Search This Blog

Showing posts with label ancient indian history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ancient indian history. Show all posts

May 21, 2011

Chandragupta Maurya


Related Articles:

The Religion of Mauryan Emperors

Sandrocottus: Chandragupta of the Greeks

Emperor Chandragupta Maurya: a Royal Ascetic

Chandragupta Maurya
(Sanskrit: चन्द्रगुप्त मौर्य), (born c. 340 BCE, ruled c. 320 BCE,[1] – 298 BCE[2]) was the founder of the Maurya Empire. Chandragupta succeeded in conquering most of the Indian subcontinent. According to some ancient Buddhist texts, he claims descent from the Shakya rulers of solar race. Buddhist texts describes about his lineage with the "Moriya" clan of Shakya rulers hence he was the scion of the solar race of Kshatriya's. Having defeated the Greek satrap in the Khyber mountains around 303 BCE, Chandragupta was crowned King at Taxila. As a result, Chandragupta is considered the first unifier of India and its first genuine emperor.[3] In foreign Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known as Sandrokyptos (Σανδρόκυπτος), Sandrokottos (Σανδρόκοττος) or Androcottus.[4]

Prior to Chandragupta's consolidation of power, small regional kingdoms dominated the northwestern subcontinent, while the Nanda Dynasty dominated the middle and lower basin of the Ganges.[5] After Chandragupta's conquests, the Maurya Empire extended from Bengal and Assam[6] in the east, to Afghanistan and Balochistan in the west, to Kashmir and Nepal[7] in the north, and to the Deccan Plateau in the south.[8]

His achievements, which ranged from conquering Macedonian satrapies in the northwest and conquering the Nanda Empire by the time he was only about 20 years old, to achieving an alliance with Seleucus I Nicator and establishing centralized rule throughout South Asia, remain some of the most celebrated in the history of India. Over two thousand years later, the accomplishments of Chandragupta and his successors, including Ashoka the Great, are objects of great study in the annals of South Asian and world history.

Origins
Little, if anything, is known for certain about Chandragupta Maurya's origins. Many Indian historians held the view that Chandragupta was an illegitimate child of the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India, born to a Nanda prince and a maid named "Mura",[9][10] later literary traditions imply that Chandragupta may have been raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshaka), which earned him the Maurya epithet.

Both the Buddhist as well as Jain traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock).[11] .This literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana ("Piparahiyan" in modern day in Gorakhpur) located between Rummindei in the Nepali Terai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh.

A kshatriya people known as the "Mauryas" who had received the relics of the Gautama Buddha are also mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya: "Then the Moriyas of Pipphalivana came to know that at Kusinara (known as KushiNagar as a district of Uttar Pradesh near Gorakhpur) the Blessed One had died. And they sent a message to the Mallas of Kusinara, saying: "The Blessed One was of the warrior caste, and we are too. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. We will erect a stupa over the relics of the Blessed One and hold a festival in their honor.

The Buddhist text of the Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a section of the Khattya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas (Mauryas) belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta has come from a Kshatriya lineage. The Mahavamshatika connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e. solar race.

A medieval inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas. It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race .

“ The first statue installed in the courtyard opposite Gate No. 5 of Parliament House, is of the great Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya It is incribed on it that "Shepherd Boy Chandragupta Maurya dreaming of the India he was to create".

Historically, founder of the Mauryan dynasty Chandragupta Maurya was a (Shepherd) boy who with the help of the Brahmin Chanakya revolted against the atrocities of the Nanda kings and established the Mauryan Empire.

Early Life
Very little is known about Chandragupta's youth. what is known about his youth is gathered from later classical Sanskrit literature, as well as classical Greek and Latin sources which refer to Chandragupta by the names "Sandracottos" or "Andracottus". He was paragon for later rulers.

According to traditional accounts, Chanakya, a teacher at Takshasila University at the time of Alexander's invasion, found the boy Chandragupta from the Magadha kingdom in eastern India. As the story goes, Chandragupta was playing as a king with his friends and was giving justice to another boy playing criminal. He also saw the kindness inside him to help others. Chanakya saw this and was impressed with Chandragupta's sense of justice. Chanakya asked his mother about him. His mother told him that his father, Dhamashah used to work as a servant of the Nanda king who ruled over the kingdom of Maghada and due to some fault he was sent into the prison. Chanakya told her to take him to the king and ask him to give some education to Chandragupta. Then she went to his court. There Chandragupta solved a problem for the king. The king was impressed and told his minister to join him in the best university at that time, The Vishvavidhyalay of Takshasila[often known as the Takshasila University][9]

Plutarch reports that he met with Alexander the Great, probably around Takshasila in the northwest, and that he viewed the ruling Nanda Empire in a negative light:

“ "Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." ”
—Plutarch, Parallel Lives: Life of Alexander 62.9


By this statement, it shows the noble or high origin of Chandragupta Maurya .

According to this tradition, the encounter would have happened around 326 BCE, suggesting a birth date for Chandragupta around 340 BCE.

Junianus Justinus (Justin) describes the humble origins of Chandragupta, and explains how he later led a popular uprising against the Nanda king:he was known as king of the time.

“ "He was of humble origin, but was pushing to acquiring the throne by the superior power of the mind. When after having offended the king of Nanda by his insolence, he was condemned to death by the king, he was saved by the speed of his own feet... He gathered bandits and invited Indians to a change of rule." ”
—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15

Foundation of Mauryan Empire
Chandragupta Maurya with the help of Chanakya defeated the Magadha kings and the bulk army of Chandravanshi clan and defeated generals of Alexander settled in Gandhara (Kamboja kingdom of Aryan Mahajanpad) which is called as Afghanistan now. At the time of Alexander's invasion, Chanakya was a teacher at Takshasila University. The king of Takshasila and Gandhara, Ambhi (also known as Taxiles), made a treaty with Alexander and did not fight against him. Chanakya saw the foreign invasion against the Indian culture and sought help from other kings to unite and fight Alexander. Porus (Parvateshwar), a king of Punjab, was the only local king who was able to challenge Alexander at the Battle of the Hydaspes River, but was defeated.

Chanakya then went to Magadha further east to seek the help of Dhana Nanda, who ruled a vast Nanda Empire which extended from Bihar and Bengal in the east to eastern Punjab in the west,[12] but he denied any such help. After this incident, Chanakya began sowing the seeds of building an empire that could protect Indian territories from foreign invasion into his disciple Chandragupta.

Kautilya's role in the formation of the Mauryan Empire is the essence of a historical/spiritual novel The Courtesan and the Sadhu by Dr. Mysore N. Prakash.[13]

Nanda Army
According to Plutarch, at the time of Alexander's Battle of the Hydaspes River, the size of the Nanda Empire's army further east numbered 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants, which was discouraging for Alexander's men and stayed their further progress into India:

“ "As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India." ”
—Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Life of Alexander" 62.1-4


In order to defeat the powerful Nanda army, Chandragupta needed to raise a formidable army of his own.[12]

Conquest of Nanda Army
Chanakya had trained Chandragupta under his guidance and together they planned the destruction of Dhana Nanda. The Mudrarakshasa of Visakhadutta as well as the Jaina work Parisishtaparvan talk of Chandragupta's alliance with the Himalayan king Parvatka, sometimes identified with Porus.[16]

It is noted in the Chandraguptakatha that the protagonist and Chanakya were initially rebuffed by the Nanda forces. Regardless, in the ensuing war, Chandragupta faced off against Bhadrasala – commander of Dhana Nanda's armies. He was eventually able to defeat Bhadrasala and Dhana Nanda in a series of battles, ending with the siege of the capital city Kusumapura[12] and the conquest of the Nanda Empire around 321 BCE,[12] thus founding the powerful Maurya Empire in Northern India by the time he was about 20 years old.

Conquest of Macedonian territories in India
After Alexander's death in 323 BCE, Chandragupta, turned his attention to Northwestern India (modern Pakistan), where he defeated the satrapies (described as "prefects" in classical Western sources) left in place by Alexander (according to Justin), and may have assassinated two of his governors, Nicanor and Philip.[disambiguation needed][3][12] The satrapies he fought may have included Eudemus, ruler in western Punjab until his departure in 317 BCE; and Peithon, son of Agenor, ruler of the Greek colonies along the Indus until his departure for Babylon in 316 BCE. The Roman historian Justin described how Sandrocottus (Greek version of Chandragupta's name) conquered the northwest:

“ "Some time after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord, and, as if tamed down to gentleness, took him on its back, and became his guide in the war, and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India, when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness; who, after making a league with him, and settling his affairs in the east, proceeded to join in the war against Antigonus. As soon as the forces, therefore, of all the confederates were united, a battle was fought, in which Antigonus was slain, and his son Demetrius put to flight. " ”
—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.19

Expansion
By the time he was only about 20 years old, Chandragupta, who had succeeded in defeating the Macedonian satrapies in India and conquering the Nanda Empire, had founded a vast empire that extended from the Bay of Bengal in the east, to the Indus River in the west, which he would further expand in later years.

Conquest of Seleucus' eastern territories
Silver coin of Seleucus I Nicator, who fought Chandragupta Maurya, and later made an alliance with him.
Chandragupta extended the borders of his empire towards Seleucid Persia after his conflict with Seleucus c. 305 BCE.Seleucus I Nicator, a Macedonian satrap of Alexander, reconquered most of Alexander's former empire and put under his own authority eastern territories as far as Bactria and the Indus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55), until in 305 BCE he entered in a confrontation with Chandragupta:

“ "Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, 'Seleucid' Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus. He crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. Some of these exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterward." ”
—Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55


The exact details of engagement are not known. As noted by scholars such as R. C. Majumdar[9] and D. D. Kosambi, Seleucus appears to have fared poorly, having ceded large territories west of the Indus to Chandragupta. Due to his defeat, Seleucus surrendered Arachosia, Gedrosia, Paropamisadae, and Aria.

Mainstream scholarship asserts that Chandragupta received vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, and the Balochistan province of Pakistan.[17][18] Archaeologically, concrete indications of Mauryan rule, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka, are known as far as Kandhahar in southern Afghanistan.

“ "After having made a treaty with him (Sandrakotos) and put in order the Orient situation, Seleucos went to war against Antigonus." ”
—Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15


It is generally thought that Chandragupta married Seleucus's daughter, or a Greek Macedonian princess, a gift from Seleucus to formalize an alliance. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war-elephants,[9][19][20][21][22][23] a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 302 BCE. In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to Chandragupta, and later Deimakos to his son Bindusara, at the Mauryan court at Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar state). Later Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt and contemporary of Ashoka the Great, is also recorded by Pliny the Elder as having sent an ambassador named Dionysius to the Mauryan court.[24]

Classical sources have also recorded that following their treaty, Chandragupta and Seleucus exchanged presents, such as when Chandragupta sent various aphrodisiacs to Seleucus:

“ "And Theophrastus says that some contrivances are of wondrous efficacy in such matters [as to make people more amorous]. And Phylarchus confirms him, by reference to some of the presents which Sandrakottus, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleucus; which were to act like charms in producing a wonderful degree of affection, while some, on the contrary, were to banish love." ”
—Athenaeus of Naucratis

Southern conquests
After annexing Seleucus' eastern Persian provinces, Chandragupta had a vast empire extending across the northern parts of Indian Sub-continent, from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Chandragupta then began expanding his empire further south beyond the barrier of the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau except Tamil Country,Kalinga(modern day Orissa).[12] By the time his conquests were complete, Chandragupta succeeded in unifying most of Southern Asia. Megasthenes later recorded the size of Chandragupta's acquired army as 400,000 soldiers, according to Strabo:

“ "Megasthenes was in the camp of Sandrocottus, which consisted of 400,000 men" ”
—Strabo, Geographica, 15.1.53


On the other hand, Pliny, who also drew from Megasthenes' work, gives even larger numbers of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants:

“ "But the Prasii surpass in power and glory every other people, not only in this quarter, but one may say in all India, their capital Palibothra, a very large and wealthy city, after which some call the people itself the Palibothri,--nay even the whole tract along the Ganges. Their king has in his pay a standing army of 600,000-foot-soldiers, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 elephants: whence may be formed some conjecture as to the vastness of his resources." ”
—Pliny, Natural History VI, 22.4

Jainism

Chandragupta gave up his throne towards the end of his life and became an ascetic under the Jain saint Bhadrabahu, migrating south with them and ending his days in sallekhana at Shravanabelagola, in present day Karnataka; though fifth-century inscriptions in the area support the concept of a larger southern migration around that time.[25] A small temple marks the cave (Bhadrabahu Cave) where he is said to have died by fasting.


Footprints of Chandragupta at Shravanbelagola


There are two hills in Shravanabelagola, Chandragiri (Chikkabetta) and Vindyagiri. The last shruta-kevali, Bhadrabahu Swami, and his pupil, Chandragupta Maurya (formerly the King), are believed to have meditated here. Chandragupta Basadi, which was dedicated to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, was originally built there by Emperor Ashoka in the third century BC.

Successors
Chandragupta Maurya renounced his throne to his son, Bindusara, who became the new Mauryan Emperor. Bindusara later became the father of Ashoka the Great, who was one of the most influential kings in history due to his important role in the history of Buddhism. Ashoka the Great left his life of war to study the art of Buddhism. Ashok's grandson Samprati ruled from Ujaain. He was staunch supporter of Jainism and helped the Jain monks to spread Jainism all over India under guidence of his teacher Acharya Suhasti.

References
1 Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998) [1986]. A History of India (Third ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 59. ISBN 0-415-15481-2.
2 Kulke and Rothermund 1998:62
3 a b Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718.
4 William Smith (ed), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870, Vol 3 p. 705-6
5 Shastri, Nilakantha (1967). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 26. ISBN 81-208-0465-1.
6 Bruce Vaughn (2004). "Indian Geopolitics, the United States and Evolving Correlates of Power in Asia", Geopolitics 9 (2), pp. 440-459 [442]
7 H. Goetz (1955). "Early Indian Sculptures from Nepal", Artibus Asiae 18 (1), p. 61-74.
8 The Span of the Mauryan Empire, Kamat's Potpurri, accessed 9 September 2007
9 a b c d Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1977). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 8120804368.
10 Biographies: Chandragupta Maurya
11 Parisishtaparvan, p 56, VIII239f
12 a b c d e f Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 [1966]), pp. 31, 28–33.
13 The Courtesan and the Sadhu, A Novel about Maya, Dharma, and God, October 2008, Dharma Vision LLC., ISBN 978-0-9818237-0-6, Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934274
14 Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718. "Kautilya [is] sometimes called a Chancellor or Prime Minister to Chandragupta, something like a Bismarck..."
15 Trautmann, Thomas R. (1971). "The Cāṇakya-Candragupta-Kathā". Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A Statistical Investigation of the Authorship and Evolution of the Text. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
16 John Marshall Taxila, p. 18, and al.
17 Vincent A. Smith (1998). Asoka. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 8120613031.
18 Walter Eugene Clark (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology", Classical Philology 14 (4), p. 297-313.
19 Ancient India, (Kachroo ,p.196)
20 The Imperial Gazetteer of India‎, (Hunter,p.167)
21 The evolution of man and society‎, (Darlington ,p.223)
22 W. W. Tarn (1940). "Two Notes on Seleucid History: 1. Seleucus' 500 Elephants, 2. Tarmita", The Journal of Hellenic Studies 60, p. 84-94.
23 Partha Sarathi Bose (2003). Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy. Gotham Books. ISBN 1592400531.
24 Pliny the Elder, "The Natural History", Chap. 21
25 Digambaras, Overview of World Religions, accessed 9 September 2007




More on Chandragupta Maurya

The Religion of Mauryan Emperors

Sandrocottus: Chandragupta of the Greeks

Emperor Chandragupta Maurya: a Royal Ascetic

Oct 28, 2010

Mahavira and the Buddha

By A. Berriedale Keith
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies
1932.09, pp. 859-866




p. 859

           In  a  very  interesting  article, (l)  Professor
       Jacobi has arrived  at the conclusion  that, contrary
       to the Buddhist tradition, we must hold that Mahavira
       outlived the Buddha, probably by some seven years. In
       point  of fact, of course, it may seem of very little
       consequence  whether  we accept  this view or that of
       Buddhist  tradition, but  the issue  involves  a very
       important   question  affecting   the  value  of  our
       authorities, and on this point  it seems  to me clear
       that  the  position   adopted  by  Professor   Jacobi
       involves serious difficulties.

           Professor    Jacobi   treats   as   the   assured
       foundations  for his investigations  the dates of the
       Nirvanas  of the Buddha  and of Mahavira, as 484  and
       477 B.C.  But it must  be admitted  that  both  these
       dates rest on very unsatisfactory  and late evidence.
       The question  of the date of the Buddha  has been set
       out, with his usual acumen and precision, recently by
       Professor  de La Vallee  Poussin,(2) and he has shown
       how utterly uncertain is the date 483 or 484 B.C. for
       the Nirvana.  From a very different point of view the
       late Professor Rhys Davids confessed(3) that the date
       was purely conjectural.  We may readily  believe that
       the Buddha died sometime  in the fifth century  B.C.,
       but to lay any stress on the exact date is completely
       impossible  with  the  evidence  available.  What  is
       perfectly clear is that knowledge of the early period
       of Buddhism  was imperfect,(4)  and  the same  remark
       applies  even more  strikingly  to the traditions  of
       Jainism.   In  the  case  of  Mahavira   the  earlier
       tradition--of uncertain date--is emphatic in allowing
       470 years between  his Nirvana  and the beginning  of
       the Vikrama  era, which places the date in 528 or 527
       B.C.  The  later  tradition,  given  in  Hemacandra's
       Paricistaparvan, viii, 339, and somewhat  earlier  in
       Bhadrecvara's  Kahavali, ascribes  155  years  as the
       period   between   the   death   of   Mahavira    and
       Candragupta's  accession  to the  throne  of Magadha,
       which  gives  477  B.C.   as  the  probable  date  of
       Mahavira's  death.  Here  again  we  are  on  utterly
       uncertain ground. We are obliged to treat the earlier
       Jain tradition as of minimal value
       ______________________

       1. SBA. 1930, pp. 557-68.
       2. Indo-europeens et Indo-iraniens, pp.238--48; L'Inde
          aux Temp des Mauryas, p.50
       3. CHI. i, pp. 171, 172.
       4. Keith, Buddhist Philosophy, chap. i.

                              p. 860

       and there seems every  ground  for so doing;  but the
       tradition accepted by Hemacandra  rests equally on no
       assured  foundation.  The  only  possible  conclusion
       regarding  it is that  it cannot  be  trusted  to  be
       accurate  within  a few  years, and  it seems  wholly
       impossible  to base on two dates so acquired the view
       that  we must believe  that  the Buddha.  predeceased
       Mahavira. Nor is it irrelevant to note that Professor
       Jacobi(1)  himself  has  adopted  slightly  different
       dates,   namely   477   and   467   B.C.   in   other
       contributions; but what is more important is that the
       Jaina tradition  contains one certain error which, if
       rectified, destroys  the value  of its testimony  for
       477 B.C.  By that tradition, apparently  accepted  by
       Hemacandra  as well as the rest  of Jain opinion, the
       date of the accession of Candragupta is placed at 255
       years  before  the  Vikrama  era, i.e., in 313 or 312
       B.C. This date is obviously too late; if we take 322,
       as does Professor  Jacobi, as a probable date(2) then
       we must admit a clear error in the Jain tradition  of
       about  ten  years   in  respect   of  this  interval;
       admitting   a  like  error   regarding   the  earlier
       interval, that between  the accession  of Candragupta
       and  the death  of Mahavira, we would  arrive  at 487
       B.C.  for the death  of the  latter, and  this  would
       place that event before  the death of the Buddha, and
       confirm  the Buddhist  tradition.  This shows clearly
       with  what  inadequate  data  we have  to reckon, and
       leaves the conviction  that the supposed dates of the
       deaths of the two great teachers are of too uncertain
       character to afford_any conclusion as to the priority
       of these events.

           On the other hand, we have the clear and distinct
       tradition  of the Buddhist  Canon which asserts  that
       Mahavira, died  before  the Buddha  and does  so, not
       incidentally, but as giving  rise  to allocutions  of
       the  Master  regarding  the tenets  of his  teaching,
       recorded in the Pasadika Suttanta of the Digha Nikaya
       and the Samagama Suttanta of the Majjhima Nikaya, and
       of Sariputta, at the  Master's  bidding, in the  this
       definite  tradition  recorded in canonical  texts?(3)
       That these texts  belong  to the  Period immediately
       after the death of the Buddha.  I confess I do not
       believe, but  they  far  outrank  in age the tradi-
       tions  of the dates of the deaths  of the Buddha and
       Mahavira, and give us
       ______________________

       1. Introduction to Kalpa Sutra, p. 9; Introduction to
          Paricistaparvan, p.6.
       2. In CHI. i, pp. 471-3, 321 is suggested as plausible.
          For other dates see L. de La Vallee Poussin, L'Inde
          aux Temps des mauryas, pp. 51, 52.
       3. The Upali Suttanta clearly asserts an illness, if
          not the death, of Mahavira; Chalmers SBB. v, p. 278,
          n.2.

                              p. 861

       authentic  views  of  the  belief  held  in  Buddhist
       circles  at  some  period  considerably   before  the
       Christian era.  If we are to discredit their account,
       we must be prepared to accept the consequences, which
       involve acceptance of a scepticism as to the value of
       the Buddhist and Indian traditions  in general, which
       is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  faith  placed  by
       Professor  Jacobi in the tradition as to the dates of
       the Nirvanasa or his acceptance  of the view that the
       Kautill;ya  Arthacastra  is the work of a minister of
       the  Emperor  Candragupta.  If we are  on any logical
       ground  to  discredit  the  Buddhist  tradition, very
       strong  arguments  are necessary, and  those  adduced
       seem quite inadequate.

           It  is contended  by Professor  Jacobi  that  the
       evidence of the three Suttantas  is destroyed  by the
       fact that, while all agree in making the occasion  of
       Mahavira's   death  and  consequent   unrest  in  his
       community  the  cause  of the  dissertations  on  the
       Buddhist  tenets,  the  divergence  of  the  form  of
       argument  in the three  Suttas  shows  that  cannot
       represent what the Buddha actually said. This may, of
       course, be conceded  at once by those  who believe(1)
       that we have little or nothing of the ipsissima verba
       of the Master.  The view which seems natural  is that
       the Buddhists  believed that there was difficulty  in
       the Jain community  on the death of their leader, and
       that  this  took  place  before  the Buddha's  death,
       eliciting  from him comments, which were probably not
       preserved  in any authentic form, leaving it open for
       the  composers   of  the  Suttantas  to  present  the
       teachings each in his own way. The essential point is
       really that different  Buddhist authors held the same
       tradition, which  shows  that it was a belief  handed
       down  by tradition  and  widely  spread  in  Buddhist
       circles.

           In the second place, Professor Jacobi argues that
       the account in these Suttantas is contradicted by the
       account  in the Mahaparinibbana  Suttanta, the oldest
       account of the proceedings  of the Buddha's last year
       up to his Nirvana.  This text  does not refer  to any
       special  anxiety  of the Buddha as to the fate of his
       community  after his death as having been elicited by
       the  report  of the dissensions  in the community  of
       Mahavira, whence it is deduced  that this report is a
       later invention.  But this reasoning rests on several
       unproved  assumptions.  (1) That  the Mahaparinibbana
       Suttanta  is older than the other three Suttantas  is
       assumed without any arguments  being adduced, and its
       age certainly is far from obvious. On the contrary,
       ______________________

       1. See Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur,
          ii, pp. 360 f.

                              p. 862

       it appears  to be a very sophisticated  and worked up
       account  of the last days  of the Buddha, and in fact
       it is not open to Professor Jacobi to contend for its
       early date.  He himself  shortly  afterwards  (p.562)
       refers to the account given in that text of the plans
       of Ajatacatru  for the  subjection  of the Vrjis, and
       points  out that  the undertaking  was one  demanding
       careful   planning.   He  adds:  "Uber  die  von  ihm
       getroffenen  Massnahmen  enthalt das M.P.S.  Angaben,
       die aber in viel spaterer  Zeit entstanden  und darum
       so gut wie wertlos  sind."  Very  probably  Professor
       Jacobi's  view of the statements  of the Suttanta  is
       correct; but it is quite impossible to hold this view
       of it, and then  to ask us to accept  the silence  of
       the Suttanta  as entitling  us to negate the evidence
       of three Suttantas, two of which at least may well be
       older   than   the  Mahaparinibbana   Suttanta.   (2)
       Moreover, the argument is essentially one ex silentio
       and there is no form of contention more dangerous. It
       would  be necessary, in order  to give  it weight, to
       show that the omission of the episode of the Buddha's
       views on hearing of Mahavira's death is inexplicable,
       if its occurrence  were widely  believed  in Buddhist
       circles.   No  such   proof,  however,  is  possible.
       Professor  Jacobi's  view  appears  to  be  that  the
       episode of the hearing of the death of Mahavira  took
       place during the last journey  of the Buddha en route
       to Kusinara, and that, therefore, any full account of
       his last days must necessarily include the episode in
       question.  If this view  were sound, there  might  be
       something  to  say  for  his  contention, though  the
       argument  would  be far from  conclusive.  But  there
       seems no ground whatever to assume that the Buddhists
       thought that the news of Mahavira's death came to the
       Buddha just before his own

           The Samagama Suttanta has nothing to suggest such
       a conclusion.  On  the  contrary  the  Buddha  is  at
       Samagama  when he hears  of the death of Mahavira  at
       Pava,(l) and equally  in the other two Suttantas  the
       Buddha's  utterances  are not connected  with his own
       last  stay at Pava.(2)  The fact  that  the death  of
       Mahavira evokes the mention Nirvana.
       ______________________

       1. Cunda here appears as a novice, and so also in the
          Pasadika Suttanta, which marks him out from his
          description in the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta. The
          Samgiti  Suttanta  does not use this  term of him,
          and  seems   to  have   been  influenced   by  the
          Mahaparinibbana  in this  point;  compare  Franke,
          Digha Nikaya, p.  229.  Two Cundas  can hardly  be
          admitted, though the Mahaparinibbana  is certainly
          confused.
       2. The Samgiti sets the scene in Pava, but under quite
          other    circumstances    than   those    of   the
          Mahaparinibbana, namely  the  consecration  of the
          new Mote-Hall of the Mallas.  This indicates  that
          the author  had on desire  to connect  the episode
          recorded  with the death of the Buddha  also.  The
          location  at  Samagama  seems  the  more  accurate
          account.  The fact that Cunda of Pava brought  the
          news to Ananda  no doubt encouraged  the idea that
          the declaration of views took place at that town.

                               p. 863

       of the possibility  of the effect on the order of the
       Buddha's  death does not indicate that that death was
       then imminent. It may be noted also that in the Upali
       Suttanta  the Buddha was at Nalanda  when the episode
       of the defection  of Upali  had so evil an effect  on
       Mahavira  that  it  brought  about, according  to the
       tradition followed by Buddhaghosa, his death at Pava.
       At any rate, it is clear  that  we have no reason  to
       assert  that Buddhist  tradition  placed the death of
       Mahavira  close to that of the Buddha, and it is then
       obvious  that  the  silence  of  the  Mahaparinibbana
       Suttanta is inevitable.  If the tradition  placed the
       episode  as  to  Mahavira  before  the  short  period
       covered  by  that  Suttanta, it  could  not  possibly
       include it in its narrative.  So far, therefore, from
       correcting  the version  of the other  Suttantas, the
       Mahaparinibbana  Suttanta  accords  excellently  with
       them.  Nor(3)  can  it be admitted  that  the Buddha,
       according  to  tradition, shows  no concern  for  the
       future  of his  order  after  his  death.  This  runs
       counter to the fact, recorded  in the Mahaparinibbana
       Suttanta  itself, that  he assured  Ananda  that  the
       place  of himself  as teacher  would be taken  by his
       doctrine.   This  assurance  is  significant  of  the
       position.  It accords  exactly with the frame of mind
       asserted   in  the  other  Suttantas   to  have  been
       engendered by the news of the dissensions in the Jain
       community on Mahavira's death. In the three Suttantas
       alike, the result  of the news  is to make the Buddha
       insist that his doctrines  provided a definite system
       which would prevent schisms in the community.  In the
       Mahaparinibbana the Buddha gives the same advice; his
       doctrine is to serve as the norm.  So far, therefore,
       from the Mahaparinibbana  contradicting the testimony
       of the  three  Suttantas, it is perfectly  consistent
       with it, while there is no evidence  whatever that it
       is earlier in date that the other three Suttantas, or
       at least two of them.

           Thirdly, to strengthen  his view  that the Buddha
       could not have known of strain  in the Jain community
       on Mahavira's  death, Professor  Jacobi insists  that
       there  is no record  in the Jain tradition  of such a
       catastrophe  in the Jain  community  at the death  of
       Mahavira  as is suggested  by the Buddhist tradition.
       No schism, it can be asserted, was occasioned  by the
       death  of Mahavira.  Indeed  sects  among  the  Jains
       developed  relatively late, save  in the case  of the
       division  into Cvetambaras  and Digambaras  which was
       not the result of a single  period  of conflict.  The
       Buddhists, on the  other  hand, knew  of  schisms  in
       their own community, arising  soon after the Master's
       death  and resulting  in the development  of the  new
       religion  of the Mahayana.  They did not realize that
       Mahavira was not the founder

                             p. 864

       of a new religion, but merely the reformer of that of
       Parcva, so that  on Mahavira's  death  no catastrophe
       was possible. The Buddhist account, therefore, in the
       three Suttantas  is based erroneous assumptions  and
       was evoked by dogmatic needs.

           This  interesting  suggestion  rests  on  a  very
       unsound basis. It assumes that the Buddhists believed
       that a formal schism  or a catastrophe  afficted  the
       Jain congregation on the death of Mahavira.  But this
       is much  more  than  we can justly  deduce  from  the
       Buddhist  statements.  All that is said is that there
       arose disputes, division, and a wordy warfare  in the
       community  and that the lay followers  were disgusted
       with  the monks.  Not a suggestion  is made of a real
       schism  or  catastrophe, and  there  seems  no reason
       whatever  to suppose that the Suttantas  intended  to
       assert  that  such  a schism  occurred.  Moreover, it
       seems  hard  to accept  the view  of the paucity  and
       lateness  of  schisms  in  the  Jain  community.  The
       evidence  is that Mahavira  was much troubled  by the
       rivalry  of Gocala, whether we regard him as strictly
       within  the  Jain  community  or not,(l) that  in his
       fourteenth  year  of  power  his  son-in-law, Jamali,
       raised opposition to him, and persisted in opposition
       to his death, while two years after Jamali's  revolt,
       Tisagutta  stood out in opposition.(2)  Moreover, the
       divergence   between  Cvetambara   and  Digambara  is
       fundamental, as is fully recognized  by Jains  at the
       present day,(3) so that it was certainly  unnecessary
       for Buddhists  to go to their own experience  to find
       justification for the belief in divergence within the
       Jain community.  There is, in fact, nothing  whatever
       to suggest  that  Buddhist  tradition  was  wrong  in
       asserting that Mahavira's death caused commotions  in
       the Jain community.  To judge  from  the bitter  feud
       between  Mahavira  and Gocala and from the revolts of
       Jamali and Tisagutta, not to mention the defection of
       Upali, we may take  it as certain  that the community
       was  far from  being  in ideal  unity  of heart.  The
       argument  that there could be no schism, because  (1)
       Mahavira  was the child of parents who were adherents
       of Parcvanatha, as he perhaps  also was, and (2) as a
       Kevalin, Mahavira  was above  all worldly  interests,
       cannot  be accepted.  Apart from the fact that we are
       not told of anything  so serious as a definite schism
       or catastrophe, it is clear that Mahavira was no mere
       follower of Parcvanatha. The Jain tradition
       ______________________

       1. Hoernle, ERE. i, pp. 267 ff., held that the Jain
          division  into  Digambara  and Cvetambara  mav  be
          traced back to the beginning of Jainism, being due
          to  the  antagonism  of Mahavira  and  Gocala, the
          representatives of two hostile sects.
       2. See Chimanlal J. Shah, Jainism in Northern India,
          pp. 60-5.
       3. Chimanlal J. Shah, op. cit., p.78.

                              p. 865

       does not even assert that he was an adherent, but, on
       the contrary, tells us distinctly that he departed in
       an essential  from the doctrines  of his predecessor,
       as  was  long  ago  stressed  by Professor  Jacobi(1)
       himself, who held that  the innovation  postulated  a
       decline  in the  morality  of the  community  between
       Parcva and Mahavira. Moreover, even if, as a Kevalin,
       Mahavira was superior to worldly considerations, what
       has that  to do with the effect  of his death  on the
       community? The disappearance  of a great  teacher  is
       always a time of trial for his adherents, and, so far
       from  doubting  the truth  of the  assertions  of the
       Buddhist texts, we may treat them as representing the
       normal  result as in the case of Purana  Kassapa, and
       common  sense  invites  us to believe  that  what  is
       normal really happens.

           Still   less  satisfactory   is  the  explanation
       offered  by  Professor  Jacobi  of the  cause  of the
       alleged  Buddhist  error.  The  Buddhists, he  holds,
       confused the place of Mahavira's  death, which is now
       identified with a village, Papapuri (Pavapuri) in the
       Bihar  part of the Patna  district, with  the town(2)
       Pava in which the Buddha stayed in the house of Cunda
       on the way to Kusinara.  The correctness  of the Jain
       identification,  Professor  Jacobi  holds, cannot  be
       doubted. This seems a strange assertion, for he holds
       that the three Suttantas  fall in the second or third
       century  after the Nirvana of the Buddha, and he does
       not  give  any  indication  of the  age  of the  Jain
       identification.(3)  To assert an error on the part of
       the Buddhists  demands support by adduction  of proof
       of the early date of the Jain view, which appears  to
       be lacking  and, at any  rate, is urgently  required.
       But, apart from this minor consideration, what ground
       is there for holding that a mistake as to a place was
       sufficient  to cause the invention of an assertion of
       the death of Mahavira  in the lifetime of the Buddha?
       It  is  perfectly  legitimate  to  suppose  that  the
       Buddhists  were  right  in placing  the death  of the
       rival  teacher  before  that  of Buddha, even if they
       confused the two places.  But that they were wrong in
       their identification is so far quite unproved, though
       possible.

           It must  be added  that  the tradition  that  the
       Buddha  died  after  Mahavira,  thus  asserted   with
       particularity  in the Buddhist texts, recorded within
       two or three centuries after his death, according to
       ______________________

       1. IA. ix, p. 160.
       2. Jacobi (p. 561) ascribes Pava to the Cakyas, but it
          is clear that it was a Malla town.
       3. The Kalpa Sutra ascribed to Bhadrabahu is clearly
          not by that author, and is wholly uncertain in date;
          see Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur,
          ii, pp. 309 f.

                             p. 866

       Professor Jacobi's own dating, is not contradicted by
       anything  expressed  in the Jain  tradition, and that
       the  contradiction   rests  on  the  strength   of  a
       deduction from two late and unsatisfactory traditions
       fixing the date of the deaths of the two teachers. If
       the  Jain  tradition  contradicted  the  Buddhist  by
       asserting  that Mahavira  died after  the Buddha, the
       case  for Professor  Jacobi's  view  would  assume  a
       different aspect; but, though the Jains must for many
       centuries  have been aware of the Buddhist assertion,
       there  has  been  adduced  no passage  in which  they
       negatived it. The obvious conclusion is that no doubt
       existed in either comunity on this point.

           Professor Jacobi has endeavoured  on the basis of
       the Jain and Buddhist traditions  to throw some light
       on the political  development  of Magadha in the time
       of  the  great  teachers.  but  it may  seriously  be
       doubted if we can make anything very satisfactory out
       of these confused and obviously biased records. There
       is no independent control available, and combinations
       thus become subjective to the highest degree. But one
       point  with which  he deals  elsewhere(1)  should  be
       noted,  his  belief  that  Parcva   can  be  assigned
       confidently  to a period 250 years before Mahavira, a
       view  which  is utilized  by him as assigning  to the
       early part of the eighth century B.C.  that influence
       of popular  religious  belief  on Indian  philosophy,
       which led to the innovations  of the Yoga and Samkhya
       systems,  involving   (1)  belief   in  the  personal
       immortality  of souls, and  (2)  the  recognition  of
       moral  principles,  and  thus  advancing  beyond  the
       monistic  tendency of the older Upanisads  with their
       intellectual  disdain  for morals.  We really  cannot
       accept, as in any sense  valid, the date assigned  to
       Parcvanatha.   If  Jain   tradition   was  wrong,  as
       Professor Jacobi holds it was.  in dating the Nirvana
       of Mahavira, how can  we trust  its assertions  for a
       period   250  years  earlier?  The  mere  figure   is
       suspicious, and why  should  We give  it any  greater
       credence  than we do to the figures equally  afforded
       by tradition(2)  for the number of his adherents? All
       that we can possibly rescue from the tradition is the
       belief in the existence of Parcva at some time before
       Mahavira;  to claim  more  is misleading.  There  are
       other  objections  to certain  features  of Professor
       Jacobi's most interesting reconstruction of the early
       Yoga,  but  these  must  be  dealt  with  on  another
       occasion.(3)
       ______________________

       1. SBA. 1930, pp. 326, 327.
       2. See Kalpa Sutra, sections 161-4.
       3. It is dubious if the Bhagavati vii, 9, 2, can be
          understood, as by Professor Jacobi (p. 564), as
          meaning that the Mallakis and Licchavis were the
          chief of the Kacis and Kosalas.

Jun 26, 2010

The Date of the Buddha

1. The Date of the Buddha
The chief landmark of Buddhist chronology is the year and date of the Buddha's parinibbana which is said to lie according to two main traditions, somewhere between 487-477 B. C. and 543-544 B. C.

Charpentier, 1 Max Muller, 2 and General A. Cunningham 3 asserted 477-478 B. C. as the date of the Buddha's demise. According to them, the year of Chandragupta's accession was 315 B. C. and it is now proved to be an erroneous premise.

Oldenberge 4 favours 481 B. C. while V. A. Smith prefers 486 B. C. Smith depends on the so called "Cantonese Dotted Record". It is said that Bhiksu Sanghabhadra sent news of the buddha's parinibbana to china. since then an arrangement of reckoning the Buddha's death by marking a dot each year had been made in Canton, and this dotted record continued upto the year 489 A. D. All the dots were counted in 489 A. D., and their total number reached 975, which suggests 486 B. C. as the year of Buddha's death. It is not easy to recognize the dotted record as being trust worthy unless other strong evidence supports it.

Raychaudhuri 5 accepts 486 B. C., while Kern 6 places it in 488 B. C. On the other hand, Muni Nugaraj 7 mentions 502 B. C. as the year of the Buddha's parinibbana. But all these conceptions do not carry weight as they do not take into account all the evidences.

Another date 483 B. C., which seems more reliable, is supported by several non-traditionalists or reformed traditionalist scholars. Sylvain Levi 8 pointed out from the Chinese accounts that 483 B. C. was reckoned as the Buddha's demise up to the 4th century in Ceylon, while E. R. Ayroton, 9 the late Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon, and Wickrema-singhe 10 try to prove the acceptability of this date from the beginning of the 4th century up to the 11th century. Geiger also warmly accepts this view.

John M. Seneviratne established his theory that "The era reckoned from 483 B. C. remained not only up to the 11th century but up to the end of the 15th century, when the new tradition that the Buddha died in 544 B. C. came in and soon ousted the old, are creating no little confusion, not so much during the transitionary stage as in our own time. 11

The scholars, who accept 483 B. C. as the date of the Buddha, urge that 218 years after Buddha's death, Asoka's consecration took place. They quote the Dipavamsa, 13 and Mahavamsa 14 in support of their theory. As regards Asoka's consecration, they say that his predecessors Bindusara and Candragupta ruled for 28 and 24 years, according to the Ceylonese chronology. 15 And Asoka was consecrated four years after he had already reigned over the country. 16 This means Candragupta would have ascended the throne 162 years (218 - 4=214 - 28+24= 162) after the Buddha's nibbana.

Fortunately they could say with almost certainty that Chandragupta's accession took place in 321 B. C., since Alexander the Great died at Babylon in the same year and this fact has been amply recorded. 17 From this they conclude that the Buddha's death would have taken place in 483 B. C. (321+162 = 433).

Hoernle, on the otherhand, accepts 482 B. C. as the "Practically certain" date of the Buddha's parinabbana. He supports his view by the evidence that Bimbisara was murdered by his son eight years before the Buddha's nibbana. 18 Though there is no great difference between the dates, 483 B. C. appears the more dependable one.

As regards the traditional date of Buddha, it is yet to be asertained, since the tradition itself is not accepted with unanimity. According to the Buddhist Chronicles of Ceylon and Burma, the Nibbana took place in 544-543 B. C., while the Northern Indian traditions place it at a very early date. Cunningham 19 refers to some of them. In the time of Hwen Thasang, A. D. 630-645, the Buddhist schools held widely different opinions, varying from 900 and 1000 years up to 1200, 1300 and even 1500 years prior to that date, 20 which would place the Nibbana of the Buddha either in 250, or 350, or 550, or 650 and 850 B. C. The same extravagant antitquity was also asserted in the time of Fa-Hian, who places the Nibbana during the reign of Ping-Wang, Emperar of China, in B. C. 770-719. 21 A similar antiquity was still claimed as late as the Twelth Century A. D., during the reign of Asoka Balla Deva. Two of his inscriptions are dated in the years 51 and 74 of the Laksmana Sena era, or in A. D. 1159 and 1180. A third inscription, which is dated in the year 1813 after the Nibbana of Buddha shows that at that time, Nibbana was believed to have occured between about 656 to 633 B. C.

But all the traditional views, except the traditions of Ceylon and Burma, do not have sufficiently strong evidences in their support. According to the Mahavamsa, Parakramabahu I was corwned when 1696 years had elapsed since the buddha's death, that is, in the year 1697 A. B. The Ceylonese era falls this year 1153 A. D. 22 This is supported by an independant source, viz. a South Indian Inscription at the temple of Tiruvalisvara in Arpakkama. According to the Culavamsa, 56.16 foll., the predecessors of Parakramabahu, from Parak rama Pandu onwards, reigned 107 years. Thus the accession of the last-named prince falls at 1590. A. D. Moreover, this date is confirmed by the South Indian Manimangalam inscription, which is dated the same year. 23 All this shows that for the second half of the twelfth century the existence of the Ceylon era, reckoned from 544; is established with certainty. 24

In support of this view, we can now put forward another evidence. An inscription has been recently discovered near Anuradhapura in Ceylon which delineates the various kinds of donations made by king Upatissa 1, the elder brother and predecessor of the king, for the benefit of the Bodi-shrine. S. Paranavitana, on the basis of this earliest inscription so far found in which a date is given in the Buddhist era reckoning from the parinirvana of Buddha along with the regnal year of the king reigning at the time, has been able to say that the Budhist era reckoned from 544 B. C. was prevalent in the reign of king Upatissa 1 (368-410). A.D. 25

It is to be noted here that some scholars think of 483 B. C. as the Ceylonese traditional era of the Buddha's Nirvana. M. De. Z. Wickremasinghe, however, tried to establish the view that till the 11th Centuary A. D. the tradition of counting the Buddhist era from 483 B. C. was prevalent both in India as well as in Ceylon. He suggested that the mistake might have occured in regard to the length of reigns assigned to the several kings who preceded the great Vijaya Bahu 1. His reason for suggesting it is that it was a century of foreign domination for about 86 or 96 years, the Cholians over-ran the Island, carrying destruction every-where. If a mistake did really occur in this chronology, it is mot probable that it was due to such difficult circumstances. 26
Senaviratne 27 too has attempted to prove that the death of Buddha took place in the year 483 B. C., on the strength of the conclusion arrived at by Fleet and accepted by Geiger and Wikramasinghe. He says that the correctness of Fleet's date is beyond question. According to him, the above date continued till the time of Parakramabahu VI when it was corrupted by the addition of 93 years; and a few centuries still later a Buddhist monk at kandy dropped out of this 93, when the era assumed its present date.

But these views are refuted by other eminent scholars. E. Hultzsch 28 pointed out that the above view, that of reckoning the era from 483 B. C. is based on an erroneous translation by WIjesinghe of passage in the Culavamsa (Chapter, 53.v. 44), H, W. Codringron 29 remarked on the paper of Seneviratne that the Kalyani inscription indicated that the "Sakaraja" era as that used in Burma and dating form A, D. 638, according to a Burmese inscription, is dated saka-raja 657 at Bodhigaya." "This date", he says "however, shows that the Buddhist era, as used in Burma in the fifteenth centuary was 544 B. C". E. M. Abhesinghe, 30 on the basis of Jaina literature, criticising the view of Seneviratne, says that "We know that Buddha was countemporaneous with Bimbisara, and if with the Jainas, we identify Swami Gautama or Gautama Indrabhuti with Lord Buddha, the first disciple of the Jaina Tirthankara Mahavira, we can approximately fix, from both these sources, the date of the great demise at 544 B. C." 31
In connection with Abhesinghe's conclusion I would like to make a few comments. His suggestion, in support of 544 B. C. being date of the Buddha's demise, that Gautama Indrubhuti and Bautama the Buddha are identical, is incorrect. They were different personalities. One was the Ganadhara or explainer of Mahavira's preachings, while the other was the founder of Buddhism. One died at Gunava in. Rajagraha at the age of ninety two, 12 years after the attainment of salvation by Mahavira, while the other died at Kusinara at the age of eighty and attained nibbana.

In the light of the aforesaid evidences we can now conclude that the most probable date of the birth of Buddha therefore, is 624-623 B. C. We make this deduction as he is supposed to have lived for 80 years, as he himself says in the Mahaparini-bbanasutta of the Dighanikaya before his death that he was of 80 years of age (athititaro me vayo vattati). Thus the date of the Buddha's parinivana may be decided at 544 B. C. (624-623 B. C.-80 = 544-543 B. C.)

Feb 5, 2010

Preservation of the Past

S. S. KAVITHA

The Jain beds strewn around our ancient city comprise a valued cultural treasure. The inscriptions on them and the bas-relief sculptures are the remaining evidence of Tamil language's antiquity besides indicating the flourishing period of Jainism during various centuries.

Mostly, the Jain caves have the bas-reliefs of tirthankaras and the inscriptions that tell the tale of people of all walks of life from chieftains to common man and how they patronized Jainism. The inscriptions also throw light on the number of Jain schools that existed during the period.

Another hill that stands tall withstanding vandalism and vagaries of nature is the hillock at Muthupatti. More popularly known as Karadipatti alias Perumalmalai, the hillock has two bas-relief structures of tirthankaras, a separate beautiful but ruined tirthankara sculpture, three Brahmi inscriptions, Jain beds and two vattezhuthu inscriptions.
Sculptures

The two bas-relief sculptures of tirthankaras are sitting on Arthapariyankaasana posture on a pedestal borne by three lions. Attendants are found on both sides of the structures. The head is adorned with triple umbrella. Below the sculptures, there are two ‘vattezhuthu' inscriptions that date back to 9th or 10th century A.D.

The first inscription refers to a Jain school located at Kurandi near the present Aviyur village that is located between Madurai – Aruppukottai road, according to Archaeological sources. The source say: A small hill at Kurandi village is known as ‘Paranthaga Parvatham' and the school located at this place is called Sri Vallabha Perumpalli.

The word Paranthaga might be identified with the Pandya King Paranthaga Nedunchadaiyan, who ruled Pandya country during 768 to 815 A.D. His son Srimara Sri Vallabha, who ruled during 815 to 862 A.D. might have patronized this Jain school. So the school is named after him. A student of the school, Mahanandhi Periyar, who is the student of Ashtopavasi Padarar, carved this sculpture.

Another inscription mentions the village Kurandi is in the limit of Venbunadu- a sub-division of Pandya country. Here the village Kuyilkudi is mentioned as ‘Amirthaparakrama Nallur' alias Kuyilkudi. Here, Kanagaveera Periyadigal, a disciple of Gunasena Thevar, installed the image on behalf of Kuyilkudi village. The inscriptions also refers that the palanquin bearers of the palace have undertook the duty of protecting the sculptures. Kurandi School has wide contact with Kazhugumalai Jain School and Palani Ivar Malai Jain School. There were also teachers-student exchange programmes, the source noted.

The separate sculpture of a tirthankara, who is on ‘arthapariyankaasana,' is seen on a pedestal borne by three lions. He is fanned by attendants (yakshas) from the sides while a streak of light and branches of pindi (Asoka) tree are seen at the back of his head. The sculpture represents the early Pandya sculptural art during 9th century A.D.

Tamil Brahmi inscriptions


Belonging to first century B.C., one of the three Tamil Brahmi inscriptions has a reference to a resident of Musiri, the port city of Kerala on the Western Coast. Archaeological sources say that the resident might have carved out these Jain beds. Another inscription carved at the side of a stone bed is damaged and it is hard to decipher while the third inscription has a reference to ‘Vindaiyur.' The Vindaiyur may be identified with present Vandiyur, he says.

It is said that Jain monks chose Madurai, capital of Pandya Kingdom, to propagate their religion as the city enjoyed the status of being an important trading centre. The city structures and sculptures, indeed, narrate stories of the past as we browse through history.

Dec 10, 2009

Sandrocottus: Chandragupta of the Greeks

By: William Smith
SANDROCOTTUS an Indian king at the time of Seleucus Nicator, ruled over the powerful nation of the Gangaridae and Prasii on the banks of the Ganges. The Gangaridae, also written Gandaridae, and the Prasii, are probably the same people ; the former name signifying the people in the neighbourhood of the Ganges, and the latter being of Hindu origin, and the same as the WacAz, the eastern country of Sanscrit writers.

The capital of Sandrocottus was Palibothra, called by the Sanscrit writers Pataliputra, probably in the neighbourhood of the modern Patna. The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Dio-dorus Siculus Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius Aygrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alex­ander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of ob­scure origin, and that after he escaped from Alex­ander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power.

So much seems certain, that in the troubles which followed the death of Alexander, Sandrocottus or his father extended his dominions over the greater part of northern India, and conquered the Macedonians, who had been left by Alexander in the Panjab. After the general peace between the successors of Alexander in b. c. 311, Seleucus was left for ten years in the undisturbed possession of his do­minions, and at some period during this time he made an effort to recover the Indian conquests of Alexander.

The year in which he undertook the expedition is not stated, but from the account of Justin it would appear to have been only a short time before the war with Antigonus, that is, b.c. 302. It is unknown how far Seleucus penetrated in India; according to some accounts he advanced as far as Palibothra. At all events, he did not succeed in the object of his expedition ; for, in the peace con­cluded between the two monarchs, Seleucus ceded to Sandrocottus not only his conquests in the Panjab, but also the country of the Paropamisus. Seleucus in return received five hundred war ele­phants, which had then become an object of so much importance as perhaps to be almost an equi­valent for the loss of the dominions which he sus­tained.

The peace was cemented by a matrimonial alliance between the Syrian and Indian kings. Megasthenes subsequently resided for many years at the court of Sandrocottus as the ambassador of Seleucus ; and to the work which Megasthenes wrote on India, later writers were chiefly indebted for their accounts of the country. [megasthenes.] The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plu­tarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, ftnd Athenaeus gives \is the form Sandrocuptus

SANDROCOTTUS
Sandrocottus has excited considerable interest among modern scholars, as he appears to be the same as the Chandragupta of the Sanscrit writers. Not only does the great resemblance of name point to an identity of the two, but the circumstances related by the Sanscrit writers respecting the his­tory of Chandragupta bear so great a similarity to those recorded by the Greek authors respecting Sandrocottus, that it is impossible to doubt that they are the same person. The differences between the Greek and Sanscrit writers rather enhance the value of both sets of testimonies, since a perfect agreement would have been suspicious. The Hin­du narrative was as follows. At Pataliputra reigned a king named Nanda, who was the son of a woman of the Sudra caste, and was hence, ac­cording to the Hindu law, regarded as a Sudra himself. He was a powerful prince, but cruel and avaricious; and hence, as well as by the inferiority of his birth, he provoked the animosity of the Brahmans. He had by one wife eight sons, who with their father were known as the nine Nandas; and, according to the popular tradition, he had by a wife of low extraction another son, called Chan­dragupta.

The last circumstance, however, is not stated in the Puranas, and may therefore be ques­tioned; but it appears certain that Chandragupta was of low origin, and that he was of the same family as Nanda, if he was not his son. But whatever was the origin of Chandragupta, -he ap­pears to have been made the instrument of the rebellious projects of the Brahmans, who raised him while a youth to the throne, after effecting the destruction of Nanda and his eight sons. In this they were aided by a prince in the north of India, to whom an accession of territory was offered as the price of his assistance; but after they had gained their object, the Brahmans not only refused to fulfil their engagement, but appear to have got rid of him by assassination.

To revenge his father's death, his son Malayaketu marched with a large army against Chandragupta, and among his forces were Yavanas, whom we may regard as Greeks. Malayaketu was obliged to return to his own country without inflicting his meditated vengeance. Chandragupta reigned twenty-four years, and left the kingdom to his son. The expedition of Malayaketu may perhaps be the same as that of Seleucus, who probably availed himself of the distracted state of the kingdom for the purpose of extending the Greek dominions in India.

Oct 25, 2009

Jain connections in Cholas

An Inscription of Rajendra II, belonging to the 11th Century, has been found in Kailasanathar temple at Deepankudi in Kodavasal taluk in Tiruvrur district recently.

G.Thillai Govindarajan, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary school, Kothankudi, who is carrying out a project with the aid of New Delhi Nehru Trust of Indian Collections under the title "Jainism in Thanjavur district" has found the inscription during the field study.

The inscription belonging to the period of Rajendra II, is found in a pillar of six ft height in the temple premises which is under renovation. Inscription is engraved in all the four sides of the pillar. It starts with the praising of the King. It registers about donations offered to the presiding deity, Kailasanatha of Siva temple by Arulmozhinangai, sister of Rajendra II and the daughter of Rajendra I. On her behalf, it was inscribed by Aramabanandi, a Jain who belonged to Deepankudi temple. The inscription also records about the donations for offering rice, vegetables and curd rice daily for the presiding deity. The Jain temple of Deepankudi is in worship now.

An inscription found in Sttambur near Chenji in Tamil Nadu speaks about a Jain known as Aramanandi.

Oct 20, 2009

Jain Vestiges in Coimbatore District

M. AROKIASWAMI, M.A., Ph.D.

COIMBATORE, the headquarter of the district which goes by its namein the State of Madras, is well-known to-day as the "Manchester ofSouth India." There is perhaps not another place in the whole of thisregion to equal it not only in the numerous spinning and weavingmills it possesses but also in the general standard of wealth, healthcivilisation and culture. But few are interested in studying thehistory of this district and particularly the development of culturein this area. Of the era preceding the period of British occupationof the district, which began in 1799, particularly little or nothingis known.

In this paper I propose to make an enquiry into a subject which formspart of a larger whole, viz., the cultural development of theCoimbatore region in early times and the particular subject forenquiry here is an estimate of the Jain contribution to this quota.So many vestiges of Jainism are to be found in this district thatthere is no doubt about the great influence this religion must haveexerted over the people of this region in early times. That it musthave been much more than any one would suspect is certain. Names ofplaces like seenapuram clearly remaind one of the early jain influentover the region; while old jain shrines found in places like.Vijayamangalam, Tirumurthimalai and Karur bear an equally strongevidence to the same. A figure of the Jain Thrithankara is found inTirumurthimalai; and a number of Jain beds are found to this day inArunattarmalai in Karur Taluk while in Arasannamalai nearVijayamangalam the Neminatha temple has been now converted into aVinayaka temple. Not only this. The district of Coimbatore in earlytimes seems to have been the home of several Jain scholars, not theleast of whom was the great Bavanandi, the author of the celebratedTamil grammar, Nannul, who seems to have lived in the region ofVijayamangalam in Erode Taluk.

It is impossible for us to explain these vestiges unless we postulatea period of Jain glory in the district at some time during itssojourn in South India. The Kongadesarajakkal, a XVII century TamilMss., which has been recently edited by Mr. C. M. RamachandranChettiar, Advocate, Coimbatore, (Madras Govt, Oriental Series, VI,1950) brings to light a set of seven rulers called Rattas(Rashtrakutas?) in this region during the period between 250 A.D. and400 A.D. Many if not all of them are represented in this work asprofessors and strong supporters of Jainism.(Ibid., pp. 1-2). In thereign of the fourth ruler, Govindaraya, a grant to the jainArishtanna is mentioned and in that of the sixth ruler, Kannaradeva,the names of three great Jain theologians, of whom one Naganandi ismentioned by name, are referred to. (Ibid)

The history of the origin of the Ganga dynasty of Mysore indicateseven more clearly how deep-rooted was janism in the district ofCoimbatore in early times. It would appear that in the closing yearsof the IV century A.D., King Padmanabha of the Gangas had to send histwo sons, Dadiga and Madhava to the south by way of preparing himselfto meet his enemy, King Mahipala of Ujjain.(Rice; Mysore and Coorg;p. 31). The rest of the narration as found in Rice's words is asfollows:

"When they arrived at Perur, which is still distinguished from otherPerurs as Ganga-Perur (in Cuddapah district), they met there the JainAchariya Simhanandi. He was interested in the story of these Gangaprinces and taking them by the hand, gave them instruction andtraining and eventually procured for them a kingdom."(Rice: Op.,cit., loc., cit).

Many Ganga records like the Udayendiram plates of Prithvipati II, theKudlur grant of Marasimha and the Santara inscription on the Hunchastone* bear clear evidence to the fact that Simhanandi gave them akingdom and that he was a reputed Jain teacher. The last mentionedrecord indeed refers to him as "the archariya who made the Gangakingdom.":
"Ganga-rajyaman madida Simhanandy acharyya."(EC., VIII, Nr. 35)

Indrabhuti in his Samayabhushana names him as a great poet to be kepton par with Elacharya and Pujyapada.(IA., XII, 20). Still, no betterdescription can be given of Simhanandi than what is found in theJaina record near the Siddhesvara temple at Kallurgudda in ShimogaTaluk:
"The Vijaya or victory to the farthest shore of learning, the fullmoon to the ocean of the Jaina congregation, possessed of patienceand all the ten excellent qualities, his good life, a secure wealth,rejoicing in the modest, his fame extending to the four oceans,keeping at a distance from the evil, a sun in the sky of theKranurgana, devoted to the performance of the twelve kinds ofpenance, promoter of the Ganga kingdom-Sri Simhanandiacharyya."(EC.,VII, Sh. 4)
On the other hand we owe to the evidence of inscriptional recordslike those of the Parsvanathi Basti at Sravana Belgola and others tobe seen at Kallurgudda and Purale in Shimoga Taluk that Madhavadefinitely came under the influence of Simhanandi, who intiated himinto jain doctrines and conferred on him a kingdom on condition thathe always took care to uphold that Faith throughout its confines.(Ibid, also 64). The latter tow give a detailed account of thisorigin of the Ganga Kingdom, which deserves to be quoted at least inpart, as it gives one an idea of the depth of Jain influence thatruled over the region where the Ganga kingdom was founded:

"On Madhava impressing him with his extraordinary energy...Simhanandi made a coronet of the petals of the Karnikara flowersbound it on Madhava's head, gave them (the two brothers) the dominionof all the earth, presented them with a flag made from his peacockfan and furnished them with attendants, elephants and horses. Alongwith these he gave them also the following advice: 'If you fail inwhat you have promised, if you do not approve the Jina sasana; if youseize the wives of others; if you indulge in wine and flesh; if youform relationship with the low; if you give not your wealth to theneedy; if you flee from the field or battle-your race will go to ruin.

to cont.

Aug 31, 2009

The Kadambas of Banvasi

Author : By Dr. P. N. Narasimha Murthy, Head, Department of Historyand Archaeological Museum, Sri Bhuvanendra College, Karkala( Karnataka )

The Kadambas of Banvasi
The Shatavahana rule gave place for two important dynastics ofKarnataka viz., the Kadambas of Banavasi and the Gangas of Talakad.The first one began to rule over the western and northern parts andthe other southern and eastern parts of Karnataka, Under their ruleJainism gets a clear picture with an expanding theatre of activities.

The Talagunda and Gudnapur inscriptions have totally set to restthe problem of the origin of the Kadamba royal house. ThoughBrahmanical in their origin the Kadambas paved the way forrejuvination of not only the Vedic religion but also of that of theSramanas. Their inscriptions provide us a vivid picture of thevarious sects of Jainism, Many a times we get a doubt whether some of the Kadamba were jains.

In the very first year of his rule Kadamba Kakusthavarma makes a landgrant to Senapti ( a Jaina) Srutakirti as a reward for savinghimself. The copper plate which informs us of this begins withSalutations to Bhagavan Jinendra and ends with Salutations toRishabha, The gifted field was called 'ba(lo) Vara-kshetra'. Thevillage of Kheta where the field existed' belonged to the holy Arhatswho are stated to be 'the Saviours of the three world', The king madethis grant while camping at Palasika (mod, Halasige in Belgaum Dt).On the basis of the dates assigned to each Kadamba King by B.R. Gopal(19) this copper plate may be placed in the year C. 405 A,D.

The Halmidi inscription forms an important landmark in thehistory of Kannada language. However, from the point of view of ourstudy it is still more important. All those who have read theinscription so far have committed a mistake of reading wronglyline number 9 of the epigraph as- "namadheyan=asarakk=EllabhataryaPremalaya". But the correct reading should be "namadheyan=asarak-Kella-bhatariya premahiya". What had been read as Ella-bhatari isnow corrected as Kella-bhatari. 'Kella' happened to be a veryimportant subordinate ruling family under Alupas of Alvakheda, Kellaswere Jains. The earliest Kannada inscription provides us informationabout one of the earliest Jaina ruling families of Karnataka. Thereare a number of families among the Jainas in South Kanara who eventoday possess the surname 'kella'. There is a village by name KellaPuttige in Karkala taluk of the South Kanara District which was oncea strong hold of the Kellas.

Halmidi inscription has been assigned to C. 450 A.D. and belongs toKadamba Kakusthavarma. It we are to accept the date assigned C 405-430 AD(24) to Kakusthavarma by Dr. B.R. Gopal then the date ofHalmidi epigraph also has to be re-adjusted, Tentatively its date maybe fixed at C.425 AD instead of the present C 450 AD. It is thusclear that a small Jaina ruling family existed in the Kanara coast inthe early part of the 5th century or at least by the second half ofthe 4th century A.D.

Mrigesavarma (C455-80AD) grandson of Kadamba Kakusthavarma was a verygreat patron of the Jaina religion. In his 3rd regnal year he made agrant of land for the worship of Arhats and the upkeep of the basadiat Brihat Paralur(25) (C 458 AD). His second Devagiri plates issued during his 4th regnal year (C 459 AD) from Vaijayanti(Banavasi provides us a very important information regarding thestate of Jainism in Karnataka. There existed the two important sectsof Jainism viz. Svetapata-Mahasramana Sangha and NirgranthaMahasramana Sangha. The King made a grant of the village Kalavangawhile dividing it into three parts and gave one each to holy ArhatGod Jinendra, Svetapata maha Sangha and Nirgrantha maha Sangha.

In his 8th regnal year (C463AD) Mrigeshavarma built a Jinalaya atPalasika, as an act of merit for his father and granted 33 nivartanasof land for the Jaina ascetics of Yapaniya, Nirgrantha and kurchakasects. The recipients of this grant were the Bhojaka Damakirti andthe ayukta Jiyanta.

This inscription informs in very clear terms that the kingconstructed the Jinalaya for the merit of his deceased father-Shantivarma. Though there is no source for' us to conclude thatShantivarma was a Jaina, the pious act of his son Mrigeshavarmaindicates the leanings of his father towards Jainism.

Basadis existed at Palasika either before or right from the beginningof the Kadamba rule. And, the Kadamba kings, though of Brahmanicalorder, providing them with gifts and grants had been an usual affair.But constructing a basadi, that too in the name of their deceasedone, is a matter of importance and for consideration.

The added importance of this Halsi copper plates is that it informsus of the existance of two other Jaina sects besides Nirgranthas suchas Yapaniya and Kurchaka. The earlier record has mentioned about theSvetapata (Svetambara) sect. It is not correct here to sit injudgement on dividing a religion into several sects. However, nothingprevents us to know about the complete freedom that existed inKarnataka even in respect of religious thinking and following. Itseems not only the Kadamba kings but also the royal family hadintimate contact with the jaina society. Jaina munis and theirChaityalayas. Bhanuvarma younger brother of King Ravivarma (C485-519AD) made a gift of land of 15 Nivartanas at Palasika for theanointment of God Jina on the full moon days without fail. The giftedfield was caIJed 'Kardamapati'. It was made during the 11th regnalyear (C. 495-496 AD) of King Ravivarma.

It seems that due to over enthusiasm, Dr. B.R. Gopal has tried to putthings wrongly of Davanagere plates of Ravivarma of his regnal year34. (29) Dr. Gopal has idendified Sarvajna and Sarvalokanath found inthe invocatory, part with Buddha. Hence says: "the grant of land madeby the King, at the instance of Haridatta, for the worship in' theSiddhayatana and for the increase of the Sangha both of which areBuddhist (and not Jaina as suggested by M.H. Krishna) institutions,according to Sircar".

The relevant portion in line 16 of the Davanagere Copper platesreads "Asandyam=Aparajitah Siddhayatana-Pujartham SanghasyaParivriddhaye". Here both Aparajita and Siddhayatana are Jaina. Inthe Jaina religion we come across sixteen 'Svargas' alsocalled 'Kalpas'. Above these exist nine 'Graiveyakas'. And above thisexist five 'Kalpatita deva Vimanas' i.e., the heavenly stages. Thefourth one of this is the stage of Aparajita. Above this exists thestage of "Sarvaitha Siddhi". This is the abode of the pure andliberated soul.

Similarly 'Siddhayatana', which is nothing but the abode of Siddhas.(32) 'Siddhayantana puja' happens to be an important item of worshipin the basadis. Many Jaina inscriptions from South Kanara Districtspeak of grants made for 'Siddha-Chakra aradhane' in the basadis.(33)Also we come across the term Siddha-Chakrada nompi.(34) 'NamoSiddhanam' is an important step of the famous 'Panchaparamesthistotra mantra'. Further line 2 of this record reads­
"devanam = makuta-mani prabha = abhishiktam
Sarvajnassa - Jayati Sarva loka-nathah"

This may only mean victory (Salutations) to that pure and liberatedsoul which has attained the stage of 'Sarvarth Siddhi', the final ofKalpatita stage.

On this basis we conclude that the Devanagere plates of Ravivarma ofthe year 34 is a Jaina record, very unique in its way of expression.

This inscription refers to Asandya. It is same as Asandyaluru whichhas been mentioned as a centre of Jainism in the two Kadamba Copperplates of 5th century A.D. from Mudigere.(35) Asandyaluru wassituated in Sendrakavishaya.

There are a few more records mentioning about the munificent grantsto the basadies of Halasi and elsewhere and also to lay Jainas by thekadamba Kings . However, the Gudnapur inscription of Ravivarma becomes very important in respect of our studies. Theinscription mentions that king Ravivarma built a Kama Jinalaya. Theking's palace existed to the right side of this temple and on itsleft existed two nrityasalas (Dancing Halls) facing the Queens palace(antahpura). It also refers to a Kamadevalaya (Jinalaya) atHakinipalli and to a temple of Padmavati at Kallili. This indicatesthat if not the king, at least the member of royal family, as we haveseen above, were followers of Jainism.

Popular Posts

शोध आणि बोध: Marathi Articles on General Subjects