvana (Buddhism)
• Shinjō Itō, founder of the Shinnyo-en school of Buddhism
• Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra
• Buddha-nature
• Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Notes

1. It shares its title with another well-known Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pāli Canon, but is quite different in form and content. It is therefore generally referred to by its full Sanskrit title, Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, or more commonly simply the Nirvāṇa Sūtra.
2. T 376.12.853-899
3. T 374.12.365c-603c
4. T 375.12.605-852
5. Corresponding to the Tibetan translation, the six juan Chinese translation attributed to Faxian, and the first ten juan of the Dharmakṣema Chinese translation.
6. In his account of Eminent Monks who Went West in Search of the Dharma, 大唐西域求法高僧傳 T2066. He travelled widely through India and parts of Southeast Asia over a 25-year period.
7. Qualified by Stephen Hodge as a "sadly unreliable, though pioneering, attempt".[20]
8. Buddha-dhatu (佛性), Buddha element, or Buddha principle; also "the nature of the Buddha", that what constitutes a Buddha.[22]
References[edit]
1. "myang 'das kyi mdo". Dharma Dictionary. Retrieved 29 January 2008.
2. Blum 2013, p. xix.
3. Hodge 2004.
4. Jikido 2000, p. 73.
5. Sasaki 1999.
6. Wang, Bangwei (1993). "The Transmission of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra ( 略論大乘《大般涅槃經》的傳譯定)". Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal. 06: 103–127. Archived from the original on October 15, 2006.
7. Chen[year missing]
8. Shimoda 1997, pp. 446–48.
9. Hodge 2006.
10. Chen 1993 p103-5[full citation needed]
11. Matsuda 1988, p. 5.
12. Shimoda 1997, p. 156.
13. Shimoda 1997, p. 157.
14. Chen 2004.
15. Matsuda 1988, pp. 12–13.
16. Shimoda 1997.
17. Chen 2004, pp. 221–2.
18. Matsuda 1988.
19. Shimoda 1997, pp. 163–4.
20. Hodge 2012, p. 2.
21. King 1991, p. 14.
22. Liu 1982, p. 66-67.
23. Williams 2002, pp. 163-164.
24. Gethin 1998, p. 52.
25. Blum 2013, p. xv-xx.
26. Liu 1982, p. 66.
27. Yamamoto 1975, p. 107–108.
28. see Ruegg 1989a: 21-6[full citation needed]
29. Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York, 2009, pp. 108-109
30. Mark L. Blum, The Nirvana Sutra, BDK Berkeley, California, 2013, pp. xvi-xvii
31. Blum 2013, p. xv.
32. Yamamoto 1975.
33. King 1991, p. 4.
34. King 1991, p. 48.
35. Yamamoto 1975, p. 94–96.
36. Yamamoto 1975, p. 87.
37. Yamamoto 1975, p. 153–154.
38. Liu 1984, p. 71-72.
39. Berger, Patricia Ann (1994). Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, 850 - 1850. University of Hawaii Press. p. 405. ISBN 0824816625. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
40. "Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, T'ien-T'ai". Archived from the original on 2014-05-30. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
41. Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Soka Gakkai, Volume 1 P693.

Sources

• Blum, Mark L. (2013), The Nirvana Sutra, Vol. 1 (PDF), BDK America
• Chen, Jinhua (2004), The Indian Buddhist Missionary Dharmakṣema (385-433): A New dating of his Arrival in Guzang and of his Translations, T'oung Pao 90, 215–263
• Hodge, Stephen (2004), Textual History of the Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāna-sūtra, retrieved 21 January 2012
• Hodge, Stephen (2006), On the Eschatology of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Related Matters (PDF), lecture delivered at the University of London, SOAS, archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2013
• Hodge, Stephen (2012), The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. The text & its Transmission (PDF), corrected and revised version of a paper presented in July 2010 at the Second International Workshop on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra held at Munich University, archived from the original (PDF) on December 19, 2013
• Jikido, Takasaki (2000), "The Tathagatagarbha Theory Reconsidered. Reflections on Some Recent Issues in Japanese Buddhist Studies", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 27 (1–2): 73–83, archived from the original on July 27, 2014
• King, Sallie B. (1991), Buddha Nature, SUNY Press
• Liu, Ming-Wood (1982), "The Doctrine of the Buddha-Nature in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.", Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 5 (2): 63–94, archived from the original on October 16, 2013
• Liu, Ming-Wood (1984), "The Problem of the Icchantica in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra", Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 7 (1): 57–82
• Liu, Ming-Wood (2005), "The Doctrine of Buddha-nature in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra", Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies (Vol. V), Paul Williams, Taylor & Francis, p. 190
• Matsuda, Kazunobu (1988). "Sanskrit Fragments of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra. A Study of the Central Asian Documents of the Stein/Hoernle Collection of the India Office Library". Studia Tibetica. 14.
• Sasaki, Shizuka (1999), "Review Article: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Origins of Mahayana Buddhism" (PDF), Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 26 (1–2): 189–197, archived from the original (PDF) on August 11, 2011, retrieved 21 January 2012
• Shimoda, Masahiro (1997). A Study of the Mahāparinivāṇasūtra ~ with a Focus on the Methodology of the Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras. Tokyo, Shunjū-sha. (in Japanese)
• Yamamoto, Kosho (1975), Mahayanism: A Critical Exposition of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Karinbunko

Further reading

• Blum, Mark (2003). Nirvana Sutra, in: Buswell, Robert E. ed., Encyclopedia of Buddhism, New York: Macmillan Reference Lib., pp. 605–606
• Bongard-Levin, G.M (1986). New Sanskrit fragments of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra: Central Asian manuscript collection, The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
• Ito, Shinjo (2009). Shinjo: Reflections, Somerset Hall Press.
• Lai, Whalen (1982). Sinitic speculations on buddha-nature: The Nirvaana school (420-589), Philosophy East and West 32 (2), 135-149
• Radich, Michael (2015). The Mahāparinivāṇa-mahasūtra and the Emergence of Tathagatagarba Doctrine, Hamburg Buddhist Studies Vol. 5, Hamburg University Press
• Yuyama, Akira (1981). Sanskrit fragments of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinivāṇa-sūtra: Koyasan manuscript, The Reiyukai Library.

External links

• Tony Page's Nirvana Sutra website
• Revised translation of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra
• [permanent dead link] Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (log in with userID "guest")