The Idea of Ancient India, page 6
The Sanchi Inscriptions
Over 800 donative inscriptions (often inaccurately described as ‘votive’ inscriptions) have been found at Sanchi. These inscriptions, which form the principal focus of this chapter, have been divided for the purposes of this investigation, into five broad chronological phases27:
1. the Aśokan inscription (3rd century bc)
2. inscriptions of the 2nd century bc to the 1st century bc/1st century ad28
3. inscriptions of the Kuṣāṇa period (2nd century ad)
4. inscriptions of the Gupta period (5th–6th century ad)
5. inscriptions of the early medieval period (6th–9th century ad)
The Aśokan Edict
The Aśokan edict at Sanchi is a variant of the schism edict, of which other versions are found on the Allahabad-Kosam and Sarnath pillars, the Sanchi version being closer to the Allahabad-Kosam version, the Sarnath version being a little longer and containing additional material.29 The inscription (in the Prakrit language and the Brahmi script) is damaged in parts and refers to the saṅgha of monks and nuns having been united and Aśoka’s decree that any monk or nun causing saṅgha-bheda (schism in the Order) would be made to put on white robes and to reside outside the āvāsa (monastery). The inscription concludes with Aśoka expressing his desire that the saṅgha endure long as a united body. It suggests the appearance of serious divisions within the Order in Aśoka’s time, divisions which merited the king’s intervention and his supplementing the punishment prescribed in the Vinaya Piṭaka for the serious offence of saṅgha-bheda. The schism edict is evidence of Aśoka’s position of authority vis-à-vis the saṅgha. The contents of this edict also suggest that the places where it has been found were important Buddhist monastic centres in Aśoka’s time. Kausambi and Sarnath we know of from other sources; Sanchi we do not.
The Inscriptions of the 2nd Century bc to the
1st Century bc/1st Century ad
The second group of Sanchi inscriptions (in the Prakrit language and Brahmi script) are the largest in number (846) and form the main focus of this chapter.30 Two of these are imprecatory, the rest are donative in nature. The inscriptions of this group include 206 that are fragmentary in varying degrees. While a few epigraphs (nos. 805, 741, 427) do not give any information about the donors, the majority of them do identify them in one or more ways.
The various bases of identification of the donors are: name, kinship relations, occupation, native place, ethnic stock (in the case of the few Yavana donors), as members of either the monastic order (bhikkhus or bhikkunīs) or the laity (upāsakas or upāsikās).31 It may be noted that references to varṇa or jāti do not occur. Of course, the basis of identification of donors must be considered within the context of the purpose of the inscriptions. For instance, jāti (caste) may have been an important basis of identification of an individual in the society of the time, but may not have been considered a detail that merited mention in the donative inscriptions. Then there is also the practical limitation placed on details by constraints of space. Or perhaps the briefest inscriptions are reflective of a not-so-lavish endowment. In spite of these factors, the details that donors chose to have engraved about themselves at Sanchi remain of interest and significance.
Donors, Named and Unnamed
In this second group of Sanchi inscriptions, thirty-six donors are unnamed. Out of the cases where the gender of these unnamed donors can be identified, four are individual males, 23 are individual females, and four are groups of female donors. The number of unnamed women is considerably greater than that of unnamed men. At the other end of the spectrum are inscriptions (117) that identify the donors by their name alone. These donors include 59 individual males, 51 individual females, five groups of males, and two groups of females.
Apart from these statistics, is there anything of significance that we can wrest out of the donors’ names? Bühler and Majumdar have already made some observations about personal names in the Sanchi inscriptions. Bühler drew attention to the large number of Buddhist names (Araha, Arahaguta, Arahadāsī, Dhamarakhita, Budhapālita, Saṁgharakhita, etc.), which is an aspect that should be taken into consideration in discussions of Buddhist identity during this period. He also pointed to the large number of names derived from names of nakṣatras (Asāḍa, Phaguna, Rohiṇī, Pusinī, etc.) and others (Bahadata, Mhiada, Mitā, etc.) derived from the name of Vedic gods. Names like Vinhukā, Upidata, Balaka, Nadiguta, Sivanadi give evidence of the existence of the worship of the gods Viṣṇu and Śiva while others (Nāgā, Nāgila, Nāgadatta) are suggestive of the prevalence of nāga worship.32 N. G. Majumdar refers to names (Yakhadāsī, Yakhadina, Yakhī, Yakhila) which are indicative of the existence of Yakṣa cults, and names (Gandhāra, Kāmboja, Kekaṭeyaka, Cirātī, Patiṭhana) derived from geographical names.33
Gender and Patronage
While the total number of donations made by men, singly or in groups (367 + 13 = 380), is greater than those made by women, singly or in groups (336 + 8 = 344), the high degree of ‘visibility’ of women as donors is a striking aspect of the Sanchi inscriptions. This visibility is in remarkable contrast to the majority of ancient Indian inscriptions, where women appear rarely, shadowy figures who usually merited mention only if they happened to be queens or goddesses. Women appear in the Sanchi inscriptions in large numbers both as lay worshippers and as bhikkhunīs. They also appear in significant numbers compared to men among donors who made multiple donations to the stūpa complex in this period. It may also be mentioned that one of the gateway inscriptions (no. 391) records a gift made by a woman. This visibility raises certain questions ranging from the relationship of women to early Buddhism to women’s control over economic resources. Against what sort of background can we view the epigraphic evidence? We can look at the references to women as donors in the textual tradition and also for reflections of the textual and inscriptional evidence in the depiction of women as donors in Sanchi sculpture. See Tables 1.1 and 1.2.
In the Pali canon, women appear most frequently as givers of food, clothes, and medicines. Certain women make more lavish gifts. Ambapālī gifts an ārāma (grove) to the saṅgha.34 Visākhā, mother of Migāra, desires to build a pāsāda with a verandah, supported on pillars with capitals of elephants for the saṅgha, and the Buddha gives his permission for such gifts.35 Elsewhere, Visākhā brings small jars, brooms, and earthenware foot-scrubbers to the Buddha. The first two items are accepted while the third is returned.36
Women appear in a variety of different situations in Sanchi sculpture, not only as ornamental figures, but in many cases as an important part of the narrative of the reliefs. There are the mandatory yakṣīs, śālabhañjikās, celestial women, but there is more. There is the depiction of Māyā in scenes of the birth of the Buddha. There are what may be royal couples.37 There are townswomen looking down with interest from buildings at a passing royal procession.38 But we are here concerned with women as donors. In this context, we should note the sculptural depictions of the scenes of Sujātā’s offering to the meditating Gotama.39 But apart from this particular scene from the life of the Buddha, we see in the Sanchi sculptures countless images of women prostrating themselves or making offerings on trays or in containers before trees associated with the various Buddhas, bodhi trees, and stūpas.40 The classic representation of the saṁbodhi scene has a circle of males and females performing obeisance, the females bearing ewers. Some of the scenes have groups of men and women, while others have women alone. Another interesting aspect is the possible depictions of the Sanchi donors themselves in the panels where couples appear, sometimes accompanied by children.41
Table 1.1
Gender break-up of donors (where identifiable)
Table 1.2
Gender break-up of givers of multiple donations
The unequivocal evidence of the Sanchi inscriptions, supplemented by the more subtle evidence of the Sanchi sculpture, indicates that during the period between the 2nd century bc and the 2nd century ad a strong element of monetary support for the building activity at Sanchi came from women. This amounts to an endorsement of the frequent appearance of women donors in the early Buddhist textual tradition. On the other hand, with regard to the volume of female vis-à-vis male donations, in this case, the epigraphic evidence is indicative of a much greater degree of female participation than a reading of the Pali canon might lead us to expect.
Gender and Kinship
Kinship is a basis of identification in the case of 101 donors of this group of inscriptions, but does not feature in a majority of the inscriptions. Kinship relations are significantly much more often specified in the case of female (69 individuals and four groups) than male donors (17 individuals and six groups). The number of women for whom kinship is the sole basis of identification (28 individuals and four groups) is considerably higher than the number of men (six individuals and three groups) for whom this is so. It may be added that there are three inscriptions which record gifts made by groups including men and women in which the donors are identified solely on the basis of kinship.
Six inscriptions (nos. 387, 434, 435, 603, 626, 797) record gifts made by a kula (lineage group). One inscription (no. 102) records a gift made by all the n̄ātis (the extended kin group) of a monk named Nāgila. To these references to gifts made by extended kin groups we may add the references to gifts made by the Dhamakas of Ujenī (no. 40), Tāpasiyas of Ujenī (no. 87; also mentioned in no. 285), Magalakaṭiyas of Kakaḍaka in Ujenī (no. 103), and the Vakiliyas of Ujenī (no. 115).42 These may have been kin groups. It may be noted that all of these groups belonged to Ujenī. Another inscription (no. 264; fragmentary) refers to the gift of the Kācāniputas (Kātyāyanī-putras) from Vāghumata. This gives us a total of 11 inscriptions recording gifts made by extended kin groups. See Table 1.3.
It may be noted that six monks are identified in kinship terms, and for four of them, kinship is the only basis of identification. Two nuns are identified in kinship terms, both as mothers. It may also be noted that two inscriptions record gifts by relations of monks (one by a mother, the other by all the ñātis of the monk concerned), while one records a gift made by a relative (mother) of a nun.
Women donors are most frequently identified as mothers (mātā)—much more often of sons rather than daughters—and next as wives (pajāvatī, bhāyā, jāyā).43 A few are identified as sisters (bhagini), daughters-in-law (husā, nusā, hnusā), and daughters (duhitā) of their fathers more often than their mothers. One is identified as her uncle’s niece (no. 565). For men, where kinship relations are specified, it is as fathers (pitā), sons (putra), brothers (bhātā), or as member of a kin group. Inscription no. 464 records the gift of one Varadata and his nephew (bhāgineya), apparently his sister’s son. A lone male (inscription no. 30) is identified as a son-in-law. It may be noted that seven male donors are identified in terms of their relationship with their mother. This is indicated by the use of matronyms. Inscription no. 175 records the gift of the rāja-lipikara (royal scribe) Subāhita Gotiputa (son of Goti, i.e., Gauptī). Inscription no. 264, which is fragmentary, records the gift of the Kācāniputas (sons of Kācānī, i.e., Kātyāyanī) of Vāghumata. Inscription no. 290 records the gift of the monk [Go]tiputa Bhaṁḍuka. Inscription no. 307 records the gift of the monk Gotiputa Bhaḍuka (who seems to be the same donor as of no. 290). Inscription no. 398 records the gift of Vāsiṭhiputra Anaṁda, āvesani (foreman of the artisans) of the rājan Sirī Sātakaṇi. Inscription no. 809 records the gift of the monk Vāchiputa (son of Vātsī) Isika, while no. 824 records the gift of Vāsiṭhiputa Kusumaka.
Table 1.3
Gender and types of kinship identification
Certain inscriptions record joint gifts made by husbands and wives, fathers and sons, mothers and sons/daughters, sisters, brothers and sisters, etc. Donations by various members of a family or an entire kin group making a gift (mentioned earlier) fit in well with the impression given by the textual sources. In the Pali texts, the Buddha’s convincing a particular person of the origins of dukkha (suffering) and the path to its extinction is frequently followed by his enjoying the hospitality of that person in his home and giving a discourse to members of his family. The impression conveyed is that once a person was convinced of Gotama’s Truth, that conviction tended to become a family affair.44
Occupational Background of Donors
While the social background of the lay supporters of early Buddhism was diverse, the texts refer frequently to gahapatis and seṭṭhis among the important upāsakas. Going by Uma Chakravarti’s analysis, the gahapati in the Buddhist canonical texts (which were composed roughly between the 5th and 1st centuries bc) indicates an individual of high social status and political influence associated particularly with landed property and wealth.45 The term seṭṭhi indicates a wealthy urban-based, again politically influential, individual associated particularly with money-lending.46 The Cullavagga credits a seṭṭhi of Rājagaha with the idea of building dwellings for the saṅgha.47 The story of the benefactions made to the saṅgha by Anāthapiṇḍika, the gahapati of Sāvatthi, is well known.48 The overlap between the two categories of gahapati and seṭṭhi is indicated by the use of the compound term seṭṭhi-gahapati for certain individuals. It was a seṭṭhi-gahapati who was the first person to become an upāsaka by the three-fold formula (seeking refuge in the Buddha, the dhamma, and the saṅgha). The first female lay disciples also came from the family of this seṭṭhi-gahapati.49 Lay support for early Buddhism also came from the trader (vaṇija). Tapussa and Bhallika, two merchants travelling on the road from Ukkala (Utkala), were the first persons to become lay disciples of the Buddha by the formula of the dyad (taking refuge in the Buddha and the dhamma).50 To what extent is this impression of strong support from the land-owning, banking, and trading classes corroborated by the inscriptional evidence from Sanchi? What was the occupational background of the Sanchi donors?
Occupation is specified in the case of 35 individual men (for 12 of whom it is the sole means of identification, other than name) and two groups of men (out of which one group is identified apart from their names, on this basis alone). Only one inscription refers to the occupation of a female donor. This is inscription no. 160, which describes the donor Sijhā of Virahakaṭa as a ghariṇī (housewife?).
On the whole, the occupation of donors is specified in comparatively few cases in the Sanchi inscriptions. The handful of references to donors with an artisanal background may be noted. The reference to a rājuka is also noteworthy. This term seems to have referred to an important category of rural officers, originally concerned with revenue administration. During the time of the Maurya king Aśoka, their powers were enlarged to include judicial duties as also the propagation of dhamma.51
As shown in Table 1.4, among the occupational groups, references to seṭṭhi donors (12) outnumber the others, followed by vaṇijas (six) and gahapatis (four). It may be added that two inscriptions record gifts made by relatives of gahapatis (in one case a sister-in-law, and in another a daughter-in-law), while six inscriptions record gifts made by relatives of seṭṭhis (two of mothers, three of wives, and one by a brother of a seṭṭhi). However, considering the total volume of inscriptions that belong to this group (846), the number of references to seṭṭhis (12), vaṇijas (six), and gahapatis (four) is rather small compared to the importance that is given to these groups in the textual tradition as lay supporters of the saṅgha.52 It is a matter of concern that secondary literature on the subject has misrepresented the evidence on this important point. Thus, Romila Thapar’s statements that the seṭṭhi-gahapati groups are the most frequently mentioned ones in the inscriptions at early Buddhist sites and that women donors tended to come from seṭṭhi-gahapati and artisanal families are simply not borne out by evidence of the Sanchi inscriptions.53 Similarly unsubstantiated is Vidya Dehejia’s claim that the largest single group of lay donations at Sanchi came from the gahapati and the ghariṇī.54
Table 1.4
Occupations of male donors (where specified)
Monks and Nuns as Donors
The donors of this group of inscriptions include 252 records of gifts made by members of the saṅgha. These donors comprise 123 individual monks, six groups of monks, 118 individual nuns, and five groups of nuns. Monks and nuns can be identified in the inscriptions in various ways. In most cases, they are explicitly described as bhikkhus or bhikkhunīs. In some cases, they can be identified as monks by honorific epithets or titles—aya, bhādata, thera. Others can be identified by reference to their being pupils—atevāsin,55 atevasini, sejha (no. 633), sādhivihārin (no. 338),56 or novices—sāmanera, sāmanerī. Apart from such frequently occurring terms, a few others are of interest. For instance, two inscriptions (nos. 529, 691) refer to the donors as bhāṇakas (preachers, reciters of texts). Another inscription (no. 288) refers to the donor Bharaḍiya as a sapurisa (sat-puruṣa, good man, saint).57 There is an inscription (no. 631) which records the gift of Budharakhiṭa, the sutātika (versed in the suttantas) from Arapāna. Budharakhita’s female counterpart is Avasinā from Maḍalā-chikata, who is described (no. 304) as a sutātikini. Two inscriptions (nos. 399, 402) record the gift of Balamitra, pupil of Aya Cuḍa, the dhamakathika (preacher of the dhamma). An important reference occurs in inscription no. 242, which describes the donor as a pacanekayika. Bühler points out that this is a mis-spelt form of pācanekāyika or pañcanekāyika meaning ‘one who knows the five Nikāyas’, indicating that the five Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka were in existence at this time.58
