[The inscription above simply says - it is a Vihar of Kapilvastu Bhikshu Mahasangh or Bhikshu Sangh. It just refers to Vihars or Sanghas or organization(s). The ‘Kapilvastu Bhikshu Mahasangh or Bhikshu Sangh’ can’t be the name of a city or town itself. These name words just mean an organization or organizations or monks’ communities or even social institution(s) of the Buddha’s time. This epigraphy, therefore, does not give any direct meaning or naming of a city or town like ‘Kapilvastu Nagar(e)’ etc. It simply means - the Vihara in Piprahawa was a member of Kapilvastu Vihara Mahasangh and which most probably might have been built by Ashok or later kings - we again add.]
By B. K. Rana
We do not have anything to worry about whether it tasted sweet or bitter debating Kapilvastu evidence you have ‘produced and so we have also’ but ‘beyond sense’ is what you have first coined in your very second post [ April 7, 2010] - this is it. No more on it. Enough said !
We hope this is going to be a healthful debate - may be leading to some kind of general agreement, if not any logical conclusion and also least ‘nationally loaded’ or ‘tedious’ whatever. It is of course yes such discussions might help reduce bitterness, if there persists any right now, among the people of the two countries that are historically and culturally so closely bound or related.
Now we rewrite from your earlier post here the Piprahawa reliquary casket lid inscription:
This is a landmark find we agree of which one literal interpretation might be:
“This container holds the relics of Lord Buddha donated by the Sakya family members altogether”.
But it doesn’t necessarily say - it was in the town or city of Kapilvastu
The casket lid inscription says much of the Buddha and his clan members but it does not offer enough information to determine the location of royal palace of Kapilvastu
“Om Devaputra Vihare Kapilvastu Bhikshu Mahasanghasa. Om Devaputra Vihare Kapilvastu Bhikku Sanghas”.
(This is the inscription for which we wrote, ‘We have also provided them with equally compelling inscription from our posting’. Not the token inscription.)
The inscription above simply says - it is a Vihar of Kapilvastu Bhikshu Mahasangh or Bhikshu Sangh. It just refers to Vihars or Sanghas or organization(s). The ‘Kapilvastu Bhikshu Mahasangh or Bhikshu Sangh’ can’t be the name of a city or town itself. These name words just mean an organization or organizations or monks’ communities or even social institution(s) of the Buddha’s time. This epigraphy, therefore, does not give any direct meaning or naming of a city or town like ‘Kapilvastu Nagar(e)’ etc. It simply means - the Vihara in Piprahawa was a member of Kapilvastu Vihara Mahasangh and which most probably might have been built by Ashok or later kings - we again add.
Here we quote from Max Deeg’s 2003 field report of Lumbini and Kapilvastu etc. - a related version from Mahaparinirvanasutra (Waldschhmidt (1950/1951, 446):
“saptamam bhagam Kapilvastavyanam sakyanam anuprayacchati yena kapilvastavyah sakyah Kapilavasatuni bhagavatam sarirastupam pratisthapayanti puravavad yavat pujayanti”
Max Deeg translates it as “the Brahmin Drona gave the seventh part of the Buddha astu (relics) - to the Sakyas of Kapilvastu: the Sakyas from Kapilvastu erected over it in Kapilvastu a Stupa for the relics of the Venerable One (and) venerated (it) as described before ( i.e. in case of the other recipients”.
Moving forward what in we agree with you is that the Tilaurakot terracotta seal engraved with — “Sa - ka - na – sya” is incomplete and broken. Yes, it is not complete. It does not tell everything. It is so small to engrave everything, roughly 2 centimeter in diameter and first deciphered by Babu K. Rijal. But it also can’t be any "Sankarsnasya"- meaning 'of the Sankarshana' as you have mentioned. In a time of richly flourishing Buddhism and Prakrit becoming language of the land – a perfect Sanskrit interpretation may not be applicable equivalent here. So, there should not be any reference to Krishna or Balaram – both Hindu mythical figures .
We have not called any professors for help as you have outlined in your post. We just wanted Robin Connigham or the UNESCO World Heritage Committee people to make the c – 14 test results public so that ordinary people like us can feel enlightened. As you have rightly said we are not an authority to establish what is right or what is wrong, we are just demanding what the results were there before declaring Lumbini - the World Heritage Site.
The other issue of an advantage of being a native for understanding one’s language and culture was not indicative to you or ourselves also but it was to those western scholars who had (and still have) prejudiced colonial mindset for writing books like “The Buddha and Sahibs” etc.
You also said you have seriously gone through Tara Nanda Mishra’s report. That’s fine and we hope you have noticed him dismissing S. K. Shrivastav’s Piprahawa report.
Epigraphic evidence are strong evidence but they are not like the inscriptions engraved in Nigali Sagar Pillar inscription below and see the picture also.
‘Devanam piyena piyadasina lajina chodasavasa(bhisitena) Budhasa Konakamanasa thube dutiyam vadhite (visativasa)sabhusitena cha atana agachha mahiyite (silathabhe cha suapapite)
Finally, nationalism is always something to take pride of but it should never shadow historical facts and archaeological evidence on the ground because they are there for the benefit of humanity.
* Piprahawa stupa, Ganwaria monastry and Nigali Sagar Ashok pillar photos courtesy: Max Deeg - The Places Where Siddhartha Trod: Lumbini and Kapilvastu – Lumbini International Research Institute,Lumbini , Nepal (2003)
@ This post was made in reply to
* Piprahawa stupa, Ganwaria monastry and Nigali Sagar Ashok pillar photos courtesy: Max Deeg - The Places Where Siddhartha Trod: Lumbini and Kapilvastu – Lumbini International Research Institute,
