The Idea of Ancient India, page 11
Figure 2.2
Stūpa with svastika inset
Source: Author
Epigraphic evidence is the key to identifying the people who were responsible for all this. The inscriptions are variously in Prakrit, Sanskrit and mixed Prakrit-Sanskrit, and are written in the Brahmi script. Of the 31 Buddhist stūpa/monastery complexes identified at Nagarjunakonda, 13 have yielded inscriptions; out of these, in 7 cases we have an idea of the donors. In addition, there are at least four inscriptions whose structural affiliations are not known, but which contain some information about the donors.
The purpose of the inscriptions has to be kept in mind when reading and interpreting them. Pious gifts represent a blend of many different ideas, aspirations, and sentiments. The Nagarjunakonda inscriptions do not record the names of all donors who may have contributed to the monastic establishments in different ways. It is the names of those who contributed to the building and embellishment of the structures that are recorded. There is scarce mention of people who may have contributed in cash or kind towards the maintenance of the monasteries.
Figure 2.3
Apsidal temple enshrining Buddha image (Site 4)
Source: Author
Figure 2.4
Apsidal temple enshrining stone stūpa
Source: Author
Figure 2.5
Ruins of a monastery (Site 43)
Source: Author
Gregory Schopen has suggested that donative inscriptions were inscribed to give the donors a permanent place in the shadow of the sacred relics.15 It may be added that the degree of proximity was connected with degrees of honour and prestige as well. Physical proximity to the relics must have made it exceptionally prestigious to gift an āyaka pillar and to have one’s name inscribed on it.16 However, donors also sought proximity to the monastic community (and prestige through such association) when they gifted entire caitya-gṛhas, monastic cells, pillared maṇḍapas (halls), maṇḍapa pillars, tanks, sculpted slabs, Buddha images, and patipadās (footprint slabs). Monetary gifts are rare—the āyaka pillar inscription of mahādevī Rudradharabhaṭārikā refers to a contribution of 170 dīnāra-māsakas. And as we shall see further on, the donative inscriptions also had the important function of specifying the nature and distribution of the puṇya (merit) that was expected to accrue from the pious gift.
Whatever else they may or may not have conveyed, the most important functions of the donative inscriptions were to assert the donors’ identity, the nature of the gift, and the beneficiaries of the merit in a manner that was both public and enduring. How many people could actually read the donative inscriptions is an important question, the answer to which is linked to questions of literacy and language.17 But readability does not seem to have been crucial in this enterprise. Prestigious activity required expression in a prestigious language, not in some local vernacular.
Power and Patronage: The Dominance of
Royal Women
Studies of ancient Indian political structures have tended to focus primarily on the king and have not taken adequate cognizance of the importance of the royal household, including royal women.18 Considering the close relationship between power and patronage, it is significant that while inscriptions herald their performance of great śrauta sacrifices, the Ikṣvāku kings do not appear to have been very actively involved in making donations to religious establishments, Hindu or Buddhist.19 The leading roles in extending such patronage were played by women of the royal family, high-ranking military commanders and affluent non-royal people.
There were three stages in the evolution of the mahācaitya complex (Site 1), associated with the Aparamahāvinaseliya sect. The stūpa was built in the 6th regnal year of Vīrapurisadatta. In spite of the existence of other stūpas, in terms of size, with its diameter of about 91 ft, the mahācaitya remained the largest in the city. Its maṇḍapa and vihāra cells were built in the 15th year of the same king’s reign. The stūpa-caitya (temple enshrining a ‘votive’ stūpa) was added in the king’s 18th regnal year. The location of the complex suggests that it was accessible not only to the royal family but to the city as a whole.
In the early Ikṣvāku period, the mahācaitya seems to have been a
major—if not the central—royal ceremonial centre in the city of Vijayapurī. The āyaka pillars at the mahācaitya identify seven women donors, all connected to the royal family. The most prominent was Cāṁtisiri, sister of the deceased first king, aunt and mother-in-law of the reigning second king, and wife of a man who bore titles of high rank—mahāsenāpati as well as mahātalavara. Cāṁtisiri’s name appears in nine redactions of inscriptions distributed over the four cardinal directions.20
These inscriptions, with their elaborate eulogy of the Buddha, the deceased king Cāṁtamāla and his sister Cāṁtisiri, speak in tones of authority. They suggest a woman who exercised power during the reign of her brother as well as during that of her nephew (who also became her son-in-law at some point). Cāṁtisiri was also associated with building the monastery and the apsidal temple at the site, and her connection is hammered home through repetition at the stūpa and the maṇḍapa and on the floor slab of the caitya. At least five other stūpa-monastery complexes (Sites 5, 7–8, 9, 24, 106) at Vijayapurī reflect the patronage of royalty, and here again, it is royal women who dominate.
Royal women are also conspicuous in a remarkable chāyā-stambha (memorial pillar) which records the names of 29 mourning women relatives of Cāṁtamūla (mothers, sisters, queens), along with two non-royal women, set up in year 20 of Vīrapurisadatta’s reign.21 Together with the donative inscriptions, it suggests several things: a strong sense of corporate identity among women of the royal family, and their importance in religious patronage as well as in the articulation and exercise of power. The Ikṣvāku kings had matronyms and practised cross-cousin marriage. Royal women were married to high-ranking officials (or their husbands were elevated to such rank). References to natal families in women’s donative inscriptions (both among royal and non-royal women) are common, as are statements that the merit of their pious gifts should accrue to both sides of their family. The prominence of royal women as donors and merit-recipients at Vijayapurī was evidently rooted in the kinship system of the Ikṣvākus, which was, in turn, an extension of the kinship system prevalent at the time in this part of Andhra. It suggests a significant degree of power and authority vested in the women of the royal family, in spite of the fact that succession to the throne remained firmly patrilineal.
Non-royal Patrons: The Upāsikā Bodhisiri
Making pious gifts was an activity that created a community of patrons, identifying persons of consequence among the laity.22 Although royal women stand out as donors at the mahācaitya complex, there was at least one non-royal donor there: a slab and coping stone were the gift (deya-dhamma) of Cadakapavatica and his housewife (ghariṇī) Padumavānī, together with their sons Hagasiri and Nagatara and the latter’s wife and daughters. The donors at another monastic site (Site 106) were a sreṣṭhin (banker/businessman) named Kumāranandin, his wife (the sreṣṭhinī), son and other relatives. A foot-print slab, the find-spot of which is unknown, mentions the donor as a woman named Budhi, sister of a Śaka named Moda. An inscription found on Polugubodu mound seems to record a donation made by a non-royal family consisting of the principal donor/s, his/their sons, daughters, sons-in-law, grandsons, and grand-daughters, along with other relatives, friends, and kinsmen. Yet another inscription on a carved slab mentions the name of the donor simply as Dhama.
However, the most prominent non-royal patron at Vijayapurī was Bodhisiri, whose benefactions are recorded in an inscription on the floor of the apsidal temple built at her behest, dated in the 14th regnal year of the second Ikṣvāku king Vīrapurisadatta.23 The whole complex, consisting of a stūpa, vihāra, and stūpa-caitya, was located towards the eastern side of the valley, not far from the main entrance into the city. From the honorific ‘siri’ suffix in her name, Bodhisiri might be mistaken for a royal woman. However, she is the only person in her family with this suffix, and further, she is described as the wife of a man named Budhaṁnika, son of a gahapati named Revata. The family does, however, seem to have had some court connections, going by the mention of the koṭhākārika (treasurer) Bhada, who was evidently related to Bodhisiri in some way.
Apart from building this temple, the inscription indicates that Bodhisiri had made gifts of various kinds in many vihāras in the area—a caitya-gṛha at the Kulaha vihāra, a shrine for the bodhi-tree at the Sīhala vihāra, a cell at the Mahādhammagiri vihāra, a maṇḍapa pillar at the mahāvihāra, a hall for religious practice at Devagiri; a tank, verandah, and maṇḍapa at Puvasela; a stone maṇḍapa at the eastern gate of the mahācaitya at Kaṇṭakasela, three cells at Hirumuṭhuva, seven cells at Papilā, a stone maṇḍapa at Puphagiri, and a stone maṇḍapa at another vihāra.
While Cāṁtisiri was the preeminent patron at the mahācaitya, Bodhisiri stands out as a non-royal donor whose benefactions were extensively spread over many monastic establishments at Vijayapurī and beyond. Taken together, the epigraphic evidence points to a dominant role played by royal and non-royal women in the emergence of Vijayapurī as a premier Buddhist centre.
The Circle of Merit
Apart from identifying the donors of pious gifts, donative inscriptions also performed the very important function of expressing the nature of the expected results of the gift and indicating to whom they were to accrue.24 Historians tend to understand religious donations as attempts of social or political groups to assert or legitimize their status. This is no doubt an important aspect, but the language and expression of religious piety in donative inscriptions tells us something significant about people’s religious beliefs as well as social structure. It has been pointed out that inscriptions from Buddhist sites indicate the widespread prevalence of a belief in the transfer of merit, that is, the idea that an individual could make a pious gift and that the merit of the gift could accrue to another person or persons, a belief that is not alluded to in Buddhist texts.25 This is actually an idea that is not confined to Buddhism. It should also be noted that at Nagarjunakonda, what is as striking as the transfer of merit is the sharing of merit, a sentiment that fits in well with a social fabric in which, as mentioned earlier, kinship ties were exceptionally strong.
Inscriptions refer to several kinds of anticipated results of the pious gift, including the longevity and victory of the king. More frequent are expressions of a desire for the happiness and welfare of the donor in both the worlds and/or her attainment of nirvāṇa. These are frequently extended to the relatives of the donor, to all sentient beings, and to the whole world. The most elaborate ‘merit list’ occurs in Bodhisiri’s inscription, which lists 30 of her relatives by name and relationship including her husband and his father, mother, brothers, sister, brother’s sons, sister’s sons; her own father, mother, brother, sisters, grandfather, grandmother, maternal uncle(/s?), maternal grandmother, daughter, sons, and daughters-in-law. Apart from these individually named merit-beneficiaries, the inscription also states that the gift was dedicated to the endless welfare and happiness of the assembly of good people (sādhūs) and of the whole world.
While generosity and gift-giving are considered meritorious acts in Buddhist texts, such activities are not considered capable of enabling a person to attain nirvāṇa. The inscriptions, however, reflect precisely such a belief. Further, specifying the ‘merit list’ was important. It created a circle, a community who shared in the merit—and also the prestige—of the gift.
Relics and Rituals
The interment of relics at Nagarjunakonda reveals various facets related to the relic cult and the funerary practices of Buddhist monks. Unlike at Sanchi, there are no inscriptions on the relic caskets. But just whose relics were embedded in a stūpa would have been known to the monks who lived here and the laity and pilgrims who visited, and would have become part of collective memory. This is probably why (apart from the fact that inscriptions on the relic caskets would not have been seen by anyone anyway), unlike the names of donors and the recipients of merit, it was not considered necessary to inscribe the names of the monks whose relics, and by extension presence, were embedded in the stūpas.
There is clear evidence of a royal connection of four out of a total of nine relic stūpas at Nagarjunakonda. However, patronage towards the building of such stūpas was not exclusively a royal prerogative. There are two broad types of relic interment at this site—in earthenware pots (Stūpas 4, 5) and the ‘nestling’ of reliquaries (Stūpas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8A, 9). The latter procedure is described in Pali texts and highlights the sanctity of the relics.26 It is likely that the relics of local monks may have been interred in earthenware pots, while the ‘nestling technique’ was used for famous monks whose relics had been acquired from elsewhere. The proliferation of relic stūpas in fact presupposes an ancient transactional network in relics, the details of which deserve to be worked out.27
An instance of nestled reliquaries was found in the north-western section of the mahācaitya. Here, a bone fragment was placed in a small round gold reliquary, ¾ inches in diameter. This was placed inside a silver casket shaped like a miniature stūpa, 2½ inches high, together with a few gold flowers, pearls, garnets, and crystals. The silver casket was, in turn, placed inside an earthenware pot (found in a crushed state), along with three large crystal beads and a round ear ornament. In other stūpas, the caskets included those in stūpa-shapes as well as in other forms. The items found therein included bone fragments (always in the inner-most reliquary), beads (coral, pearl, and semi-precious stones), gold and silver leaf flowers, crystal objects, and gold medallions. Stūpa 4 gave evidence of nestled reliquaries as well as 12 water pots covered by inverted bowls. This suggests the practice of interring the relics of principle disciples with those of highly venerated monks. Some vihāras gave evidence of the storage of monks’ bone and tooth relics, indicating that when certain monks died, their corporeal relics were stored carefully until enough had been collected to warrant the construction of a stūpa.
Relics are to be expected in stūpas (although they do not occur in all stūpas). More unusual is the discovery of animal bones. Within Stūpa 9 (Figure 2.6), apart from two red earthenware water-pots and two food-bowls (apparently devoid of ashes or relics), there were also some calcified animal bones. These included deer and hare bones and what appeared to be the frontal skull bones (with horn-bearers but no horns) of a cow or bull.28 The mahācaitya yielded a heap of burnt bones of pea-fowl.29 We seem to be looking at consecration rituals involving animal sacrifice. These rituals can perhaps be seen as reflecting the encounter and mingling of the Buddhist relic cult with local funerary practices. This is suggested by the occurrence of animal remains in some of the megalithic graves at Nagarjunakonda.30
Figure 2.6
View of Stūpa 9 during excavations
Courtesy: Archaeological Survey of India
The Material Remains of Monastic Life
Monastic complexes at Nagarjunakonda included various combinations and arrangements of stūpas, caityas, vihāras, and maṇḍapas. Within vihāras, variations in size, ornamentation, location, and accessibility of cells suggest hierarchies within the monastic communities. Similarly, on the basis of the location and plan of the monasteries, inferences can be made about the level of engagement or disengagement of monastic communities with the laity. Within the monastic complexes, the stūpa areas may have been accessible to the laity. Certain detached stūpas seem to have been associated with less monastic control. As it is not possible to describe and discuss all the monasteries at the site, the focus here will be on Sites 3 and 32a, which actually consist of three complexes that together form the largest monastic cluster at ancient Vijayapurī.31
In this cluster, the layout of the monastery lying to the south suggests that worship at shrines was an integral part of monastic routine. The fact that there was both a Buddha-caitya as well as a stūpa-caitya indicates that monks had the option of worshipping at either or both. The Buddha-caitya contained a colossal Buddha image (found headless and in four pieces), which must have stood about 8 ft high. The padmāsana of this statue contained a gold tube which had in it 95 pearls and possibly bone ash. The discoveries in the vihāra area included a toilet and bathing area, a workshop devoted to the making of stone images, and what may have been a store room for ritualistic paraphernalia. One of the cells in the vihāra had a limestone pūrṇa-ghaṭa in which were found two small teeth. The artefacts found in the vihāra included a rusty iron axehead, a corroded iron measure containing a lead coin, a coin with the Ujjain symbol, a round stucco bead and two pieces of ivory bangles. The stūpa, which stood to the west of the vihāra complex, could have been accessed by monks directly from the vihāra. It could also have been accessed by the laity by skirting the living quarters of the monks, from either side.
Two other complexes were located to the north and north-east of the monastic unit described earlier. The arrangement of cells within a high-walled enclosure in the latter was taken by some scholars as indicating that it was meant for bhikkhunīs.32 However, this is purely speculative, as the arrangement for privacy could equally have been for the sake of monks of high rank. A fragmentary Sanskrit inscription (‘A’) found at site 32a records certain details pertaining to a maṇḍapa and a monastery wing.33 The donor is described as vipul-ārtha-kākṣin (one who desires the welfare of others). The inscription refers, among other things, to the mukhya-pācaka (principal cooks), a vihāra-mukhya (chief or head of the monastery). The feature that has attracted most attention in this inscription is the phrase vigata-jvar-ālaya, interpreted by some scholars as ‘a place for those recovering from fever’, that is, a hospital. This is not a particularly far-fetched interpretation, and corroborates the suggested connection between Buddhist monasteries and healing traditions.34 Whether this ‘hospital’ was exclusively for members of the monastic community or otherwise, remains an open question. If the whole or part of the complex in the north-western part of Site 3 and 32a is the hospital in question, then it can be noted that its approaches were not from the adjacent monasteries but from independent entrances in the western and eastern walls of the enclosure.
