Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9: Chapter Four: The Licchavis

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter Four: The Licchavis

c9.2

The Licchavis formed the most powerful constituent of the Vajjian Confederacy¹ and Vesāli was the centre of their power.² At the time of the Buddha they rivalled the power of Magadha, and their capital, the metropolis of the Confederacy, was one of the biggest and most famous cities of India. Mahāvīra, the 24th Tīrthaṅkara of the Jainas, was born not far from Vesāli, and the Śākyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, often visited it. It is no wonder then that in the Jaina and Buddhist literature we find very frequent mention of the Licchavis, their origin, their country, their government, their judicial system, and their relations with neighbouring peoples. Thus, we know comparatively more about them than about any other republican peoples of the time.

c9.3

¹ *Cf.* pp. 123ff.

c9.4

² *Cf.* pp. 98ff.

Name and Etymology

c9.s1.1

The first scholar to propose the etymology of the word Licchavi was the Buddhist commentator, Buddhaghosa (c. A.D. 450-500).³ He gives two derivations of the term. Both etymologies might have satisfied the intellectual curiosity of fifth century folk or even those of mediaeval times, despite the fact that they are fanciful, unscientific and unscholarly. Several modern historians who have written about the Licchavis discuss their non-monarchical form of government and their elaborate and complicated procedure of administering justice, but none has suggested a reasonable and scientific derivation of the name of the people whose peculiar form of government they so admire.

c9.s1.2

³ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-65; *Pap. Sūd.*, i, 258ff.

c9.s1.3

The name occurs in various forms throughout the Pāli Canon, and in Jaina texts, Sanskrit literature, Chinese sources and Gupta inscriptions. In the *Divyāvadāna*,⁴ and to a lesser degree in the Pāli Canon and the Gupta inscriptions,⁵ the standard form is *Licchavi*. Kauṭilya,¹ Manu,² the Bhitari inscription of Skanda Gupta ³ and the spurious Gayā grants of Samudra Gupta ⁴ give the word with the vowel ‘i’ instead of ‘a’ in the second syllable, viz. *Licchivi*. In the *Mahāvastu* the usual spelling is *Lecchavi*.⁵ The Chinese translators of the Buddhist Sanskrit literature also employ characters which indicate that they knew the word in two forms: *Licchavi* and *Lecchavi*.⁶ This form bears a very close resemblance to the Prākrit form *Licchaī* that is found in the Jaina Canon, which probably contains material transmitted from a period before the time of Candragupta Maurya.

c9.s1.4

⁴ *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 55-6, 136.

c9.s1.5

⁵ Fleet, *CII*, iii, pp. 8, 27, 43, 50, etc.

c9.s1.6

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, bk. xi, pp. 376-9.

c9.s1.7

² *Manu*, x, 22.

c9.s1.8

³ Fleet, *CII*, iii, p. 53.

c9.s1.9

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 256.

c9.s1.10

⁵ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 254.

c9.s1.11

⁶ Watters, *BRWW*, ii, p. 77.

c9.s1.12

Although the word Licchavi occurs in no less than four forms, the majority of scholars have accepted *Licchavi* as standard on the authority of the Pāli Canon, the *Divyāvadāna* and the Gupta inscriptions.⁷ Trusting the same sources and the previous authorities, we also accept the standard form *Licchavi*. In order to establish the derivation of the term, Buddhaghosa gives a particular legend about the origin of the Licchavis. Briefly, the story tells how the Queen of Banaras brought forth a lump of flesh instead of a normal baby, which she then hurried to lose in the currents of the Ganges. A hermit caught the basket and looked after the lump. Within six weeks it developed into a boy “yellow like gold,” and a girl “white as silver.” By the strength of his compassion and the warmth of his affection, the fingers of the hermit were changed into breasts. From them milk passed into the babies like a “clear nectar into a Maṇi jewel.” Since both inside and out the brilliance ⁸ of their skins was the same, the hermit gave the children the name of *Licchavi*. Buddhaghosa mentions other possible interpretations of the name as meaning “thin-skin” (*Līna-chavī*) or even as “in the same skin” or with “no-skin” (*Ni-cchavī*), in connexion with these two children.⁹ These interpretations may be a metaphorical exaggeration implying very fair complexion. If taken literally they do not make sense—can there be children with no skin?

c9.s1.13

⁷ S. Lévi, *La Népal*, ii, pp. 85-90; *DPPN*, ii, pp. 779-82; Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 125ff; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 19ff; Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 221ff.; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, pp. 40ff.; Law, *TAI*, p. 294, etc.

c9.s1.14

⁸ *Cf.* Lévi, *op. cit.*, ii, pp. 89ff.

c9.s1.15

⁹ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-65. For text of the passage, see Appx. A, p. 244.

c9.s1.16

In connection with this, Sylvain Lévi comments that the story of Buddhaghosa is an obvious attempt to connect the name with the word *chavī*, meaning *brilliance*, and points to the similarity of this legend with another in the *Mahābhārata* recording the birth of the one hundred sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.¹ Other than noting this similarity, Lévi neither suggests an alternative etymology for the term, nor comments further on Buddhaghosa's interpretation. Prof. Rhys Davids,² D. R. Bhandarkar,³ K. P. Jayaswal,⁴ R. C. Majumdar,⁵ B. C. Law,⁶ Malalasekera⁷ and A. S. Altekar⁸ say nothing about the term except to mention it and discuss the various forms in which it occurs. Those who give the etymology (Sylvain Lévi, Malalasekera and Law) only report the derivation suggested by Buddhaghosa. In this connection B.C. Law simply says that “the word (Licchavi) is rather peculiar and defies easy analysis by the ordinary rules of grammar—hence the mythological interpretation by the commentator”.⁹ The etymology given by Buddhaghosa is evidently mythological, legendary and divorced from historical fact. It is, however, the only etymology we have. During the last 1,500 years no scholar has tackled the problem, and a solution seems long overdue.

c9.s1.17

¹ *Op. cit.*, ii, p. 89; *cf. DPPN*, ii, p. 782.

c9.s1.18

² *Buddhist India*, pp. 17ff.

c9.s1.19

³ *Car. Lecs.*

c9.s1.20

⁴ *Hindu Polity*, pp. 40ff.

c9.s1.21

⁵ *Corporate Life.*

c9.s1.22

⁶ *SKTAI.*

c9.s1.23

⁷ *DPPN*, ii, pp. 779-82.

c9.s1.24

⁸ *State and Government.*

c9.s1.25

⁹ *SKTAI*, p. 18.

c9.s1.26

Following Smith's suggestion that the Licchavis represented an intrusive Mongol element in the Indian population it might be thought that the word was of non-Indian origin, but after consultation with competent authorities we can find no counterpart of this word in Tibeto-Burman languages.

c9.s1.27

We suggest¹⁰ that the name Licchavi is an Indo-Aryan one, the Sanskrit equivalent of which would be *Ṛkṣavin*. *Ṛkṣa* means “bear”,¹¹ and in Māgadhī Prākrit might take the form *liccha*. The form *Licchavi* which we find in the sources, is consistent with Prākrit of the eastern variety.¹ We suggest that the Licchavis were a people who came down to the plains from the mountainous region north of the Ganges. The region abounded in *licchas* or bears (Hindi *rīch*), and hence the inhabitants took up or were given the name of Licchavis. We have no reference to them in the Vedic literature prior to the Buddhist period. If they were, as we believe, an Aryan tribe, they must have changed their name when they migrated to the Himālayan foothills. There is ground to suppose from their well-developed republican institutions and their refined system of judicial administration at the time of the Buddha, as well as their equal status with the Kurus, the Pāñcālas, etc., in the *Arthaśāstra*,² that they had a long previous history.

c9.s1.28

¹⁰ I am indebted to my teacher Professor Basham, for this suggestion.

c9.s1.29

¹¹ Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v.*

c9.s1.30

¹ *Cf.* Appx. B, p. 245.

c9.s1.31

² Chap. xi, p. 279.

c9.s1.32

Although our etymology gives the correct form of their name as *Ṛkṣavī* we have no evidence that they were ever commonly referred to as such, and, on our hypothesis, their name passed very early into literary Sanskrit and Pāli in its Prākrit form. Therefore, we prefer to refer to them by their usual appellation of *Licchavis*.

c9.s1.33

*Origin*

c9.s1.34

V. A. Smith believed that the "Licchavis were really a Tibetan tribe which settled in the plains during pre-historic times." ³ In his opinion, "much more significant are the undoubted similarities between the customs of the Tibetans and those of the Licchavis, which are recorded in the important matters of sepulture and judicial procedure." ⁴ He further adds, "it will be observed that in Tibet, as at Vaiśālī, cremation, burial and exposure are all practised. Similiarly, the Mongols are said to dispose of their dead in all these ways." ⁵ Smith bases this argument on the authority of Turnour ⁶ and Sarat Chandra Das,⁷ and comments that "one will agree with him (Das) after reading both these accounts (of Turnour and Das) that the ancient procedure at Vaiśālī is substantially identical with the modern procedure at Lhāsā.'' ¹ We are unable to trace the article by Das on which Smith based his hypothesis, and it seems never to have been published. Moreover, no theory can be soundly established merely by comparing an ancient system with a modern one. The detailed legal procedure of ancient Vesāli may well have been a mere ideal in the mind of the commentator Buddhaghosa, based on a tradition transmitted over centuries and containing recollections of a legal system which was actually much more simple.

c9.s1.35

³ *IA*, xxxii, p. 233. We do not consider here another rather fantastic theory of S. C. Vidyabhusana that the Licchavis were of Iranian origin (*IA*, xxxvii, 1908, pp. 78ff.), since this is evidently impossible. The old theory of B. H. Hodgson, that the Licchavis were "Scythians" (*Collected Essays*, pp. 17ff.) seems equally impossible in the light of our present-day knowledge of the Śakas and other central Asian invaders of India.

c9.s1.36

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 233.

c9.s1.37

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 234.

c9.s1.38

⁶ *JASB*, 1838, pp. 993ff.

c9.s1.39

⁷ Das never contributed such an article on the "Tibetan Jails and Criminal Punishment'' in the *JASB*. See *Index of Publications of the Society 1788-1953*, i, pt. 1, 1956, under S. C. Das, pp. 84-6.

c9.s1.40

¹ Smith, *IA.*, xxxii p. 235.

c9.s1.41

Smith makes only one other significant point in favour of the Tibetan origin of the Licchavis. This is their system of exposure of the dead for which he finds Tibetan parallels. The argument is quite inconclusive as it may equally well be used in favour of their Persian origin. Furthermore, four different ways of disposing of the dead, one of which was exposure, were known to the Vedic people.² Exposure was also so widespread among ancient and primitive peoples that no valid inferences can be drawn from it. From these arguments it is extremely difficult to associate the Licchavis with the Tibetans.

c9.s1.42

² *AV*, xviii, 2, 34; xii, 3, 22.

c9.s1.43

H. C. Raychaudhuri argued that ''the Licchavis, though originally non-Aryans, or foreigners, ranked as Kshatriyas, when they were admitted into the fold of Brāhmanism like the Dravidians referred to in Manu's śloka and the Gurjara-Pratihāras of mediaeval times.'' ³ We have suggested above that there is no solid evidence to prove that the Licchavis were either non-Aryans or foreigners. Raychaudhuri's view is not acceptable.

c9.s1.44

³ *PHAI*, p. 123.

c9.s1.45

In this question the crucial point seems to have been missed. We cannot determine the origin of a people unless we can link them to a certain ethnic group or linguistic category. The fact that the word Licchavis seems to be of Indo-European origin, suggests that they had at least some Aryan blood or had come much under Aryan influence. The Aryans had been moving eastwards by stages since they entered India. There were also associations with non-Aryan elements of the Indian population, to which the stocks that had migrated to the greatest distances were especially exposed. This may have played some part in the fact that the *Prācyas*, or easterners, were referred to “in a hostile or contemptuous tone.” The writer of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* and Manu refer to the *Prācyas* and the Licchavis respectively, in such a tone.¹ This may also show that the Licchavis had customs of which people raised in the Vedic tradition did not approve; hence they are absolutely neglected in the pre-Buddhist period.

c9.s1.46

¹ Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 394.

c9.s1.47

Oldenberg says that “a series of the most important race-names given in the *Ṛik-Saṁhitā* have vanished wholly, or as good as wholly, in the *Brāhmaṇa*: e.g., the Pūrus, Turvaṣas, Yadus, Tritsus, and so on. Vice-versa, of the names of Kurus and Pāñcālas, which stand in the front in the *Brāhmaṇa*, not one is named directly at least, in the *Saṁhitā*. There arose apparently, on the one side new names instead of the old (note the well-known change of Krivi and Pāñcāla), and on the other, in the many migrations and struggles in numerous places, the countless small stocks of the older days cohered into few greater peoples; naturally such events might easily necessitate a change in the names.”² It is by no means impossible that the Licchavis were a branch of some well known Vedic tribe which changed its name as a result of migration. Furthermore, a passage in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* refers to the earlier customs and institutions of the Licchavis, thus making them an older people. The Buddha says that they will prosper “so long as they enact nothing already established, abrogate nothing that has been already enacted, and act in accordance with the ancient institutions of the Vajjians, as established in former days”.³

c9.s1.48

² *Buddha*, pp. 401-05.

c9.s1.49

³ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 74.

c9.s1.50

There is yet another point which strongly supports the view that the Licchavis were linked with the Indo-Aryans. Throughout the Pāli literature the Licchavis are called by the *gotra*-names of the Brāhmaṇas, indicating the close connection of the two. Rhys Davids’ comment is pertinent in regard to this. He states that “all that we can fairly conclude is that the clans claimed, by the very use of these names (gottas), to be descended from the same ancestors as the Brahmans, who also bore the names; and that the claim was admitted to be well founded".¹ Of course, in later times many non-Aryan peoples accepted the *gotra*-system. But from this it is clear that the Licchavis, like other peoples of northeast India, were at least greatly influenced by the Aryan way of life and followed some of their customs. This strongly points to their kinship with the Indo-Aryan group of people.

c9.s1.51

¹ *Dīgha*, tr. i, p. 196, (*Intro. to the Mahāli Sutta*); *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 414.

c9.s1.52

The most probable origin of the Licchavis, as we envisage it, is that they were an Aryan tribe or a branch of one, originally called by a different name. During the Brāhmaṇa period, when the Kuru-Pāñcāla area became too congested and when kings became more autocratic, there was a considerable migration to the east. This is evident from the story of Videgha Māthava contained in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.² The Licchavis broke away from their kinsfolk and moved eastwards to find a better home. They most probably moved along the Himālayan foothills as suggested by Grierson,³ Rhys Davids,⁴ and Kosambi.⁵ Grierson pointed out the important fact that, even now, the dialects of Rājasthān have a close resemblance to those spoken along the Himālayas, not only in Nepal but as far west, at least, as Campā. This would tend to show that their ancestors must have been living close together when they began their wanderings to the east along the foot of the mountains from the Panjab or northwest by way of Kosala to the Sakyan country, and thence through Tirhut to Magadha and Aṅga. In the south they went down the Indus and up to Avanti. Both started from the northern Panjab, and probably neither migration followed the Ganges route.⁶

c9.s1.53

² *Śat., Br.*, i, 4, 1-10; *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 398.

c9.s1.54

³ *JRAS*, 1901, p. 808.

c9.s1.55

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 32-3.

c9.s1.56

⁵ *Introduction to the Study of Indian History*, pp. 116ff.

c9.s1.57

⁶ Grierson, *op. cit.*, p. 808; *cf.* *Buddhist India*, pp. 32-3.

c9.s1.58

We suggest, therefore, that the Licchavis, before descending to the Videhan country, stayed in the hills in some region of the Nepalese Terāi as if watching the political developments in Videha and the neighbouring region. They might have reached this region about the time that Janaka was ruling over Mithilā (8th-7th century B.C.). As they stayed in a region which abounded in bears and had broken off from their earlier folk, they dropped their older name and started calling themselves by a new name—the Licchavis. They soon advanced south towards the Ganges and first occupied the region of Videha, then Vesāli, the land previously controlled by the Videhas.¹ The Licchavian concentration of power at Vesāli was most probably the second and final stage in their search for a new home. Before the Licchavis occupied Vesāli it was an insignificant place, but it became the biggest city, the stronghold and the capital of the Licchavis. The Ganges separated them from the Magadhan Kingdom, and occasional feuds between these two great and rival powers persisted. They may well have annoyed the Magadhan king over a Ganges port held by them in common. This port is reported by Buddhaghosa to have been a bone of contention between the Licchavis and Ajātasattu.² Both Bimbisāra and his son are said to have been hostile to them.³ Ajātasattu’s fortification at Pāṭaligāma was mainly designed to check the Vajjian invasions⁴ and the campaigns against Ajātasattu were directed from Vesāli, the metropolis of the confederacy.⁵

c9.s1.59

¹ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 5; Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 156.

c9.s1.60

² *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p 516; cf. Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 71ff.

c9.s1.61

³ See below, pp. 121ff.

c9.s1.62

⁴ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 86ff; *Mahāvagga*, pp. 243-4.

c9.s1.63

⁵ *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 27ff.

c9.s1.64

Our theory seems to place the Licchavis in the proper historical context and explains the silence of the pre-Buddhist sources about them. Smith’s suggestion of their Tibetan origin, seems less substantial than our theory that they were an offshoot of the Brāhmanic peoples of Madhyadeśa. Though this is admittedly based chiefly on the slender evidence of the etymology of their name, it fits the known historical facts of the period better than any other hypothesis.

c9.s1.65

If our hypothesis about the derivation of Licchavi is accepted, some scholars may be inclined to see in this word evidence of totemism. We should note that according to Buddhist tradition the Mauryas, said to be survivors of the massacre of the Sakyas, took their name similarly from the most striking wild life in the territory in which they settled. We see no need to postulate survivals of totemism in these names, unless perhaps in the most attenuated sense, since there is no clear evidence of true totemism anywhere in the whole Vedic and Buddhist literature.

Licchavis versus Vajjis

c9.s2.1

In telling his fantastic story of the origin of the Licchavis, Buddhaghosa¹ adds that as the children grew and took up too much of the hermit's time, it was left to the neighbouring villagers to bring them up. The other children disliked them, saying they were to be avoided (*vajjitabbā*) because of their quarrelsome dispositions. It was because of this that they also came to be called Vajjis.

c9.s2.2

¹ *Par. Jot.*, i, p. 160. For the text see Appx. A, p. 244; *cp. Pap. Sūd.*, i, p. 259.

c9.s2.3

Buddhaghosa's interpretation is obviously fantastic, but the fact remains that these people are referred to both as Licchavis and Vajjis. Pāṇini includes Vṛjis among his *āyudhajīvī-saṅghas* or "societies of professional fighting men."² Kauṭilya includes them immediately after the Licchavis in his list of "communities living by the title of *rājās*."³ They are referred to by both names throughout the vast range of the Buddhist literature. As far as we know, nobody has investigated the relative frequency in the occurrences of these words. Although these are works of literature and not of history, an inquiry into this question would be interesting as well as historically significant. Was there some political reason for calling them Licchavis at one place and Vajjis at another, according to the context?

c9.s2.4

² *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, iv, 2, 131.

c9.s2.5

³ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378; *Licchavika-vṛjika-mallaka-madraka-kukura-kurupāñcālādayo rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ*.

c9.s2.6

Rhys Davids twice calls them "the powerful confederation of the Licchavis"⁴ and once "the powerful Vajjian Confederacy."⁵ Jayaswal refers to them by both names indiscriminately,⁶ as do B.C. Law⁷ and D. R. Bhandarkar.⁸ R. C. Majumdar also employs both terms, but uses only "Licchavi" while making his own statements about them.⁹ Altekar refers to them mainly as Licchavis¹⁰ and he does not seem to believe that there was a more or less permanent confederation of republics.¹¹ Professor Basham calls them "Licchavis" when referring to one of the confederates and "Vajjian Confederacy" with reference to all the confederates.¹ Dr. A. K. Warder² similarly makes a very clear distinction between the use of the words when he says "the famous Licchavis and their Vajjian Confederates," "Vajjian Confederacy,"³ and "Magadha, the most powerful monarchy, and the Vajjis, the most powerful republican Confederacy."⁴ We believe that this discriminate use of the words is historically correct.

c9.s2.7

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 25, 260.

c9.s2.8

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 40.

c9.s2.9

⁶ *Hindu Polity*, pp. 45, 48, 51ff.

c9.s2.10

⁷ *TAI*, pp. 294ff; *SKTAI*, pp. 3-98; *SCBI*, pp. 1-136.

c9.s2.11

⁸ *Car. Lecs.*, p. 154.

c9.s2.12

⁹ *Corporate Life*, pp. 221-28, 231, 373, 375.

c9.s2.13

¹⁰ *State and Government*, pp. 114, 121, 124, 127, 132, 137, etc.

c9.s2.14

¹¹ *Ibid.*, p. 132.

c9.s2.15

¹ *Ājīvikas*, pp. 5, 73-5.

c9.s2.16

² In Philips, *op. cit.*, pp. 44-56.

c9.s2.17

³ *Ibid.*, p. 52.

c9.s2.18

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 53.

c9.s2.19

We have made a careful study of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* and have compared the Sanskrit and the Pāli texts. Our examination reveals that in the Pāli text they are referred to as Vajjis 78 times and Licchavis only 18 times. In the corresponding Sanskrit text they are referred to 82 times as Vṛjis and only 14 times as Licchavis. Moreover, the Sanskrit text refers in 6 instances to the wanderings of the Buddha near Vesālī as in *Vṛjiṣu janapadeṣu*,⁵ and reference is twice made to the *Vṛjibhūmi*⁶ and the *Vṛjigrāmakeṣu*⁷ in each case, and once to *Vṛjigrāmaka*.⁸

c9.s2.20

⁵ *MPS*, pp. 162, 172, 178, 190, 202, 228.

c9.s2.21

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 204.

c9.s2.22

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 192.

c9.s2.23

⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 230.

c9.s2.24

The first passage of the Pāli text resembles word for word the Sanskrit one, and both use the word *Vajji* (Sanskrit *Vṛji*). In the second paragraph the Pāli text contains Ajātasattu's soliloquy—"I will strike at these Vajjians, mighty and powerful though they be, I will root out these Vajjians, I will destroy these Vajjians, I will bring these Vajjians to utter ruin".⁹ The corresponding Sanskrit passage has inserted *pariṣadi vācam* (*bhāṣate*) and continues almost as in the Pāli passage but with a significant difference. The Sanskrit passage uses *Vṛjīn* only once, whereas the Pāli text has *Vajjī* four times. The omission in the Sanskrit version may be intended for literary effect but the Pāli passage better fits the situation presented. Here Ajātasattu's bitterness speaks aloud in the Pāli version and we think it is more authentic than the Sanskrit one. On the first page of the text *Vajjī* occurs 5 times in the Pāli version and only twice in its Sanskrit counterpart.¹⁰ The Sanskrit phrase *Vṛjiṣu* *Janapadeṣu*, which occurs at least six times in the text, however, has no Pāli equivalent.¹

c9.s2.25

⁹ *MPS*, p. 102; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 72.

c9.s2.26

¹⁰ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s2.27

¹ For the detailed analysis of the occurrences of Vajji and Licchavi see Appx. C, p. 246.

c9.s2.28

Altogether, the relative frequency of the term *Vajji* is greater than that of *Licchavi*. The former seems to imply more than the Licchavis alone. At the time of the Buddha's death, it was the Licchavis of Vesālī who claimed a share in his relics, not the Vajjians. This may be due to the fact that the latter had no independent existence at the time that the story took its form, as the confederacy of several republics, including the Licchavis, the Videhas, the Mallas, etc., had been destroyed by Ajātasattu. But in all the recensions and versions of the story which we have investigated it is the Vajjis whom Ajātasattu determines to annihilate, not the Licchavis.

c9.s2.29

The comparison between the prevalence of *Vajji* at the beginning and *Licchavi* at the end of the *Sūtra* suggests that the author of the original version had a clear historical sense. He understood that the Vajjian Confederacy was in the former case intended as a political entity and in the latter case it is the individual confederates, like the Licchavis, Mallas, etc., who were intended.² This also suggests that in its earliest form the story was compiled not long after the events to which it refers took place. The Buddha calls the people in question Licchavis only after he has referred to them as *Vesālikā Licchavī*.³ This is the first time the word Licchavi occurs in the text of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* and it is qualified by *Vesālikā*. Afterwards the Buddha refers to them simply as Licchavis. This, we believe, is quite significant and further shows that while the Licchavis were especially connected with Vesālī, the term Vajji had a wider connotation.

c9.s2.30

² *Cf.* below, pp. 132ff.

c9.s2.31

³ *MPS*, p. 178.

c9.s2.32

In the *Mahāli Sutta*⁴ we have references to two Licchavis; Otthaddha the Licchavi, at least 15 times referred to as Mahāli by the Buddha, and Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis. Here again they are connected with Vesālī. As this *Sutta* has no political relevance they are not referred to as Vajjians. The *Jana-Vasabha Suttanta*⁵ reports that "the Exalted One in Nādikā was wont to make declaration as to the rebirth of such followers as had passed away in death among the tribes round about on every side”; i.e., among the Kāsis and the Kosalans, the Vajjians and the Mallas, and six other peoples.¹ Here, as the reference has some political significance, there is no mention of the Licchavis but of the Vajjians, and the Mallas who were most probably a powerful confederate. This unmistakably shows that the Licchavis were included in the Vajjians.

c9.s2.33

⁴ *Dīgha*, i, pp. 150ff.

c9.s2.34

⁵ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 200ff.

c9.s2.35

¹ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 200.

c9.s2.36

Yet even more revealing are some other passages in the *Pāṭika-Suttanta*.² They record a conversation between the Buddha and the wanderer Bhaggava about the former’s apostate disciple Sunakkhatta of the Licchavis who left the Buddhist *Saṅgha* for the Ājīvikas. During this dialogue the Buddha reports that Sunakkhatta the Licchavi has spoken in the praise of the Buddha and his *Dhamma* and *Saṅgha* “among the Vajjians.”³ This expression is used 4 times and whenever a reference is made to this disciple he is invariably called a Licchavi. Thus, there must have been a difference between the two and, as the context suggests, the word Vajji had the wider connotation.

c9.s2.37

² *Ibid.*, iii, pp. 1ff.

c9.s2.38

³ *Ibid.*, p. 5; *Vajjigāme*, literally “in the village of the Vajjians,” i.e., says the commentary of the Vajjian *rājās* at Vesālī.

c9.s2.39

The *Theragāthā* records Vajji 11 times and Licchavi only once, which the Commentator takes to mean “a Vajjian.” “He was reborn as the son of a Licchavi *rājā* at Vesālī. He became known as the Vajjian’s son, because his father was one of the Vajjians.”⁴ This suggests that in order to be known as a Vajji a Licchavi had to be a *rājā* or member of the Licchavian assembly, some of whom might have represented the Licchavis at the Vajjian council. Further references to the Licchavis of Vesālī are found in the *Cūḷa-Saccaka Sutta* of the *Majjhima Nikāya*.⁵ In the *Caṇṇ-Ovāda Sutta* of the same text we read of a “Vajjian village,”⁶ and in the *Cūḷa-Gosiṅga Sutta*⁷ we find a demigod named Digha announcing, “It is a great thing for the Vajjians, a very great thing for the Vajjian race, to have dwelling (in their country) the Truth-Finder, Arahat, All-Enlightened.”⁸ This may indicate the whole territory of the Confederacy. The *Cūḷa-Saccaka Sutta* informs us of the "confederation and federations such as the Vajjians and the Mallians" who had supreme power within their territories.¹

c9.s2.40

⁴ *Theragāthā Comm.*, i, p. 246; *Vesāliyaṁ Licchavirājaputto hutvā nibbatti. Vajjirājaputtattā vajjiputto.*……; *Psalms of the Brethern*, (PTS), p. 106.

c9.s2.41

⁵ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 227ff.

c9.s2.42

⁶ *Ibid.*, ii, p. 266.

c9.s2.43

⁷ *Ibid.*, i, pp. 205ff.

c9.s2.44

⁸ *Ibid.*, i, p. 210.

c9.s2.45

¹ *Ibid.*, i, p. 231; *immesaṁ pi bho Gotama saṁghānaṁ. gaṇānaṁ, seyyatthī-dam Vajjīnaṁ Mallānaṁ*, etc.

Geographical Location

c9.s3.1

Hsüan Tsang refers to the kingdoms of Vaiśālī (modern Basarh)² and Fo-li-shi or Vṛji³ separately, with an area of 5,000 li (833 miles) and 4,000 li (667 miles) in circuit respectively. Cunningham has shown the pilgrim's mistake in separating the two states which actually were one with several branches.⁴ The two taken separately are certainly too large to be accomodated in the region between the mountains and the Ganges.⁵ Cunningham asserts that "it is quite certain that there must be some mistake in the estimated dimensions of one of these. The utmost limit that can be assigned to the joint-districts, with reference to the surrounding states, is not more than 750 or 800 miles in circuit, from the foot of the mountains (in the north) to the Ganges on the south, and from the Gaṇḍaka on the west to the Mahānadi on the east. I conclude, therefore, either that there is some mistake or exaggeration in the estimated size of one or both of the districts, or that the two districts are the same kingdom under different names."⁶ That the latter actually was the case he has shown in detail.⁷ Cunningham further discusses the area covered by the Licchavis, the Videhas, etc., and shows that this entire region was occupied by the *Saṁ-vajjis* or "United Vajjis". Moreover, he shows, on the authority of Hsüan Tsang, that "the country of the Vṛjis was long from east to west, and narrow from north to south. This description," he says, "corresponds exactly with the tract of country lying between the Gaṇḍaka and Mahānadi rivers, which is 300 miles in length by 100 miles in breadth."⁸

c9.s3.2

² Beal, *Life of Hiüen Tsiang*, p. 100.

c9.s3.3

³ Beal, *BRWW*, ii, p. 77, fn. 100.

c9.s3.4

⁴ *CAGIM*, pp. 509ff.

c9.s3.5

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 509.

c9.s3.6

⁶ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s3.7

⁷ *Ibid.*, pp. 509-12.

c9.s3.8

⁸ *Ibid.*, p. 513.

c9.s3.9

According to Cunningham, we find the Licchavis of Vesāli occupying "the southwest corner of the country of the Vṛijis to the westward of the little Gaṇḍaka river and north of the Ganges".¹ The Videhas of Mithilā occupied the northern tracts, and the Nāyas inhabited the land around the northern suburbs of Vesālī.² The country occupied by these three main clans was collectively called the *Vṛji-Janapada*.³

c9.s3.10

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 511; also see *PHAI*, p. 118.

c9.s3.11

² *Cf.* above, our map A.

c9.s3.12

³ *MPS*, pp. 162, 172, 178, 190, 202, 228; *Majjhima*, i, p. 210.

c9.s3.13

Dr. M. S. Pandey, relying on Cunningham, locates the Videhas as "bounded on the north by what is now the Nepalese Teraī, the Kosī river to the east, the Sadānīrā (modern Gaṇḍaka) to the west and the Licchavian territory to the south."⁴ Dr. Pandey does not question Cunningham's location of the Licchavis of Vesālī and refers to the whole territory occupied by the confederates as "Vajji-territory".⁵ He further shows that the Vajjian territory was bounded on the west, south and east respectively, by three rivers, the Gaṇḍak, the Gaṅgā and the Bāgmatī, while on the north was what had been the kingdom of Videha.⁶ We accept this location of the Vajjian territory occupied by the Licchavis of Vesālī as a probable approximation which is not disproved by conflicting evidence.

c9.s3.14

⁴ Pandey, *op. cit.*, p. 135.

c9.s3.15

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 139.

c9.s3.16

⁶ *Loc. cit.*

Government and Organization

c9.s4.1

The Licchavis formed what is constitutionally called a *saṅgha* or a *gaṇa*.⁷ This was a form of government in which neither a single ruler, nor even a few, but a considerable portion of the population was vested with the final power and ultmate authority of the state. The *gaṇa*, as Kātyāyana⁸ and Kauṭilya⁹ give us to understand, was tribal in character and its members were generally considered Kṣatriyas.¹⁰ The question as to who formed the Licchavian *gaṇa* (assembly) at Vesālī, has produced several different theories. All the views rest on the basis of the three following sources which we quote before systematically examining the strong and weak points of the theories based upon them.

c9.s4.2

⁷ *Majjhima*, i, p. 231; *immesam pi hi bho Gotama saṅghānaṁ gaṇānaṁ, seyyatthidaṁ Vajjīnaṁ Mallānaṁ*, etc.; *cf. Cīvaravastu*, iii, pt. 2, p. 5; *Vaiśālī gaṇādhīnā.*

c9.s4.3

⁸ *Vārtikā*, iv, 1, 160.

c9.s4.4

⁹ *Arthaśāstra*, chap. xi, pp. 378-81.

c9.s4.5

¹⁰ *Cf.* Altekar, *State and government*, pp. 112-3.

c9.s4.6

The preamble to the *Ekapanna-Jātaka* states that “in that city [Vesālī] there were always 7,707 kings [*rājās*] to govern the kingdom, and a like number of viceroys [*uparājās*], generals [*senāpatis*] and treasurers [*bhaṇḍāgārikas*].”¹ The preamble to the *Cullakāliṅga-Jātaka* refers to the same tradition when it says that “the Licchavis of the ruling family to the number of 7,707 had their abode at Vesāli. And all of them were given to argument and disputation.”² But the *Mahāvastu* presents yet another picture. This text states that there were “twice 84,000 Licchavi *rājās* residing within the city of Vaiśālī”.³

c9.s4.7

¹ *Jāt.*, i, p. 404.

c9.s4.8

² *Ibid.*, iii, p. 1.

c9.s4.9

³ *Mahāvastu*, i, pp. 256, 271; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 6-7.

c9.s4.10

Twice this last mentioned figure (168,000) certainly seems too large a number for the assembly, but it may suggest that the entire population of the Licchavian capital was more than 7,707. Yet one should not attribute too much weight to such statements, as 84,000 is an oft-quoted number in ancient Indian literature. In our opinion this merely implies that Vesālī was a large city and had many inhabitants. It is difficult to give even an approximate number for the population of Vesālī. When the *Jātaka* author says there were 7,707 kings and a like member of viceroys, generals and treasurers he might be pointing to the entire adult male population of Vesālī.⁴ But again, this may indicate no more than that the city of Vesālī was quite populous.

c9.s4.11

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 18, 33-34.

c9.s4.12

Vesālī was not only the area enclosed within the walls of the city, but also included a wider territory of the suburbs. This is evident from the *Mahāvastu*⁵ and the Jaina sources,⁶ and from Hsüan Tsang.⁷ It suggests a picture not unlike Athens in her heyday or Rome during her Republican period. Athens is said to have had about 40,000 citizens out of a total population of about 400,000,⁸ and Rome “had between 40,000 to 90,000 potential voters at election time during the period from the Second Punic to the Third Macedonian War.”⁹ “A maximum attendance of 4,000 to 10,000 would seem a likely guess, and in practice the number probably was considerably less''.¹ In public-spirited Athens the annual meeting of the *ecclesia* for ostracism required a quorum of 6,000 members out of at least 35,000 men, while an attendance of 5,000 at regular meetings was considered a record in difficult war-time conditions.²

c9.s4.13

⁵ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 256; *grāmakṣetrosī*.

c9.s4.14

⁶ *Uvāsagadasāo*, i, p. 3; tr. p. 4 fn. 8; *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 19ff.; *cf.* *PHAI*, pp. 119-20.

c9.s4.15

⁷ Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, ii, p. 83; *cf.* *CAGIM*, pp. 580ff.; Altekar, *Indian Archaeology—A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.16

⁸ Barker, *op. cit.*, p. 35, fn. 3.

c9.s4.17

⁹ H. H. Scullard, *Roman Politics*, p. 20.

c9.s4.18

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 21.

c9.s4.19

² Thucydides, viii, 72, quoted in Barker, *op. cit.*, pp. 32ff.

c9.s4.20

Keeping our sources in view and also taking note of the more or less contemporary Athens, and the somewhat later Rome, we suggest that the figure of 30,828 (7,707 × 4) of the *Ekapanna-Jātaka* refers to an approximate citizen body (Kṣatriya population) and not to the entire population of the area controlled by the Licchavis. The latter might have been in the region of 200,000-300,000.³ The figure 7,707 probably refers to a fixed number⁴ of people who actually had full political rights and could take their seats in the Vesālian Assembly. Thus, the governing class in the Licchavian republic was, like the Yaudheyas who had 5,000,⁵ fairly large. It was as numerous as the corresponding ruling class in Athens and more numerous than at Rome. They need not necessarily always have attended the Assembly, but enjoyed the right to do so and were individually called *rājās*.⁶ In fact, no single one of these 7,707 *rājās* had great power.⁷ The power rested with the majority, and, as we shall see, it seems that nine councillors carried out the administration and were responsible to the Assembly. Apart from the Licchavi *rājās* and their families, there were artisans, "probably not Licchavis, in each village of the republic, and men of certain special trades of higher standing—the carpenters, smiths, and potters for instance, had villages of their own. So also had the Brāhmaṇas, whose services were in request at every domestic event''.⁸

c9.s4.21

³ *Cp.* Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 18, 33-4.

c9.s4.22

⁴ Like the Greek aristocracies "of fixed number" of 1,000 as among the Locrians, also at Colophon and at Cyme, and of 600 at Syracuse and at Massalia. *Cf.* Whibley, *op. cit.*, pp. 134ff.

c9.s4.23

⁵ McCrindle, *Alexander's Invasion*, p. 121.

c9.s4.24

⁶ *Lalitavistara*, i, p. 21; *Mahāvastu*, i, pp. 257ff. Quite like the rulers of the "*nobles and the Samiti*" state; *cf.* above, p. 58.

c9.s4.25

⁷ *Loc. cit.* ; also see Altekar, *State and Goverment*, pp. 114ff.; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 394; D. R. Chanana, *JBRS*, (spl. issue), ii, p. 6.

c9.s4.26

⁸ *Buddhist India*, pp. 20-21.

c9.s4.27

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, on the authority of the *Jātakas* quoted above, held the view that "every one of these (7,707) Licchavi kings had with him his own viceroy, general and treasurer".¹ He further says that "whether there were as many as 7,707 Licchavi kings ever staying in Vesāli, as the *Jātaka* preambles inform us, is somewhat doubtful. What we may safely infer is that the number of the kings constituting the Licchavi *Gaṇa* was pretty large. It again seems that the Licchavi kings had each his separate principality where he exercised supreme power in certain respects. Except on this supposition it is not intelligible why each should have his own *uparājā*, *senāpati* and *bhaṇḍāgārika*, and act as the magistrate in inflicting punishments."²

c9.s4.28

¹ *Car. Lecs.*, p. 154; also see R. S. Hardy, *A Manual of Buddhism*, p. 235.

c9.s4.29

² Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 155.

c9.s4.30

It seems incredible that so learned a scholar should rely on the preamble of a *Jātaka* to the extent of accepting the historicity of such a fantastic state of affairs. Moreover, the *Jātaka* itself does not say explicitly that each king had these officers attached to him. Bhandarkar obviously does not think it possible that the *Jātaka* writer might have had a subtle sense of humour. It appears to us that the passage should be taken as a sarcastic remark, based on the fact that each member of the Assembly called himself a *rājā*, and each soldier fancied himself a general. This is corroborated by an equally striking statement about the Licchavis in the *Lalitavistara* that "each one thinks: I am king; I am king".³ The number 7,707, without forgetting the 5,000 of the Yaudheyas,⁴ may with little difficulty be accepted as an approximate or even exact number of the Licchavi kings, but it is simply fantastic to assign a "separate principality to each where he exercised supreme power in certain respects," as Bhandarkar suggested. Moreover, the equally large number of *uparājās*, *senāpatis* and *bhaṇḍāgārikas* is inconceivable. How could the small territory around Vesāli be sliced into 7,707 "separate principalities"?

c9.s4.31

³ i, p. 21; *Bibl. Indica Series*, chap. iii, p. 23; *ekaika eva manyate ahaṁ rājā, aham rājeti*; also see *Mbh.* (Poona Edn.), ii, xiv, 2, Yudhiṣṭhira's remark; *gṛhe gṛhe tu rājānaḥ*.

c9.s4.32

⁴ McCrindle, *Alexander's Invasion*, p. 121; also see Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 112.

c9.s4.33

While Bhandarkar showed too much imagination in his interpretation of this passage, Majumdar did not even think it worth serious consideration. He lightly remarks that "while the number seven thousand seven hundred and seven may be dismissed as a purely conventional one, it may be accepted that the supreme assembly of the state consisted of a pretty large number of members and must, as such, be held to be a popular one."¹ This judgement does not solve the problem any better than that of Bhandarkar. Moreover, it cannot be assumed from the number in question that the Licchavian Assembly was of necessity a "popular one" without qualifications. Majumdar also comments that "this [the number 7,707 of the kings and others] would imply that each member of the Suprême Assembly possessed a full suite of officers requisite for the administration of the State. It would appear, therefore, that each of these members was the head of an administrative unit. In other words, the whole state consisted of a number of administrative units, each of which was a state in miniature by itself, and possessed a complete administrative machinery."² He then compares these "states in miniature" to Athens' division into *demes* after Cleisthenes.³ Majumdar mainly follows Bhandarkar, but is less adventurous than he. Furthermore, his comparison of the Licchavian territory with the Athenian division into ten *demes* is not warranted by the Indian sources and, if we understand him correctly, he hesitantly implies that the Licchavian republic had 7,707 "states in miniature".⁴ Unless the area was far more thickly populated than it is today, which is most unlikely, there was not even one-tenth that number of villages in the entire Licchavian territory. The Licchavian republic, though similar in some aspects to its Athenian counterpart, was certainly not as well-divided and well-organized as the latter, as far as our sources indicate.

c9.s4.34

¹ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 228.

c9.s4.35

² *Ibid.*, p. 229.

c9.s4.36

³ *Ibid.*, p. 230.

c9.s4.37

⁴ Whereas the Athenian division was concerned with groupings of equal size often cutting across the old tribal populations, there is no evidence of any such division among the Licchavis.

c9.s4.38

B. C. Law states that "it does not appear to have been a completely democratic republic, but an oligarchy, citizenship being confined to members of the confederate clans".⁵ He further says that "what the real number of de facto *rājās* was, we do not know".⁶ That the Licchavian *saṅgha* or *gaṇa* was not "a completely democratic republic, but an oligarchy" is unobjectionable, but how could the "confederate clans" be members of the Licchavian republic? The Licchavis themselves were merely one of the confederate members, albeit the most important of the Vajjian League.

c9.s4.39

⁵ *TAI*, p. 321.

c9.s4.40

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 321.

c9.s4.41

Professor Altekar's view that "the Licchavis had a council of 9 though the membership of their Assembly numbered 7,707,"¹ is a fair judgement. It seems obvious from the evidence of contemporary Athens that 7,707 was the number of the Licchavi Khattiyas, all calling themselves *rājās*, who formed the General Assembly. They normally met once a year for important and grave public business.² But usually a much smaller body assembled to attend to the administration, meeting for this in the *santhāgāra*.³ It was a common feature of the republics at the time of the Buddha to have a meeting place like a mote-hall in their capital cities and also in other large towns of the republics.⁴ As the Athenian *ecclesia* met at the *pnyx*,⁵ and the Roman Senate in the *curia*,⁶ so the Licchavian *gaṇa* met in the *santhāgāra*.⁷ It was not only a political centre but, like the Vedic *sabhā*, also the place where religious and social functions of the republic took place.⁸

c9.s4.42

¹ *State and Government*, p. 132; see also *PHAI*, p. 125; *Corporate Life*, p. 232.

c9.s4.43

² See below, pp. 107ff; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 7ff.

c9.s4.44

³ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 228, 457, etc.; *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; ii, p. 164, etc.; *cf.* tr. *Dialogues*, i, p. 113, fn. 2.

c9.s4.45

⁴ *Loc. cit*; *cf.* *Buddhist India*, pp. 19, 20.

c9.s4.46

⁵ Harvey, *op. cit.*, p. 152.

c9.s4.47

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 388; *cf.* Heitland, *op. cit.*, pp. 64ff.

c9.s4.48

⁷ *Majjhima*, i, p. 228.

c9.s4.49

⁸ See above, pp. 40ff; *cp.* Altekar, *State and Governement*, pp. 127-8.

c9.s4.50

At the time of the Buddha this republic was larger in territory than any other. It was almost equal in size to the largest Greek polis of Sparta, which occupied an area of 3,360 square miles.⁹ The 7,707 *rājās* appear to have been the heads of Kṣatriya families¹⁰ residing in and about Vesāli.¹¹ They were all designated *rājās*¹² and their sons were called Licchavi-*kumāras* (princes).¹³ On the basis of the meagre evidence we may suggest that the eldest son of the head of the family usually succeeded his father and was referred to as *uparājā*.¹ If his father, the *rājā*, was ill or unable to attend an assembly, the *uparājā* (viceroy) might have represented him. Thus, it would appear that only part of the adult population, though a large number, had potential political rights and held state offices. Probably the General Assembly normally met once a year during the Licchavis' annual spring season festival.²

c9.s4.51

⁹ Barker, *op. cit.*, p. 27; *cf.* Altekar, *State and Governement*, pp. 121-2, fn. 2.

c9.s4.52

¹⁰ *Cp.* *Majjhima*, i, p. 164, refers to Brāhmaṇa heads of families.

c9.s4.53

¹¹ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 257.

c9.s4.54

¹² *Lalitavistara*, i, p. 21; Kauṭilya, bk. xi; also see above, p. 58.

c9.s4.55

¹³ Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 150.

c9.s4.56

¹ *Sūtra Kṛi.*, bk. ii, i, 13.

c9.s4.57

² *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9-10.

c9.s4.58

It was at annual meetings like this that the Licchavis honoured their elected courtesan Ambapālī.³ This surprising ceremony of electing the most beautiful woman to be the wife of the whole republic must have taken place during the week of the spring season festivities. The length of her career suggests that she was appointed for life. The *Cīvaravastu*⁴ and the Tibetan *Dulva* preserve the interesting tradition as to how she became a courtesan. From a Kadali tree in an *āmra* grove of Mahānāman, a Licchavi of Vesālī "was born a girl, lovely to look upon, perfect in all parts of her body, and he (Mahānāman) called her name Āmrapālī (Amra Skyong-ma). When she was grown up, as there was a law at Vaiśālī by which a perfect woman was not allowed to marry, but was reserved for the pleasures of the people, she became a courtesan."⁵

c9.s4.59

³ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 16ff; *DPPN*, i, pp. 155-6; Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 121 notes that the Bacchiadae of Greece met once a year to choose their chief. *Cp.* E.S. Hartland, *Primitive Law* pp. 26. The Yakuts of N.E. Siberia met once each summer.

c9.s4.60

⁴ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 17ff.

c9.s4.61

⁵ *Dulva*, iii, pp. 87-8, quoted in W. W. Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 64.

c9.s4.62

It was probably on this occasion that the *uparājās* whose fathers had died during the year, or had become too old to perform their duties, were given their sacred bath and anointed *rājās*. The auspicious *Pokkharaṇī* was the tank wherein the representatives of the Kṣatriya families of Vesālī were also anointed.⁶ The existence of such a tank has been confirmed by the recent excavations carried out at the site by the late Professor Altekar.⁷ These revealed the "periphery of an ancient tank about half a mile to the northwest of the ruins of the fortified city of Vaiśālī (*rājā Viśāla kā gaḍa*). The site of the tank (now called Kharaunapokhrā) with a length of 1,420 feet and a width of 660 feet is locally believed to represent the ancient ‘Abhiṣeka-Puṣkariṇī’ of the Licchavis in which none but the Licchavi chiefs were allowed to bathe . . .”. The excavations proved that “while no wall existed at the top of the tank-embankment, there had been one, 3 feet 4 inches wide along its slope, very near the present-day water level during the month of March . . .”. “The original tank of the Licchavis might have been a smaller one, which was subsequently enlarged and surrounded by a wall, represented by its present remains, in about the 2nd century B.C. when the Licchavis might have once more become powerful after the fall of the Mauryan Empire.”¹

c9.s4.63

⁶ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 148; *Vesālīnagare gaṇarājakulānaṁ-abhiseka-maṅgala Pokkharaṇī*.

c9.s4.64

⁷ *Indian Archaeology* — *A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.65

¹ Altekar, *Indian Archaeology-A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.66

The chief officer of the state, the *rājā, par excellence*² was most probably elected during this week of spring festivities. The sources do not definitely say for what period of time the head of the republic was elected. But the idea does emerge that the *rājās* who constituted the Assembly held their seats for life unless they were physically handicapped or found guilty of some serious crime, such as treason. However, it does not seem possible that the chief *rājā* or president was elected for life.

c9.s4.67

² *Jāt.*, i, pp. 504ff.

c9.s4.68

In the *Niryāvalikā Sūtra* of the Jainas,³ *rājā* Ceḍaga is represented as an all-powerful king who is assisted by a council of nine kings when he dealt with Licchavian affairs.⁴ Actually he was one of the nine Licchavian kings who ruled the republic in the name of the Assembly.⁵ The Buddhist works do not even mention Ceḍaga, the king of Vesālī, but they tell us that the governing power of Vesālī was vested in a Senate composed of the nobility and presided over by a king who shared the power with a viceroy, a general-in-chief and a treasurer.⁶ In the Jaina books we also find traces of this “curious government” of the Licchavis.⁷ In the *Niryāvalikā* Ceḍaga consulted “the 18 confederate kings of Kāsi-Kosala, the nine Licchavis and the nine Mallakis” before taking a final decision against the Magadhan king.⁸ Again, on the death of Mahāvīra the 18 confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival commemorating that event,¹ but no separate mention is made of their pretended sovereign Ceḍaga. It is probable that Ceḍaga was simply one of these confederate kings and their peer. Jacobi seems to belittle Ceḍaga’s position, but the emphasis placed upon him in the Jaina texts indicates that at least he headed the Licchavian Council, though no great power was attached to this office. Actual power was vested in the Council of nine. Thus, we may understand why the Buddhists took no notice of him; his influence was not very great and, moreover, was apparently used in the interests of their rivals, the Jainas.²

c9.s4.69

³ Ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 19ff.; *cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 68ff.

c9.s4.70

⁴ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 69.

c9.s4.71

⁵ *Jaina Sūtras*, pt. i, p. xii.

First 200 of 457 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)