No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XV. The Tradition about the Corporeal Relics of Buddha
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
In continuing the inquiry into the tradition about the subsequent fate of the eight original deposits of the corporeal relics of Buddha, we take next the second Ceylonese chronicle, the Mahāvaṁsa; or, more precisely, the earlier part of that work, which was composed, by way of being a commentary on the Dīpavaṁsa, by the Thēra Mahānāma, in or about the period A.D. 520 to 540.
Like the Dīpavaṁsa, the Mahāvaṁsa does not present any narrative such as that found in the Divyāvadāna. But, as we shall see, it gives a story about the relics at Rāmagrāma which is not found in either of those works.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1907
References
page 341 note 1 For the preceding articles on this topic, see this Journal, 1906. 655 ff., 881 ff. The list of the places at which the corporeal relics, and the kumbha and the embers, were enshrined, is at page 671.Google Scholar
At page 671, line 14, read “At or in Pippalīvana,” etc. At page 912, line 13 f., read “Pāvakī (sic), Vēṭhadīpa, and Kusinārā, and caused,” etc.
The last paragraph of note 1 on page 896 is not quite correct; see page 344 below.
On page 112 above, in line 20, for sākyā(naṃ) read sākyāna(ṃ).
page 341 note 2 The supposed period is A.D. 459 to 477. But see this Journal, 1906. 894, note 1.Google Scholar
page 341 note 3 If that story stood in the Dīpavaṁsa at all, we should expect to find it in connexion with chapter 19, verses 1 to 20; where, however, there is no indication of it. That chapter is, indeed, described by the editor as being very confused and fragmentary. But, even so, there would surely have been traceable there some hint of the story, however slight, if it was current when the Dīpavaṁsa was being written.
page 343 note 1 This tooth-relic is mentioned in the account of the mission of Sumana as given by Buddhaghōsha (this Journal, 1906. 904),Google Scholar but not in the account given in the Dīpavaṁsa (ibid., 895). For the manner in which Indra obtained it, according to Buddhaghōsha, see ibid., 906 f.
Turnour said (Mahāvaṁsa, 105, note) that this tooth is the one which, according to the Mahāvaṁsa (T., 241; W., 154), was transferred in A.D. 370 (as adjusted from his date, A.D. 310) from (Dantapura in) Kaliṅga to Ceylon, in circumstances detailed in the Dāṭhādhātuvaṁsa, and was installed in the edifice called Dhammachakka built by Dēvānaṁpiya-Tissa; adding that in his own time it was enshrined in the Daladā-Māligāva temple at Kandy. But I do not find any explanation by him as to how it passed from the possession of Indra to Dantapura; and the verses added at the end of the Mahīparinibbīna-Sutta (see this Journal, 1906, 665 f.) speak of a tooth in Kalinga in addition to a tooth in heaven.Google Scholar
page 343 note 2 Mentioned by Buddhaghōosha (see this Journal, 1906. 907)Google Scholar as the shrine in which Indra installed the tooth, when he took it away from the Brāhmaṇ Dōṇa.
I have not been able to trace any exact statement as to how Indra became possessed of also the collar-bone. But Hiuen-tsiang has said (see, e.g., Beal, , Records, 2. 40 f.)Google Scholar that, after the division of the relics into eight shares for “the kings of the eight countries,” shares were claimed by Śakra (Indra) on behalf of the Dēvas, and by the Nāga kings Anavatapta, Muchilinda and Ēlāpatra. Accordingly, the relics were redivided into three portions; one for the Dēvas, one for the Nāgas, and one for “the eight kingdoms among men.” It may also be remarked that in another place (see, e.g., Beal, , Records, 1. 126, 132 f.)Google Scholar he has allotted one of the shares in the relics, and a Stūpa over them, to Uttarasēna, king of Udyāna. This person is represented as the son of one of the four Sakyas who (see this Journal, 1906. 166 f.) were banished from Kapilavastu, because they had the temerity to withstand an attack by king Virūḍhaka.Google Scholar
And it may be added that, according to the Mahāvaṁsa (Turnour, 4; Wijesinha, 5), the Thēra Sarabhū, a disciple of Sāriputta, received the gīvaṭṭhi, grīvāsthi, the neck-bone of Buddha, at the funeral pile, and enshrined it in a Chētiya in Ceylon over which king Duṭṭhagāmini eventually erected the Mahiyaṅgana Thūpa.
It seems probable that, if once we go away from the simple narrative of the Mahāparinihbāna-Sutta, an extensive list of variations might be made out.
page 344 note 1 The word used here is ṭhapetvā, while, in the preceding verse we have ṭhapēsi where I have translated “he placed,” and in a previous passage we have ṭhapetvāna in respect of temporarily “depositing” the alms-bowl and its contents in the mountain Himavat. Against these we have, further on, patiṭṭhāpēsi in respect of Dēvānaṁpiya-Tissa “installing” the right collar-bone in his Thūpa. We gather, however, from Buddhaghōsha (see this Journal, 1906. 905), that the alms-bowl and its contents were regularly installed in some place on the Missaka-Chētiya mountain.Google Scholar
page 344 note 2 The history of the alms-bowl does not fall within the scope of our present inquiry. The following notes, however, may be given here.
The bowl consisted of four stone bowls, of the colour of a mugga or kidneybean, presented by the four Dēvarājas, which Buddha placed one above another, or one within another, and caused to become one; see the Nidānakathā, in the Jātaka, 1. 80, line 21 ff., and Hiuen-tsiang, in Beal, , Records, 2. 129 f.Google Scholar
Fa-hian says (Beal, , Records, 1. introd., 78)Google Scholar that it was originally preserved in Vaiśālī, but in his own time it was in the borders of Gandhāra, or (ibid., 32) in the country of Fo-lu-sha. He mentions other countries, including Ceylon, which it had visited or was to visit. And he says that eventually it would resolve itself into four bowls again, which would return to the Pin-na or An-na mountain, whence they had come.
Hiuen-tsiang says (Beal, , Records, 2. 73 f.)Google Scholar that Buddha gave it as a token of remembrance to the Lichchhavis, when he parted from them after leaving Vaiśālī on his last journey. He further says (Records, 1. 98; 2. 278)Google Scholar that after the death of Buddha it went to Gandhāra and was worshipped there for many centuries, but in his own time it was in Persia, in the king's palace, after traversing different countries.
The Buddhavarṁsa, 28. 8, allots the bowl, along with the staff and the robe, to Vajirā, a place at which there arose the schismatic Buddhist school of the Vājiriyas, and which seems (see this Journal, 1906. 666, note 3) to have been also a Jain centre.Google Scholar
page 345 note 1 The supposed period is B.C. 161 to 137. But see this Journal, 1906. 894, note 1.Google Scholar
page 345 note 2 The utterance of this prophecy and the recording of it are mentioned by Buddhaghōsha in his Samantapōsōdikō (see Vinayapiṭaka, , 3. 341).Google Scholar But the fulfilment of it does not come there; and there is no hint there of the story about the Rāmagrāma relics. That the story, however, was in some form or another known to Buddhaghōsha, seems to be established by the remarks in his Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (see this Journal, 1906. 908)Google Scholar that the danger which in the time of Ajātaś;atru was hanging over the other relics did not threaten those at Rāmagrāma, because the Nāgas had taken charge of them, and that they were destined for the great Chētiya at the Mahāvihāra in Ceylon.
page 346 note 1 The process of construction is detailed at great length; and the account is instructive. An abstract of it has been given by Cunningham, in his Bhilsa Topes, 169 ff.Google Scholar
page 346 note 2 In this case, the dhātugarbha, though shaped like a box, seems to have been a structural part of the Stūpa. For other apparently structural relic-chambers, reference may be made to the illustrations of three dhātugarbhas from the Bhaṭṭiprōlu Stūpa, given in ASSI, 6. 9, plate 3: there, however, in each case, only two stones were used, a bottom slab and another to cover it, and the relicchambers were sunk in the lower slabs; the inscriptions accompanying them were (with the exception of that on the hexagonal piece of crystal) engraved on the lower slabs, round the relic-chambers (see EI, 2. 324, plates).Google Scholar We seem to have another structural dhātugarbha, somewhat like those at Bhaṭṭiprō;lu, from the Boria or Lakha Medi Stūpa, near Junāgaḍh; see JASB, 60, 1891. 18, plate 5.Google Scholar
We have dhātugarbhas which are actual boxes from Sāñchi; see Cunningham's, Bhilsa Topes, plate 20, and a mention of two others on page 297.Google Scholar So, also, the stone coffer at Piprahwa, inside which the inscribed vase and other things were found, is evidently to be classed as a dhātugarbha; see Antiquities in the Tarai, 43, and plate 27, fig. 3.
page 347 note 1 The text does not name the places whence he obtained them.
page 347 note 2 The intention seems to be to indicate Gaṅgāsāgara, the place where the waters of the river and the ocean meet.
page 347 note 3 The Nāga king Kāla was celebrated for singing the praises of Buddha when the latter, having ascended the bōdhi-throne, was waiting to undergo the temptation by Māra; see the Dhammapada, ed. Fausböll, , 118.Google Scholar
Of another Nāga king, Chakravāka, an interesting statue was obtained at Bharaut; see Cunningham's, Stūpa of Bharhut, plate 21,Google Scholar right. And a basrelief from the same place shews another, Ērapata, Ēlāpatra, doing worship to (the invisible figure of) Buddha; see ibid., plate 14, right.
page 349 note 1 Owing, however, to the sickness and death of Duṭṭhagāmini, the construction was not then quite finished off. The canopy, pinnacle, or spire was added, the whole erection was plastered, and a surrounding wall decorated with figures of elephants was built, by his brother and successor, Saddhā-Tissa (T., 200; W., 128).
page 350 note 1 A suggestion mentioned by me (this Journal, 1906. 900,Google Scholar note 1), that this place might be the modern ‘Bettiah, Bettia, or Bettiā,’ is not tenable; Dr. Grierson having told us (page 166 above) that the latter name is Betiyā, Bitiyā, with the dental t.
page 350 note 2 See Julien, , Mémoires, 1. 332;Google ScholarBeal, , Records, 2. 31;Google ScholarWatters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 23. This Stūpa seems to be not mentioned in the Life.Google Scholar
page 350 note 3 The Pāli name, as given in the Mahāparinibbāna-Sutta, is Pipphalivana; see this Journal, 1906. 665.Google Scholar The nyagrōdha, Pāli nigrōdha, is ‘Ficus Indica, the banyan-tree.’ In Pāli we have pipphala, = the Sanskṛit pippala, ‘Ficus religiosa, the sacred fig-tree,’ and pipphalī, = the Sanskṛit pippalī, with, according to Childers, the meaning of “the wave-leafed fig-tree,” in addition to that of “long pepper, Piper longum,” which is given for pippalī by Monier-Williams.
page 351 note 1 Compare Beal, Records, 2. 26 ff.,Google Scholar and Watters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 20 ff.Google Scholar And for a briefer statement see the Life, Julien, 128; Beal, 96: that account does not add any details; on the contrary, it omits the story about Aśōka.
One would prefer to cite Mr. Watters' rendering of Hiuen-tsiang; partly because it is in English, partly because it is the latest rendering, and so, presumably, the most up-to-date: unfortunately, however, he has almost always used the inconvenient oratio obliqua, and has in many places passed over details which are given in the other two versions. Of those other versions, M. Julien's seems to be generally the preferable one. But, both in using it and otherwise, I substitute Mr. Waiters' transliterations, whenever I can find them, of the Chinese forms or translations of Indian names and words.
page 351 note 2 Regarding the meaning of the expressions “the seven kings,” “the eight kings,” see this Journal, 1906. 897.Google Scholar
page 352 note 1 Beal has said “to detain your carriage awhile;” Watters, “to dismount.” The text seems to mean plainly that the king was riding in a chariot drawn by an elephant. Such chariots were one of the customary means of conveyance; see, for instance, the Paṭṭadakal inscription (IA, 11. 125), of the time of the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Dhruva (about A.D. 783), which records that Bādipoḍḍi, a harlot of the temple of Lōkamahādēvī, presented a horse-chariot and an elephant-chariot.
page 353 note 1 Beal has “did not attempt to open the stūpa (to take out the relics).” Watters has “abandoned the idea of rifling the tope.”
page 354 note 1 For the whole story, see Buddhaghōsha's Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, ed. Davids, and Carpenter, , part 1. 260 ff.Google Scholar For another account, similar in leading features but differing in details, see the Mahāvastu, ed. Senart, , 1. 348 ff.;Google Scholar according to that, however, Kapilavastu was built on the site of a grove, not of śāka-trees (teak or Sāl, as the case may be), but of śākōṭa-trees (Trophis aspera).
Will someone favour us with translations of these (and other) legends? There is much that is of interest in them. My own work leads me only to skim the surface of them.
page 354 note 2 Possibly, they both did this part of their travels in the winter, and, starting on each stage at sunrise and taking their bearings by the sun, omitted to allow sufficiently for the declination of the sun.
page 355 note 1 It is usually understood that this Stūpa was in the kingdom in question. But, in describing his approach to it from the last preceding place visited by him, he says, according to Julien, ‘in leaving this country,’—en partant de ce pays.
page 355 note 2 Compare Beal, Records, 2. 65;Google ScholarWatters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 60. This Stūpa seems to be not mentioned in the Life.Google Scholar
page 356 note 1 Hiuen Tsiang has not reported the name of this Stūpa, which might well come to be known as either the Drōṇa-Stūpa or the Kumbha-Stūpa.
Julien has told us that the Chinese word p'ing, used here to denote the vase, is one which occurs elsewhere as the equivalent of the Sanskṛit karka, ‘a waterjar.’ Watters, however, has said that it is the recognized rendering of the Sanskṛit kumbha.
page 356 note 2 Beal says:—“Afterwards Aśōka-rāja, opening (the stūpa), took the relīcs “and the pitcher, and in place of the old one built a great stūpa.”
Watters says:—“Afterwards King Aśōka took away the relics and jar, and “replaced the old tope by a large one.”
page 356 note 3 That is, as the crow flies; the distance along the bends of the river is much more.
page 356 note 4 This, however, seems to be a mistake for Gādhipura; see the Imperial Gazetteer of India, 5. 62, and Mr. Hoey in JASB, 69, 1900. 86.Google Scholar
page 357 note 1 I may remark that, if Hiuen-tsiang's Chan-chu had really to be taken as a translation, then, as Mr. Hoey has observed to me, a most appropriate Sanskṛit original of it would be Raṇēśvara, from which we might easily have a modern name such as that of Rasrā in the Ballia district.
page 357 note 2 See, fully, a separate article on this record.
page 358 note 1 Compare Beal, Records, 2. 67;Google ScholarWatters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 65. This Stūpa seems to be not mentioned in the Life.Google Scholar
page 359 note 1 The Chinese text mentions here the measure ho or hoh, which Julien has explained as containing ten bushels, and for which he substituted drōṇa because ho answers to the Sanskṛit drōṇa in the name of Ho-fan-wang, = Drōṇōdanarāja, one of the uncles of Buddha. Beal has used the word hoh, and has explained it as meaning ten pecks. Watters has said “a bushel (hu or drōṇa),”
These various renderings illustrate well the difficulty of finding suitable western equivalents for oriental technical terms; especially if we bear in mind that a bushel contains only four pecks, not ten.
page 359 note 2 Watters has not given this part of the statement.
page 359 note 3 Compare Beal, Records, 2. 160;Google ScholarWatters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 158.Google Scholar The Life does not add anything, except in one detail noted below. Neither in the Si-yu-ki nor in the Life is the number of the “kings” mentioned in this place.
page 359 note 4 Julien, transcribing the Chinese by Kia-lan-t'o, took it as equivalent to Karaṇḍa. Beal followed him. Watters has given Ka-lan-t'o, and has taken it as meaning Kalanda.
page 360 note 1 The only statement in that direction, that I can trace, is in the Dīpavaṁsa, 3. 52, which speaks of Bōdhisa (Bhātiya) the father of Bimbisāra, as reigning “amid the five mountains, in Rājagaha.” This, however, appears to be worth no more, for purposes of accuracy, than a statement in the Rāmāyaṇa, 1. 32, 8 f., which describes the river Sumāgadhī, the Sōn, as looking, in flowing through Magadha, like a garland amidst the five hills which surrounded Vasumatī, Girivraja. Rājagṛiha was outside the five hills; and it is hardly possible that the Sōn can ever have flowed in between them.
page 360 note 2 Compare Beal, Records, 2. 165 ff.;Google ScholarWatters, , On Yuan Chwang, 2. 162.Google Scholar
page 360 note 3 This story illustrates the danger from fire which, according to Buddha's prophecy, might befall Pāṭaliputra; see this Journal, 1906. 668. The danger from water seems to be attributable to the river Sōn, which at one time flowed into the Ganges on the east of Patna, but now joins that river some fifteen miles away to the west of the city.Google Scholar
page 361 note 1 That is, apparently, the king in exile, Bimbisāra. Beal added a note (loc. cit., 166, note 72) to the effect that this new town was built, “as it seems, “in the place where the king was living. From this it would appear that the “site of the new town of Rājagṛiha had been before used as a burial-ground “for the people of the ‘old town.’”
The next sentence seems to imply a return of Bimbisāra from his self-imposed banishment.
page 361 note 2 Compare the story about Pāṭaligāma, Pāṭaliputra; see this Journal, 1906. 667 f.Google Scholar
page 361 note 3 So, for instance, Fa-hian; see page 362 below.
page 361 note 4 On this point, compare another passage in Hiuen Tsiang's writings; see this Journal, 1906. 669.Google Scholar Julien has left it undetermined whether Aśōka is here mentioned as Wu-yau or otherwise; so also in the corresponding passage in the Life, 160; in respect of this detail, see this Journal, 1906. 669, note 2.Google Scholar
page 362 note 1 For Legge and Beal, see this Journal, 1906. 901.Google Scholar