Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s3.t20: 18. Srâvasti.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s3.t20

Language
English

18. Srâvasti.

c6.s3.t20.1

The ancient territory of Ayodhya, or Oudh, was divided by the Sarjû or Ghâgra river into two great provinces; that to the north being called *Uttara Kosala*, and that to the south *Banaodha*. Each was again subdivided into two districts. In Banaodha these are called *Pachham-rát* and *Purab-rát*, or the western and eastern districts; and in Uttara Kosala they are *Gauḍa* (vulgarly *Gonda*) to the south of the Rapti, and Kosala to the north of the Rapti, or *Ráwati*, as it is universally called in Oudh. Some of these names are found in the Purânas. Thus, in the Vayu Purâna, Lava the son of Râma is said to have reigned in Uttara Kosala; but in the Matsya Linga and Kurma Purânas, *Srávasti* is stated to be in *Gauḍa*. These apparent discrepancies are satisfactorily explained when we learn that *Gauḍa* is only a subdivision of Uttara Kosala, and that the ruins of Srávasti have actually been discovered in the district of *Gauḍa*, which is the Gonda of the maps. The extent of *Gauḍa* is proved by the old name of Balrâmpur on the Rapti, which was formerly *Ramgarh-Gauḍa*. I presume, therefore, that both the *Gauḍa* Brahmans and the *Gauḍa* Tagas must originally have belonged to this district, and not to the mediæval city of *Gauḍa* in Bengal. Brahmans of this name are still numerous in Ajudhya and Jahângirabad on the right bank of the Ghâgra river, in Gonda, Pakhapur, and Jaisni of the Gonda or *Gauḍa* district on the left bank, and in many parts of the neighbouring province of Gorakhpur. Ajudhya, therefore, was the capital of Banaodha, or Oudh to the south of the Ghâgra, while *Srávasti* was the capital of Uttara Kosala, or Oudh to the north of the Ghâgra.

c6.s3.t20.2

The position of the famous city of *Srávasti*, one of the most celebrated places in the annals of Buddhism, has long puzzled our best scholars. This was owing partly to the contradictory statements of the Chinese pilgrims themselves, and partly to the want of a good map of the province of Oudh. In my account of Vi-sákha or Ajudhya, I have compared the bearings and distances recorded by Fa-Hian and Hwen Thsang with those preserved in the Buddhist annals of Ceylon, and I have shown conclusively that Fa-Hian’s distance from Sankisa and his bearing from Shachi or Sáket are both erroneous. We know from Hwen Thsang and the Buddhist books of Ceylon that Srávasti was to the north of Sáket or Ajudhya, or in other words that it was in the district of Gauḍa or Uttara Kosala, which is confirmed by the statements of no less than four of the Brahmanical Purânas. And as Fa-Hian also says that Shewei or Sewet was in Kosala, there can be no doubt whatever that Srávasti must be looked for within a few days’ journey to the northward of Sáket or Ayodhya. According to Fa-Hian the distance was 8 yojanas, or 56 miles, which is increased by Hwen Thsang to 500 li, or 83 miles.* But as the latter pilgrim reduced the Indian yojana to Chinese measure at the rate of 40 li per yojana, we may correct his distance by the nearest round number of 350 li, or 58 miles, to bring it into accordance with the other. Now, as this is the exact distance from Ajudhya of the great ruined city on the south bank of the Rapti, called Sáhet-Máhet, in which I discovered a colossal statue of Buddha with an inscription containing the name of Srávasti itself, I have no hesitation in correcting Hwen Thsang’s distance from 500 li to 350 li, as proposed above.

c6.s3.t20.3

The ruined city of Sáhet-Máhet is situated between Akaona and Balrâmpur, at 5 miles from the former and 12 miles from the latter, and at nearly equal distances from Bahraich and Gonda.* In shape it is an almost semicircular crescent, with its diameter of one mile and a third in length curved inwards and facing the north-east, along the old bank of the Rapti river. The western front, which runs due north and south, for three-quarters of a mile, is the only straight portion of the enclosure. The ramparts vary considerably in height; those to the west being from 35 to 40 feet in height, while those on the south and east are not more than 25 or 30 feet. The highest point is the great north-west bastion, which is 50 feet above the fields. The north-east face, or shorter curve of the crescent, was defended by the Rapti, which still flows down its old bed during the annual floods. The land ramparts on the longer curve of the crescent must once have been defended by a ditch, the remains of which yet exist as a swamp, nearly half a mile in length, at the south-west corner. Everywhere the ramparts are covered with fragments of brick, of the large size peculiar to very ancient cities; and though I was unable to trace any remains of walls except in one place, yet the very presence of the bricks is quite sufficient to show that the earthen ramparts must once have been crowned by brick parapets and battlements. The portion of the parapet wall, which I discovered still standing in the middle of the river face, was 10 feet thick. The whole circuit of the old earthen ramparts, according to my survey, is 17,300 feet, or upwards of 3 1/4 miles. Now this is the exact size of 20 *li*, or 3 1/3 miles, which Hwen Thsang gives to the palace alone; but, as the city was then deserted and in ruins, he must have mistaken the city itself for the palace.

c6.s3.t20.4

∗ Beal’s ‘Fah-Hian,’ c. xx. 73; Julien’s ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ ii. 292.

c6.s3.t20.5

∗ See Map No. XI. for its position.

c6.s3.t20.6

It is certain at least that the suburbs outside the walls must have been very limited indeed, as the place is almost entirely surrounded with the remains of large religious buildings, which would have left but little room for any private dwellings. I am therefore quite satisfied that the city has been mistaken for the palace; and this mistake is sufficient to show how utterly ruined this once famous city must have been at so distant a period as the seventh century, when the place was visited by Hwen Thsang. As Fa-Hian describes the population as already very inconsiderable in A.D. 400, while the Ceylonese annals speak of Khiradhára, king of Sawatthipura between A.D. 275 and 302, the great decline of Srâvasti must have taken place during the fourth century, and we may perhaps not be far wrong in connecting it with the fall of the Gupta dynasty in A.D. 319.

c6.s3.t20.7

Srâvasti is said to have been built by Raja Sravasta,* the son of Yuvanáswa of the Solar race, and the tenth in descent from Surya himself. Its foundation therefore reaches to the fabulous ages of Indian history, long anterior to Râma. During this early period it most probably formed part of the kingdom of Ayodhya, as the Vâyu Purana assigns it to Lava, the son of Râma. When Srâvasti next appears in history, in the time of Buddha, it was the capital of King Prasenâjit, the son of Maha Kosala. The king became a convert to the new faith, and during the rest of his life he was the firm friend and protector of Buddha. But his son Virudhaka hated the race of the Sâkyas, and his invasion of their country and subsequent massacre of 500 Sâkya maidens, who had been selected for his harem, brought forth the famous prediction of Buddha, that within seven days the king would be consumed by fire. As the story has been preserved by Buddhists, the prediction was of course fulfilled, and upwards of eleven centuries afterwards, the tank in which the king had sought to avoid the flames was pointed out to the credulous Hwen Thsang.*

c6.s3.t20.8

∗ Wilson, ‘Vishnu Purana,’ book iv. p. 2; Hall’s edit., vol. iv. p. 263.

c6.s3.t20.9

We hear nothing more of Srâvasti until one century after Kanishka, or five centuries after Buddha, when, according to Hwen Thsang, Vikramâditya, king of Srâvasti, became a persecutor of Buddhists, and the famous Manorhita, author of the Vibhâsha Sâstra, being worsted in argument by the Brahmans, put himself to death. During the reign of his successor, whose name is not given, the Brahmans were overcome by Vasubandhu, the eminent disciple of Manorhita. The probable date of these two kings may be set down as ranging from A.D. 79 to 120. For the next two centuries Srâvasti would seem to have been under the rule of its own kings, as we find Khiradhâra and his nephew mentioned as Rajas between A.D. 275 and 319.† But there can be little doubt that during the whole of this time Srâvasti was only a dependency of the powerful Gupta dynasty of Magadha, as the neighbouring city of Sâketa is specially said to have belonged to them. "Princes of the Gupta race," says the Vâyu Purana, "will possess all those countries; the banks of the Ganges to Prayâga, and Sâketa, and Magadha."‡ From this time Srâvasti gradually declined. In A.D. 400 it contained only 200 families; in A.D. 632 it was completely deserted; and at the present day the whole area of the city, excepting only a few clearances near the gateways, is a mass of almost impenetrable jangal.

c6.s3.t20.10

∗ Julien's ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ ii. 306. † Turnour, in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, vi. 865. ‡ Quoted in Wilson's ‘Vishnu Purana,’ p. 479, note; and Hall's edition, iv. 218.

c6.s3.t20.11

There is a difference in the name of the city, which Fa-Hian gives as *She-wei*, while Hwen Thsang writes it, as correctly as is possible in Chinese syllables, *She-lo-fa-si-ti* or *Srávasti*. But this difference is more apparent than real, as there can be little doubt that *Shewei* is only a slight alteration of the abbreviated Pali form of *Sewet*, for *Sáwatthi*, which is found in most of the Ceylonese books. Similarly the modern name of *Sáhet* is evidently only a variation of the Pali *Sáwet*. The other name of *Máhet* I am unable to explain; but it is perhaps only the usual rhyming addition of which the Hindus are so fond, as in *ulta-pulta*, or "topsy-turvy," which many people say is the true meaning of *Sáhet-máhet*, in allusion to the utter ruin of the whole place. But some say that the name was originally *Set-met*, and as this form seems to be a corruption of *Sewet*, it is probable that *Sahet-Mahet* is only a lengthened pronunciation of *Set-met*. One man alone, a Muhammadan in charge of the tomb of Pir Barâna close to the ruined city, affirmed that the true name was *Sávitri*, which is so close to the correct Pali form of *Sáwatthi* as to leave but little doubt that it preserves the original name of the place.

c6.s3.t20.12

Hwen Thsang assigns to the kingdom of *Srávasti* a circuit of 4000 *li*, or 667 miles, which is about double the actual size of the territory lying between the Ghâgra river and the foot of the mountains; but as he assigns the same dimensions to the territory of Nepâl, it is probable that in his time the two western districts of Malbhûm and Khâchi, in the hills to the north, may at that time have belonged to Srâvasti. The territory of Srâvasti would thus have comprised all the country lying between the Himâlaya mountains and the Ghâgra river, from the Karnâli river on the west to the mountain of Dhaolagiri and Faizâbâd on the east. The circuit of this tract is about 600 miles, or very nearly the same as the estimated measurement of Hwen Thsang.

Linked texts (6)