Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s2: Licchavis versus Vajjis

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s2

Language: English

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

Linked texts (6)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Theragāthā — Pāli
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra — Sanskrit
Dīghanikāya — Pāli
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli