[In this respect I would like to present the
text of Paderia edict as given by Buhler in 18966. The text contains the
following lines-“Devana-piyena Piyadasina
lajina-visativasabhisitena/atana-agacha mahiyite hida-Budhe-jate Sakyamuni-ti
/sila-vigadabhi-cha kalapitasilathabhe-cha usapapite/ hida-Bhagavam-jate-ti
Lumminigame ubalike-kate/athabhagiya-cha(II) In 1896-98 the translation of this
edict was in the following manner-“King Piyadasi, beloved of the gods, having
been anointed twenty years, came himself and worshipped, saying: Here Buddha
Sakyamuni was born. And he caused to be made a stone(slab) bearing a big
sun(?); and he caused a stone pillar to
be erected . Because here the wonderful one was born, the village of Lummini
has been made free of taxes and a recipient of wealth.”7. ]
By Kailash Chandra Dash
The two edicts from Paderia and Nigliva were
edited by G.Buhler on the basis of the inked estampages furnished by their
discoverer, Dr. A. A. Fuhrer who found the second in March 1895 and the first
in December 18961. Both came from the Nepal Terai, where Nigliva was situated
38 miles north west of the Uska Bazar station of the Bengal and the
North-Western Railway in the Nepalese tahsil Taulihva of the Zillah Bataul.
Paderia was two miles north of the Nepalese tahsil Bhagvanpur of the same
Zillah and according to Dr Fuhrer`s estimate about thirteen miles from
Nigliva2. Both were incised on mutilated stone pillars and the Paderia edict
which was found three feet below the
surface of the ground was in a state of perfect preservation while that of
Nigliva had suffered a great deal on the left side and had lost the first five
letters of line three as well as the first seven of line four3. Aftetr about
thirty-one years of the discovery and publication of these records on Ashoka a
copy of Paderia edict (The so-called Rummindei inscription) was found in
Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar, the present capital of Odisha4. This stone
inscription(Silaphalaka) was brought to public notice by Haran Chandra
Chakaldar of Calcutta university and it was procured in about March 1928 by
Birendranath Ray for his museum at Puri from the village of Kapileswar5. It
created a belief that Buddha was born in Kapiavastu which was near Kapileswar
of Bhubaneswar as the said edict contains the message of the birthplace of
Gautam Buddha in Lumbini which was not far away from Kapilavastu. Thus this
inscription from Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar arrested the attention of the
historians and the archaeologists of India and abroad. In this paper I have
proposed to make a comparative study of the two sets of Ashokan edicts from
Paderia and Nigliva with Kapileswar inscription to justify the legitimacy of
the inscriptions found from Nepal and to establish the
fake nature of the Kapileswar grant on the basis of new findings and
interpretations.
In this respect I would like to present the
text of Paderia edict as given by Buhler in 18966. The text contains the
following lines-“Devana-piyena Piyadasina
lajina-visativasabhisitena/atana-agacha mahiyite hida-Budhe-jate Sakyamuni-ti
/sila-vigadabhi-cha kalapitasilathabhe-cha usapapite/ hida-Bhagavam-jate-ti
Lumminigame ubalike-kate/athabhagiya-cha(II) In 1896-98 the translation of this
edict was in the following manner-“King Piyadasi, beloved of the gods, having
been anointed twenty years, came himself and worshipped, saying: Here Buddha
Sakyamuni was born. And he caused to be made a stone(slab) bearing a big
sun(?); and he caused a stone pillar to
be erected . Because here the wonderful one was born, the village of Lummini
has been made free of taxes and a recipient of wealth.”7.
In 1928 when an inscription was discovered
from the village of Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar this interpretation was well
known8. But Kapileswar inscription was not an exact copy of this Paderia edict
stated above. Hence we quote here the entire text of Kapileswar inscription
which is in the following-“ D(e)vanamphiyena Piyadashina l(a)jina
vi-/sa(bh)isitena agacha mahida Budha j(a)ta/Sakyamuni ti sila vigada-bhicha
kalaph(i)-/t(a) sila-thabha va u(s)ap(a)p(i)ta: hida Bhagava/j(a)tet(i)
L(u)mini-game ubalik(e) kat(e) (-) Ila/ (v)uth(e) (200) 40 (-)atha-bhagiy(e)
cha Chu(m)draya9. The translation of this version is exactly similar with that
of Paderia edict; but the Kapileswar inscription contains some additions-Ila
vuthe 200 40 and Chundraya10. Chakradhar Mahapatra has given a translation of
the inscription found from Kapileswar which may be quoted here for our
comparative study11. According to his interpretation-As Lord Buddha was born
here, he exempted the Lumbini village from the payment of tax. He did it in the
Ila(worshipful) 240 abda(Buddhist era). Prior to it 1/8th taxation was in
vogue. Chundraya(the script writer). According to Mahapatra this was also the
explanation of Pandit Banambar Acharya, a famous Sanskrit writer of Odisha12.
This interpretation of the inscription from
Kapileswar from the time of its
discovery is not at all correct as the historians who had dealt with this problem
from 1898 were not clear in the meaning of the terms in Paderia edict. Recently
Harry Falk in his interesting paper entitled The Fate of Ashoka`s Donations at
Lumbini has suggested a new and revised reading of the Paderia edict13. He had
given emphasis on two points-vigadabhi and athabhagiya. On the first point he
suggested that king Ashoka who had been anointed for twenty years came to the birth-place of Buddha at lumbini
where he had a stone fencing constructed and a stone pillar erected. On the
second point he suggested that the term athabhagiya has not been correctly
interpreted the historians. The meaning given by Buhler in 1898 of this term
which is recipient of royal bounty is not correct. As suggested by Harry Falk
the term in Sanskrit would be Ashtabhagika which means eight parts or bhaga.
This term athabhaga as stated by Falk also appears in Kanganhalli inscription
near Sannathi in Karnataka which states-ramogamilo athabhagathubho upai which
means the stupa of Ramagrama containing one eighth part. It refers to the
division of the ashes of the Buddha into eight parts as it is found in the
Dighanikaya. Falk in his interesting study stated that one part of the ashes
each went to Rajagriha, Vaisali, Kapilavastu, Allakappa, Ramagrama, Vethadipa,
Pava and Kusinagara where they reached divided into eight equal parts. Here
Lumbini is missing from the list. The text Dighanikaya stated that the relics
should be ashtabhaga so that the stupas containing them can be constructed in
the eight directions. The eight parts are thus linked to eight stupas in eight
directions and Ramagrama is not the least amongst them. As stated by Falk
before Ashoka came to Lumbini, the real birth-place of Buddha the site had not
yet received a share of the Buddha`s relics and that he provided Lumbini with a
share of it for the first time. Thus before Ashoka`s visit at the site, no
stupa hallowed the place in memory of the birth of the Sakyamuni. Thus Ashoka
must have changed Lumbini from an insignificant place in the woods to a possible
centre of pilgrimage. The translation of the edict is thus in the following as
stated by Falk-
When king Priyadarsin, dear to the gods, had
been anointed for twenty years, he came in person and paid reverence. Being
aware that the Buddha was born here he had stone fencing constructed on the
site of the birth and a stone pillar erected. Being aware that the Lord was
born here he made the village of Lumbini tax-free and provided it with a share
in the eight parts-the ashes of the Buddha had originally been divided)14
That is why in the edict at Paderia there is
the mention of Cha near Athabhagiya and before Athabhagiya there is
Ubalika-kate. Both Ubalika-kate and Athabhagiya as different terms are
applicable to Lumbini. If we accept 1/8th part of tax the term ubalika-kate
would be irrelevant and so both the
terms-Ubalika-kate and Athabhagiya connote two different contexts and not
related to one another.
In the Kapileswar inscription the use of
additional letters as symbol of an era definitely suggests its fake nature.
Probably the composer of the inscription could not know the meaning of
athabhagiya and he accepted it as a type of tax. There was no need of an era
called Buddhist era in this inscription as Ashoka`s regnal year was present. We
find the statement of the era (Vyuthene 256) in the Siddhapura grant of Ashoka
where the regnal year is absent15 Most likely the composer wanted to surpass
the composer of Paderia edict by stating something unique-the so-called Buddhist
era which was not necessary and so it
justified its fake nature.The
mention of the script writer was another interesting addition in the grant of
Kapileswar which is not found in the Paderia grant. The name stated is
Chundraya which seems to be incorrect from the point of view of grammar. We
find the name of the scribe in the Siddhapura edicts of Ashoka which was Pada
and the statement Padena is grammatically correct.The addition of this name was
made in the Kapileswar grant to provide legitimacy to the grant which rather
added to its fake nature. The composer probably had gone through the text of
Siddhapura edicts of Ashoka as published in Epigraphia Indica(Vol.III) of
1894-95 where we find the term Vyuthena 256. In fact this numerical symbol was
found to be stated in many minor rock edicts and there the rengal year of
Ashoka was absent16. The term Vyuthena has been interpreted in two different
ways17;
The word Vyutha may refer to Gautam Buddha
and the figure to the number of years elapsed since the Nirvana.
Vyutha-Vivutha may be derived from vivas and
Buhler who accepted the first meaning also took
it as representative of Vyustha. The verb vivas occurs indeed not rarely
in the sense of ‘to elapse’ or ‘to pass away. For example in Grihasutra there
is-Jananad dasaratre vyushte which Oldenberg correctly interpreted-when ten
nights have elapsed after the child`s birth. In Panchatantra it has also been
used in this sense-Rajani vyushta.
Interestingly as the editor of Siddhapur
grant, G.Buhler in Epigraphia indica(Vol.III) which was published in 1897
accepted the term in the sense of an era-Buddhist era, the composer of
Kapileswar inscription used it without considering the second implication of
the term Vyutha. As a matter of fact many minor edicts of Ashoka-like
Brahmagiri, Erragudi, Gujjara, Nittur, Panguraria, Rajula Mandagiri,
Rupnath,have accepted this term.
With the new interpretation of
Harry Falk we can justifiably state that
the Kapileswar inscription was really a fake document.
As we read the Nigliva script we have to face
some problems on the birthplace of Gautam Buddha in Limbini. The Nigliva record
states-when king Priyadarsin, dear to the gods, has been anointed for fourteen
years, he enlarged the stupa of Buddha Konagamana to double its size. When he
was consecrated for twenty years he came in person and paid reverence and had a
stone pillar erected18. This inscription articulates some problems on the birthplace
of Buddha. Why did not Ashoka visit Lumbini, the real birthplace of Buddha in
his 14th regnal year? Was the site unknown to Ashoka in that regnal year? He
visited the site of Konakamana Buddha which was a mythical name only and
originally there was a stupa which Ashoka enlarged in his 14th regnal year. In
that year he did not visit Lumbini, the real birthplace of Buddha which
suggested that this site of Lumbini as the birth place of Buddha did not gain
any prominence in his 14th regnal year and that the site for Konakamana was
probably considered the real birthplace of old Buddha. Thus before Ashoka a
site belonging to old Buddha(Konakamana) was the centre of a stupa and Lumbini
which was the real birthplace of Gautam Buddha was not known to the emperor then.
Had he known the site as the real birthplace of Buddha in his 14th regnal year
he would have made it a point to visit it. So he only enlarged the stupa at the
site of Konakamana Buddha in his 14th rengal year and in his 20th regnal year
he visited the real birthplace of Buddha as well as the site of Konakamana
Buddha. Between his 14th regnal year and 20th regnal year there must have been
some developments in the zone of the birthplace of Buddha. It might be that the
site of Lumbini was really detected by the Buddhists and Ashoka was intimated
about it in his 20th regnal year for which he took a momentous decision to
visit the site for marking his regard for Buddha`s real birthplace. It also
makes it clear that the real birthplace
of Gautam Buddha -Lumbini was unknown before Ashoka and with Ashoka`s rapid
movement for spreading Buddhism in and outside India led to the search of the
real site where Gautam Buddha was born. It was Ashoka who by visiting the spot
of Lumbini made it famous and popular and there for the first time a stupa was
erected by Ashoka and a share of Ashtabhagiya (Ashes of Buddha) was given to
the area. There was no evidence to present Lumbini as the real birthplace of
Buddha until his 14th regnal year when he visited the site of mythical
Konakamana Buddha and developments in the period from 14th to 20th regnal year
led to the discovery of the site of Lumbini grama as the real birthplace of
Gautam Buddha.
References
G.Buhler, ‘The Ashoka Edicts of Paderia and
Nigliva, Epigraphia Indica(hereafter cited as EI), Vol.V, p.1-6.
Ibid.p.1
Ibid.
For this context see Pravasi (a Bengali
monthly), Sravan, 1335,B.S.(i.e., July 1928),p.627.S.N.Mitra, ‘The Lumbini
Pilgrimage Record in two inscriptions’, Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol.V,
3-4, 1929,p.728; Also see B.K.Rana,’Nepal`s Lumbini:Where the Buddha was Born’,
The Himalayan Voice, February 14, 2010;
Kailash Chandra Dash, ‘Was Kapileswar of
Bhubaneswar the Birth-place of Gautam Buddha?’, Orissa historical Research
Journal, Vol.LII, No.1 and 2, Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar, 2011,p.104-117;
The Himalayan Voice, 12 December, 2012.
Ibid
EI, Vol.V, p.4-6.
Ibid.
Kailash Chandra Dash, p.104-117.
S.N.Mitra, 1929, 752-753.
Ibid.
Chakradhar Mahapatra,The Real Birth-place of
Buddha, Granth Mandir, Cuttack, 1977.p.8-31.
Ibid, p.17.
Harry Falk,’The Fate of Ashoka`s Donations at
Lumbini’, Reimagining Ashoka Memory and History,eds., Patrick Olivelle, Janice
Leoshko and Himanshu Prabha Ray, Oxford University Press, new delhi,
2012,p.204-216.
Harry Falk,p.215-216.
G.Buhler, ‘The Siddhapura Edicts of Ashoka’,
EI, Vol.III, p.134-142. This Volume was published in 1897.
Meena Talim, Edicts of King Ashoka A new
Vision, Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2010, p.151-226.
G.Buhler, EI, Vol.III, p.142.
G.Buhler, EI, Vol.V, p.5-6
@ The
author is Reader in History, Binayak Acharya Govt. College, Brahmapur-6,
Odisha, India.
Email:<dash.kailashchandra@rediffmail.com>
