XXIV. The Tradition About the Corporeal Relics of Buddhaby J. F. FLEET, I.C.S. (Retd.), Ph.D., C.I.E.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
P. 655-671
1906
I.
By way of a preliminary to some further remarks on the inscription on the Piprahava relic-vase,1 [
I have been using hitherto the form Piprawa, which I took over from another writer. But it appears, from Major Vost’s article on Kapilavastu (page 553 ff. above), that the correct form of the name is that which I now adopt.] which I shall present when a facsimile of the record can be given with them, I offer a study of an interesting side-issue, the tradition regarding the corporeal relics of Buddha.
The subject has been touched by another writer in this Journal, 1901. 397 ff. And I am indebted to his article for (in addition to some minor references) guidance to the story told in Buddhaghosha’s Sumangalavilasini, which otherwise might have remained unknown to me. For the rest, however, that treatment of the subject was biassed by starting with the postulate that the Piprahava record could only register an enshrining of relics of Buddha by the Sakyas at Kapilavastu. It was, consequently, entirely directed to throwing discredit on the tradition about the eventual fate of the relics. Also, it has by no means told us, or even indicated, all that there is to be learnt; and it is not exactly accurate even as far as it goes.
I take the matter from the opposite point of view; namely (see page 149 ff. above), that the inscription registers an enshrining of relics, not of Buddha, but of his slaughtered kinsmen, the Sakyas themselves. And my object is to exhibit the details of the tradition about the relics of Buddha more clearly; to add various items which have been overlooked; and to examine the matter carefully, in the light of the tradition having quite possibly a basis in fact.
And there is a difference between the two cases. To support the previous interpretation of the Piprahava record, it was vitally important to invalidate the tradition about the eventual fate of the corporeal relics of Buddha; for, if, some centuries ago, the memorial mound raised at Kapilavastu by the Sakyas over their share of those relics was opened, and the relics were abstracted from it, how could that monument be found in 1898, externally indeed in a state of ruin, but internally unviolated, with the relics, and a record proclaiming the nature of them, still inside it? For my case, however, the truth or otherwise of the tradition is of no leading importance at all, and might almost be a matter of indifference, except for the intrinsic interest attaching to the tradition itself: the tradition might be shewn to be false, but that would not affect my interpretation of the record; we could still look to find corporeal relics of Buddha in some other memorial in the same neighbourhood. At the same time, while my case is not in any way dependent upon proving the tradition to be true, it is capable of receiving support from a substantiation of the tradition.
However, the question of the merits of the tradition cannot be decided either way, until we have the traditional statements fully before us, in a plain and convenient form. So, I confine myself first to exhibiting those statements just as they are found; starting the matter, in this note, with the tradition about the original division and enshrining of the relics, and going on afterwards to the tradition about the subsequent fate of them. I will review the whole tradition, and consider it in connexion with certain instructive facts, in my following article on the inscription.
Mahaparinibbana-Sutta. In tracing the history of the corporeal relics of Buddha, we naturally commence with the narrative, presented in the ancient Pali work entitled Mahaparinibbana-Sutta, and possibly dating back to B.C. 375 (see page 670 below), of the circumstances that attended the distribution of them and the building of Stupas or memorial mounds over them. And I prefix to that the account, given in the same work, of the cremation of the corpse of Buddha; because it includes several features of interest which may suitably be brought into relief, with some comments, from the artistic setting in which they stand in the original text.
The narrative runs as follows; see the text edited by Childers in this Journal, 1876, 250 ff., and by Davids and Carpenter in the Digha-Nikaya, part 2. 154 ff., and the translation by Davids in SBE, 11. 112 ff.:1 [
Using Childers’ text, which is divided into rather long paragraphs, I found the translation very useful in leading me quickly to the points to be noted. The translation, however, cannot be followed as an infallible guide; and I have had to take my own line in interpreting the text at various places. While revising these proofs, I have seen for the first time Turnour’s article in JASB, 7, 1838. 991 ff., where he gave a translation of the sixth chapter (the one in which we are interested) of this Sutta, and an abstract of the preceding ones. By the later translator, Turnour’s work has been dismissed with the observation (SBE, 11. Introd., 31) that, “though a most valuable contribution for the time, now more than half a century ago,” it “has not been of much service for the present purpose.” Nevertheless, there are several details in which it contrasts very favourably with the later translation.]
The Bhagavat, “ the Blessed One,” Buddha, died, 2 [
In this Sutta, Buddha is most usually designated as the Bhagavat. But other appellations of him used in it are the Tathagata, the Sugata, the Sambuddha, and the Samana Gotama. The appellation Buddha occurs in the expression:—amhakam Buddho ahu khantivado; “our Buddha was one who used to preach forbearance” (text, 259/166), in the speech of the Brahman Dona, when he was asking the claimants not to quarrel over the division of the relics. The word used for “he died” is parinibbayi (text, 252/156). From that point, the text constantly presents parinibbuta to describe him as “dead;” and it several times, both here and in previous passages, presents parinibbana to denote his “death.” And, just after the statement that he died, it places in the mouth of the venerable Anuruddha a gatha, of which the last fine runs:— Pajjotasszeva nibbanam vimokho chetaso ahu; “just like the extinction of a lamp, there was a deliverance (of him) from consciousness, conscious existence.” The text thus establishes nibbuta (Sanskrit, nirvrita) as the exact equivalent of parinibbuta (Skt., parinirvrita) in the sense of ‘dead.’ And it establishes nibbana (Skt., nirvana), and any such Sanskrit terms as vimoktha, moksha, mukti, etc., as the exact equivalent of parinibbana (Skt., parinirvana) in the sense of ‘ death.’ I mention this because a view has been expressed that, in addition to a reckoning running from the parinirvana, the death, of Buddha, there was also a reckoning running from his nirvana as denoting some other occurrence in his career.] at the good old age of fourscore years,1 [
For this detail, see text, 73/100; trans., 37. And compare text, 249/151; trans., 108; where we are told that, seeking after merit, at the age of twenty-nine he went forth as a wandering ascetic, and that he wandered:— vassani pannasa samadhikani; “for fifty years and somewhat more.” With this last expression, compare the same phrase, but in another connexion, in the Jataka, ed. Fausboll, 2. 383. There, the commentary (after perhaps suggesting, according to one manuscript, sama, for sama, + adhikani) distinctly explains the expression by atireka-pannasa-vassani. From that we can see that samadhika, in both places, is not sama + adhika, ‘increased by a year,’— (giving “fifty years and one year more”),— but is samadhika, ‘possessed of something more,’ with the short a of the antepenultimate syllable lengthened for the sake of the metre. And, in fact, in the passage in the Jataka we have the various reading samadhikani. The long life thus attributed to Buddha is somewhat remarkable in the case of a Hindu. But, if it were an imaginative detail, the figure would almost certainly have been fixed at eighty-four or eighty-two, on the analogy of something referred to further on, under the Divyavadana. The actual cause of the death of Buddha was, coupled with extreme old age, an attack of dysentery induced by a meal of sukara-maddava (text, 231/127). This has been rendered by “dried boar’s flesh” (trans., 71), and elsewhere, not very kindly, by “pork.” Having regard to mridu, ‘soft, delicate, tender,’ as the origin of mardava, maddava, I would suggest “the succulent parts, titbits, of a young wild boar.”] at Kusinara, the city of a branch of a tribe known as the Mallas. And we may note that, though Kusinara is several times mentioned in the Sutta as a nagara, ‘a city,’ still it is distinctly marked as quite a small place. We are expressly told (text, 245/146; trans., 99) that it was not a mahanagara, a great city, like Champa, Rajagaha, Savatthi, Saketa, Kosambi, and Baranasi, full of warriors and Brahmans and householders all devoted to Buddha, but was merely:—kudda-nagaraka, ujjangala- nagaraka, sakha-nagaraka; “a little town of plaster walls, a little town in a clearing of the jungle, a mere branch town;” and that Buddha accepted it for the closing scene of his life because of its pristine greatness, under the name Kusavati, as the royal city of the righteous monarch Maha-Sudassana.
At this little place, then, Buddha died. And he breathed his last breath, in the last watch of the night, on a couch, with its head laid to the north, between a twin pair of Sala-trees which were masses of fruiting flowers from blossoms out of season,1 [
The words (text, 239/137) are:— Tena kho pana samayena yamaka-sala sabba-phaliphulla honti akala-pupphehi. The month is not specified. And there were two views on this point. Buddhaghosha says, in the introduction to his Samantapasadika (Vinayapitaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 283), that Buddha became parinibbuta, i.e. died, on the full-moon day of the month Visakha, = Vaisakha. Hiuen Tsiang has said (Julien, Memoires, 1. 334; Beal, Records, 2. 33; Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 2. 28) that, according to the ancient historical documents, Buddha entered into nirvana, at the age of eighty, on the fifteenth day of the second half— [meaning apparently the full-moon day]— of the month Vaisakha, but that, according to the school of the Sarvastivadins, he entered into nirvana on the eighth day of the second half of Karttika. We need not speculate about the rival claims. But the following remarks may be made. From Roxburgh’s Plants of the Coast of Coromandel (1819), 3. 9, and plate 212, and Drury’s Useful Plants of India (1858), 405, I gather the following information about the Sala-tree. It has two botanical names, Vatica robusta and Shorea robusta; the latter having been given to it by Roxburgh in honour of Sir John Shore, Bart. (Lord Teignmouth), who was Governor-General of India, 1793-98. It is a native of the southern skirts of the Himalayas, and is a timber-tree which is second in value to only the teak. It grows with a straight majestic trunk, of great thickness, to a height of from 100 to 150 feet, and gives beams which are sometimes 2 feet square and 30 feet or more in length. And it yields also large quantities of resin, the best pieces of which are frequently used, instead of the common incense, in Indian temples. It flowers in the hot season (Roxburgh), in March-April (Drury), with numerous five-petalled pale yellow flowers about three-quarters of an inch in breadth. And the seed, which has a very strong but brief vitality, ripens (by the maturing of the fruit) about three months after the opening of the blossoms. The flowers, of course, begin to fall when the fruit is becoming set. Roxburgh’s plate exhibits well both the flowers and the fruit. Now, it is somewhat difficult to compare the Indian months, whether solar or lunar, with the English months; because (1), owing to the precession of the equinoxes being not taken into consideration in determining the calendar, the Indian months are always travelling slowly forward through the tropical year; and (2), owing to the system of intercalary months, the initial days of the Indian lunar months are always receding by about eleven days for one or two years, and then leaping forwards by about nineteen days. But, in the present time, the full-moon of Vaisakha falls on any day ranging from about 27 April to 25 May, new style. In the time of Buddhaghosha, it ranged from about 2 to 30 April, old style. At the time of the death of Buddha, it ranged from about 25 March to 22 April, old style. The specified day in the month Karttika comes, of course, close upon six months later. The tradition about the month Vaisakha in connexion with the death of Buddha may thus be based on some exceptionally early season, when the Sala-trees had burst into blossom an appreciable time before the commencement of the hot weather. On the other hand, it might quite possibly be founded on only some poetical description of the death of Buddha, containing a play on the word visakha in the two senses of ‘branched, forked,’ and of ‘branchless’ in the way of all the branches being hidden by masses of flowers.] — (the text goes on to emphasize the condition of the flowers by saying that they were constantly dropping off and falling onto the body of Buddha),— in the Sala-grove of the Mallas which was an upavattana, an adjacent part (outskirt or suburb), of the city, on the bank of the Hirannavati, on the further side from the town Pava.
The venerable Ananda having notified the occurrence,, early in the day, to the Mallas of Kusinara (text, 253/158; trans., 121), the Mallas bade their servants collect perfumes and garlands and all the cymbals and similar musical instruments in Kusinara. And, taking with them those appliances and five hundred pairs of woven cloths (dussa), they repaired to the place where the corpse (sariram) of Buddha lay. They spent the whole of that day in doing homage to the corpse with dancing and songs and music, and with garlands and perfumes, and in making canopies of their garments (chela), and in fashioning wreaths. And then, finding it too late to cremate the corpse, they determined to perform the cremation on the following day. In the same way, however, there passed away the second day, and the third, the fourth, the fifth, and even the sixth.1 [
Here the question arises: how was the corpse of Buddha preserved from hopeless decomposition during the time that elapsed? I would suggest that the mention of the perfumes and the woven cloths (dussa, — Skt. dursa) may indicate that recourse was had to some process of embalming and swathing. And, in fact, (see trans., introd., 39 f.), Robert Knox, in his Historical Relation of Ceylon, part 3, chapter 11, in describing the arrangements for cremation, has expressly mentioned disembowelling and embalming in cases where the corpse of a person of quality is not cremated speedily.]
On the seventh day (text, 254/159; trans., 123), the Mallas proposed to carry the corpse by the south and outside the city to a spot outside the city on the south, and to cremate it there. And eight of their chief men, having washed their heads and clad themselves in new clothes (ahata vattha), prepared to lift the corpse. But they could not raise it; for, as the venerable Anuruddha explained, such was not the purpose of the gods.
Accordingly (text, 255/160; trans., 124),— the intention of the gods having been fully made known to them,— still doing homage to the corpse with their own mortal dancing and songs and music and with garlands and perfumes, together with an accompaniment of divine dancing and songs and music and garlands and perfumes from the gods, they carried the corpse by the north to the north of the city. Then, entering by the northern gate, they carried it through the midst of the city into the midst thereof.1 [
A very special honour was conferred on the corpse of Buddha by this treatment; for (as the translator has indicated, 125, note), to carry into the city, in any ordinary case, the corpse of a person who had died outside it, would have polluted the city. In a similar manner, the corpse of Mahinda was carried into the city Anuradhapura by the eastern gate, and through the midst of the city, and then out again on the south; see Dipavamsa, 17. 102, 103.] And then, going out by the eastern gate, they carried it to the shrine known as the Makutabandhanachetiya or coronation-temple2 [
See note on page 160 above.] of the Mallas, which was on the east of the city. And there they laid it down.
There, under the directions of the venerable Ananda (text, 255/161; trans., 125),3 [
He was, in fact, repeating instructions which had been given to him by Buddha; see text, 242/141; trans., 92.] the corpse was prepared for cremation, in all respects just as if it had been the corpse of a Chakkavatti or universal monarch. It was wrapped in a new cloth (ahata vattha), and then in flocks of cotton (kappasa), alternately, until there were five hundred layers of each. It was then placed in an iron-coloured oil-trough, which was covered by another iron-coloured trough.4 [
The text here is:— ayasaya tela-doniya pakkhipitva annissa ayasaya doniya patikujjitva. For following the translator in rendering the apparently somewhat rare word patikujjetva, patikujjitva — (it is not given in Childers’ Pali Dictionary; but the translator has given us, p. 93, note 1, two other references for it, in the Jataka, 1. 50, 69)—by “having covered,’’ I find another authority in the Theragatha, verse 681:—“A puffed up, flighty friar, resorting to evil friends, sinks down with them in a great torrent,— ummiya patikujjito, covered, turned over, overwhelmed, by a wave.” And it appears that we have in Sanskrit nikubjana in the sense of ‘upsetting, turning over.’ So also Childers has given us, in Pali, nikujjita, with the variant nikkujjita, in the sense of ‘overturned, upside down,’ and nikhijjana, ‘reversal, upsetting.’ As regards the word ayasa, I suppose that it does represent the Sanskrit ayasa, from ayas, 'iron;’ in fact, it is difficult to see how it can be anything else. As to its meaning, Buddhaghosha’s assertion (see trans., 92, note 4) that ayasa (as he has it) was here used in the sense of ‘gold, golden,’ can hardly be accepted; but his comment is of use in indicating that he was not quite satisfied that the troughs were made of iron: he may have thought that, whereas iron troughs could not be burnt up or even melted, golden troughs might at least be melted. In following the understanding, when I previously had this passage under observation (note on page 160 above), that the troughs were made of iron, I felt the following difficulty:— The two iron troughs themselves cannot have been consumed; and how could any fire from the outside reach what was inside them?: and, even if the contents of the lower trough were set on fire before the covering trough was placed over it, still, how could they continue to burn without free access of air? But I did not then see any way out of the difficulty. It has been since then suggested to me that perhaps the troughs were made red-hot, and the corpse of Buddha was baked, not burnt; but there could hardly be accomplished in that way the complete destruction of everything except the bones. If, however, it was really intended to mark the troughs as made of iron, why were two separate words used— (at any rate where doni is not in composition with tela),— instead of the compound ayo-doni, just as we have in Sanskrit ayo-droni, ‘an iron trough’?; in such a trough, we are told (Divyavadana, 377), there was pounded to death, along with her child, a lady of the harem who had given offence to Asoka. Further, ayasa is distinctly used to mean, not ‘made of iron,’ but ‘of the colour of iron,’ in the Mahabharata, 5. 1709; there Sanatsujata tells Dhritarashtra that brahman, the self-existing impersonal spirit, may appear as either white, or red, or black, or iron-coloured (ayasa), or sun-coloured. And Robert Knox (loc. cit.; see note on page 660 above) has mentioned a custom of placing the corpse of a person of quality, for cremation, inside a tree cut down and hollowed out like a hog-trough. In these circumstances, I now take the text as indicating wooden troughs, which, naturally or as the result of being painted, were of the colour of iron; adding that an oil-trough seems to have been used as the lower receptacle because, being saturated with oil, it would be very inflammable. But, to make sure of understanding the whole passage correctly, we require to find a detailed description of the cremation of the corpse of a Chakkavatti.] And it was then placed on a funeral pile (chitaka) made of all sorts of odorous substances.
Four chief men of the Mallas (text, 257/163; trans., 128), who had washed their heads and clothed themselves in new clothes for the purpose, then sought to set the funeral pile on fire. But they could not do so; because, as was explained to them by the venerable Anuruddha, the intention of the gods was otherwise: namely, that the pile should not catch fire until homage should have been done at the feet of Buddha by the venerable Maha-Kassapa, who, travelling at that time from Pava to Kusinara with a great company of five hundred Bhikkhus, friars, had heard on the way, from an Ajivaka,1 [
A non-Buddhist religious mendicant; probably a worshipper of Vishnu (see, e.g., IA, 20. 361 f.).] the news of the death of Buddha, and was pushing on to Kusinara. In due course, Maha-Kassapa and the five hundred Bhikkhus arrived. And, when they had done homage at the feet of Buddha, the funeral pile caught fire of its own accord.
The corpse (sariram) of Buddha was then (text, 258/164; trans., 130) so thoroughly consumed, and, with it, every two cloths of the five hundred pairs of woven cloths (dussa) in which it had been swathed, that, just as when ghee1 [
The word is sappi, ‘ghee, clarified butter;’ not anything meaning ‘glue’’ as might be thought from the translation.] or oil is burnt, neither ashes nor soot could be detected, either of the cuticle, or of the skin, or of the flesh, or of the sinews, or of the lubricating fluid of the joints; only the bones (sarirani) were left.2 [
It may be useful to remark here that the tradition seems to have been as follows:— The following bones remained uninjured; the four canine teeth, the two collar-bones, and the unhisa, ushnisha, an excrescence from the cranium. The other bones were more or less injured by the fire, and were reduced to fragments, of which the smallest were of the size of a mustard-seed, the medium-sized were of the size of half a grain of rice, and the largest were of the size of half a mugga or kidney-bean. I take this from Turnour, JASB, 7, 1838. 1013, note. He apparently took it from Buddhaghosha’s commentary.] Then streams of water fell down from the sky, and extinguished the pyre. So, also, from “the storehouse of waters (beneath the earth)” streams of water arose, and extinguished the pyre. And the Mallas of Kusinara extinguished the pyre with water scented with perfumes of all kinds.3 [
To this apparent act of supererogation, attention has been drawn by the translator (130, note). As, however, Buddha had died and was cremated in their village-domain, the Mallas were entitled to take a part in quenching the funeral fire.]
Then, for seven days (text, 258/164; trans., 131), the Mallas of Kusinara guarded the bones, the corporeal relics (sarirani), of Buddha in their santhagara, their townhall, within a cage of spears with a rampart of bows; doing homage to them with dancing and songs and music, and with garlands and perfumes. Meanwhile, the news had spread abroad. So (text, 258/164; trans., 131), messengers arrived, from various people who claimed shares of the corporeal relics (sarirani), and promised to erect Thupas (Stupas, memorial mounds) and hold feasts in honour of them. Ajatasattu, king of Magadha, the Vedehiputta or son of a lady of the Videha people, sent a messenger, and claimed a share on the ground that both he and Buddha were Khattiyas, members of the warrior and regal caste.4 [
Fourteen days elapsed, and apparently no more, from the death of Buddha to the distribution of his relics. The distances over which, during the interval, the news had to travel and the claims to shares of the relics had to be transmitted in return, can hardly be estimated until we can arrive at some definite opinion as to the identification of Kusinara.] Shares were claimed on the same ground, and in the same way, by the Lichchhavis of Vesali, the Bulis of Allakappa, the Koliyas of Ramagama, and the Mallas of Pava. A share was claimed by the Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, on the ground:— Bhagava amhakam natisettho; “the Blessed One was our chief kinsman.” And a share was claimed by a Brahman (not named) of Vethadipa, on the ground that, as a Brahman, he was entitled to receive relics of a Khattiya.
At first (text, 259/166; trans., 133), the Mallas of Kusinara, addressing the messengers company by company and troop by troop,1 [
The text before this indicates only one messenger from each claimant. It here says:— Kosinaraka Malla te samghe gane etadzavochum. The translator has said:—“The Mallas of Kusinara spoke to the assembled brethren.” But I do not find any reason for rendering the words te samghe gane by “the assembled brethren.” We need not exactly go as far as Buddhaghosha does, in asserting that each claimant took the precaution, in case of a refusal, of following his messenger in person, with an army. We may, however, surmise that each messenger was, not merely a runner bearing a verbal demand or a letter, but a duly accredited envoy, of some rank, provided with an armed escort. ] refused to part with any of the relics; because Buddha had died in their gama-kkhetta, their village-domain. It was pointed out to them, however, by a Brahman named Dona, who addressed the parties company by company and troop by troop, that it was not seemly that any strife should arise over the relics, and that it was desirable that there should be Thupas far and wide, in order that many people might become believers. So, with their consent, thus obtained, he divided the corporeal relics (sarirani) into eight equal shares, fairly apportioned, and distributed them to the claimants. And he himself received the kumbha, the earthen jar in which the bones had been collected after the cremation.2 [
See note on page 160 above. One of the manuscripts used for the text in the Digha-Nikaya gives, instead of kumbha, both here and twice below, tumbha. This latter word is explained in Childers’ Pali Dictionary as meaning ‘ sort of water vessel with a spout.’] And to the Moriyas of Pipphalivana,— who, also, had claimed a share on the ground that, like Buddha, they were Khattiyas, but whose messenger had arrived too late, after the division of the relics,— there were given the extinguished embers (angara) of the fire.
Thus, then (text, 260/166; trans., 134), Ajatasattu, king of Magadha, made a Thupa over corporeal relics (sarirani) of Buddha, and held a feast, at Rajagaha. So did the Lichchhavis of Vesali, at Vesali. So did the Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, at Kapilavatthu. And so did the Bulis of Allakappa, at or in1 [
Here, and in two other cases, I have not been able to determine whether mention is made of a place or of a territory. ] Allakappa; the Kdoiyas of Ramagama, at Ramagama; the Brahman of Vethadipa, at or in Vethadipa; the Mallas of Pava, at Pava;2 [
Both here, and in the passage about the messengers, the Mallas of Pava stand last among the seven outside claimants who obtained shares of the corporeal relics. Of course, someone or other was bound to be mentioned last. But Buddhaghosha, taking things very literally, has made a comment to the following purport:—Considering that Pava was only three gavutas from Kusinara, and that Buddha had halted there on his way to Kusinara, how was it that the Mallas of Pava did not arrive first of all? Because they were princes who went about with a great retinue, and the assembling of their retinue delayed them. He has apparently not offered any explanation of a really practical point; namely, why the messenger of the Moriyas of Pipphalivana did not arrive in time to obtain a share of the corporeal relics for them.] and the Mallas of Kusinara, at Kusinara. And, at some unspecified place, the Brahman Dona made a Thupa over the kumbha, the earthen jar in which the bones had been collected after the cremation, and held a feast. And the Moriyas of Pipphalivana made a Thupa over the embers, and held a feast, at or in Pipphalivana.
Thus there were eight Thupas for the corporeal relics (attha sarira-thupa), and a ninth for the kumbha, the earthen jar, and a tenth for the embers. “That is how it happened in former times!”3 [
Buddhaghosha says, in his commentary, that this sentence:—evam etani bhuta-pubbam, was established by those people who made the third Samgiti (who held the third “Council”). Of course, from his point of view, which was that the Sutta was written at the time of the events narrated in it. But the sentence is, in reality, the natural, artistic complement of the opening words of the Sutta:— Evam me sutam; “thus have I heard!”]
Some verses standing at the end of the Sutta (text, 260/167; trans., 135) assert that the body (sariram) of Buddha measured (in relics) eight measures of the kind called dona;1[
The word dona, drona, has sometimes been translated by ‘bushel.’ But, even if there is an approximation between the two measures, there are difficulties in the way of employing European words as exact equivalents of Indian technical terms; see, for instance, a note on the rendering of one of Hiuen Tsiang’s statements further on.] and they say that, of these, seven donas receive honour in Jambudipa, India, and one from the kings of the Nagas, the serpent-demons, at Ramagama.2 [
This statement seems calculated to locate Ramagama outside the limits of Jambudipa; unless we may place it, with the usual abodes of the Nagas, below the earth. ] They further say that one tooth is worshipped in heaven, and one is honoured in the town of Gandhara, and one in the dominions of the king of Kalinga, and one by the Naga kings.3 [
For a statement of belief, apparently not very early, regarding the localities of deposit of various personal relics of Buddha, see the Buddhavamsa, ed. Morris, section 28. According to that work, the alms-bowl, staff, and robe of Buddha were at Vajira. And in this place we recognize the origin of the name of the Vajiriya, the members of one of the schismatic Buddhist schools which arose after the second century after the death of Buddha; see the Mahavamsa, Turnour, p. 21, as corrected by Wijesinha, p. 15. Amongst the Jains, there was a sect the name of which we have, in epigraphic records, in the Prakrit or mixed-dialect forms of Vaira Sakha (EI, 1. 385, No. 7; 392, No. 22; 2. 204, No. 20; 321); Vera or Vaira Sakha (EI, 2. 203, No. 18); Vairi Sakha (VOR, l. 174); Arya-Veri Sakha (EI, 2. 202, No. 15); and the Sakha of the Arya-Veriyas (EI, 1. 386, No. 8): and, in literature, in the Prakrit forms of Vairi or Vayari, and Ajja-Vaira Sakha (Kalpasutra, ed. Jacobi, 82), with the concomitant mention, evidently as the alleged founder of it, of a teacher named Ajja-Vaira, Vayara, or Vera (id., 78, 82). May we not find the origin of the name of this sect in the same place-name, rather than in a teacher Vajra, in connexion with whom the sect is mentioned, by a Sanskrit name, as the Vajra-Sakha (EI, 2. 51, verse 5)? ]
Buddhaghosha says, in his commentary, that these verses were uttered by Theras, Elders, of the island Tambapanni, Ceylon.4 [
According to his text, as I have it, he does not say that they were “added by Theras in Ceylon” (trans., 135, note).] And they seem to have been framed after the time when there had been devised the story (which we shall meet with further on, first under the Dipavamsa) to the effect that the god Indra, while retaining the right tooth of Buddha, gave up the right collar-bone to be enshrined in Ceylon. Otherwise, surely, the verses would have mentioned the right collar-bone, also, as being worshipped in heaven? On the other hand, they must have been framed before the time when the tooth-relic was transferred from Kalinga to Ceylon; that was done, according to the Mahavamsa (Turnour, 241; Wijesinha, 154), in the ninth year of king Siri-Meghavanna of Ceylon.
They are, however, useful in helping to explain an expression, drona-stupa, a Stupa containing a drona of relics, which is applied, in the story which we shall take from the Divyavadana, to the Stupa of Ajatasatru at Rajagriha. As has been remarked long ago, the idea that each of the eight original Stupas contained a dona, a drona, of relics, of course had its origin in a dim reminiscence of the part played by the Brahman Dona, Drona; to whom, by the way, some of the later traditions, reported by Buddhaghosha and Hiuen Tsiang, impute disreputable behaviour, with a view to securing some of the corporeal relics, in addition to the kumbha.
*****
Some remarks must be made here regarding the probable date and the value of the preceding narrative.
Reasons have been advanced by the translator of the Mahaparinibanna-Sutta for holding (trans., introd., 13) that the work cannot well have been composed very much later than the fourth century B.C. And , in the other direction, he has claimed (this Journal, 1901. 397) that substantially, as to not only ideas but also words, it can be dated approximately in the fifth century. That would tend to place the composition of its narrative within eight decades after the death of Buddha, for which event B.C. 482 seems to me the most probable and satisfactory date that we are likely to obtain. In view, however, of a certain prophecy which is placed by the Sutta in the mouth of Buddha, it does not appear likely that the work can be referred to quite so early a time as that.
In the course of his last journey, Buddha came to the village Pataligama (text, 60/84; trans., 15). At that time, we know from the commencement of the work, there was war, or a prospect of war, between Ajatasatta, king of Magadha, and the Vajji people. And, when Buddha was on this occasion at Pataligama, Sunidha and Vassakara, the Mahamattas or high ministers for Magadha, were laying out a regular city (nagara) at Pataligama, in order to ward off the Vajjis [NO CITATION!] (text, 62/86; trans., 18.)1 [
Compare the story about the founding of Rajagriha which we shall meet with further on, under Hiuen Tsiang.] The place was haunted by many thousands of “fairies” (devata), who inhabited the plots of ground there. And it was by that spiritual influence that Sunidha and Vassakara had been led to select the site for the foundation of a city; the text says (trans., 18): “Wherever ground is so occupied by powerful fairies, they bend the hearts of the most powerful kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there, and fairies of middling and inferior power bend in a similar way the hearts of middling or inferior kings and ministers.” Buddha with his supernatural clear sight beheld the fairies. And, remarking to his companion, the venerable Ananda, that Sunidha and Vassakara were acting just as if they had taken counsel with the Tavatimsa “angels” (deva), he said (text, 63/87; trans., 18): -- “Inasmuch, O Ananda!, as it is an honourable place as well as a resort of merchants, this shall become a leading city (agga-nagara), Pataliputta (by name), a (?) great trading centre (putabhedana); but, O Ananda!, (one of) three dangers will befall Pataliputta, either from fire, or from water, or from dissension.” 2 [
From the use of the particle va, ‘or,’ three times, the meaning seems clearly to be that only one of the three dangers should actually happen to the city. For the danger from fire, compare the story about Girivraja, under Hiuen Tsiang.]
Unless this passage is an interpolation, which does not seem probable, the work cannot have been composed until after the prophecy had been so far fulfilled that the village Pataligrama had become the leading city, the capital Pataliputra.
Now, Hiuen Tsiang, in the account given by him under Rajagriha, has reported that a king Asoka, who, so far, might or might not be the promulgator of the well-known edicts, transferred his court to Pataliputra from Rajagriha; that is, that he, for the first time, made Pataliputra the capital. And, from the way in which mention is made of Pataliputta in the Girnar version of the fifth rock-edict (EI, 2. 453, line 7), we know that Pataliputra was certainly the capital of the promulgator of the edicts, Asoka the Maurya, who was anointed to the sovereignty in B.C. 264, when 218 years had elapsed after the death of Buddha.
But we know from Megasthenes, through Strabo.1 [
See McCrindle in IA, 6.131, and Ancient India, 12 i.] that Pataliputra was the capital of also Chandragupta, the grandfather of the Asoka who promulgated the edicts. In his account of Pataliputra itself, Hiuen Tsiang has said, more specifically,2 [
Julien, Memoires, 1. 414; Beal, Records, 2. 85; Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 2. 88. As a matter of fact, not even Kalasoka the Saisunaga was a great-grandson of Bimbisara. But this point is not a material one. Except perhaps in the passage mentioned just above, from the account given by Hiuen Tsiang under Rajagriha, where Julien has left the point undertermined, and except in the present passage, Hiuen Tsiang has, in the passages which I am using on this occasion, denoted his Asoka by the Chinese translation of the name, meaning (like the Indian name itself) ‘sorrowless,’ which has been transcribed by Julien as Wou-yeou, by Beal as Wu-yau, and by Watters as A-yu. It was A-yu who visited Ramagrama, and who opened the Stupas at Vaisali and Rajagriha and that in the Chan-chu kingdom over the earthen jar. Here, however, Hiuen Tsiang has denoted his Asoka by the Chinese transliteration of the name, which has been transcribed by Julien as ‘O-chou-kia, by Beal as ‘O-shu-kia, and by Watters as A-shu-ka. This detail is noteworthy: because Hiuen Tsiang has said in the immediately preceding sentence that it was A-yu who made the “hell” at Pataliputra; and, even closelyi after introducing the name A-shu-ka here, he has reverted to the other, and has said again that A-yu made the “hell” (Julien, ibid.) and that A-yu destroyed it (418), and also that it was A-yu who built one, or the first, of the 84,000 Stupas (417 f.). For reasons, however, which may be stated on another occasion, it cannot be said for certain from this passage that the king Asoka who made Pataliputra the capital was, at that place, expressly identified to Hiuen Tsiang as being not the Asoka who made the hell, opened the original Stupas, built 84,000 other ones, etc.] that in the first century, or in the year 100, after the death of Buddha, there was a king Asoka (A-shu-ka), a great-grandson of Bimbisara; and that he left Rajagriha, and transferred his court to Patali(putra), and caused a second wall to be made round the ancient town. And the Dipavamsa, in its first reference to Pataliputta, mentions it (5.26) as the capital of that Asoka, Kalasoka, son of Susunaga, who began to reign ninety years after the death of Buddha; mentioning, on the other hand, (3.52) Rajagaha (but ? rather Giribbaja) as the capital of Bodhisa (for Bhatiya) the father of Bimbisara.
Tradition thus seems to indicate, plainly enough, that it was by Kalasoka, who reigned for twenty-eight years,1 [
So Buddhaghosha, in the introduction to his Samantapasadika; see the Vinayupitaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 321. So also the Mahavamsa, 15, line 7. Buddhaghosha has mentioned him as simply Asoka in that place, but as Kalasoka in passages on pages 293, 320.] B.C. 392-365, that Pataliputra was made the capital, and to make it practically certain that the Mahaparinibbana-Sutta cannot have been composed before about B.C. 375.
The Sutta may really have been written then. Or it may be of later origin; how much so, we cannot at present say.2 [
The following suggests itself as a point that should be considered in any full inquiry. Does the appellation of the work really mean, as has been understood, “the book of the great decease”? If so, when did the terms mahabhinikkhamana, ‘the great going forth from worldly life,’ and mahaparinibbana, ‘the great decease,’ applied to those events in the case of Buddha as against nikkhamana and parinibbana in the case of ordinary people, first become established? Or does the appellation indicate only “the great(er) book of the decease,” as contrasted with some earlier and smaller work of the same kind?] But it is certainly a very ancient work. The narrative presented all through it is so simple and dignified, and for the most part so free from miraculous interventions – (these occur chiefly, and not unnaturally so, in connexion with the death and cremation of Buddha) – and from extravagances of myth and absurdities of doctrine and practice, that it commands respect and belief. And so, in spite of the way in which (we know) history in India was liable to be somewhat quickly overlaid with imaginative and mythical details, I see no reason for regarding as otherwise than authentic the main facts asserted in the Sutta, including those attending the original disposal of the corporeal relics of Buddha.
It follows that we may at least believe that, over the eight portions of the corporeal relics of Buddha, Stupas were erected—
(1) At Rajagriha, by Ajatasatru king of Magadha.
(2) At Vaisali, by the Lichchhavis.
(3) At Kapilavastu, by the Sakyas.
(4) At or in Allakappa, by the Buli people.
(5) At Ramagrama, by the Koliyas.
(6) At or in Vethadipa, by an unnamed Brahman of that place or territory.
(7) At Pava, by a branch of the Mallas.
(8) At Kusinagara, by another branch of the Mallas.
Further, there were erected Stupas—
(9) At some unstated place, by the Brahman Drona, over the kumbha, the earthen jar in which the bones of Buddha had been collected.
(10) At Pippalivana, by the Mauryas, over the extinguished embers of the funeral pile.