Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c17: Appendices

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c17

Language
English

Contents

Appendices

Appendix A: Buddhaghosa’s Etymologies of Licchavi and Vajji

I. Passage from the Paramattha-Jotikā, i, p. 159.

c17.s1.t1.1

Atha tato addamāsaccayena ekā maṁsapesi suvaṇṇabimbasadiso dārako, ekā dārikā ahosi. Tesu tāpasassa puttasineho uppajji aṅguṭṭhakato c’ assa khīraṁ nibbatti. Tato pabhuti ca khīrabhattaṁ labhi; so bhattaṁ bhuñjitvā khīraṁ dārkānaṁ mukhe āsiñcati. Tesaṁ yaṁ yaṁ udaraṁ pavisati, taṁ sabbaṁ maṇibhājanagataṁ viya sandissati, evaṁ nicchavī ahesuṁ; apare āhu: ‘Sibbetvā ṭhapitā viya nesaṁ aññamaññaṁ līnā chavi ahosi’; evaṁ te nicchavitāya vā līnacchavitāya vā Licchavī ti paññāyiṁsu.

II. Passage from the Paramattha-Jotikā, i, p. 160.

c17.s1.t2.1

Dārakā vuddhiṁ anvāya kīḷantā vivādaṭṭhānesu aññe gopāladārake hatthena pi pādena pi paharanti. Te rodanti, ‘kissa rodathā’ ti mātāpitūhi ca ‘ime nimmātāpitikā tāpasapositā amhe atīva paharantī’ ti vadanti. Tato tesam mātāpitaro ‘ime dārakā aññe dārake vināsenti dukkhāpenti, na ime saṅgahetabbā vajjitabbā ime vajjitabbā ime’ ti āhaṁsu. Tato pabhuti kira so padeso Vajjī ti vuccati tiyojanasataṁ parimāṇena.

Appendix B: Linguistic Aspect of Our Etymology of Licchavi

c17.s2.2

The changing of ‘l’ into ‘r’ is a regular feature of the Eastern dialects of the Indo-European family. Professor T. Burrow makes the following observation on this point:

c17.s2.3

“In Iranian Indo-European r and l appear indiscriminately as r.¹ In the language of the *Ṛg Veda* this is predominantly the case. In Classical Sanskrit both l and r are found, but their distribution does not correspond exactly with that of Indo-European. In certain Eastern dialects of Indo-Aryan (notably in the inscriptions of Aśoka and in the Māgadhī of the Drama) only l is found.” ²

c17.s2.4

¹ T. Burrow, *The Sanskrit Language*, p. 82 fn. 1, with a few exceptions though.

c17.s2.5

² *Ibid.*, p. 82.

c17.s2.6

This gives us grammatical support for our suggestion that *Ṛkṣavin* was the original name, formed from *ṛkṣa*. By changing an ‘in’ ending into a lengthened vowel in the nominative singular, we get *Ṛkṣavī* (meaning “people of the bear-abounding region”) from *Ṛkṣavin*. In the Pāli canon, the *Arthaśāstra*, the *Mānavadharma Śāstra* and the Gupta Inscriptions it is represented as *Licchavi*, by the substitution of ‘Li’ for ‘Ṛ’, and ‘ccha’ for ‘kṣa’, according to the regular rules of Eastern Prākrit, but retaining the ending of the nominative singular.

c17.s2.7

Ṛkṣa vī from Ṛkṣa vin
Ṛ — Kṣa — Vī =
Li — Ccha — Vī

c17.s2.8

Thus *Ṛkṣavin* would be the original Sanskrit form of Licchavi.

Appendix C: Relative Occurrences of the Terms Vajji and Licchavi in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

c17.s3.2

| *Waldschmidt page* | *Sanskrit Text* | | *Pāli Text* | |
| | *Vṛji* | *Licchavi* | *Vajji* | *Licchavi* |
| 102 | 2 | — | 5 | — |
| 104 | 2 | — | 5 | — |
| 106 | 7 | — | 9 | — |
| 108 | 8 | — | 9 | — |
| 110 | 13 | — | 11 | — |
| 112 | 15 | — | 9 | — |
| 114 | 15 | — | 15 | — |
| 116 | 6 | — | 6 | — |
| 118 | 1 | — | 2 | — |
| 146 | 2 | — | 2 | — |
| 148 | — | — | 1 | — |
| 162 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 172 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 178 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 180 | — | 2 | — | 6 |
| 182 | — | 1 | — | 2 |
| 184 | — | 2 | — | 2 |
| 186 | — | 1 | — | 2 |
| 190 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 192 | 2 | — | — | — |
| 202 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 204 | 2 | — | — | — |
| 228 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 230 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 434 | — | 1 | — | 1 |
| 436 | — | 2 | — | — |
| 440 | — | 1 | — | — |
| 444 | — | 1 | — | — |
| 446 | — | 2 | — | 1 |
| Total: | 82 | 14 | 78 | 18 |

Appendix D: Buddhaghosa on the Vajjian Procedure of Justice, in the Sumaṅgala Vilāsinī, ii, p. 519.

c17.s4.2

Porāṇaṁ Vajji-dhammaṁ ti ettha pubbe kira Vajji-rājāno: Ayaṁ coro ti, ānetvā dassite: ‘Gaṇhatha taṁ coraṁ’ ti avatvā *vinicchaya-mahāmattānaṁ* ¹ denti. Te vinicchinitvā sace acoro hoti vissajjenti; sace coro hoti attanā kiñci avatvā ² *vohārikānaṁ* denti. Te pi vinicchinitvā acoro ce, vissajjenti, coro ce, *suttadharā* ³ nāma honti tesaṁ denti. Te pi vinicchinitvā, acoro ce, vissajjenti, coro ca, *aṭṭhakulikānaṁ* ⁴ denti. Te pi tath’eva katvā *senāpatissa*, senāpati *uparājassa*, uparājā *rañño* rājā vinicchinitvā, acoro ce, vissajjeti, sace pana coro hoti *paveṇī-potthakaṁ* vācāpeti. Tattha yena idaṁ nāma kataṁ tassa ayaṁ nāma daṇḍo ti, likhitaṁ, rājā tassa kiriyaṁ tena samānetvā tadanucchavikaṁ daṇḍaṁ karoti. Iti evaṁ porāṇaṁ Vajji-dhammaṁ samādāya vattantānaṁ manussā na ujjhāyanti, rājāno porāṇaka-paveṇiyā dhammaṁ ⁵ karonti. Etesaṁ doso n’atthi amhākaṁ yeva doso ti, appamattā kammante karonti. Evaṁ rājūnaṁ vuddhi hoti. Yena vuttaṁ vuddhi yeva Ānanda Vajjīnaṁ pāṭikaṅkhā no parihānī ti.

c17.s4.3

¹ Our underlining to mark the eight stages of procedure.

c17.s4.4

² SS. akatvā.

c17.s4.5

³ B. antokārikā.

c17.s4.6

⁴ SS. kulakānaṁ.

c17.s4.7

⁵ SS. omit; B kammaṁ.

Appendix E: The Brāhmaṇas of Droṇagrāma

c17.s5.2

As regards these Brāhmaṇas, the Sanskrit version of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* seems to give more reliable, though confused, information which, if analyzed, gives accurate knowledge about the Brāhmaṇas who also claimed a share in the relics of the Buddha. The Pāli version tells that a single Brāhmaṇa also claimed a share, saying "The Exalted One was a Kṣatriya, and I am a Brāhmaṇa. I am worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Exalted One."¹ The corresponding Sanskrit passage has *Viṣṇudvīpīvakā brāhmaṇā*² in the plural, and the same phrase is repeated in a later passage³ which does not correspond to the Pāli, though it occurs in both the Tibetan and the Chinese versions. The following page of the Sanskrit version and its corresponding Tibetan and Chinese versions have, *Dhūmrasagotro brāhmaṇaḥ*, whereas the Pāli version has only *Doṇo brāhmaṇo*⁴ who proposes to divide the remains of the Buddha into eight portions in order to avoid a quarrel among the claimants. He then asks them to give him a portion over which they would build a *stūpa* in Droṇagrāma⁵ and duly honour it. The succeeding passage of the Sanskrit version refers to the *Dhūmrasagotro brāhmaṇo* and *Viṣṇudvīpīvakā brāhmaṇā* and has no corresponding Pāli text. However, in the next passage we have again the expression *Vayaṁ Droṇagrāmake*, which is followed by *Dhūmrasagotrasya brāhmaṇasya*,⁶ also occurring in the ensuing sentence.⁷ But the Pāli version has only *Doṇo brāhmaṇo*. In the Sanskrit version it is the *Dhūmrasagotro brāhmaṇa* who, as the representative of the other Brāhmaṇas, addresses the Mallian *gaṇa*. When the distribution takes place, a portion goes to the Brāhmaṇas of Viṣṇudvīpa, in all the versions,⁸ though the Pāli version accredits it to a single Brāhmaṇa. Yet the next page contains a significant statement in the Sanskrit version, which does not have a Pāli counterpart, that "the Brāhmaṇas of Dhūmrasagotra erected a *stūpa* in Droṇagrāma".¹

c17.s5.3

¹ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 165.

c17.s5.4

² *MPS*, p. 434.

c17.s5.5

³ *Ibid.*, p. 440.

c17.s5.6

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 442.

c17.s5.7

⁵ *Loc. cit.*

c17.s5.8

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 444.

c17.s5.9

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 446.

c17.s5.10

⁸ *Loc. cit.*

c17.s5.11

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 448.

c17.s5.12

The evidence discussed above shows the confusion that exists in both the Pāli and the Sanskrit versions. The Pāli version uses the expression *Doṇa Brāhmaṇa* throughout, which might indicate that for the Pāli writer Doṇa (Sanskrit Droṇa) is the proper name of a single Brāhmaṇa who comes from Veṭhadīpa (Sanskrit Viṣṇudvīpa). The Sanskrit version not only refers to the Brāhmaṇa as coming from Viṣṇudvīpa, but also tells that he is of the Dhūmra *gotra*, and gives what appears to be the alternative name of Viṣṇudvīpa, i.e., Droṇagrāma. We believe that both the versions are confusing, but the Sanskrit version gives certain significant details forgotten by the Pāli—that the Brāhmaṇa was of the Dhūmra *gotra* and came from a Brāhmaṇa settlement of Droṇagrāma. When the Pāli version refers to him as *Doṇa brāhmaṇa* it in fact does not refer to his proper name but implies a place-name equivalent to the Sanskrit Droṇaka or Droṇagrāmaka, one hailing from Droṇagrāma, like the Kauśināraka or Vaiśālika.

c17.s5.13

Thus, the *Dhūmrasagotra* Brāhmaṇa whose proper name is not mentioned, came from Droṇagrāma, which was a settlement of *Dhūmrasagotra* Brāhmaṇas, just as the messenger of the Bulis came from Allakappa, and that of the Licchavis from Vesāli, etc. The Pāli version errs in referring to him by his proper name and in implying that he claimed a share of the relics on his own behalf. Apart from Vassakāra, the envoy of Ajātasattu, no proper names of envoys are mentioned.

Linked texts (7)