Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s1: Kosala versus Kapilavatthu

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s1

Language: English

Kosala versus Kapilavatthu

c13.s1.1

Malalasekera is of the opinion that "in the sixth century B.C. the Sakyan territory of Kapilavatthu was subject to Kosala,"³ because the *Sutta Nipāta* speaks of the Buddha's birthplace as belonging to the Kosalans.⁴ In the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* also, Kapilavatthu is mentioned as being in Kosala.⁵ In the *Majjhima Nikāya* Pasenadi is reported to have said, "the Lord is a noble like me, a Kosalan like me, eighty years old like me; and this in itself prompts me to pay such respect to the Lord and show him marks of affection."⁶ Apart from these references quoted by Malalasekera to support his view, we find some more passages to the same effect. At one place the Buddha himself says, "King Pasenadi of Kosala is aware that the Samana Gotama has gone forth from the adjacent [*anantarā*] clan of the Sakyas. Now the Sakyas have become the vassals of king Pasenadi. They render him homage and respectful salutation, they rise and do him obeisance and treat him with ceremony. Now just as the Sakyas treat King Pasenadi of Kosala, so does the king treat the Tathāgata."¹ In the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka*, the Sakyas, upon receipt of the message of King Pasenadi asking them for a Sakyan princess in marriage, gathered together and deliberated: "We live in a place subject to the authority [*aṇāpavattitthāna*] of the king of Kosala; if we refuse a daughter, he will take offence; and if we give her, the custom of our clan will be broken. What are we to do?"²

c13.s1.2

³ *DPPN*, i, p. 696.

c13.s1.3

⁴ *Sutta.*, verse 405.

c13.s1.4

⁵ *Aṅguttara*, i, p. 276.

c13.s1.5

⁶ *Majjhima*, ii, p. 124; *cp.*, Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 114.

c13.s1.6

¹ *Dīgha*, iii, pp. 83-84.

c13.s1.7

² *Jāt.*, iv, p. 145.

c13.s1.8

On the other hand, Rhys Davids first put forth the view that the Sakyans were a republican clan;³ this has been challenged in some of its essential aspects. Watters is of the opinion that Kapilavatthu and the surrounding territory were included within the kingdom of Kosala, and that we cannot therefore speak of a Sakya king or kingdom.⁴ Probably, Watters based his view on the authority of some of the passages quoted above, but the evidence is not conclusive. The only ground in support of Watters' view, in Majumdar's opinion, "is the expression *aṇāpavattitthāna* used, with reference to Kosala, by the Śākyas themselves about their territory in the introductory episode of the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka*..."⁵ The full significance of the expression is, however, far from definite. The same *Jātaka* clearly shows that Kapilavatthu was outside the boundaries of the kingdom of Kosala. We are informed that while Viḍūḍabha resolved to destroy the Sakyans, the Buddha set out from Kapilavatthu and sat beneath a tree not far from the city. "Hard by that place, a huge and shady banyan tree stood on the boundary of Viḍūḍabha's realms."⁶ "This clearly proves," says Majumdar, "that the Śākya territory just touched the border, but was outside the jurisdiction of the Kosala kingdom."⁷

c13.s1.9

³ *Cf.* Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 17-21; *CHI*, i, pp. 175-7; Majumdar *Corporate Life*, pp. 234ff.

c13.s1.10

⁴ *On Yuan-Chwang*, ii, pp. 3ff.

c13.s1.11

⁵ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 235.

c13.s1.12

⁶ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 152; *tato avidūre Viḍūḍabhassa rajjasimāva*...

c13.s1.13

⁷ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 235.

c13.s1.14

The claim of Malalasekera, which is also supported by Jayaswal ¹ and H. C. Raychaudhuri ² in addition to Watters, cannot, however, be lightly dismissed, though none of the scholars mentioned has investigated the question thoroughly. The passages quoted above appear to show that the Sakyas were subordinate to Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, and that they probably "rendered to him homage and respectful salutation." However, if the sources are examined closely, the position of the Sakyas emerges clearly as that of an independent people who were not completely subordinate to the king of Kosala. They might well have been afraid of his power, just as the Licchavis, Mallas, Videhas and Nāyas were probably afraid of the ambitious monarch Ajātasattu of Magadha. That the Sakyas were independent is shown by their presence at Kusinārā at the last scene of the Buddha's life. They claimed a share of the relics on the grounds that the deceased was a Sakyan, the pride of the Sakyans.³ That the Nāyas and the Videhas who were republican peoples did not claim a share suggests that the Licchavis, the most powerful confederate of the Vajjian League, had supreme control over their territories. If the Videhas and the Nāyas were absolutely independent there seems to be no reason that could possibly have stopped them from that claim, save of course that they may not have cared for the Buddha, which even minor clans like the Koliyas of Rāmagāma, the Bulis of Allakappa and the Moriyas of Pipphalivana advanced.⁴ This indicates that the Sakyas, like the Mallas, were technically independent and not legally subordinate to the Kosalan king.

c13.s1.15

¹ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 43.

c13.s1.16

² *PHAI*, p. 99.

c13.s1.17

³ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 165; *cp.* Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 145.

c13.s1.18

⁴ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 164ff; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 145ff.

c13.s1.19

We do not know why the Kosalan king did not claim a share in the relics of the Buddha, but we do know that both Kosalan kings, Pasenadi and his successor Viḍūḍabha ⁵ were well disposed towards the Śākyamuni. It may be that the distance of Sāvatthi from Kusinārā and the presence of the hostile Ajātasattu's envoys did not particularly encourage the Kosalan king to claim a part of the relics. Probably the death of the Buddha took place after King Pasenadi had passed away at the gates of Rājagaha,⁶ and his power-loving son was not very enthusiastic about things religious and theological.¹ The fact that the Kosalans did not claim a share of the relics at Kusinārā does not exclude the possibility of their taking away, after Viḍūḍabha's invasion, the share which the Sakyas had carried to Kapilavatthu. If the Kosalan king was the overlord of the Sakyas, he might have been expected to insist on building the *stūpa* at Sāvatthi and not at Kapilavatthu, if only for the sake of prestige. Moreover, the relics would be thought of great value for their supernatural powers in bringing good fortune to the region in which they were deposited. This also supports the view that the Sakyas were not fully subordinate to Viḍūḍabha at that time.

c13.s1.20

⁵ *Jāt.*, iv, pp. 152, 153.

c13.s1.21

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 151; *Majjhima*, ii, p. 124; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 114.

c13.s1.22

¹ *Jāt.*, iv, pp. 147ff; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 116ff.

c13.s1.23

Whenever the Buddha was at Kapilavatthu or any of the Sakyan towns, he is almost invariably mentioned as "dwelling among the Sakyas at Kapilavatthu", "Cātuma" or "Devadaha," and the instances can be further multiplied.² A dialogue between the Buddha and Ambaṭṭha, who had not been respectfully received by the Sakyan assembly, also indicates that the Sakyas were independent and had their own territory. The Buddha pacifies him saying, "Why a quail, Ambaṭṭha, little hen-bird though she be, can say what she likes in her own nest. And there the Sakyas are at their own home, in Kapilavatthu. It is not fitting for you to take offence at so trifling a thing."³

c13.s1.24

² *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; *Majjhima*, 1, pp. 91, 246, 353, 457; ii, pp. 118, 214, 243; iii, pp. 109, 110; *Saṁyutta*, iv, p. 182, etc.

c13.s1.25

³ *Dīgha*, i, p. 91.

c13.s1.26

More suggestive is the *Dhamma-Cetiya-Sutta* ⁴ which describes a chariot journey of the Kosalan King Pasenadi on his way to greet the Buddha. The *Sutta* begins, "Once when the Lord was staying in the Sakyan country, at Medataḷumpa which was one of their [Sakyan] townships, Pasenadi, the King of Kosala was at Nangaraka ... and asked [Digha Kārāyana] where the Lord was then staying. Being told that he was at Medataḷumpa, the Sakyan township, the King asked how far away it was. It was not far—only some three leagues ... "⁵ "He urged his charioteer to take him to the Sakyan Medataḷumpa where the Buddha was then sojourning. Pasenadi reached that place and praised the Buddha for his absolute control of his audience while the king himself was repeatedly interrupted while trying the cases as the supreme judge . . .”.¹ If the Sakyan territory were under Pasenadi’s control, the Buddha would probably not have been mentioned as being “in Sakyan country,” or “at one of the Sakyan townships, Medataḷumpa”.

c13.s1.27

⁴ *Majjhima*, ii, pp. 118ff.

c13.s1.28

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 118-19.

c13.s1.29

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 119-22.

c13.s1.30

Although in the same *Sutta* Pasenadi is reported as saying, *Bhagavā pi Kosalaka, aham pi Kosalako*,² this is an obvious example of contradiction in the sources. However, it can be explained if we keep in mind the fact that the sources were written later than the events they claim to depict, and that some historical facts have been mishandled and misplaced by the writers. That the Sakyas were extinguished as a political power by Viḍūḍabha and that the survivors may have become Kosalans at a later time seems certain, but the sources appear to have intermingled earlier and later events. The passages cited above impel us to suggest that the Sakyas were an independent political community during the Pasenadi’s reign and the earlier part of Viḍūḍabha’s; in other words, the Sakyas were independent at least until the time of the Buddha’s death, when they claimed a share in his relics and later built a *stūpa* in its honour at their capital town.³