Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c61: Chapter LVIII. The Licchavis

Tribes in Ancient India c61

Language
English

Contents

Chapter LVIII. The Licchavis

Name and Origin

c61.s1.1

The Licchavis were a great and powerful people of Eastern India in the sixth century B.C. Their peculiar form of government, their free institutions, their manners and customs, their religious views and practices afford us glimpses of India of the transition period, when the ancient Vedic culture was developing in new directions, and undergoing a transformation under the influence of the speculative activity out of which emerged the two great religions of Jainism and Buddhism. Fortunately for us, Buddhist literature, and to a lesser extent the Jaina sacred books, have preserved for us facts and comments, which, though fragmentary, are yet sufficient to give us a living picture of this interesting people. From the account of their political institutions that can be gleaned from the Pāli Buddhist Canon, we obtain an insight into the democratic ideas of statecraft and government that prevailed among the majority of the Aryan clans that peopled Northern India before the imperialistic policy grew and developed.

c61.s1.2

In Indian literature we find the name of this people in slightly varying forms—Licchavi, Licchivi, Lecchavi, Lecchaī and so on. Throughout the Pāli Canon, the name occurs in the form ‘Licchavi’. In some of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts, e.g. the *Divyāvadāna*,¹ the name is found in this form, but in others, e.g. the *Mahāvastu*, the usual form is Lecchavi.² In the Chinese translations of the Buddhist sacred books, the name occurs in both forms, Licchavi and Lecchavi,³ as is to be expected, since these translations are based on the Buddhist Sanskrit texts. The *Mahāvastu* form Lecchavi answers very well to the Prākrit form Lecchaī, which we find in another set of works claiming to be contemporaneous in origin with the Buddhist Canon, namely, the Jaina sacred literature which, according to some scholars, began to be composed perhaps by the direct disciples of Mahāvīra in the first century after his death, or at the latest in the next century, by the time of Candragupta Maurya, when the first Council of the Jains was held at Pāṭaliputra.¹

c61.s1.3

¹ *Divyāvadāna*, ed. E. B. Cowell and R. A. Neil, pp. 55-6, 136.

c61.s1.4

² *Mahāvastu*, ed. E. Senart, Vol. I, p. 254, etc.

c61.s1.5

³ T. Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, Vol. II, p. 77.

c61.s1.6

¹ M. Winternitz, *Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur*, II, p. 295.

c61.s1.7

In the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, one of the earliest works of the Jaina sacred literature, we meet with the name Lecchai,² and the same form occurs in the *Kalpasūtra* attributed to Bhadrabāhu, who is considered to have been a contemporary of Candragupta (c. 321-297 B.C., according to Rapson, *Ancient India*, p. 182). The Jaina commentators equate the Prākṛt Lecchai with Sanskrit Lecchaki.³ In the form Lecchaki, however, the name never occurs in Sanskrit literature, in which the earliest mention of the tribe, so far as we have been able to ascertain, is in Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra*, where they are called Licchivis. Here we read that the corporations of Licchivi, Vṛji, Malla, Madra, Kukura, Kuru, Pañcāla and others were ‘rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ’, i.e. enjoyed the status of rājās or kings.⁴ We next find the Licchavis mentioned in the *Mānava Dharmaśāstra* (X, 22). Here there are some *variæ lectiones*; the anonymous Kashmiri comment on the text reads Lichavi which approximates very closely to the Buddhistic form. Medhātithi and Govindarāja, the two earliest commentators, read Licchivi, and this reading tallies exactly with the name as given by Kauṭilya; this form, therefore, represents the earliest spelling of the word in the Brahmanic Sanskrit literature. Kullūka Bhaṭṭa, the Bengali commentator, however, reads Nicchivi, and Rāghavānanda, another commentator, follows him in this as in other matters; and the ordinary printed editions of the *Manusaṃhitā* have generally adopted this reading.¹ Both Jolly and Bühler have accepted the form Licchivi, but Jolly cites two MSS. and five printed editions with the form ‘Nicchivi’. Kullūka, who probably wrote in the fifteenth century, i.e. about 600 years later than Medhātithi, and about 300 years later than Govindarāja, was probably misled by the similarity of the letters ‘N’ and ‘L’ as they were written in Bengali in the fifteenth century, and as they are still written even in modern Bengali manuscripts.²

c61.s1.8

² *Kalpasūtra*, paragraph 128. *Sīrīkalpasūtram*, Bhavnagar edition, p. 192; see also *Jaina Sūtras* by H. Jacobi, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, p. 266, f.n. 1; Vol. XIV, part II, p. 321, f.n. 3.

c61.s1.9

³ *Jaina Sūtras*, Jacobi, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, part I, p. 266, f.n. 1.

c61.s1.10

⁴ See Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra*, translated by R. Shāma Shāstrī, p. 455. The Sanskrit text has: ‘Licchivika-Vṛjika-Mallaka-Madraka-Kukura-Kuru-Pañcālādayo rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ.’ The ‘ka’ at the end of Licchivi, etc., is adjectival. It will be noted that Kauṭilya distinguishes the Licchivis from the Vṛjis. Regarding this H. Panday (‘Notes on the Vajji country and the Mallas of Pāvā’, *J.B.O.R.S.*, Vol. VI, pt. II, June 1920, pp. 259 *et seq.*) says that it appears from the Pāli Suttas that the names Vajji and Licchavi are interchangeable to some extent. The accounts of Chinese pilgrims, however, point to a different conclusion. Fā-Hien calls the country of which Vaiśālī was the capital, ‘the kingdom of Vaiśālī’, and the people of the country, ‘Licchavis’. He does not mention Vṛji or Vajji. Hsüan Tsang describes Vaiśālī and Vṛji as two distinct countries, and Watters is inclined to doubt the accuracy of his description of the Vṛji country. Ray Chaudhuri reconciles the evidence of the Pāli literature with that of Kauṭilya and Hsüan Tsang, saying: ‘Vajji was not only the name of the confederacy but also of one of the constituent clans. But the Vajjis like the Licchavis are sometimes associated with the city of Vesālī which was not only the capital of the Licchavi clan, but also the metropolis of the entire confederacy.’—(*Political History of Ancient India*, 4th Ed., p. 101.)

c61.s1.11

¹ For the various readings see *Mānava Dharmaśāstra*, ed. J. Jolly, p. 325. See also *Laws of Manu*, Bühler, S.B.E., Vol. XXV, p. 406, n.

c61.s1.12

² R. D. Banerjee, *The Origin of the Bengali Script*, Cal. Univ., 1919, p. 82, pp. 108-9. It is clear, however, that the form Nicchivi is a very old reading, as it occurs in the Sinhalese *Aṭṭhakathā*, which forms the basis of Buddhaghosa’s story.

c61.s1.13

The Sanskrit inscriptions of the early Gupta emperors favour the form ‘Licchavi’. In the Allahabad Stone Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta, that monarch is described as ‘Licchavidauhitra’, ‘the son of the daughter of the Licchavis’,³ so we have here the same form as in the Pāli Buddhist works. The same form occurs in many other inscriptions of the Guptas, for example, in the Mathurā Stone Inscription of Candragupta II,⁴ the Bilsād Stone Pillar Inscription of Kumāra Gupta of the year 96⁵ and the Bihar Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta.⁶ On the other hand, the variant Licchivi occurs in the Bhitarī Stone Pillar Inscription of Skandagupta⁷ and the Gayā Copperplate Inscription of Samudragupta⁸ (which is considered to be spurious). Some coins of Candragupta I bear the name Licchavi. Moreover, in the inscriptions of the Nepal kings, who claim to be descended from the family of the Licchavis, the expression used is always *Licchavikula-ketu*, ‘the banner (or glory) of the Licchavi family’.⁹ We have seen that in the Chinese translations which are based on Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the form is Licchavi or Lecchavi; Fā-Hien speaks of them as Licchavis,¹⁰ while in Hsüan Tsang (Beal’s *Records of the Western World*) the form is Li-ch’e p’o, which would correspond to the form Licchavi.¹¹ The Tibetans, who began to have the Buddhist books translated into their own language from the eighth century A.D., also have the form Licchavi.¹

c61.s1.14

³ *Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings*, ed. J. F. Fleet—*Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, Vol. III, p. 8.

c61.s1.15

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 27.

c61.s1.16

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 43.

c61.s1.17

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 50.

c61.s1.18

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 53.

c61.s1.19

⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 256.

c61.s1.20

⁹ *Ibid.*, p. 177 f.n.; *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. IX, pp. 168ff.

c61.s1.21

¹⁰ Legge, *Fā-Hien*, pp. 71, 76.

c61.s1.22

¹¹ *Buddhist Records of the Western World*, by S. Beal, Vol. II, p. 73.

c61.s1.23

¹ Tibetan *Dulva*, quoted by Rockhill in his *Life of the Buddha* (pp. 97 *et seq.*); Tārānātha’s *Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien*, translated into German by Anton Schiefner, pp. 9, 41, 146.

c61.s1.24

There is clear evidence in the Buddhist literature to show that the Licchavis belonged to the Aryan ruling caste—the Kṣatriya. In the *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta* we read that after the decease of the Buddha, the Licchavis claimed a share of the remnants of his body. They sent a messenger to the Mallas of Kuśīnara, where he had died, saying: ‘The Exalted One was a Kṣatriya and so are we. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Exalted One.’² Here we see that the claim of the Licchavis was based on the fact that they were Kṣatriyas or people of the same caste as the Buddha.

c61.s1.25

² *Dīgha Nikāya*, P.T.S., Vol. II, pp. 164 *et seq.* Trsl. Prof. and Mrs. Rhys Davids, in *Dialogues of the Buddha*, Vol. III, p. 187.

c61.s1.26

Moreover, we are told that a Licchavi named Mahāli says, ‘I am a Khattiya (Kṣatriya), so is the Buddha’³; while in the introduction to the *Sigāla Jātaka* we read of a Licchavi girl, ‘the daughter of a Kṣatriya and high-born.’⁴ Dr. Richard Fick in his work, *The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha’s Time*, is rather sceptical as to whether the word Kṣatriya as used in the Pāli texts has exactly the same connotation as in the ancient Brahmanical literature; but Professor Oldenberg observes⁵ that there is no ground for this scepticism.

c61.s1.27

³ *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī*, Pt. I, P.T.S., p. 312.

c61.s1.28

⁴ *Jātaka*, ed. V. Fausböll, Vol. II, p. 5.

c61.s1.29

⁵ Prof. H. Oldenberg, *On the History of the Indian Caste System*, *Z.D.M.G.*, Vol. LI; translated into English by Prof. H. C. Chakladar, *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XLIX, December, 1920, p. 227.

c61.s1.30

That the Licchavis were Kṣatriyas appears also from the Jaina sacred literature. Just as the Licchavis of Vaiśālī honoured the Buddha at his death by erecting a noble monument (*stūpa*) over their share of the remnants of his body, so they had, before this, done honour to the memory of Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism. The *Kalpasūtra* narrates: ‘In that night in which the venerable ascetic Mahāvīra died...., the eighteen confederate kings of Kāśī and Kośala, the nine Mallakis and nine Licchavis, on the day of new moon, instituted an illumination on the Poshadha, which was a fasting day....’⁶ The Jaina works further tell us, as Professor Jacobi points out, that these nine Licchavis were tributary to Ceṭaka, king of Vaiśālī and maternal uncle of Mahāvīra,⁷ who was a Jñātṛi Kṣatriya of the Kāśyapa *gotra*, as we read in the *Kalpasūtra*. There are reasons to believe that Mahāvīra was a native of a suburb of Vaiśālī.¹ That the Licchavis were looked upon as persons of high pedigree appears from a passage in another Jaina work, the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, where we read of the ‘renowned *gotra*’ (family) of the Licchavis.²

c61.s1.31

⁶ *Kalpasūtra*, paragraph 128, trsl. Prof. H. Jacobi, S.B.F., Vol. XXII, p. 266.

c61.s1.32

⁷ Jacobi, *op. cit.*, note 1, p. 266.

c61.s1.33

¹ *Kalpasūtra*, pp. x-xii.

c61.s1.34

² Jacobi, *Jaina Sūtras*, Part II, S.B.E., Vol. XLV, p. 321.

c61.s1.35

The Licchavis were Kṣatriyas of the Vāsiṣṭha *gotra*, and were addressed as ‘Vāsiṣṭhas’ by the Buddha (*Mahāvastu-Avadāna*, ed. Senart, Vol. I, p. 283, and elsewhere) and by Maudgalāyana, one of the pillars of the Buddhist Church (Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 97ff.). Further, the Jaina sacred works state that the Kṣatriyāṇī Triśalā, mother of Mahāvīra, and sister of Ceṭaka, one of the kings of Vaiśālī, belonged to the Vāsiṣṭha *gotra*.³

c61.s1.36

³ S.B.E., Vol. XXII, p. xii. See Jacobi, *Jaina Sūtras*, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, p. 193 (*Āyārāṅga-sūtra*, 11.15.15).

c61.s1.37

In the *Nepal Vaṃśāvalī*, the Licchavis are allotted to the Sūryavaṃśa or solar race of the Kṣatriyas.⁴ This is quite in agreement with the fact elicited from the Buddhist records that they were Vāsiṣṭhas by *gotra*, for we know from the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* that the *gotra* or *pravara* (family) of a Kṣatriya is the same as that of his purohita or family priest.⁵ Sir R. G. Bhandarkar also points out that the *gotra* of a Brāhmaṇa ‘could be assumed for sacrificial purposes by a Kṣatriya, for, according to Āśvalāyana (*Śr. S.*, XII, 15), the *gotra* and the ancestors of the Kṣatriyas invoked are those of their priests or chaplains, and the only Ṛṣi ancestors that all the Kṣatriyas have, are Mānava, Aila and Paurūravasa. The names of these do not distinguish one Kṣatriya family from another, and to answer the purposes of such a distinction, the *gotra* and ancestors of the priest are assumed’.⁶ The Vāsiṣṭha *gotra* was, therefore, the *gotra* of their family priest, and we know that the Vāsiṣṭhas were the family priests of the kings of the solar race, especially of the Ikṣvākus. In this connection it is interesting to note Prof. Jacobi’s observation: ‘According to the Jainas, the Licchavis and Mallakis⁷ were the chiefs of Kāśī and Kośala. They seem to have succeeded the Aikṣvākas who ruled there in the times of the *Rāmāyaṇa*.¹ The *Rāmāyaṇa* tells us that the city of Vaiśālī was founded by Viśāla, a son of Ikṣvāku and the heavenly nymph Alamvuṣā,² while the *Viṣṇupurāṇa* substitutes Tṛṇabindu, a later member of the Ikṣvāku family, as the father of the eponymous hero who founded the city. This shows that the ruling family of Vaiśālī was traditionally believed to have been descended from the Ikṣvākus.

c61.s1.38

⁴ *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. XXXVII, p. 79.

c61.s1.39

⁵ *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, Ch. 34, Kāṇḍa 7, verse 25.

c61.s1.40

⁶ Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, *Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, and minor Religious Systems*, p. 12.

c61.s1.41

⁷ The kinship of Licchavis and Mallas is confirmed by the *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta* (*Buddhist Suttas*, S.B.E., Vol. XI, pp. 121-2), and the *Saṅgīti Sutta* of the Dīgha Nikāya (*Dialogues of the Buddha*, Pt. III, p. 202), where the Mallas are likewise addressed as ‘Vāseṭṭhas’ (=Vāsiṣṭhas).

c61.s1.42

¹ Jacobi, *Jaina Sūtras*, Pt. II, p. 321, note 3.

c61.s1.43

² *Rāmāyaṇa*, Bombay edition, *Bāla Kāṇḍa*, Chap. 47, verses 11-12.

c61.s1.44

The Licchavis were also associated with the Śākyas. We read in the *Karma-Śataka*³ that Prabodha, king of the Vṛjis, gave away his two daughters, Māyā and Mahāmāyā, as brides to Śuddhodana, son of Simhahanu, and father of the Buddha. Rockhill in his *Life of the Buddha* (derived from Tibetan works) speaks of a tradition, according to which the Śākyas and the Licchavis were branches of the same people.⁴

c61.s1.45

³ *Karma-Śataka*, 20, ii, 7, trsl. from Tibetan by M. L. Feer. Reprint, p. 40.

c61.s1.46

⁴ Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha* (popular edition), p. 203, note.

c61.s1.47

We now come to the mythical account of the origin of the Licchavis, which can be gathered from Buddhaghosa’s *Paramatthajotikā* on the *Khuddakapāṭha*. It came to pass that the chief queen of the king of Benares was with child. When her time came, she was delivered, not of a child, but of a lump of flesh, ‘of the colour of lac and of bandhu and jīvaka flowers’. Fearing the displeasure of the king if he should hear of this, the other queens put the lump of flesh into a casket marked with the royal seal and placed it on the flowing waters of the Ganges. However, a certain god, wishing to provide for its safety, wrote with a piece of cinnabar on a slip of gold the words ‘The child of the chief queen of the King of Benares’, tied it to the casket, and replaced it in the river. The casket was discovered by an ascetic, and taken by him to his hermitage, where he cared for the lump of flesh. After the lapse of some time, the lump broke up into two pieces of flesh, which gradually assumed shape, till finally one of them became a boy resplendent like gold, and the other a girl. Whatever entered the stomach of these two infants looked as if put into a vessel of precious transparent stone (*maṇi*), so that they seemed to have no skin (nicchavi). Others said: ‘The two were attached to each other by their skin (līnā-chavi) as if they had been sewn together’; so that these infants came to be designated ‘Licchavis’. The ascetic, having to nurse these two children, had to enter the village in the early morning for alms and to return when the day was far advanced. Accordingly the neighbouring cowherds, seeing his difficulty, offered to look after the children for him. The ascetic gladly agreed, and handed over the two children with these words: ‘The children are possessed of great virtue and goodness, bring them up with great care and when they are grown up, marry them to each other; please the king and getting a piece of land, measure out a city, and instal the prince there.’ But the children, when grown big, used to beat and kick the children of the cowherds. Then the parents of these other children would say, ‘These children harass the others and trouble them, they are not to be kept, they must be abandoned (Vajjitabbā).’ Thenceforward that country measuring 300 yojanas is called Vajji. Then the cowherds securing the king’s permission, obtained that country, and measuring out a town there, they anointed the boy king. After giving the girl in marriage to the boy, who was then sixteen years of age, the old king made it a rule that no bride was to be brought in from outside, nor any girl from within the settlement to be given away outside. Sixteen pairs of twins were born to the couple (a boy and a girl each time), and as these children were growing up, and there was no room in the city for their gardens, pleasure groves, residential houses and attendants, three walls were thrown up round the city at a distance of a quarter of a yojana from each other; as the city was thus again and again made larger (Visālikatā), it came to be called Vesālī. This is the history of Vesālī.¹

c61.s1.48

¹ *Paramatthajotikā* on the *Khuddakapāṭha*, ed. H. Smith, P.T.S., pp. 158-60.

c61.s1.49

The Pūjāvaliya,² a Ceylonese Buddhist work, gives the same account with slight variations. These stories are, of course, entirely mythical and must have grown up in recent times, there being no evidence in the sacred canon itself to corroborate any part of them.

c61.s1.50

² Spence Hardy, *Manual of Buddhism*, 2nd Ed., 1880, pp. 242-3.

c61.s1.51

The two derivations of the name Licchavi which are suggested by Buddhaghosa are entirely fanciful. Licchavi is the name of a race or tribe. The people must have acquired that name long before they come to our notice in the pages of the Buddhist or Jaina literature, or in the Arthaśāstra. Buddhaghosa’s derivations must have been invented much later, when the Licchavis had acquired renown and power, and it was thought necessary to find some meaning for the word, which defies easy analysis. It should be observed that the two derivations suggested by Buddhaghosa are almost identical with those given in Chinese Buddhist works,³ indicating a common source.

c61.s1.52

³ *Shan-hsien-lü* (Chap. 8), T. Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, Vol. II, p. 77.

c61.s1.53

It is clear that at the time the Buddha and Mahāvīra lived and preached, the Licchavis were recognised as Kṣatriyas with whom the highest-born princes of eastern India considered it an honour to enter into matrimonial alliance. The powerful king Ajātaśatru was always designated ‘Vedehiputto’, the family name of his mother in the Pāli Buddhist Tripiṭaka. Even two centuries later, in the time of Candragupta Maurya, the Licchavis were of equal rank and position with the great Kṣatriya peoples of Northern India, viz. the Madras in the north-west, the Kuru-Pañcālas in the central region, and the Mallas and others in the east—the tribes who were organised as corporations of warriors and lived upon their position as rājās, that is as owners of land deriving an income from their tenants.

c61.s1.54

At the time when the present code of Manu was composed, we find that the Licchavis were still looked upon as Kṣatriyas, though of the Vrātya variety.¹ Regarding the Vrātyas, Manu says: ‘Those (sons) whom the twice-born have by wives of equal caste, but who, not fulfilling their sacred duties, are excluded from the Sāvitrī, one must designate by the appellation Vrātyas.’² Here ‘not fulfilling their sacred duties’ stands for ‘avratāḥ’, which means ‘not being initiated at the proper time’, on the authority of what Manu himself states in an earlier chapter, where he fixes the upper limits of the age before which the initiation of the twice-born castes must take place. After those periods, men of the three upper castes who had not received the sacrament become Vrātyas (outcastes) excluded from the Sāvitrī (initiation) and despised by the Aryans. Here Manu is in agreement with the earlier lawgivers, Gautama, Āpastamba, Vaśiṣṭha and Baudhāyana.³ There is no question, then, that the Licchavis were pure Kṣatriyas by origin but were not very careful in obeying the regulations about initiation and perhaps similar other matters.⁴

c61.s1.55

¹ Manu, X, 22; Bühler, Laws of Manu, p. 406.

c61.s1.56

² Manu, X, 20; Bühler, Laws of Manu, pp. 405-6.

c61.s1.57

³ See Bühler, Laws of Manu, pp. 405-6, note 20; Gautama, XXI, 11; Āpa., I, I, etc.; Vaś., XI, 74-9; Baudh., I, 16, 16.

c61.s1.58

⁴ For further information regarding the Vrātyas, see J. W. Hauer, Der Vrātya: Untersuchungen Über die nichtbrahmanische Religion Altindiens; and Haraprasad Sastri’s Annual Address, J.A.S.B., 1921, No. 2 (Vol. XVII, New Series).

c61.s1.59

From what we know of the religious history of the Licchavis as a people, it is natural to expect that they would depart from the strict observance of the Brahmānic regulations. We have seen that Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, was of their very kin, and we also know that he had many followers among the residents of Vaiśālī, even among the highest officers. Then again, between the sixth century B.C. and 200 B.C., the earliest estimated date of the *Manusaṃhitā*,¹ the Licchavis had won the good graces of the Buddha as well as of the followers of the religion he preached, as we shall see later. During this long interval, when the two great ‘heretic’ faiths flourished in their country, it is but natural to expect that the Licchavis were not over-particular about initiation and similar other ceremonies and practices that the regulations of the orthodox Brahmins required. Hence we can understand how Manu, the great Brahmin law-giver, came to refer to the Licchavis as Vrātyas. To claim the authority of this passage of Manu in support of a theory of non-Aryan origin of the Licchavis is quite unwarranted.

c61.s1.60

¹ According to Bühler, the *Manusmṛti* was compiled at some time between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. (Bühler, *Manu*, Introduction, p. cxvii).

c61.s1.61

The above discussion, we hope, will also explain what the lexicographers and the author of the *Vaijayantī*, following Manu, declare regarding the origin of the Licchavis, viz. that they were sons of a Kṣatriya Vrātya and a Kṣatriyā.²

c61.s1.62

² Monier Williams, *Sanskrit-English Dictionary*, 1899, p. 902; *Vaijayantī*, ed. Gustav Oppert, p. 76.

c61.s1.63

Before leaving the question of origin, we must refer to the two theories about the Tibetan and Persian affinities of the Licchavis, originated by the late Drs. V. A. Smith and Satis Ch. Vidyābhūṣaṇa respectively. Dr. Smith’s conclusion about the Tibetan affinity rests on the agreement that is observed between the Tibetans and the Licchavis in the custom of exposure of the dead and in judicial procedure. We shall discuss these two points separately.

c61.s1.64

The prevalence among the Licchavis of the practice of exposing the dead to be devoured by wild animals is vouched for by a passage in Beal’s *Romantic Legend of Śākya Buddha*,³ derived from Chinese sources. There we have a description of a visit paid by the Bodhisattva (future Buddha) to a cemetery at Vaiśālī, where the Ṛṣis are stated to have told him: ‘In that place the corpses of men are exposed to be devoured by the birds; and there also they collect and pile up the white bones of dead persons . . . ; they burn corpses there also, and preserve the bones in heaps. They hang dead bodies also from the trees; there are others buried there, such as have been slain or put to death by their relatives, dreading that they should come to life again; whilst others are left there upon the ground that they may return, if possible, to their former bodies.’ Dr. Smith argues that this passage proves a belief that the ancient inhabitants of Vaiśālī disposed of their dead sometimes by exposure, sometimes by cremation, and sometimes by burial. The tradition is supported by the discoveries made at prehistoric cemeteries in other parts of India, which disclose very various methods of disposing of the dead.’¹ He then concludes from the similarity between these customs of the disposal of the dead, and those of Tibet, that the Licchavis had Tibetan affinities. But we need not go to Tibet for these customs, inasmuch as they were prevalent among the Vedic Aryans from whom the Licchavis were descended. We read in the well-known funeral hymn of the *Atharvaveda*²: ‘They that are buried, and they that are scattered (*vāpa*) away, they that are burned and they that are set up (*uddhita*)—all those Fathers, O Agni, bring thou to eat the oblation.’³ Whitney, whose translation of the verse we have quoted here, observes on the expression *Uddhitāḥ*, ‘it evidently refers to exposure on something elevated, such as is practised by many people’.⁴ Whitney also refers to an analogous passage in *Āpastamba* (I, 87) which contains a further reference to the customs of burial and exposure on a raised platform.⁵ The Vedic literature shows that cremation was one of the methods of the disposal of the dead. Methods other than cremation were in vogue, it seems, in particular localities and among particular classes or peoples; and the custom of exposure of the dead was most probably brought into India by the Vedic Aryans, as we find the same custom among the closely allied Iranians. To seek for the origin of this ancient Aryan custom in Tibet is absolutely unwarranted. The other argument of Dr. Smith, that the ancient judicial procedure at Vaiśālī as given in the *Aṭṭhakathā* is substantially identical with the modern procedure at Lhāsā as observed by the Bengali traveller in Tibet, the late Rai Bahadur Sarat Chunder Das, C.I.E., need not detain us very long. This procedure the Tibetans may well have imbibed along with Buddhism from the province of Tirhut, which was nearest to their frontiers, and which was inhabited by the descendants of the Licchavis of old.

c61.s1.65

³ pp. 159-60.

c61.s1.66

¹ *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. XXXII, 1903, p. 234.

c61.s1.67

² XVIII, 2, 34. ‘*Ye nikhātā ye paroptā ye dagdhā ye coddhitāḥ sarvāmstānagna āvaha pitṝn haviṣe attave.*’—*Atharvaveda Saṃhitā*, ed. Roth and Whitney, p. 339.

c61.s1.68

³ *Atharva Saṃhitā*, trsl. W. D. Whitney, revised and ed. C. R. Lanman, Harvard Or. Series, Vol. VIII, p. 840.

c61.s1.69

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 841.

c61.s1.70

⁵ With regard to this passage see also Zimmer, *Altindisches Leben*, p. 402; and Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, Vol. I, p. 8.

c61.s1.71

Satis Chandra Vidyābhūṣaṇa held that the Licchavis were of Persian origin. His strongest argument is the verbal coincidence between Nisibis in the Persian Empire, and the word Nicchivi which occurs in *Manu*. He continues: ‘It appears to me very probable that while about 515 B.C., Darius, king of Persia, sent an expedition to India, or rather caused the Indus to be explored from the land of the Pakhtu (Afghans) to its mouth, some of his Persian subjects in Nisibis (off Herat) immigrated to India, and having found the Punjab over-populated by the orthodox Brāhmaṇas, came down as far as Magadha (Bihar) which was at that time largely inhabited by Vrātyas or outcaste people.'¹ This is absurd on the face of it. The Licchavis were already a flourishing people, long established in the Videha country, and had built up a splendid capital at Vaiśālī at the time of the Buddha's death; and whether we take the date of this event to be 487 B.C., as the late V. A. Smith thought, or 544 B.C., the traditional date maintained by the Ceylonese Buddhist monks, it is absurd to identify the Licchavis with the followers or subjects of Darius who were exploring the Indus about 515 B.C.

c61.s1.72

¹ Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXXVII, 1908, p. 79.

c61.s1.73

It remains for us to refer to another theory about the foreign origin of the Licchavis, started by Beal, viz. that they were 'Yue-chi'.² It hardly requires to be refuted, as the Yue-chi came to India about the beginning of the Christian era, and the Licchavis were a highly civilised and prosperous people in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. when the Ephathalites or White Huns had not started from their original home in the east.

c61.s1.74

² The Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Beal, Intro. p. xxii.

Vaiśālī, the Capital of the Licchavis

c61.s2.1

Vaiśālī, 'the large city' *par excellence*, is renowned in Indian history as the capital of the Licchavi rājās and the headquarters of the powerful Vajjian confederacy.³ This great city is intimately associated with the early history of both Jainism and Buddhism.

c61.s2.2

³ Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 40.

c61.s2.3

Vaiśālī claims the founder of Jainism as its citizen. 'The Sūtrakṛtāṅga,⁴ a Jaina canonical work, says of Mahāvīra, the last Tīrthaṅkara of the Jains: 'Thus spoke the Arahat Jñātṛputra, the reverend, famous native of Vaiśālī, who possessed the highest knowledge and the highest faith.'⁵ Mahāvīra is spoken of as Vesālie or Vaiśālika, i.e. a native of Vaiśālī.⁶ Moreover, Abhayadeva in his commentary on the Bhagavatī (2, I, 12, 2) explains Vaiśālika by Mahāvīra and speaks of Viśālā as Mahāvīrajananī or 'the mother of Mahāvīra'.⁷ Besides, from a comparison of the Buddhist and Jaina scriptures, it appears that Kuṇḍagrāma, the birthplace of Mahāvīra, was a suburb of Vaiśālī.¹ As we have already seen, Mahāvīra’s mother Triśalā was a sister of Ceṭaka, one of the rājās of Vaiśālī. The Jaina *Kalpasūtra* speaks of the connection of Mahāvīra with the Videha country and its capital Vaiśālī.² During his later ascetic life Mahāvīra did not neglect the city of his birth, and we are told that out of the 42 rainy seasons of this period of his life, he passed no less than 12 at Vaiśālī.³

c61.s2.4

⁴ Jacobi, Jaina Sūtras, S.B.E., Pt. II, p. 261 (Sūtrakṛtāṅga, I, 2, 3, 22).

c61.s2.5

⁵ Ibid., Pt. II, Lecture VI, 17, p. 27 (Uttarādhyayanasūtra).

c61.s2.6

⁶ Jacobi; Jaina Sūtras, Pt. I, Introduction, xi.

c61.s2.7

⁷ Weber, Indische Studien, Band XVI, p. 263: 'Auch Abhayadeva zu Bhag. 2, I, 12, 2 erklärt Vaiśālika durch Mahāvīra, und zwar als Metronymicum (!); Viçālā Mahāvīrajanani.'

c61.s2.8

¹ Jacobi, *Jaina Sūtras*, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, pp. x-xi.

c61.s2.9

² Ibid., Vol. I, p. 256, *Kalpa Sūtra*, paragraphs 110, 111.

c61.s2.10

³ Jacobi, *Kalpasūtra*, paragraph 122.

c61.s2.11

The connection of the Buddha with Vaiśālī is no less close. Many of his immortal discourses were delivered here either at the mango-grove of Ambapālī, on the outskirts of the city, or at Kūṭāgāraśālā in the Mahāvana, the great forest stretching out up to the Himalayas. The Buddha was charmed with the conduct of the Vajjis or Licchavis residing within the town, and looked upon them with kindness and approbation. The seven points of excellence,⁴ with which he characterised the Licchavis in answer to the queries put to him by the ministers sent by King Ajātaśatru of Magadha, are very well known.

c61.s2.12

⁴ *Dīgha Nikāya*, II, 73f.; *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, IV, 15f.

c61.s2.13

One hundred years after the Buddha’s Nirvāṇa, Vaiśālī again drew to itself the care and attention of the Buddhist Church,—but this time not on account of the many good qualities of character and powers of organisation of its citizens, but because of the secular tenets held by the Vaiśālī monks (*Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus*), who were not carrying out the Master’s precepts conscientiously. The second general council of the Buddhist Church, known as the Sattasatika or the Convention of the 700, took place at Vaiśālī in order to suppress the heresies of these pleasure-seeking monks.⁵

c61.s2.14

⁵ *Dialogues of the Buddha*, Pt. II, pp. 131ff.; Kern, *Manual of Indian Buddhism*, pp. 103-9. *Examination of the Pāli Buddhistical Annals*, Vol. VI, Pt. II, p. 729, J.A.S.B., 1837 (Sept.).

c61.s2.15

We have already referred to the fanciful accounts of Buddhaghosa, the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Viṣṇupurāṇa* regarding the origin of Vaiśālī. The *Rāmāyaṇa* further tells us that when Rāma and his brother Lakṣmaṇa, guided by the sage Viśvāmitra, crossed the river Ganges on their way to Mithilā, they had a view of the city of Vaiśālī. It does not tell us that it was exactly on the bank of the river, but says that ‘while seated on the northern shore they saw the town.’⁶ Then, the story goes on, the travellers went to the city of Viśālā which was an excellent town, ‘charming and heavenly, in fact a veritable svarga’.¹ Viśvāmitra here narrates a long mythological story to show the importance of the locality. He goes on to say that the Ikṣvāku prince then ruling over the country was named Sumati, and adds that, by favour of Ikṣvāku, the father of the eponymous founder of the city and ancestor of the ruling dynasty, all the kings of Vaiśālī (sarve Vaiśālikā nṛpāḥ) were long lived, high souled, possessed of strength and power and highly virtuous.²

c61.s2.16

⁶ *Rāmāyaṇa* (Bombay edition), Chap. 45, verse 9.

c61.s2.17

¹ Rāmāyaṇa (Bombay edition), Chap. 45, verses 10 and 11.

c61.s2.18

² Ibid., Chap. 47, verse 18. Whether nṛpāḥ can here be taken to mean the oligarchy of rājās referred to elsewhere is uncertain.

c61.s2.19

From all these mythical stories, it is apparent that the name of the city had something to do with the word viśāla or ‘extensive’, and from what we read of the description of the ruins that Hsüan Tsang saw in the seventh century A.D., there can be no doubt of its wide extent. The Chinese traveller relates, ‘The foundations of the old city Vaiśālī were sixty or seventy li in circuit, and the “palace city” (i.e. the walled part of the city) was four and five li in circuit.’³ This would mean an area of about twenty miles in circumference for the outer town; and the ‘palace city’ perhaps represents the earliest of the three cities which, according to Buddhaghosa, were built to accommodate the Licchavis as they rapidly increased in numbers; but its area would not in that case agree with the statement that each of the three walls was at a distance of a gāvuta (gavyuti) or a quarter yojana, that is roughly a league from the other.

c61.s2.20

³ Watters, On Yuan Chwang, Vol. II, p. 63.

c61.s2.21

Buddhaghosa’s description is also supported by the Aṭṭhakathā to the Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka, where we are told, ‘At the time of the Buddha, the city of Vesāli was encompassed by three walls at a distance of a gāvuta from one another, and at three places there were gates with watch-towers and buildings.’⁴ The three walls are also referred to in the Aṭṭhakathā to the Lomahaṃsa Jātaka.⁵

c61.s2.22

⁴ Jātaka (Fausböll), Vol. I, p. 504. ‘Vesālinagaram gāvutagāvutantare tīhi pākārehi parikkhittam tīsu ṭhānesu gopuraṭṭālokayuttam.’

c61.s2.23

⁵ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 389.

c61.s2.24

The Tibetan Dulva (iii, f. 80) gives the following description: ‘There were three districts in Vaiśālī. In the first district were seven thousand houses with golden towers, in the middle district were fourteen thousand houses with silver towers, and in the last district were twenty-one thousand houses with copper towers; in these lived the upper, the middle and the lower classes according to their positions.’⁶

c61.s2.25

⁶ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, p. 62.

c61.s2.26

Hoernle in his English translation of the Jaina work, *Uvāsagadasāo*, advances the suggestion that the three districts referred to in the *Dulva* and in the *Aṭṭhakathā*, ‘may very well have been Vesālī proper, Kuṇḍapura and Vāṇiyagāma occupying respectively the south-eastern, north-eastern and western portions of the area of the total city. Beyond Kuṇḍapura, in a further north-easterly direction lay the suburb (or ‘station’, *sannivesa*) of Kollāga which appears to have been principally inhabited by the Kṣatriyas of the Nāya (or Jñātṛ) clan, to which Mahāvīra himself belonged; for it is described as the *Nāya-kula*.’¹ He further observes that the phrases used in the *Āyārāṅga-sūtra* like ‘*Uttara-Khattiya-Kuṇḍapura-sannivesa* or *dahiṇa-māhaṇa-Kuṇḍapura-sannivesa*’, ‘do not mean the northern Kṣatriya (resp. Southern Brahmanical) part of the place Kuṇḍapura, but the Northern Kṣatriya, etc., suburb of Kuṇḍapura, i.e. that suburb (*sannivesa*) of the city of Kuṇḍapura, which lay towards the north and was inhabited by the (Nāya clan of) Kṣatriyas; it was distinguished from the southern suburb of the same city (Kuṇḍapura or Vesālī) which was inhabited by the Brahmins. This interpretation is confirmed by the parallel phrases in Kap. §22 (*et passim*), Khattiya-Kuṇḍagāme Nayare and Māhaṇa-Kuṇḍagāme Nayare, which are rightly translated as the Kṣatriya (resp. the Brahmanical) part of the town Kuṇḍagāma’.² He also points out that ‘the phrase *ucca-nīya majjhimāiṃ kulāiṃ*, “upper, lower and middle classes”, applied to the town of Vāṇiyagāma in sections 77, 78 (of the *Uvāsagadasāo*) curiously agrees with the description of Vesālī given in the *Dulva*.’³

c61.s2.27

¹ Hoernle, *Uvāsagadasāo*, Vol. II, translation, p. 4, note 8.

c61.s2.28

² *Ibid.*, Vol. II, p. 5.

c61.s2.29

³ *Ibid.*, Vol. II, translation, p. 6.

c61.s2.30

The Buddha must have paid many visits to the Licchavi capital, and reports of at least two besides that already referred to are preserved in Buddhist books. The earliest of his visits is described at length in the *Mahāvastu*.⁴ We are told there, how the people of Vaiśālī were troubled by a frightful pestilence which was laying their country waste, and how all their efforts to stay the plague proved fruitless. In their distress they sent for various well-known holy men, but these failed to afford them any relief. As a last resort the people of Vaiśālī sent a deputation headed by Tomara, a Licchavi chief, to Rājagṛha to bring the Buddha to their city. King Bimbisāra himself secured the Buddha’s consent to help the Licchavis, and insisted on accompanying him to the boundaries of his territory.

c61.s2.31

⁴ Le Mahāvastu, ed. E. Senart, Vol. I, pp. 253ff. See also Buddhaghosa’s introduction to commentary on *Ratana-sutta*.

c61.s2.32

To impress the Licchavis with an idea of his power and wealth, the king of Magadha had the road from Rājagṛha to the Ganges, which formed the boundary between the two dominions, levelled, cleaned, decorated, and sprinkled with flowers; while the smoke of rich incense perfumed its whole length. He himself followed the Buddha, with his whole court and numerous retinue. The Licchavis, both the Abhyantara-Vaiśālakas, those living within the walls of the city, and the Bāhira-Vaiśālakas, the people living in the suburbs and surroundings, came in all their splendour and magnificence, in dazzling garments of all colours. Even the Buddha was impressed by their appearance, and compared them to the Tāvatimsa gods. The Licchavis decorated the road from the Ganges to Vaiśālī with a magnificence that far outdid the preparations made by the Magadhan king, and they provided for the comfort of the Buddha and the congregation of monks on a still more lavish scale. As soon as the Buddha crossed over to the northern side of the river and stepped on Licchavi soil, all malign influences that had hung over the country vanished, and the sick and the suffering were restored to health. The Buddha did not wish to live in the city or its suburbs, but he accepted the invitation¹ of Bhagavātī Gośṛṅgī to live in the Mahāvana, the great forest extending from the city far away to the north.

c61.s2.33

¹ Le Mahāvastu, ed. Senart, Vol. I, pp. 295-9.

c61.s2.34

The Licchavis built the Kūṭāgārasālā monastery for the Buddha in the forest, and offered it to him and to the Buddhist congregation; and the Buddha permitted the bhikkhus to reside there. One day the Licchavis on coming to the Mahāvana learnt that the Buddha had repaired to the Cāpāla-Caitya to spend the day; thereupon they presented it to him and to the congregation of monks. Similarly, finding the Buddha spending the day at the Saptāmra-Caitya, Bahuputra-Caitya, Gautama-Caitya, Kapinahya-Caitya and Markaṭahrada-tīra-Caitya respectively, the Licchavis made a gift of all these places of worship to him and to the Buddhist Church. Even the courtesan Āmrapālī made a gift of her extensive mango-grove to the congregation; and similarly Bālikā made over Bālikāchavi,² which is evidently the same as the Bālikārāma of the Pāli Buddhist books.³ On this visit to their city, the Buddha delivered many discourses to the people of Vaiśālī, and established the Buddhist faith on a strong foundation at the capital of the Licchavis.

c61.s2.35

² Ibid., Vol. I, p. 300.

c61.s2.36

³ Vinaya Texts, S.B.E., Pt. III, p. 408.

c61.s2.37

We read in the Vinaya (Mahāvagga and Cullavagga) and other Pāli texts of the Buddha’s visits to the Kūṭāgārasālā and other retreats. On one such occasion the Buddha taught his monks many matters connected with the sort of houses they were to build and dwell in; and he also ordered the Samgha to excommunicate Vaddha, a Licchavi, who had brought a false charge against one of the brotherhood; but afterwards relented on Vaddha’s making due reparations.¹

c61.s2.38

¹ *Cullavagga*, *Vinaya Texts*, Pt. II, S.B.E., pp. 101 *et seq*. See also *Vinaya Texts*, S.B.E., Pt. III, pp. 322 and 408; Pt. II, pp. 210-11.

c61.s2.39

In accounts in the Buddhist books, whether Pāli or Sanskrit, Vaiśālī is represented as a rich and prosperous town.² For example, in the *Lalitavistara* we are told that some of the gods of the Tuṣita heaven, in advancing the claims of Vaiśālī for the honour of being the Buddha’s birthplace, said, ‘This great city of Vaiśālī is prosperous and proud, happy and rich with abundant food, charming and delightful, crowded with many and various peoples, adorned with buildings of every description, with storeyed mansions, buildings with towers, and palaces, with noble gateways and charming with beds of flowers in her numerous gardens and groves. This city, resembling the city of the gods, is indeed fit for the birth of the Bodhisattva.’³

c61.s2.40

² See, e.g., *Mahāvagga*, *Vinaya Texts*, Pt. II, S.B.E., p. 171.

c61.s2.41

³ *Lalitavistara*, ed. Lefman, Chap. III, p. 21.

c61.s2.42

We next come to the accounts of the city left by the Chinese travellers. Fā Hien, who visited Vaiśālī at the beginning of the fifth century A.D., i.e. about a thousand years after the Buddha’s time, says,⁴ ‘North of the city is a large forest, having in it the double-galleried vihāra where Buddha dwelt, and the tope over half the body of Ānanda.’ The double-galleried vihāra is evidently the Kūṭāgārasālā in the Mahāvana or ‘great forest’, which stretched right up to the Himalayas as Buddhaghosa explains in his *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī* to the Mahāli Sutta in the *Dīgha Nikāya*.⁵ With regard to the Kūṭāgārasālā Buddhaghosa says: ‘In that forest (i.e. Mahāvana) was established a *saṃghārāma* (monastery). A *pāsāda* (storeyed building) was built on pillars and putting a pinnacle above, it was made into a *kūṭāgārasālā* resembling a chariot of the gods (*devavimāna*). From it, the whole *saṃghārāma* is known as Kūṭāgārasālā.’⁶ This agrees with Fā-Hien’s description of the double-galleried vihāra. The upper storey was evidently built upon a large number of pillars instead of walls, and on the top there was a kūṭa or peak, so that there were two galleries, one below and the other above, and from the upper storey rose a pinnacle, as we see in the vimānas or rathas referred to by Buddhaghosa. Hsüan Tsang, who visited the city more than 200 years after Fā-Hien, found this great vihāra in ruins. He adds, ‘To the east of the tope of the Jātaka narrative was a wonder-working tope on the old foundations of the “two-storey Preaching Hall”,¹ in which Ju-lai delivered the P’u-men-t’o-lo-ni and other sūtras. Close to the remains of the Preaching Hall was the tope which contained the half-body relics of Ānanda.’² The story of the parinirvāṇa of Ānanda and the division of the remnants of the body has been told by Fā-Hien, and the same account is also given in the Tibetan works.³

c61.s2.43

⁴ Legge, Fā-Hien, p. 72.

c61.s2.44

⁵ *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī*, Pt. I (P.T.S.), p. 309.

c61.s2.45

⁶ *Ibid.*, Pt. I, P.T.S., p. 309. ‘*Tasmin vanasaṇḍe saṃghārāmam patiṭṭhāpesum. Tattha kaṇṇikam yojetvā thambhānam upari Kūṭāgārasālā-saṃkhepena deva-vimāna-sadisam pāsādam akamsu. Tam upādāya sakalo pi saṃghārāmo Kūṭāgārasālā ti paññāyittha.*’

c61.s2.46

¹ Evidently the Kūṭāgāra Hall.

c61.s2.47

² Watters, On Yuan Chwang, Vol. II, p. 71.

c61.s2.48

³ Legge, Fā-Hien, pp. 75-7.

c61.s2.49

Hsüan Tsang’s account of the country of which Vaiśālī was the capital agrees pretty well with the tradition of its prosperity preserved in the Buddhist books. The Vaiśālī country is described by the pilgrim as being above five thousand li in circuit, a very fertile region abounding in mangoes, plantains and other fruits. The people were honest, fond of good works, lovers of learning, and both orthodox and heterodox in faith.⁴

c61.s2.50

⁴ Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, II, 66.

c61.s2.51

In the Tibetan works, a similar account is given of the prosperity and opulence of Vaiśālī, which is invariably described in the Dulva as a kind of earthly paradise, with its handsome buildings, its parks and gardens, singing birds and continual festivities.⁵ The Romantic Legend of Śākya Buddha,⁶ translated by Beal from Chinese sources, gives an account similar to that in the Lalita-vistara.

c61.s2.52

⁵ Rockhill, Life of the Buddha, p. 63.

c61.s2.53

⁶ P. 28.

c61.s2.54

The identification of Vaiśālī, the capital of the Licchavis, has been much discussed by scholars. General Cunningham identified the present village of Basārh in the Muzafferpur district in Tirhut as marking the spot where Vaiśālī stood in ancient days,⁷ and M. Vivien de Saint Martin agreed with him. Dr. W. Hoey sought, though on very insufficient evidence, to establish the identity of Vaiśālī with a place called Cherānd, situated on the northern bank of the Ganges about 7 miles south-east from Chāprā.⁸ This identification was proved to be untenable by V. A. Smith,⁹ who succeeded in confirming Cunningham’s identification. The identity of Vaiśālī and Basārh was proved still more decisively by the archæological explorations carried out on the site in 1903-4 by T. Bloch. Bloch excavated a mound called Rājā Viśāl kā garh. Three distinct strata were found, the uppermost belonging to the period of Mahomedan occupation of the place, the second, at a depth of about five feet from the surface, related to the epoch of the Imperial Guptas, and the third, at a still greater depth, belonging to an ancient period of which no definite date could be obtained.¹ The finds in the second stratum, however, were of great value, especially a hoard of 700 clay seals evidently used as attachment to letters or other literary documents.²

c61.s2.55

⁷ Arch. S. Report, Vol. I, pp. 55, 56 and Vol. XVI, p. 6.

c61.s2.56

⁸ J.A.S.B., 1900, Vol. LXIX, Pt. I, pp. 78-80, 83.

c61.s2.57

⁹ V. A. Smith, J.R.A.S., 1902, p. 267, n. 3.

c61.s2.58

¹ Sir John H. Marshall, *Arch. Surv. of India, Annual Report*, 1903-4, p. 74.

c61.s2.59

² *Ibid.*, p. 74.

c61.s2.60

The names of certain Gupta kings, queens and princes on some of these seals, coupled with palæographic evidence, clearly demonstrate that they belonged to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.³ Some of the impressions show that the name Tirabhukti (the original form of Tirhut) was applied to the province even in these early times, and some show the name of the town itself, Vaiśālī.⁴ These things go to prove the identity of the site with Vaiśālī, and there seems to be no ground to question this conclusion any longer. But it must be noted that the results so far obtained by excavation are very meagre.

c61.s2.61

³ *Ibid.*, p. 110.

c61.s2.62

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 110.

Manners and Customs

c61.s3.1

We have already seen that the Licchavis were included in the great Vajjian confederacy. But sometimes Vajji (Skt. Vṛji) and Licchavi were used indiscriminately as synonyms. At the time the Buddha lived, ‘the Vajjis were divided into several clans such as the Licchavis, the Vaidehis, the Tīrabhuktis and so on, and the exact number of those clans would appear to have been eight, as criminals were arraigned before the Aṭṭhakūlakā or eight clans, which would appear to have been a jury composed of one member from each of the separate divisions of the tribe’.⁵

c61.s3.2

⁵ Cunningham, *Ancient Geography of India*, p. 447.

c61.s3.3

All these Vajjis lived in great amity and concord, and this unity coupled with their martial instincts and the efficiency of their martial institutions made them great and powerful amongst the nations of North-Eastern India.⁶ Their sympathy for one another was exemplary. If one Licchavi fell ill, the other Licchavis came to see him. The whole clan would join in any auspicious ceremony performed in the house of one of their number; if any foreigner of rank and power paid a visit to the Licchavi capital, they would all go out in a body to receive him and do him honour.¹

c61.s3.4

⁶ *Buddhist Suttas*, S.B.E., Vol. XI, p. 3; see also Turnour, *Pāli Buddhistical Annals*, No. 5, *J.A.S.B.*, Dec. 1838, p. 992.

c61.s3.5

¹ *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī* (P.T.S.), II, pp. 517-8.

c61.s3.6

The young Licchavis were handsome in appearance and fond of brilliant colours in their dress and equipages.² We have already seen how their splendour impressed the Buddha when he first met them. We have a detailed account of the attire of the Licchavi nobles in the *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta*, which describes how the Licchavi nobles went out for the last time to meet the Buddha. Apparently the Licchavis suited the colour of their clothes and ornaments to the tint of their complexions, and dressed themselves in dark blue (*nīla*), yellow (*pīta*), red (*lohita*), or white (*odāta*) accordingly.³ Exactly the same description of the colours favoured by the Licchavis is given in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*,⁴ which shows that they wore these colours not only on festive occasions but in their ordinary daily life also. Once while the Buddha was staying at the Kūṭāgāraśālā in the Mahāvana, five hundred of the Licchavis were seated around him. Some of them were *nīla* or blue all over in clothes and ornaments, and similarly others were yellow, red or white. We may compare these descriptions with the more detailed account in the *Mahāvastu* of the colours favoured by the Licchavis: ‘There are Licchavis with blue horses, blue chariots, blue reins and whips, blue sticks, blue clothes, blue ornaments, blue turbans, blue umbrellas and with blue swords, blue jewels, blue footwears and blue everything befitting their youth.’⁵ In the same terms the *Mahāvastu* speaks of the Licchavis decked all in yellow (*pīta*) and in light red, the colour of the Bengal *mādār* (*mañjiṣṭha*), in red (*lohita*), in white (*śveta*), in green (*harita*), and some in variegated colours (*vyāyukta*).⁶

First 142 of 304 passages. Read on

Linked texts (52)