Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c16: Chapter VIII. Ājīvikas in the Nanda and Maurya Periods

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Ājīvikas in the Nanda and Maurya Periods

Mahāpadma

c16.s1.1

After the death of Gosāla, Mahāvīra is said to have prophesied his future births.¹ He forecast that the false prophet would ascend to the *Accua-kappa* heaven, and would there enjoy divinity for twelve *sāgarovamāim* periods. Then he would be reborn on earth as Mahāpaüma, the son of King Sammuti and his queen Bhaddā, in the city of Sayaduvāra in the land of the Paṇḍas, which is situated at the foot of the Vindhyas in Bhāratavarṣa. On his accession the two *devas* Puṇṇabhadda and Māṇibhadda would serve as his generals (*seṇā-kammam kāhinti*), and he would ride through the city on a white elephant; hence he would obtain the titles Devaseṇa and Vimalavāhaṇa. He would become a violent persecutor of Jainas until, one day insulting the ascetic Sumaṅgala while the latter was engaged in meditation, he would be reduced by the magic power of the saint's asceticism to a heap of ashes.

c16.s1.2

¹ Bh. Sū. xv, fol. 687 ff.

c16.s1.3

The soul of Gosāla would then, according to Mahāvīra, continue to transmigrate through many births of all types, until at last the harvest of his evil deeds would be fully reaped, and he would become a Jaina ascetic Daḍhapaïnna in Mahāvideha. Remembering all his past lives he would die by slow starvation in the orthodox manner, and would thus make an end of all sorrow.²

c16.s1.4

² Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 560, fol. 694.

c16.s1.5

Although Dr. Barua has tried to make a historical figure of Daḍhapaïnna,³ the later rebirths as described in the *Bhagavatī* seem to be of no value for the reconstruction of the story of the Ājīvikas. But it is possible that some significance is to be found in the account of Mahāpaüma, which seems to contain a veiled attack on a king who was a patron of the Ājīvikas and an opponent of the Jainas. If the king in question is not concealed by a false name the only historical figure whom the sovereign described in the *Bhagavatī* can represent is Mahāpadma Nanda. This conclusion has been tentatively accepted by Barua.¹

c16.s1.6

³ “. . . Daḍhapaïnna, a wealthy citizen of the great Videha country, sought to bring about a reconciliation between the hostile sects by conferring with the Jainas” (JDL. ii, p. 54). “The Bhagavatī Sūtra refers to an Ājīviya committing religious suicide sometime after Gosāla's death” (ibid., p. 71). Barua backs both these statements by references not to the Sūtra but to Hoernle's paraphrase of its relevant chapter (Uv. Das., vol. ii, app. i). Both the

c16.s1.7

¹ *JDL.* ii, p. 67.

c16.s1.8

The inference rests on very slight evidence. The great city of Sayaduvāra, with its hundred gates, suggests Pāṭaliputra; the inference that the author had Pāṭaliputra in mind is slightly strengthened by the alternative reading of the text, as used by Hoernle,² which locates the city in the land of the Puṇḍas, and beneath the Vaitāḍhya mountain.³ The latter is a mountain of Jaina legendary geography which defies location, but which may represent the Himālayas. Puṇḍra, or Northern Bengal, was not far distant from Magadha and probably formed part of the Nanda dominions. The power and splendour of the Nanda are attested by various sources,⁴ and in this respect also he resembles the Mahāpaüma of the *Bhagavatī*. The *Purāṇas* suggest that he was by no means orthodox.⁵ Although the titles Devasena and Vimalavāhana are not elsewhere attributed to him he is referred to in the *Mahābodhi-vaṃsa* as Ugrasena.⁶ Two kings named Devasena are mentioned in the legends of the *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*. Of these the first rules at Śrāvastī, and has nothing in common with Mahāpaüma of the *Bhagavatī*,⁷ but the second has some points of similarity.⁸ He rules in Puṇḍravardhana, thus agreeing with the Mahāpaüma of Hoernle's text of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*. He compels brāhmaṇas and kṣattriyas

c16.s1.9

² *Uv. Das.*, vol. ii, app. i, p. 11.

c16.s1.10

³ The same forms occur in the *Sthānāṅga Sūtra* (ix, sū. 693, fol. 458), in the description of the capital of the great king Mahāpaüma, who will become the [^cont]: *ni* age.

c16.s1.11

⁴ *va-kṣattr*-*antako nṛpaḥ*.

c16.s1.12

⁵ 1-1.

c16.s1.13

original and the paraphrase make it clear that Daḍhapaïnna is a Jaina ascetic of the normal type, who, by virtue of his spiritual perfection, remembers his past births and informs his disciples of his earlier birth as Gosāla. Barua's conclusion is quite unjustified.

c16.s1.14

to pass the night with his daughter, who is possessed by a rākṣasa, and thus encompasses their death; this suggests the traditional antipathy of the historical Mahāpadma to the two higher castes. Finally he is reported to have said: "It is impossible to bar the course of fate, whose dispensations are wonderful."¹ We have here a further legend of a cruel king of Eastern India with a fatalist philosophy, but the link with the historical Mahāpadma is still very tenuous.

c16.s1.15

¹ *Gatiḥ śakyā paricchetum na hy adbhuta-vidher vidheḥ*. Ibid. iii, 18, v. 267, p. 269.

c16.s1.16

Evidence almost as strong can be found to suggest that the Mahāpaüma of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* has no historical significance. No reference can be found to show that Mahāpadma’s father was named Sammuti, for which name Hoernle quotes the variant Sumati; the *Purāṇas* declare him to have been a baseborn son of his predecessor Mahānandin.² The only Nanda name which bears the faintest similarity to that of Mahāpaüma’s father is that of the eldest of Mahāpadma’s eight sons, called in the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* Sumālya³; it is remotely possible that Sammuti is a corruption of this.

c16.s1.17

² E.g. *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*, 12, 1, 8.

c16.s1.18

³ Ibid., 12, 1, 11. PHAI., p. 190, n. 1.

c16.s1.19

Doubts as to the historicity of the Mahāpaüma of the *Bhagavatī* are strengthened by the fact that there are several other figures of the same name and similar description in Jaina mythology.⁴ The first *tīrthaṅkara* of the coming *Utsarpiṇī* will also be named Mahāpaüma, a reincarnation of the Magadhan king "Seṇiya Bhimbhisāra", will be a prince of the same titles, kingdom, and parentage, and will only differ from the reincarnation of Gosāla in his later career. Other Mahāpaümas are the ninth *cakravartī* of the coming *Utsarpiṇī*, and the ninth of the current *Avasarpiṇī*. Furthermore, Jaina tradition, unlike that of the *Purāṇas*, is generally favourable to the Nandas; Hemacandra’s *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*⁵ praises an unnamed Nanda king and repeats several favourable legends about him, none of which suggests that he was an enemy of Jainism.

c16.s1.20

⁴ *Ibid.*

c16.s1.21

⁵ *Ibid.*

c16.s1.22

Indeed it has even been suggested that Mahāpadma was himself a Jaina.⁶ Arguments for this theory are based on the favourable tone of the Jaina legends about him, and on the Hāthīgumphā inscription of Khāravela, which, according to one reading, records that Khāravela restored to Kaliṅga a statue of a Jina, taken by the Nanda.¹ The argument is not conclusive. If Mahāpadma had been an earnest Jaina it is unlikely that he would have outraged the Kaliṅgan Jaina community by robbing their temples of their ikons. It would seem more probable that he carried away the image as a trophy, obtained by harrying a sect to which he was opposed. The inscription is in very bad condition and the reading may be incorrect. Dr. Barua has suggested *janam* for *jinam*,² and the acceptance of this reading would seriously weaken the theory that Mahāpadma was a supporter of Jainism. Further, the Nanda mentioned in the Hāthīgumphā inscription may not have been Mahāpadma at all, but another Nanda king.

c16.s1.23

⁶ *Ibid.*

c16.s1.24

¹ *Epi. Ind.* xx, pp. 72 ff. *Nanda-rāja-nītam ca Ka[li]ṅga-jinam sannivesa* . . .

c16.s1.25

² *IHQ.* xiv, pp. 261 ff.

c16.s1.26

In favour of the view that Mahāpadma was a patron of Ājīvikism it may be argued that the Ājīvika community certainly existed in some strength in Magadha at the time, and received some patronage from the Mauryas, who were the successors of the Nandas. Whatever his sect, Mahāpadma seems to have been no friend of orthodox Hinduism, and it may therefore be inferred that he patronized heretical sects. The reference in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* suggests that he may have given his special support to the Ājīvika *saṅgha*.

c16.s1.27

This view is slightly strengthened by a phrase in the *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*, which states that the great Cāṇakya, after cursing the last Nanda, escaped from his clutches in the guise of a nude Ājīvika ascetic.³ If any inference is to be derived from this late and unreliable tradition it is that Ājīvikas were numerous in Nanda times and not subject to persecution from the royal officers.

c16.s1.28

³ *Vamsattha-ppakāsinī*, vol. i, p. 183.

Ājīvikas in Maurya Times

c16.s2.1

It would seem that Ājīvikism spread fairly rapidly beyond the region of its origin. The *Mahāvaṃsa* records that, by the time of the Mauryas, it had found its way to Ceylon, where the king Paṇḍukâbhaya, the grandfather of Aśoka’s contemporary Devānaṃpiya Tissa, built a “house of Ājīvikas” (*Ājīvikānaṃ gehaṃ*) at Anurādhapura.¹

c16.s2.2

¹ *Mahāvaṃsa* x, 101–2.

c16.s2.3

A passage in the *Petavatthu* tells of King Piṅgala of Suraṭṭha, who, two hundred years after the Buddha’s *nibbāna*, left his kingdom in the service of the Mauryas (*Moriyānaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ*).² As he was returning to his capital he was met by a *peta*, who told him that he was the disembodied soul of one who had formerly been a heretic of Suraṭṭha, who had held Ājīvika views. The passage indicates that Ājīvikism may have spread to Gujarāt by this period.

c16.s2.4

² *Petavatthu* iv, 3, 17.

c16.s2.5

Evidence that Aśoka was a friend of the Ājīvika order, and that it flourished during his reign, rests on the very solid basis of his own inscriptions. Literary references also link him with the Ājīvikas. Both the *Divyāvadāna*³ and the *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*⁴ tell of an Ājīvika mendicant attached to the court of King Bindusāra, Aśoka’s father, who correctly prophesied the coming greatness of the Prince. In the first account he is called Piṅgalavats-ājīva, a *parivrājaka*, and seems to have been a court prognosticator. At the invitation of Vindusāra he watches the princes at play, and by various omens he recognizes that Aśoka will become king. As Aśoka is not the favourite prince Piṅgalavatsa dares not tell the King of his prophecy, and when questioned refuses to give a definite answer. But he tells Aśoka’s mother, Queen Subhadrāṅgī, of her son’s coming greatness, and on her advice he leaves the kingdom, lest Vindusāra force an answer from him. On the death of Vindusāra he returns to the Magadhan court.

c16.s2.6

³ *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 370 ff.

c16.s2.7

⁴ *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*, pp. 365 ff.

c16.s2.8

In the *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*’s version of the story the Ājīvika is a *kulūpaga*, or household ascetic, of the Queen. His name is given as Janasāna, of which there are the variants Jarasona and Jarasāna, and he is said to have been of brāhmaṇa family. The Commentary states that he was very wise, having been born as a python in the days of Buddha Kassapa, and in this form having overheard the discussions of *bhikkhus* well versed in philosophy. He correctly prophesies Aśoka’s future greatness from the Queen’s pregnancy longings; no reason is given for his quitting the court, but by the time of Aśoka's accession, he appears to have abandoned his former patrons. The king is said on one occasion to have asked his mother whether any prophet had forecast his prosperity; the queen replied that Janasāna had done so, whereupon Aśoka sent a deputation with a carriage to bring the Ājīvika to the palace. Janasāna was then residing at an unnamed place a hundred yojanas distant from Pāṭaliputra; on the journey to the capital he met the elder Assagutta, by whom he was converted, and he entered the Buddhist order.

c16.s2.9

The two stories, while differing considerably in important details, including the name of the Ājīvika prophet, seem to have a basis of fact. The very discrepancies in the two accounts suggest that the authors drew their material independently from a widespread tradition which had developed with the passage of time. Such a story seems more probably dependent on a real occurrence than on a monkish fiction. We may therefore believe that Bindusāra kept at his court an Ājīvika fortune-teller who was persona grata to the chief queen. The Divyāvadāna's story of his flight is not altogether convincing; it fits too well into the framework of Vindusāra's hostility to Aśoka and the latter's usurpation of the throne of Magadha to give an impression of authenticity. The account of the conversion of Janasāna in the Mahāvaṃsa Commentary, with its strong flavour of pious edification, is even more suspect. But neither account is intrinsically impossible. Bindusāra's interest in unorthodox philosophy is strikingly attested by a classical reference.¹ We may conclude that, even before the introduction of Aśoka's policy of toleration, Ājīvikas were patronized by the court of Magadha.

c16.s2.10

¹ Athenæus xiv, 67. Quoted CII. i, p. xxxv.

c16.s2.11

The Divyāvadāna gives another much more questionable story of Aśoka's relations with the Ājīvikas.² Aśoka, hearing that a nirgrantha in Puṇḍravardhana had defiled a picture or statue of the Buddha, ordered the destruction of all Ājīvikas in the locality, as a result of which order 18,000 were massacred in a single day. The same crime was later committed by another nirgrantha layman in Pāṭaliputra, in punishment of which the king offered a reward of a dīnāra for the head of every *nirgrantha* brought to him. This second wave of persecution led to the murder of the king’s younger brother, Prince Vitāśoka.

c16.s2.12

² Divyāvadāna, p. 427. V. supra, p. 139.

c16.s2.13

The loose use of the terms *nirgrantha* and *ājīvika* in this story makes it uncertain whether they were intended to apply to the order of Mahāvīra or to that of Makkhali; it may indeed have been intended to refer to both sects indiscriminately. As it stands, the story is quite incredible, in that it makes the apostle of toleration a monster of quite un-Buddhist fanaticism. If it has any significance it is to indicate a tradition of hostility to Ājīvikas and Jainas, which may have occasionally flared up under other monarchs into open persecution. The story suggests that Ājīvikism was specially prevalent at the time in Puṇḍra, a suggestion also conveyed by the Jaina story of Mahāpaüma.¹ The trampling on the image, with its indication of iconoclasm on the part of the anti-Buddhist *nirgrantha-ājīvikas*, is a theme which recurs at a much later date in Kashmīr, in connection with the mysterious naked ascetics employed by King Harṣa.²

c16.s2.14

¹ V supra, pp. 142 ff.

c16.s2.15

² V. infra, pp. 206 ff.

c16.s2.16

The inscriptions of Aśoka give us references which for the first time are completely reliable records of the contemporary influence of the Ājīvika sect. These occur in the Seventh Pillar Edict, and in the dedicatory inscriptions in the Barābar and Nagārjunī caves.

c16.s2.17

The Seventh Pillar Edict³ is found in only one version, on the Delhi-Topra pillar. It was issued in the twenty-seventh year of Aśoka’s consecration, or 237 B.C., according to Hultzsch’s computation. It describes the imperial policy for the propagation of *dharma*, and especially the duties of the officers of public morals (*dharma-mahāmātra*), who, in Hultzsch’s translation, “were ordered . . . to busy themselves with the affairs of the *saṃgha*; likewise others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with the Brāhmaṇas (and) Ājīvikas; others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with the Nirgranthas; others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with various (other) sects; (thus) different Mahāmātras (are busying themselves) specially with different (congregations).”⁴

c16.s2.18

³ CII. i, pp. 131 ff.

c16.s2.19

⁴ . . . *saṃghathasi pi me kaṭe ime viyāpaṭā hohamti ti, hemeva bābhanesu ā[j]īvikesu pi . . . nigamthesu pi me kaṭe ime viyāpaṭā hohamti nānā . . . e viyāpaṭā hohamti ti paṭivisiṭham paṭivisiṭham tesu tesu [te] . . . mātā*. Ibid., p. 136, ii, 15–16.

c16.s2.20

The absence of any conjunction linking the words *bābhanesu* and *ājīvikesu* has led Bühler to interpret the former as an adjective governing the latter . . . " likewise I have arranged it that they will be occupied with the Brāhmaṇical Ājīvikas ".¹ Following Kern, he expresses his belief that the Ājīvikas were Vaiṣṇavas.² The theory of Kern and Bühler has been attacked by Hoernle ³ and D. R. Bhandarkar,⁴ and few would now accept it. In the Seventh Pillar Edict the word *bābhanesu* seems certainly to be a noun. The absence of a copulative conjunction presents a difficulty, but no doubt other examples can be found wherein a *ca* seems to be omitted. But, even granting all these provisos, there may be a modicum of truth in the old theory of Kern and Bühler. A close connection between the Brāhmaṇa and the Ājīvika is indicated by Asoka's classification of the sects. The bodies among which the *mahāmātras* were active seem to be divided into four sections, to each of which is given a clause in the inscription, the clauses each concluding with the verb *hohamti*. The four classes are (1) the Buddhist *saṅgha*, (2) Brāhmaṇas and Ājīvikas, (3) *Nirgranthas* or Jainas, and (4) various heretics. Even if we admit that Aśoka intended to make a distinction between Brāhmaṇas and Ājīvikas, it is evident that he considered the Ājīvikas to be more closely related to the orthodox brāhmaṇas than were the Jainas, since Brāhmaṇa and Ājīvika are included in the same clause. We have already found references which point to the fact that the Ājīvikas were nearer to the orthodox ascetic orders in their conduct than were either of the other great heretical communities.⁵ Aśoka seems to have recognized this fact. It will also be remembered that Jarasāna, the Ājīvika fortune-teller at his father's court, came of a brāhmaṇa family.⁶ Even before Aśoka's day it is possible that some of the Northern Ājīvikas had begun to draw very close to the parent stock.

c16.s2.21

¹ *Epi. Ind.* ii, p. 272.

c16.s2.22

² *IA.* xx, p. 362.

c16.s2.23

³ *ERE.* i, p. 267.

c16.s2.24

⁴ *IA.* xli, pp. 286-290.

c16.s2.25

⁵ V. supra, p. 131.

c16.s2.26

⁶ V. supra, p. 146.

c16.s2.27

The Seventh Pillar Edict also gives some indication of the influence of the Ājīvikas at the time. The Ājīvika *saṅgha* appears as a fully developed religious community, on an equal footing with the two other non-brāhmaṇic systems, and is not relegated to the last category of the " various heretics ". It may be suggested that, since Aśoka mentions the Ājīvikas before the Nirgranthas, or Jainas, the former sect seemed to the king to be either more influential or more worthy of support than the latter.

The Barābar and Nāgārjunī Caves

c16.s3.1

Even more convincing evidence of the continued influence of the Ājīvikas in Magadha are the dedicatory inscriptions of Aśoka in the artificial caves of the Barābar Hill,¹ fifteen miles north of Gayā. These caves are four in number, three of which contain Aśokan inscriptions. The nearby hill of Nāgārjunī contains three similar caves, which were dedicated to the Ājīvikas by Aśoka's successor Daśaratha.²

c16.s3.2

¹ *CII.* i, pp. 181 ff. V. Plate V.

c16.s3.3

² *IA.* xx, pp. 361 ff. V. Plate VI.

c16.s3.4

Of the three Barābar caves with dedicatory inscriptions (Plate V), the first two, according to Hultzsch's restoration of the texts,³ were given to the Ājīvikas in the twelfth year of Aśoka's consecration. The first cave is named in the inscription Nigoha (Skt. Nyagrodha) (Plate V, i), and the second is referred to merely as a cave in the Khalatika Mountain (Plate V, ii). Little doubt can exist about the interpretation of these two inscriptions, but the third (Plate V, iii) has been badly defaced, and is in parts illegible. Hultzsch reconstructs the text as:—

c16.s3.5

³ *CII.* i, p. 181.

c16.s3.6

*Lājā Piyadasī ekunavī-*
*sati-vasā [bh] isi [t]e ja [lagh] o*
*[sāgamā] thāta [me] iyaṃ kubhā*
*su[p]i[y]e kha . . . . . . . . [di]*
*nā.*

c16.s3.7

"When King Priyadarśin had been anointed nineteen years, this cave in the very pleasant Kha [latika mountain] was given by me for (shelter during) the rainy season."⁴ The inscription is followed by the auspicious symbols of swastika and dagger.

c16.s3.8

⁴ Ibid., p. 182.

c16.s3.9

Senart, basing his view on the reproduction in the first edition of *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, read in the third line the word *caṃdamasūliyaṃ*, and translated, on the analogy of the Daśaratha inscriptions: "[*Ceci est fait*] pour aussi longtemps BARĀBAR CAVE INSCRIPTIONS. (From *CII*, i.) Scale: one-fifth approx.

c16.s3.10

(i) Sudāma (Nigoha) Cave.

c16.s3.11

(ii) Viśvâmitra Cave.

c16.s3.12

(iii) Karṇa Chopār Cave.

c16.s3.13

que dureront la lune et le soleil.”¹ Bühler cautiously avoided any attempt at a transcription of the doubtful letters.² Senart’s translation will not stand in the light of the more recent reproduction employed by Hultzsch, whose interpretation is not inconsistent with the remains of the text. It might be expected that some reference to the Ājīvikas would occur in the third inscription on the analogy of the first and second, but this does not seem to be the case; no trace of the relevant akṣaras can be found in its defaced portions. It seems quite reasonable to believe, however, that the Ājīvikas occupied the third cave, as they did the other two.

c16.s3.14

¹ Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi, vol. ii, p. 212.

c16.s3.15

² IA. xx, p. 364.

c16.s3.16

One question not absolutely certain is whether the donor of the caves was in fact Aśoka. This uncertainty has been recognized by Hultzsch,³ who admits that they may have been given by another member of the Maurya dynasty. But he points out that “two of the caves . . . were dedicated . . . when the donor had been ‘anointed twelve years’ . . . This happens to be the regnal year in which the author of the rock- and pillar-edicts commenced to issue ‘rescripts of morality’”. If the Piyadasi of the Barābar Hill inscriptions was not Aśoka then we must assume that he was Candragupta, Bindusāra, or one of the shadowy successors of Daśaratha, for the latter has left dedicatory inscriptions in the caves of the nearby Nāgārjunī Hill in which he has used his personal name, and we may assume that, had he been the donor of the Barābar caves, he would have recorded his name in these also. No other king has the same strong inherent probability of being the donor of the Barābar caves as has Aśoka. We have no evidence that the custom of incising inscriptions upon rock was practised before his reign, and there are no epigraphic records whatever of the successors of Daśaratha.

c16.s3.17

³ CII. i, p. xxix.

c16.s3.18

The Daśaratha inscriptions of the Nāgārjunī Hill caves (Plate VI) are in better condition than those of Barābar. The formula used in the dedication differs from that of Aśoka : “The Vahiyakā cave has been given by Dasalatha, dear to the gods, to the venerable Ājīvikas, immediately on his accession, to be a place of abode during the rainy season as long as moon and sun (shall endure)”¹ (Plate VI, i). The other two caves, called Gopikā and Vaḍathikā, bear similar inscriptions, the only significant alterations being in their names (Plates VI, ii and iii).

c16.s3.19

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 45. [The inscription reads *Devānampiyena* ... *hi*] *Ind. Ant.*, xx, p. 364. The interpretation of *vāsa-* is discussed in *J.R.A.S.*, 1906, p. 404).

c16.s3.20

The caves themselves are impressive monuments to the patience and skill of Mauryan craftsmen and to the honour in which the Ājīvikas were held at the time. The hills in which they are located must have been especially popular with hermits, for they seem to be covered with the traces of religious occupants, both Buddhist and Hindu.² In the time of Cunningham the caves were visited by thousands of pilgrims annually,³ and presumably are still so visited. When Cunningham inspected them the floors were strewn to a depth of three feet with broken pottery and brick, among which were mixed fragments of stone pillars, indicating that at one time the caves had had porticos or cloisters of some sort.

c16.s3.21

² Cunningham, *Four Reports* . . . Vol. i, p. 41.

c16.s3.22

³ *Ibid.*, p. 43.

c16.s3.23

Of the caves on Barābar Hill, that now called Karṇa Chopār (Plate VII, i), which contains the third Aśokan inscription, measures 33 ft. 6½ in. by 14 ft. by 10 ft. 9 in.⁴ The roof is vaulted, and the whole surface of the granite walls of the cave is polished. The interior is of a plain rectangular shape, and contains a small platform, raised 1 ft. 3 in. from the floor level, and measuring 7 ft. 6 in. by 2 ft. 6 in. On the doorway of the cave are inscriptions in Gupta characters: “Bodhimūla” and “Daridrakāntāra” which suggest that at some time the cave was taken over by Buddhists. Other Gupta inscriptions appear to be the autographs of visitors.

c16.s3.24

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 45.

c16.s3.25

The cave now called Sudāma (Plate VII, ii), in the inscription referred to as the Nigoha cave, consists of two apartments. The outer one, entered by a small recessed doorway at the side, measures 32 ft. 9 in. in length by 19 ft. 6 in. in breadth, and has an arched roof rising from a height of 6 ft. 9 in. at the walls to 12 ft. 3 in. at the centre. The inner chamber is approximately circular, of 19 ft. 11 in.–19 ft. diameter; its outer wall, facing NAGÂRJUNĪ CAVE INSCRIPTIONS. (From *IA*, xx.) Scale : one-fourth approx.

c16.s3.26

(i) Vahiyakā Cave.

c16.s3.27

(ii) Gopikā Cave.

c16.s3.28

(iii) Vaḍathikā Cave.

c16.s3.29

on the rectangular outer chamber, is undercut "to represent thatch with its overhanging eaves".¹ The whole structure is of the same high polish as the others.

c16.s3.30

¹ Ibid., p. 46.

c16.s3.31

The cave of the second inscription, called in modern times the Viśvâmitra cave (Plate VII, iv), is of similar design, with a circular inner chamber of about 11 feet in diameter, somewhat smaller than that of the Sudāma, which is unpolished, and apparently incomplete. The outer chamber is cut straight back from the rock face, and the entrance, according to Cunningham's diagram, extends to the full height and breadth of the chamber. Its length is 14 feet and its breadth 8 ft. 4 in. The Aśokan inscription is engraved on the right-hand wall near the entrance. The floor of the cave contains four socket-holes, which apparently held timber framing.²

c16.s3.32

² Ibid., pp. 47-8.

c16.s3.33

The fourth cave of the Barābar group (Plate VII, iii) contains no Aśokan inscription. This is the Lomas Ṛṣi, the structure and dimensions of which are very similar to those of the Sudāma cave. The outer chamber is polished, but the inner chamber is rough-hewn. Cunningham suggests that the work was abandoned on reaching a deep fissure, which forms one of the natural lines of cleavage of the rock. The similarity of interior workmanship and design convinced Cunningham that the Sudāma and Lomas Ṛṣi caves had been excavated at the same time and for the same religious purpose, and that an Aśokan inscription originally existed in the porch, and was removed when the latter was enlarged.³ The carved porch of the Lomas Ṛṣi cave is its most outstanding feature. This highly finished entrance, with its frieze of elephants, was thought by Cunningham to have been constructed in the Gupta period, since an epigraph of Anantavarman Maukhari is to be found inscribed above it. This view was supported by Fleet,⁴ but few would now subscribe to it. The arch is carved in slavish imitation of timber construction, and this, and other details of its workmanship and design, indicate a much earlier date.⁵ Fergusson recognized that the façade was of approximately the same period as the cave itself.⁶ The row of elephants above the entrance emerges from two crocodile-like *makaras* at either side, and appears to be worshipping three *caityas*. Whether these elephants are specifically Ājīvika symbols cannot be decided with certainty. The "Last Sprinkling Elephant" was one of the eight finalities (*carimāim*) of the Ājīvikas,¹ and King Harṣa of Kashmir, who may have been a patron of the sect, introduced an elephant motif on his coins²; but these feeble indications are very inconclusive. From the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* it would seem that the Ājīvikas, like their rivals, respected *caityas*,³ which were probably sacred sites in pre-Āryan times. It is not therefore impossible that the façade of the Lomas Ṛṣi cave was added by a later patron of the Ājīvikas, not long after the death of Aśoka.

c16.s3.34

³ Ibid., p. 47.

c16.s3.35

⁴ *CII.* iii, p. 222.

c16.s3.36

⁵ Brown, *Indian Architecture*, p. 13.

c16.s3.37

⁶ *History of Indian . . . Architecture*, 1910 edn., vol. i, p. 131.

c16.s3.38

¹ V. supra, p. 68.

c16.s3.39

³ V. supra, pp. 31-32.

c16.s3.40

The Lomas Ṛṣi cave bears on the door-jamb the short inscriptions *Bodhimūla* and *Kleśa-kāntāra*, in Gupta characters of two different sizes and hands. This indicates its later occupation by Buddhists. Above the porch is a longer inscription of Anantavarman Maukhari,⁴ in which he records that he placed in the cave an image of Kṛṣṇa. Anantavarman apparently visited the Hill before his accession to the throne, for the inscription refers to his father Śārdūlavarman in the present tense, and gives the son no royal titles.⁵ It must therefore have been engraved shortly before *c.* A.D. 450,⁶ and the caves cannot have been evacuated by the Ājīvikas at a later date than this.

c16.s3.41

⁴ *CII.* iii, pp. 221-3.

c16.s3.42

⁵ *Pires, The Maukharis*, p. 52.

c16.s3.43

⁶ [^cont]:

c16.s3.44

Of the three Nāgārjunī caves the Gopikā (Plate VII, v) is a single rectangular chamber, its length parallel to the rock-face, entered by a passage in the middle of its length. Its dimensions are 46 ft. 5 in. by 19 ft. 2 in., and its ends are semicircular. The vaulted roof is 6 ft. 6 in. high at the walls, rising to 10 ft. 6 in. at the centre. The interior, like those of the Barābar caves, is highly polished. As well as the dedicatory inscription of Daśaratha it bears an inscription of Anantavarman, which records that the Prince caused an image of Kātyāyanī to be placed in the cave, and gave a village, the name of which is illegible, to the support of the goddess Bhavānī, of whom Kātyāyanī appears to be an epithet.⁷ A hundred years ago the cave was occupied by a Muslim holy man, but it was empty when surveyed by Cunningham.²

c16.s3.45

² V. infra, p. 205.

c16.s3.46

⁷ *CII.* iii, pp. 226-8.

c16.s3.47

BARÂBAR CAVES

c16.s3.48

I Karna Chopâr

c16.s3.49

IV Viswa-mitra

c16.s3.50

II Sudâma

c16.s3.51

III Lomas Rishi

c16.s3.52

NÂGÂRJUNI CAVES

c16.s3.53

V Gopika or Nagarjuni

c16.s3.54

VI Vadathi

c16.s3.55

VII Vapiya

c16.s3.56

Inscription

c16.s3.57

A. Cunningham. del

c16.s3.58

Plans of the BARÂBAR AND NÂGÂRJUNI CAVES. (From Cunningham, Four Reports, vol. i.)

c16.s3.59

This image is blank.

c16.s3.60

The Vahiyakā cave (Plate VII, vi) consists of a single rectangular chamber measuring 16 ft. 9 in. by 11 ft. 3 in., entered by a small porch and a narrow doorway. The vaulted roof is 10 ft. 6 in. at its highest point. Like those of the other caves, the whole interior is highly polished. Near its entrance is a well 23 feet deep, from which fact Cunningham interpreted the inscription of Daśaratha to read *Vapīyakā-kubhā* ("the Well Cave").¹ It bears no Maukhari inscription, but one in characters of a somewhat later style records that "Ācārya Śrī Yogānanda does reverence to Śiva".² Like the two other Nāgārjunī caves, this was later occupied by Muslim hermits.

c16.s3.61

¹ Ibid., p. 50.

c16.s3.62

² *Ācārya śrī Yogānanda praṇamati Siddheśvara*. Cunningham, *op. cit.*, pl. xx, no. viii. In Cunningham's eye copy there seems to be no trace of *visarga* or *anusvāra*. The Ācārya's name is also recorded in the Gopikā Cave.

c16.s3.63

The third cave, the Vaḍathikā, (Pl. VII, vii) is entered by a very narrow passage, 7 ft. 2 in. long by only 2 ft. 10 in. wide, which was originally closed by a wooden door, the socket-holes of which remain. It is smaller and less imposing than the other two Nāgārjunī caves, the chamber being only 16 ft. 4 in. long. Cunningham gives its breadth as 4 ft. 3 in., but this seems to be a misprint; his small diagram suggests a breadth of about 10 feet. The cave has been divided into two by a rude brick wall of which "the only opening to the inner room appears to be too small for the passage of any grown-up man, and could only have been used by the occupant for the reception of food". Cunningham does not state how he managed to pass through this small opening to survey the whole room; presumably the wall was partly broken down when he visited the caves.³ He gives no estimate of the date of the construction of this interior partition, but there seems no special reason to believe that it had any connection with the cave's first Ājīvika occupants. It is known, however, that the Ājīvikas sometimes performed penances in large jars,⁴ and it may be that even the earliest occupants of the caves also practised self-immurement. This cave also contains an inscription of Anantavarman Maukhari, recording that he installed in it an image of Bhūtapati and Devī, probably an *Ardhanārīśvara* figure of Śiva.⁵

c16.s3.64

³ *Ibid.*, p. 51.

c16.s3.65

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 51.

c16.s3.66

⁵ *CII.* iii, pp. 223-5.

c16.s3.67

The large cave chambers of Nāgārjunī were excavated, as the inscriptions proclaim, as shelters for Ājīvika ascetics during the rainy season. The caves of Lomas Ṛṣi, Sudāma, and Viśvâmitra, of the Barābar group, apparently served a different purpose, for all possess a circular inner chamber, which seems to have been a sanctuary of some sort. This inner chamber is in the spot which, in Buddhist cave temples, is occupied by the *stūpa*, or symbolic mound, hewn out of the living rock.¹ Only two caves of the Lomas Ṛṣi type are known, other than those of Barābar. Of these one, at Guntupaḷḷi in the Kistna District of Madras Province, which contains a *stūpa*, is thought to be a little later in date than those of Barābar.²

c16.s3.68

¹ Fergusson, *History of Indian . . . Architecture*, p. 131.

c16.s3.69

² Brown, *Indian Architecture*, p. 19.

c16.s3.70

This cave is not far distant from the region where Ājīvikas are known to have persisted in comparative strength until the Middle Ages.³ In the tenth century a village called Ācuvulaparru, the name of which may contain the Tamil inscriptional form of the word Ājīvika, existed in the same neighbourhood.⁴ It is therefore not impossible that the Guntupaḷḷi cave was also once an Ājīvika hermitage.

c16.s3.71

³ V. infra, pp. 187 ff.

c16.s3.72

⁴ V. infra, p. 187.

c16.s3.73

The second cave, at Kondīvte near Bombay, is Buddhist. It is of later construction, but it retains the circular inner chamber with a *stūpa*.⁵ It is possible that the Barābar caves originally also contained *stūpas*, not hewn from the rock, but artificially erected and since removed.

c16.s3.74

⁵ Brown, loc. cit. Fergusson, *Cave Temples of India*, pp. 360-1.

c16.s3.75

In the designs of the Lomas Ṛṣi and Sudāma caves we probably have a representation in stone of the earliest Ājīvika meeting-place—a rectangular courtyard, at one end of which was a circular thatched hut, perhaps containing some sacred symbol. This, no doubt, was the *Ājīviya-sabhā* of the *Uvāsaga Dasāo*.⁶

c16.s3.76

⁶ V. supra, pp. 115-16.

c16.s3.77

The fact that these caves are the earliest surviving religious edifices in India suggests that the Ājīvikas were the first community to use material more solid than wood for religious purposes. That Aśoka should have gone to so much expense and trouble to provide the community with hermitages is indicative of his support of the sect, and of its influence in Magadha at the time. That Daśaratha, Aśoka's grandson, should have recorded that he dedicated the Nāgārjunī caves immediately after his consecration strongly indicates that he bestowed his special favour on the sect. The fact that his name is omitted from the king-lists both of the Buddhists and of the Jainas suggests that he was looked on with disfavour by both sects, perhaps on account of his patronage of the Ājīvikas.¹

c16.s3.78

¹ De la Vallée Poussin, *L'Inde aux Temps des Mauryas*, pp. 165-6.

c16.s3.79

FAÇADE OF THE LOMAS ṚṢI CAVE. (From JBORS, xii.)

c16.s3.80

But the prosperity of the Ājīvikas, and their enjoyment of the patronage of the Kings of Magadha, may not have been long-lasting. The inscriptions of Aśoka and Daśaratha have been mutilated or defaced, most of them in such a manner as to indicate that the original inhabitants of the caves were evicted in favour of their religious opponents. Of the three Aśokan inscriptions of the Barābar caves that of the Karṇa Chopār (Pl. V, iii) has been so badly defaced as to be almost illegible; the Sudāma inscription has the word *s'ābhisitenā* in the first line and *ājīwikehi* in the second effaced (Pl. V, i); while of the Viśvāmitra cave inscription (Pl. V, ii) the *akṣaras ā, jī,* and *vi* only are effaced, while the rest of the inscription is remarkably clear and legible. Of the three Daśaratha inscriptions of the Nāgārjunī caves, that in the Vahiyakā (Pl. VI, i) has the whole word *Ājīwikehi* obliterated; the Gopikā cave inscription shows no signs of deliberate defacement, although some *akṣaras* are badly worn (Pl. VI, ii); while the Vaḍathikā cave inscription (Pl. VI, iii) is defaced in two letters—the *Ā* and *jī* of *Ājīwikehi*.

c16.s3.81

The selective nature of most of these defacements indicates that they were carried out by the religious rivals of the Ājīvikas, who made use of the caves after them, and did not wish to be reminded of the former occupants. The evidence of later inscriptions, and of the other remains in the vicinity, shows that, after the Ājīvikas, the caves were occupied by Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim in turn. Of these, it is improbable that the Muslims were responsible for the defacement of the inscriptions, for it appears that, by the time of the Muslim invasion, the Brahmī alphabet was illegible even to the most learned Brāhmaṇas.²

c16.s3.82

² Ishwari Prasad, *History of Mediaeval India*, p. 290.

c16.s3.83

Hultzsch has suggested that the inscriptions were defaced at the time of the installation of the Hindu images by Anantavarman.¹ There is little to be said in favour of this view, which rests on a very slender basis, and is disproved by the fact that the only cave inscription in which the word *Ājīvikehi* remains quite intact, that of the Gopikā cave on Nāgārjunī Hill, is one of the three in which Anantavarman placed a Hindu ikon.² If the defacement had been the work of the carvers of the Maukhari inscriptions they would surely have taken special care to obliterate all record of the Ājīvikas in those caves which their master had dedicated to Hindu deities.

c16.s3.84

¹ *CII.* i, p. xxviii.

c16.s3.85

² V. supra, p. 134.

c16.s3.86

A very clever suggestion has been put forward by Dr. A. Banerji Sastri.³ The Hill of Barābar, called Khalatika in the Aśokan inscriptions, was known in the time of Anantavarman as Pravaragiri. It also had another name, which is incised in the rock in Brahmī characters, in two forms, Gorathagiri and Goradhagiri.⁴ The *Mahābhārata* refers to a hill of the same name as situated not far from Rājagṛha.⁵ According to Jayaswal’s reading of the Hāthīgumphā inscription of Khāravela, that king occupied Gorathagiri in the eighth year of his reign, in the course of his Magadhan campaign. A clause in the 7th–8th line of the inscription is read by Jayaswal as: “*Athame ca vase mahati senāya maha[ta-bhitti]-Goradhagirim ghātāpayitā Rājagaham upapīḍāpayati.*”⁶ This Jayaswal translates: “In the eighth year he (Khāravela) having got stormed (*sic*) the Gorathagiri (fortress) of great enclosure (lit. ‘wall’, ‘barrier’) by a great army causes pressure around Rājagṛha.”⁷ The word Goradhagiri, supposed by Jayaswal to exist at the end of the seventh line of the inscription, is not definitely legible in the reproduction to which he refers,⁸ but his reading is apparently supported by Konow⁹ and also by other competent authorities,¹⁰ and does not seem to be questioned in this particular. Banerji Sastri¹¹ suggests that Khāravela, known to be an earnest Jaina, was responsible for the expulsion of the Ājīvikas from the caves, the mutilation of the inscriptions of Aśoka and Daśaratha, and the carving of the façade of the Lomas Ṛṣi cave. He believes that the façade shows resemblances to those of the Jaina caves of Udayagiri, in one of which Khāravela’s inscription is found; he admits that these resemblances are not striking, but points specially to the monsters at the corners of the frieze of the Lomas Ṛṣi cave, which are very similar in design to those at Udayagiri, where the elephants are replaced by lotuses or lions.

c16.s3.87

³ *JBORS.* xii, pp. 53–62.

c16.s3.88

⁴ Jackson, *JBORS.* i, pp. 159–172.

c16.s3.89

⁵ *Mbh.* *Sabhā* xviii, 30 (Poona edn.).

c16.s3.90

⁶ *JBORS.* iv, p. 399.

c16.s3.91

⁷ Ibid., pp. 378–9.

c16.s3.92

⁸ *Ibid.*, iii, opp. p. 472.

c16.s3.93

⁹ *Acta Orientalia*, i, p. 42.

c16.s3.94

¹⁰ Sircar, *Select Inscriptions*, vol. i, p. 208.

c16.s3.95

¹¹ *Ibid.*

c16.s3.96

This argument is not convincing, but is a mere expression of possibility. It seems more plausible if we adopt Jayaswal’s date, and place Khāravela in the first half of the second century B.C.¹ But few recent authorities would admit that he reigned so early; the latter half of the first century B.C. is the date now usually favoured for the Khāravela inscription, which must thus have been inscribed a century or more after those of Daśaratha.² The Lomas Ṛṣi façade seems to be either Mauryan or immediately post-Mauryan—the very primitive imitation of woodwork in the design,³ and the early form of the crocodile-like creatures to the right and left of the frieze,⁴ point to an early date for its construction.

c16.s3.97

¹ JBORS. iv, p. 369.

c16.s3.98

² Sircar, Select Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 206, n. 1.

c16.s3.99

³ Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 38.

c16.s3.100

⁴ Vogel, Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1906-7, vi, p. 138.

c16.s3.101

Even though Khāravela may not have caused the carving of the entrance to the Lomas Ṛṣi cave it is still possible that he was responsible for the eviction of the Ājīvikas and for the defacement of the Mauryan inscriptions. But the evidence is quite inconclusive. On the basis of a barely legible inscription Khāravela is said to have occupied the hill, and he is known to have been a Jaina; these are the only facts on which the argument is based. Any local Magadhan ruler between the Maurya and Gupta periods is an equally possible persecutor of the Ājīvikas.

c16.s3.102

The Ājīvikas must have lost possession of the caves and the inscriptions must have been defaced at some time before the fifth century A.D., and probably before the commencement of the Gupta era, at a period when the Brahmī alphabet was still widely understood. Whether the Ājīvikas voluntarily abandoned the caves or were forcibly evicted, it is evident that their influence waned rapidly in Magadha from the end of the Maurya period onwards. We find no later material or epigraphic remains of them in Northern India, and although references to them occur in Sanskrit literature for over a thousand years after the deaths of their Maurya patrons, these are brief and few. It is doubtful if they were again a significant factor in North Indian culture.

Linked texts (23)