Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s2: Form of Government

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s2

Language
English

Form of Government

c13.s2.1

Tied in with the question of Sakyan sovereignty is the controversy regarding their form of government. We hear at one place that Bhaddiya, a young cousin of the Bhudda, was *rājā*,⁴ at another that the Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, held that rank,⁵ while elsewhere he is spoken of as a mere clansman, “Suddhodana the Sakyan”.

c13.s2.2

⁴ *Vinaya*, ii, p. 181.

c13.s2.3

⁵ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 52; cf. Rhys Davids, in *CHI*, i, pp. 177ff; and his *Buddhist India*, pp. 19ff.

c13.s2.4

Rhys Davids has shown, on the authority of the Pāli canon,⁶ that the Sakyas had “a single chief, . . . elected as office holder, presiding over the Senate, and, if no Senate were in session, over the state. He bore the title of *Rāja* which in this connection does not mean king, but rather something like the Roman consul, or the Greek archon.”⁷ This view is supported by Malalasekera when he says that "the Sākyans evidently had no king. Theirs was a republican form of government probably with a leader, elected from time to time."¹ In Oldenberg's opinion as well, "at the head of this [Sakyan] aristocratic community there must have been some leading man, appointed with the title of king, which can scarcely in this case have indicated more than the position of *primus inter pares*."² Jayaswal³ and Majumdar⁴ are also of the opinion that the Sakyas were a republic.

c13.s2.5

⁶ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 17ff; *CHI*, i, pp. 175ff.

c13.s2.6

⁷ *CHI*, i, p. 177; *Buddhist India*, p. 19.

c13.s2.7

¹ *DPPN*, ii, p. 970.

c13.s2.8

² Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 99.

c13.s2.9

³ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 43.

c13.s2.10

⁴ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 236ff.

c13.s2.11

Weak though his arguments may be, Professor D. R. Bhandarkar has advanced different claims. He asserts that "no office holder was appointed by the Śākyas from time to time as Rhys Davids suggested. The Pāli canon speaks only once of a Śākya king Bhaddiya, *Bhaddiyo Sakyarājā Sakyānaṁ rajjaṁ kārenti*. He was most probably hereditary and not a president, *mukhya* or *grāmaṇī*."⁵ He further adds that "the preambles of some *Jātakas* [nos. 466 and 536] make us infer that the Śākyas were a *gaṇa* and not a *kula*, but the Canonical texts are earlier and more authentic, which makes the Śākya a kingly tribe and not a *gaṇa*."⁶ Rhys Davids has shown at least two cases in the Pāli canon where two different Sakyans are called *rājās*. The one referred to by Bhandarkar had already been noticed by Rhys Davids as early as 1903, at least 15 years before Bhandarkar wrote, and the former scholar was fully aware of Bhaddiya being called a *rājā*.⁷ Moreover, Rhys Davids also added in the same sentence, "and in another passage, Suddhodana, the Buddha's father [who is elsewhere spoken of as a simple citizen, Suddhodana the Sākiyan], is called the *rājā*." We admit that Rhys Davids did not locate the evidence for Suddhodana *rājā* in the texts, but the fact remains that he did mention more than one Sakya being called a *rājā*. Long before Rhys Davids, Oldenberg had shown that the Sakyan king was no more than a chief, and that the idea that the Buddha's father, Suddhodana, enjoyed this royal dignity was quite foreign to the oldest forms in which the traditions regarding the family are presented to us. "Rather we have nothing (more or less)

c13.s2.12

⁵ *Car. Lecs.*, p. 161; also Law, in *HCIP*, ii, p. 16.

c13.s2.13

⁶ *Loc. cit.*, fn. 3.

c13.s2.14

⁷ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 19.

c13.s2.15

to contemplate in Suddhodana than one of the great and wealthy landowners of the Sakya race, whom later legends first formed into the ‘great king Suddhodana’.’’ ¹

c13.s2.16

¹ Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 99.

c13.s2.17

Bhandarkar quoted *Buddhist India* in respect of Rhys Davids’ claim that the Sakyas were a republican clan, but he ignored the reference to a second king of the Sakyas, perhaps because it went against his theory. Bhandarkar also shows complete ignorance of Oldenberg’s similar view that the Sakyas were an aristocratic government, and not a monarchy. Rhys Davids first wrote when most of the Pāli canon was unpublished. Later, in the *Cambridge History of India*,² he gave the reference for Suddhodana’s kingship in the *Dīgha Nikāya*,³ Bhandarkar himself admits this to be of an earlier date and more authentic than the *Jātakas*.

c13.s2.18

² i, p. 177.

c13.s2.19

³ ii, p. 52.

c13.s2.20

On this account Majumdar did not let Bhandarkar go unchallenged.⁴ Criticizing Bhandarkar’s theory, Majumdar finally brought out evidence from the *Jātakas* that the Sakyas were a republican community, as first expounded by Oldenberg and Rhys Davids. He says that ‘‘it may be pointed out, . . . that the introductory episodes of the Jātakas seem to prove that the constitution of the Śākyas was not unlike that of the Licchavis.’’ ⁵ Majumdar substantiates his statement from the *Kuṇāla Jātaka* ⁶ which describes a feud between the Sakyas and their neighbouring republic, the Koliyas. In his opinion, ‘‘a careful study of the whole account hardly leaves any doubt that the Śākyas were governed on the same principle as the Licchavis.’’ ⁷ Thus, when the quarrel grew serious over the waters of the river Rohiṇī, which each party wanted for irrigation, the Sakyas went and told the ‘‘councillors appointed to such services and they reported it to the multitude of kings of royal families’’. ⁸ It was then resolved, apparently by these kings, that they should fight, and so the Sakyas ‘‘sallied forth, ready for the fray’’. The number of these kings is not definitely stated, but it must have been considerable in view of the fact that 250 princes were offered as escorts for the Buddha, who intervened in the feud.¹

c13.s2.21

⁴ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 235ff.

c13.s2.22

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 236.

c13.s2.23

⁶ *Jāt.*, v, pp. 412ff.

c13.s2.24

⁷ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 236.

c13.s2.25

⁸ *Jāt.*, vi, p. 413.

c13.s2.26

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 412-4; *cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 236.

c13.s2.27

There is not the least allusion to any individual royal authority in this circumstantial narrative, and moreover the chiefs of the Sakyas are all called kings.² "Why are ye come here, mighty kings," asked the Buddha. Elsewhere we have the expression "the kings said . . ." ³ In the *Samudda-Vāṇija Jātaka*, Devadatta laments the fact that he has been rejected by all "kings of the Sakyas."⁴ Similarly, we learn from the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka* how King Pasenadi sent his envoy asking, "Please give me one of your daughters in marriage, for I wish to become connected with your family".⁵ On receipt of this message it was the Sakyas who gathered and deliberated in their *santhāgāra*. According to the time-honoured custom, ambassadors are dispatched by one sovereign to another, if there be any, and the omission of the king in this respect strengthens the assumption that the Sakyas had no king in the sense of a sole hereditary monarch.⁶ It is true that Vāsabhakhattiyā, born of a slave woman and Mahānāma, is referred to by the Buddha as "a king's daughter."⁷ But on the preceeding page of the same *Jātaka* Mahānāma is referred to simply as "Mahānāma the Sakya".⁸ Vāsabhakhattiyā also tells her son Viḍūḍabha, "My boy, your grandsires are the Sakyan kings," and the young Sakyans are referred to as "princes".⁹

c13.s2.28

² Majumdar, *Corporate Life*; *cf.* Mukerji, *op. cit.*, pp. 18-28.

c13.s2.29

³ *Jāt.*, v, pp. 413-14.

c13.s2.30

⁴ *Ibid.*, iv, p. 158.

c13.s2.31

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 145.

c13.s2.32

⁶ *Cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 237.

c13.s2.33

⁷ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 148; *cf.* Hardy, *op. cit.*, p. 227.

c13.s2.34

⁸ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 147.

c13.s2.35

⁹ *Ibid.*, pp. 146-47.

c13.s2.36

Thus there is little doubt that the Sakyan state was a non-monarchical political community, as Rhys Davids had suggested, and not a monarchical one ruled by a hereditary king, as D. R. Bhandarkar wrongly claimed. The instances quoted support the view of Majumdar, that the "Śākyas like the Licchavis had a *number of rājas*, who were probably members of the supreme assembly ruling over the state".¹⁰ Apart from the Sakyan kings the *Kuṇāla Jātaka* also refers to *uparājās*,¹¹ or viceroys who sallied forth against the Koliyas. This makes it probable that the Sakyan *rājās’* eldest sons were designated *uparājās* like the Licchavian *rājās* and took their seats in the assembly after the deaths of their fathers.¹ Thus the Sakyas appear to present striking similarities with the Licchavis of Vesālī.²

c13.s2.37

¹⁰ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 238

c13.s2.38

¹¹ *Jāt.*, v, p. 413. For detailed discussion see below, pp. 195ff.

c13.s2.39

¹ *Cf.* below, pp. 195ff.

c13.s2.40

² *Cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 238; Law, *TAI*, p. 254.

c13.s2.41

The name of the Buddha’s clan is spelt differently in various Pāli texts but the two most common variants are *Sakya* and *Sakka*. Most frequent of all is *Sakya* which besides the later *Jātakas* appears in the *Dīgha Nikāya* alone at least 31 times.³ In the *Majjhima Nikāya* the word occurs 28 times in this form.⁴ In the *Saṁyutta Nikāya* it also occurs 18 times.⁵ In the form *Sakka* the name occurs less frequently. In the locative plural, the name nearly always occurs as *Sakkesu*,⁶ though we have also found it twice as *Sakyesu*.⁷ The usual form of the name in the genitive singular is also almost universally *Sakkassa*.⁸ However, in the genitive plural the word occurs most commonly as *Sakyānaṁ*,⁹ and only a few times as *Sakkānaṁ*.¹⁰ The form *Sakko* most commonly figures in the *Majjhima Nikāya*.¹¹ It does not occur in this form in the *Dīgha Nikāya* at all and appears only twice in the *Saṁyutta Nikāya*.¹² The name occurs quite commonly in the plural as *Sakyā*.

c13.s2.42

³ *Dīgha*, i, pp. 87-88, 90-93, etc.; ii, pp. 91, 166, 274; iii, 83, 84, 117, 196, etc.

c13.s2.43

⁴ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 109, 285, 290, 353-4, 457, 502; ii, p. 214, etc.

c13.s2.44

⁵ *Saṁyutta*, i, pp. 87, 184; iii, p. 5; iv, pp. 124, 182-4; v, pp. 2, 3-35, 405, etc.

c13.s2.45

⁶ *Dīgha*, i, pp. 92ff; iii, p. 117; *Majjhima*, i, pp. 91, 108, 246, 353; ii, pp. 118, 243; *Saṁyutta*, i, pp. 26, 87, 117, 119, 184; iii, pp. 5, 91; iv, pp. 124, 182; v, pp. 327, 369, 396, etc.

c13.s2.46

⁷ *Saṁyutta*, v, p. 2; *Dīgha*, i, p. 92.

c13.s2.47

⁸ *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; *Majjhima*, i, p. 246; iii, pp. 109, 110, etc.

c13.s2.48

⁹ *Dīgha*, i, pp. 92-3; iii, p. 117; *Majjhima*, i, pp. 353-4, 457; ii, pp. 118-9; *Saṁyutta*, i, pp. 87, 184; iii, p. 5; iv, p. 124; v, p. 2, etc.

c13.s2.49

¹⁰ *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; *Majjhima*, ii, pp. 118, 214; *Saṁyutta*, iv, p. 124.

c13.s2.50

¹¹ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 91, 108, 299; ii, p. 119, etc.

c13.s2.51

¹² *Saṁyutta*, v, pp. 375, 405.

c13.s2.52

It is probably derived from the Sanskrit root *śak* (*śaknoti*, rarely *śakyati* or *śakyate*), meaning “to be able,” “worthy,” “possible,” or “practicable.”¹³ It appears that in Sanskrit both *Śākya* and *Śakya* are correct. We have taken Pāli *Sakya* (Sanskrit *Śākya*), which figures most frequently in the earlier texts, as the standard form. Rhys Davids, on phonological grounds accepts the name as *Sākiya*.¹ However, this form only occurs twice in the *Dīgha Nikāya*,² though it is most common in the *Jātakas*.³

c13.s2.53

¹³ *Cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *śak*; *Pāli-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *sak*.

c13.s2.54

¹ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 17ff, 90, 100, 130, 133, 259, etc.; *CHI*, i, pp. 175ff., 181-2, 199, 204, 209, etc.

c13.s2.55

² *Dīgha*, ii, p. 166.

c13.s2.56

³ *Cf.* *Jāt.*, vi, *s.v.* *Sākiya*.

c13.s2.57

The *Dīgha Nikāya* is the only Pāli text known to us which helps to explain the derivation of the name of the Sakyas. During a conversation of the Buddha with Ambaṭṭha, the former explains why they are called Sakyas and tells a legend which may be based on historical fact. He says, “Long ago, Ambaṭṭha, king Okkāka [?Ikṣavāku], wanting to divert the succession in favour of the [younger] son of his favourite queen, banished his elder children—Okkāmukha, Karaṇḍa, Hatthinika and Sinipura—from the land. And being thus banished they took up their dwelling on the slopes of the Himālayas, on the borders of a lake where a mighty oak tree [*sāko*, Skt. *śāka*] grew. And through fear of injuring the purity of their line they intermarried with their sisters. Now Okkāka, the king, asked the ministers at his court: ‘Where sirs, are the children now? There is a spot, sire, on the slopes of the Himālayas, on the borders of a lake, where there grows a mighty oak [*sāko*]. There they do dwell. And lest they should injure the purity of their line they have married their own (*sakāhi*) sisters.’ Then did Okkāka the king burst forth in admiration: ‘*Sakyā vata bho kumārā, parama-sakyā vata bho rājakumārā*’”. This Rhys Davids renders as “ ‘Hearts of oak (*sakyā*) are those young fellows! Right well they hold their own (*paramasakyā*)’.”⁴ “ ‘That is the reason, Ambaṭṭha,’ ” the Buddha continued, “ ‘why they are known as Sakyas’ ”.⁵

c13.s2.58

⁴ Tr., *Dialogues*, i, p. 115.

c13.s2.59

⁵ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 92, 93; *cf.* *Sum. Vil.*, i, p. 258; *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 352ff.

c13.s2.60

It might appear that the Pāli word *sāko* is here used in the sense of an oak tree, but we do not find such a meaning listed in the Sanskrit and the Pāli dictionaries. Thus the connection of a word *sāko* meaning “oak” and the name of the Buddha’s clan is very doubtful. Rhys Davids commented in this connection that “the oak (which does not grow in the text, and could not grow in the Terai) has been introduced to enable the word play to be adequately rendered. The Pāli *saka* means a “herb.”⁶ We think that the exclamation of the king quoted above, while not losing sight of the context, should be translated as, "The princes are very powerful (*sakyā*)! Very powerful indeed (*parama-sakya vatabho*) are the royal princes." The authors of this passage might have intended a word-play or pun. The word *śāka* in Pāli, as we have noted, normally means an herb, and in Sanskrit the corresponding *śāka* also means the same.¹ The word *śaktā* means "able," "competent for," and "equal to".² We suggest that the name of the tribe is connected with the root *śak*. In Pāli the word *sakya* is used in the sense of "capable," with no ethnic connotation.³

c13.s2.61

⁶ *Dialogues*, i, p. 115, fn. 2.

c13.s2.62

¹ *Cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt. -Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *śāka*; *Pāli-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *sāka*.

c13.s2.63

² *Cf. Ibid.*, *s.v.* *śaktā*.

c13.s2.64

³ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 415, 514; *Sutta*, p. 143; *cf.* *Pāli-Eng. Dic.* *s.v.*

c13.s2.65

B.C. Law associates the name with the *śāka* tree. He relies in this respect on Bharata, the commentator of *Amarakoṣa*, but gives no reference to the passage. However, Law translated the relevant piece from the *Koṣa*, "*Śāka* is a kind of tree. A king of the Ikṣavāku dynasty is known as Śākya because he lives near the *śāka* tree. His posterity was known as Śākyas."⁴ This bears a close resemblance to the Pāli passage quoted above, which is also found in the *Sumaṅgala Vilāsinī* and the *Sutta Nipāta* commentary.⁵ The Tibetan Buddhist tradition also refers to the manner in which they came to be known as Śākyas: "King Virūḍhaka thought one day of his comely sons, so he asked his courtiers what had become of them; then they told him their adventures. 'The daring young men! The daring young men', he exclaimed; and from this they became known as 'Śākyas'."⁶ Both the Tibetan tradition and that of Bharata derive their information from the *Dīgha Nikāya* account.

c13.s2.66

⁴ Law, *SCBI*, p. 187.

c13.s2.67

⁵ *Sum. Vil.*, i, p. 258; *Par. Jot.*, i, p. 352.

c13.s2.68

⁶ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 12.

c13.s2.69

The connection of the Sakyas with the oak tree is patently false as no oaks grow in the Terāī. The Tibetan tradition which explains away the name of the clan in which their great teacher was born by emphasizing the courage of the ancestors of the Sakyas appears to be too flattering and artificial to be true.⁷ No other scholar has attempted the etymology save B.C. Law, in the cursory remark quoted. At the present stage of our knowledge we are unable to suggest a more satisfactory and convincing etymology of the name than to connect it with the Sanskrit root *śak*.¹

c13.s2.70

⁷ Likewise the attempts to connect them with the Śakas are futile. *Śakā abhijano' sya*; *cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt. -Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.* *Śākya*.

c13.s2.71

¹ *Cp.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 95.

c13.s2.72

We have seen that the Sakyas were not legally subordinate to the Kosalan king during the reign of Pasenadi and the earlier part of his successor's reign, and that they had an assembly which administered the Sakyan territory. Their geographical location is also significant if we are to understand the workings of the Sakyan republican institutions within the background of neighbouring states. The general position of their country is intimated by the distances given from other places; 60 *yojanas* (450 miles) from Rājagaha, 50 *yojanas* (375 miles) from Vesālī, 6 or 7 *yojanas* (50 or 60 miles) from Sāvatthi.² Rhys Davids suggested that the Sakyan territory must have been just on the border of Nepal and India. The location was finally settled by the discoveries of the *stūpa* or burial-mound put up by the Sakyas over the portion of the relics they retained from the Buddha's funeral pyre,³ and of Aśoka's inscription, *in situ*, recording his visit to the Lumbinī garden in which the Buddha was born.⁴ Most of the scholars now doubt that the Piprāhwā casket inscription refers to the Sakyas. In fact it only mentions the Buddha, the Lord of the Sakyas (*bhagavate Sakiyānam*).⁵ The Aśoka-column, however, proves that some 300 years after the Buddha's birth this was believed to have been the site of his birthplace.

c13.s2.73

² *Cf.* Rhys Davids, *Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon*, p. 160; *Buddhist India*, p. 17 fn. 1.

c13.s2.74

³ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 17.

c13.s2.75

⁴ Smith, *JRAS*, 1897, p. 618; *JRAS*, 1898, p. 588.

c13.s2.76

⁵ Sircar, *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 84, 85, fns. 6, 7, respectively.

c13.s2.77

Cunningham, however, in identifying Kapilavatthu, believed that the position of the city could be fixed within very narrow limits by many concurring data. "According to the Buddhist chronicles of Tibet, Kapilavastu or Kapilanagara was founded by some descendants of the solar hero Gotama,⁶ on the bank of a lake near the river Rohiṇī in Kosala. Now the town of Nagar, or Nagar-Khās, that is 'the city', is situated on the eastern bank of the Chando Tāl, near a large stream named Kohāna, a tributary of the Rāpti, and in the northern division of Oudh beyond the Ghāgra river, and therefore in Kosala. To the west a small stream named Sidh falls into the lake."¹ Cunningham further suggests that Sidh (equivalent to Sanskrit *Siddha*) might refer to Kapila, whose hermitage was also on the bank of the lake opposite the city. Then he discusses the position of the river Rohiṇī which separated the Sakyan territory from that of the Koliyas, whose territory lay to the east of this river. Cunningham tentatively identifies the Koliyan capital Rāmagāma with the "village of Am Kohil, which is exactly 11 miles to the east of Nagar, and rather less than 3 miles from the nearest point of the Kohāna river," which he identifies with the ancient river Rohiṇī.²

c13.s2.78

⁶ *JASB*, ii, p. 391.

c13.s2.79

¹ *CAGIM*, pp. 475-76.

c13.s2.80

² *Ibid.*, pp. 476-77.

c13.s2.81

Cunningham's identifications do not contradict the Buddhist sources, but the Aśokan inscription at Lumbini seems to be decisive. Yet these identifications do not help us to determine the actual size and boundaries of the Sakyan territory. For this purpose our chief source of information is the Buddhist stories; hence we only tentatively suggest its geographical situation and boundaries.

c13.s2.82

The *Kuṇāla Jātaka* informs us that "the Sākiya and the Koliya tribes had the river Rohiṇī, which flows between the cities of Kapilavatthu and Koliya, confined by a single dam and by means of it cultivated their crops".³ This river has been identified with the modern river Kohāna by Cunningham.⁴ Thus, the river Rohiṇī formed the eastern boundary of the Sakyan territory; beyond it, probably somewhat to the south, was the land of the Koliyas. It is probable that the Koliyan territory did not stretch as far north as did the Sakyan. On the north-east the Sakyas would border the territory of the Mallas of Kusinārā; and the Moriyas would be to the east of the Koliyas.⁵ To the south and west of the Sakyan territory lay the kingdom of Kosala, for in the *Majjhima Nikāya* King Pasenadi comes from Nangaraka, a Kosalan town, to Medataḷumpa, one of the Sakyan townships, without transversing any intervening territory of another people.⁶ But a much more important statement, in the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka*, clearly demarcates the boundaries of Kosala during the earlier part of Viḍūḍabha's reign. The Buddha had been intervening between the Sakyas and Viḍūḍabha, who was marching with his army towards the Sakyan capital. The Buddha reached "a spot near Kapilavatthu, and sat beneath a tree that gave scanty shade. Hard by that place, a huge and shady banyan tree stood on the boundary of Viḍūḍabha's realms."¹ This passage not only indicates the limits of the two territories, but also shows that the Sakyan territory was either to the west or to the south of Sāvatthi. It is likely that the boundary of the Sakyas to the west was not very extensive, as the Buddha chose a spot in the Sakyan land "near Kapilavatthu."² Another significant fact is that the shady banyan tree "stood on the boundary of Viḍūḍabha's realms," indicating the boundary between the Kosalan and the Sakyan territories. The passage would also suggest that the Sakyan land reached further to the north of Kapilavatthu than to the west or south. References to the great forest and hills, in connection with the Sakyan capital, suggest that their territory stretched right into the Himālayas and that there was a forest north of it.³ In short, we may say that the Sakyan territory lay along the foothills of the Himālayas; to the west and south lay the kingdom of Kosala,⁴ and to the east the land of the Koliyas of Rāmagāma. The river Rohiṇī divided the land of the two republican peoples. In Rhys Davids' opinion, "it was no doubt in this plain, stretching about fifty miles from east to west, and thirty or forty miles to the southward from the foot of Himālaya Hills, that the majority of the [Sakyan] clan were resident."⁵

c13.s2.83

³ *Jāt.*, v, p. 412.

c13.s2.84

⁴ *CAGIM.*, see his map xi, pp. 444-45.

c13.s2.85

⁵ See our map A.

c13.s2.86

⁶ *Majjhima*, ii, p. 118; *cf.* our map A.

c13.s2.87

¹ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 152.

c13.s2.88

² *Cf.* Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 116; *cp.* Schiefner, *Tib. Lebens*, p. 288.

c13.s2.89

³ *Dīgha*, iii, p. 117; *Majjhima*, i, pp. 91, 353; ii, pp. 109, 199, 253; *Jāt.*, v, pp. 415ff; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 117, etc.; *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 415.

c13.s2.90

⁴ Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 98.

c13.s2.91

⁵ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 20; *cf.* Rao, *op. cit.*, p. 279; *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, pp. 95-6 and fns.

c13.s2.92

That the administration of the Sakyan republic was in the hands of an assembly or Sakya-*gaṇa* with a chosen single head, is evident from a number of references to their conducting public business in their *santhāgāra*.⁶ In the *Dīgha Nikāya* there is a dialogue between a Brāhmaṇa named Ambaṭṭha and the Buddha. The subject of this *Sutta* is the conduct and behaviour of the Sakyas. "Once Gotama," says Ambaṭṭha, "I had to go to Kapilavatthu on some business or other of Pokkharasādi's, and went into the Sakyas' Congress-Hall. Now at that time there were a number of Sakyas, old and young, seated in the hall on grand seats, making merry and joking together, nudging one another with their fingers; and for a truth, methinks, it was I myself that was the subject of their jokes; and not one of them even offered me a seat."¹ The *Bhaddasāla Jātaka*, as we have noted above, informs us that King Pasenadi's proposal of marriage with a Sakya girl was discussed in the assembly of the Sakyas.² The *Kuṇāla Jātaka* speaks of Sakyan *bhojakās*,³ "headmen," literally "enjoyers"—probably of rights on land or as landholders. The *bhojakās* might have been those Sakyans who took an active part in colonizing the area and hence had a right to the land like the barons of mediaeval Europe. We also hear of *amaccās* or councillors, and *uparājās* or viceroys⁴ who, along with serfs, labourers and attendants, sallied forth to fight against the Koliyas.⁵

c13.s2.93

⁶ *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; *Lalitavistara*, p. 115; *Jāt.*, iv, p. 145; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, 119, etc.

c13.s2.94

¹ *Dīgha*, i, p. 91.

c13.s2.95

² *Jāt.*, iv, p. 145; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 77-8; *cf.* above, pp. 186ff.

c13.s2.96

³ *Jāt.*, v, pp. 412-3; *cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 135ff.

c13.s2.97

⁴ *Cf.* below, pp. 202ff.

c13.s2.98

⁵ *Jāt.*, v. pp. 412-16.

c13.s2.99

All the passages quoted above indicate that the Sakyas had an assembly which probably consisted of the heads of families⁶ of Kṣatriyas of the Gautama *gotra*. Some scholars have taken the statement of the *Dīgha Nikāya*, that "in the Sākya Parliament both young and old assembled," without any serious consideration.⁷ No doubt the text puts these words in the mouth of the Brāhmaṇa Ambaṭṭha, but this refers to a gathering of the Sakyas in its social aspect. However, the session of the assembly which discussed King Pasenadi's proposal was political in implication. In fact, the *santhāgāra* was the general centre of the republic where, apart from political and public business, social and religious functions were also conducted.⁸ It appears that the *uparājās* were the eldest sons of the Sakyan *rājās* of the assembly and were expected to take their places upon the death of their fathers, but we have no positive evidence as to their being real members of the assembly in their own right. We have considered the question of the 7,707 Licchavi *uparājās*,¹ and we believe that the case with the Sakyan *uparājās* was no different.

c13.s2.100

⁶ *Ibid.*, iv, p. 158.

c13.s2.101

⁷ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, pp. 98-9; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 19; *CHI*, i, p. 176; Law, *TAI*, p. 258.

c13.s2.102

⁸ *Cf.* Vedic *sabhā*, pp. 32ff.

c13.s2.103

¹ *Cf.* above, pp. 104ff.

c13.s2.104

We are not certain of the exact number of the Sakyan general assembly, but from Buddhaghosa's statement that there were 80,000 families in the clan of the Buddha ² it would appear fairly large. Jayaswal suggests that the Sakyan council was composed of 500 members.³ However, he gives no authority to support this claim, but appears to base it on the *Lalitavistara*.⁴ From the context it is obvious that he made this statement without serious thought, as the following statement of his, based on Rockhill, reads: “The Śākyas are said to have had a law that each citizen could have only one wife”.⁵

c13.s2.105

² *Sum. Vil.*, ii, pp. 283-4; *asīti Kula Sahassāni* on *Dīgha*, i, p. 115; *cf. CHI*, i, pp. 175-6; tr., i, p. 157 fn. *Dialogues*.

c13.s2.106

³ *Op. cit.*, p. 43.

c13.s2.107

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 44 fn. 11.

c13.s2.108

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 43; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 15.

c13.s2.109

However, B.C. Law brings forth some evidence in support of Jayaswal’s suggestion of 500 members constituting the assembly of the Sakyas. Law says that “the ‘saṃthāgāra’ is spoken of in the *Mahāvastu* and the *Lalitavistara*, and we are told there that 500 Śākyas usually took their seats in the Hall. The *Mahāvastu* describes how thirty-two princes, the sons of a Śākya girl and Rājā Kola of Benares, came to settle in Kapilavastu, and presented themselves before the Śākya council (Śākya-pariṣad), where 500 Śākya leaders sat together to transact some important business . . . The *Lalitavistara* ⁶ also gives 500 as the members of the Śākya council.” ⁷

c13.s2.110

⁶ *Lalitavistara*, pp. 136-7.

c13.s2.111

⁷ Law, *TAI*, p. 254.

c13.s2.112

These references are quite significant in themselves, but this round number of 500 is so common in the Buddhist literature that not much credence can be placed upon it. We can be sure only of the existence of an assembly of the heads of Sakyan families,⁸ but we cannot determine the exact number of the body.

c13.s2.113

⁸ *Jāt.*, v, p. 413.

c13.s2.114

The Pāli sources are not only silent about the exact number of the Sakyan assembly, but also not definite about the existence of a smaller council. It is very likely that they had such a council, as the *Kuṇāla Jātaka* refers to Sakyan *amaccās* or councillors, along with *bhojakās* and *uparājās*.¹ The order of these three words seems significant. The councillors occur after the *bhojakās*, or landholders, and before the *uparājās*. As the *Jātakas* always refer to institutions in monarchical terminology, it is probable that the councillors are the college of rulers of the republic, whereas the viceroys are only the prospective members of the political assembly. Thus, it seems likely that these *amaccās* are really the smaller council of the Sakyas which executed public business. The republics neighbouring on the Sakyas had councils, and it would be almost impossible to carry out the administration through a single elected chief without the aid of a council. The whole assembly would have been unmanageable without the existence of some inner council. No doubt the chief had such a council, chosen from within the assembly, but no definite evidence of its existence and composition can be found, save for the mere mention of the *amaccās* in the *Kuṇāla Jātaka*.

c13.s2.115

¹ *Loc. cit.*

c13.s2.116

We know that the Sakyan assembly gathered together to discuss important matters of public business. It was this body which decided upon questions of war, peace, and alliances. They deliberated on Pasenadi's proposal,² and decided on action in reference to their feud with the Koliyas.³ It was they who received Viḍūḍabha when he went to pay a visit to his maternal uncles,⁴ and who finally discussed plans and policy at the eve of Viḍūḍabha's seige of Kapilavatthu.⁵ In Rhys David's opinion, the assembly "must inevitably have had a financial policy to discuss and carry out" ⁶ as well. We do not know how often this body convened. The smaller council, headed by the chief or president of the republic, probably met more often than the assembly, and carried out the business of the republic in the name of the latter.

c13.s2.117

² *Jāt.*, iv, p. 145.

c13.s2.118

³ *Ibid.*, v, p. 413.

c13.s2.119

⁴ *Ibid.*, iv, p. 147.

c13.s2.120

⁵ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 77-8, 119.

c13.s2.121

⁶ *CHI*, i, p. 199.

c13.s2.122

The administrative business of the republic and the more important judicial acts were carried out in the public assembly.⁷ All the meetings were held in the *santhāgāra*, "a technical term never used for the council chamber of kings''.¹ The main Sakyan *santhāgāra* was at Kapilavatthu, and the *Majjhima Nikāya* attests to the existence of a similar hall at Cātuma.² From the existence of such assembly-halls at Vesāli, Pāvā, Kusinārā, Kapilavatthu and Cātuma it appears that all the republics had one at their capital towns, and no doubt the more important settlements also had their own assembly-halls.

c13.s2.123

⁷ *Lalitavistara*, pp. 146-7; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 119.

c13.s2.124

¹ Tr., *Dialogues*, i, p. 113 fn. 2; cf. R. O. Franke, *JPTS*, 1909, p. 65; *CHI*, i, p. 176.

c13.s2.125

² *Majjhima*, i, p. 457.

c13.s2.126

We have no account of the manner in which the proceedings were conducted in the Sakyan assembly-hall, but in the *Mahāgovinda Suttanta* there is an account of a session held in Sakka's heaven,³ evidently modelled more or less on the proceedings in a republican assembly.⁴ The writer of the *Suttanta* puts the account of the proceedings of heaven into the mouth of Pañcasikho Gandhabbo, who reported them to the Buddha. He says:

c13.s2.127

³ *Dīgha* (Nālanda text), ii, pp. 165-69.

c13.s2.128

⁴ Though this passage is not definitely applicable to the Sakyas, this is a convenient place to discuss the question of procedure.

c13.s2.129

In days gone by... on the 15th, [*posathe*], at the Feast of the Invitations [*Pavāraṇā*] on the night of full moon, all the gods in the heaven of the Thirty-Three were assembled [*devā tāvatiṇsā sudhammā yaṁ sabbāyaṁ sannisinnā honti*] sitting in their Hall of Good Council. And a vast celestial company [*mahatica dibbaparisā*] was seated round about, and at the four quarters [*catuddisā*] sat the four Great Kings [*cattāro ca mahārājāno*]. King of the East, seating facing the West, King of the South... facing the north,... of the West... of the North.⁵ When... all the gods... are assembled, and seated in their Hall of Good Council..., and with the four Great Kings at four quarters..., after that come our seats. And those gods... who had been recently reborn in the hosts of the Thirty-Tree... outshine the other gods in appearance and in glory [*te aññe deve atirocanti aṇṇena ceva yasasā ca*].... Then Sakka... ruler of the gods, when he saw the satisfaction felt by the Thirty-Three gods expressed his approval in these verses. The Three and Thirty, verily, both gods and lords, rejoice... Come hither; and in glory all the other gods outshine....⁶ Hereat... the Thirty-Three gods were even more... glad and of good cheer.... Then Sakka,... perceiving the satisfaction of the Thirty-Three gods, addressed them thus: 'Is it your wish,

c13.s2.130

⁵ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 165.

c13.s2.131

⁶ *Ibid.*, pp. 165-6.

c13.s2.132

gentlemen, to hear eight truthful items in praise of that Exalted One?’ ‘It is our wish, sir, to hear them.’ Then Sakka . . . uttered before the Thirty-Three gods these eight . . . .¹ Then . . . the Three and Thirty gods having thus deliberated and taken council together concerning the matter for which they were assembled and seated in the Hall . . ., with respect to that matter the Four Kings were receivers of the spoken word, . . . were receivers of the admonition given, remaining the while in their places, not retiring.² Taking the uttered word and speech, the Kings stood there, serene and calm, each in his place . . . .³ Then the Thirty-Three gods came again, compared notes of the four Great Kings who are agreed in this case.⁴

c13.s2.133

¹ *Ibid.*, pp. 166ff.

c13.s2.134

² *Ibid.*, p. 168.

c13.s2.135

³ *Loc. cit.*

c13.s2.136

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 169.

c13.s2.137

These proceedings seem to be a heavenly counterpart of the procedure followed in the republican assembly, and the actions of the gods appear to have been depicted in imitation of those of men. The members of the assembly gather in the *santhāgāra*; four of the councillors are posted in four different corners or sides of the hall to hear distinctly and conveniently the speeches made by the members or *rājās*. The president or chief takes his appointed seat and when the house is ready he puts forward the matter to be discussed. Members express their views, which are probably committed to memory by the four councillors. Then all adjourn, leaving the recorders to compare their notes.⁵ All the councillors come back and wait for the decision of the recorders.⁶

c13.s2.138

⁵ This indicates that they were illiterate.

c13.s2.139

⁶ *Cf.* tr. *Dialogues*, ii, p. 263 fn.

c13.s2.140

The procedure is simple and it is most likely that it was followed in actual practice. The account of the text, however, seems to us to be applicable rather to the procedure of meeting followed at the trial of judicial cases than to the deliberations of the general assembly, which had no distinct legislative functions as such. We may be sure that the originators and repeaters of this story were themselves members of the republics and would have made use of their knowledge of what was constantly done at the gatherings in the assembly-hall.

c13.s2.141

Rhys Davids, on the authority of the *Vinaya Piṭaka*,⁷ held that no cases or motions were decided by casting votes. “The decision is regarded as unanimous; or, if difference of opinion is manifest, then the matter is referred for arbitration (*ubbāhikā*) to a council of referees.”¹ He concludes that the “method of procedure generally adopted in the mote-halls was not, as in modern parliaments, by voting on a motion.”² However, Jayaswal in discussing the procedure³ mainly relies on the Tibetan tradition,⁴ which he admits is the sole “direct reference to the technical aspect of these deliberations.” Jayaswal considers this of the “highest importance” for it puts him on the “right track”. From this he concludes that in the Sakyan assembly issues were decided by the vote of a majority.

c13.s2.142

⁷ *Vinaya*, iii, pp. 40ff.

c13.s2.143

¹ Rhys Davids, in *CHI*, i, p. 176, based on *Vinaya*, iii, pp. 49ff.

c13.s2.144

² *Ibid.*, pp. 176-7.

c13.s2.145

³ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 86.

c13.s2.146

⁴ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 118-9.

c13.s2.147

The Tibetan tradition made available by Rockhill informs us that the Kosalan King Viḍūḍabha, after besieging the Sakyan capital, sent his messenger to the Sakyas saying, “It is all over; so open your gates quickly”. Then the Śākyas replied, “Let us all assemble and deliberate whether we shall open the gates”. When they had assembled, some said, “As there are various opinions, we will find out the opinion of the majority”. So they set about voting on the subject.⁵

c13.s2.148

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 119.

c13.s2.149

We have just quoted the opposing views of Rhys Davids and Jayaswal with regard to the Sakyan procedure. The former expounded his theory on the basis of his study and examination of the Buddhist Vinaya texts, while Jayaswal mainly relied on the slender and late evidence of Rockhill’s translation of the Tibetan tradition.⁶ Altekar partly follows the line of Jayaswal, relying in the case of the Sakyas on the same authority. He concludes that “in the case of difference of opinion votes were taken and the majority view prevailed. This procedure, being the obvious and natural one, must have been followed everywhere.”⁷ But he also takes into consideration the evidence provided by an earlier Buddhist text with regard to the use of voting. “In the Buddhist Saṁgha the voting was sometimes done by secret method (*gūḷhaka*), sometimes by whispering method (*sakarṇajanakam*), and sometimes by the open method (*vivatakam*)."¹

c13.s2.150

⁶ We have consulted Dr. Snellgrove who is at present unable to trace the original passage in Tibetan, but gives his approval to the correctness of Rockhill’s translation.

c13.s2.151

⁷ Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 131-2, based on Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 118-9.

c13.s2.152

¹ *Cūllavagga*, iv, 14, 24; *cf.* Altekar, *State and Government*, *loc. cit.*

c13.s2.153

In our opinion Rhys Davids' suggestion that votes were never taken in the deliberations of the Buddhist republics seems rather timid, though it may well apply to the Vedic assemblies.² As regards Jayaswal's theory of "deliberation in Hindu republics," we find it historically false. No early text refers to the Sakyas as deliberating and deciding the issue by a vote of the majority. The whole story is a late one, and though it may contain historical recollections, it is hardly sufficient as a basis for the view that majority voting was a regular feature of the procedure. We concede to Jayaswal's view that the Sakyas deliberated on important matters, like any other republic of the time, and probably also had a simple voting system either by raising hands or by the use of wooden chips. But there is no evidence for a much more elaborate system of deliberation. The truth probably lies somewhere between what Rhys Davids suggested and a simpler procedure than that gleaned from the *Cūllavagga*. It could hardly be, we might add, the detailed picture presented by Altekar.³

c13.s2.154

² *Cf.* above, pp. 19ff.

c13.s2.155

³ *Cf.* above, pp. 116ff.

Linked texts (29)