Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s2: Vaiśālī, the Capital of the Licchavis

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s2

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (15)