|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
RELIGIOUS HISTORY its threads-but they say that a man is something more than a collection of skandhas; he is a pudgala, ‘a monk of such name, of such family, living so many years.’ All these characters, while they belong to the whole, do not belong to the parts or to the constituents; the whole is made of parts, but it is lacking neither in unity nor in continuity.” This tenet is strongly controverted not only by the other Buddhist schools but also by non-Buddhist schools. Nevertheless, the Sāṁmitīyas asseverate that ‘the doctrine of pudgala has been taught by Buddha’. Well might inscription No. 25 below, therefore, describe Buddha as sva-mat-āviruddha, ‘uncontroverted in his doctrine of sva (=pudgala).’ Buddhamitra who made a gift of the image of Buddha must, therefore, have been an adherent of the Sāṁmitīya sect. It will thus be seen that the Sāṁmitīyas were so called because they promulgated the doctrine of Sva-mata, that is, Pudgala-vāda and that they looked upon Buddha not only as Pitāmaha or Creator of the Universe but also as Dēva or God. How far the orthodox history of Buddhaist sects is reliable, we do not know. It may not be safe to put implicit faith in some part of it or another unless it is corroborated by epigraphic evidence. Thus, we may accept as a historic fact that the Sāṁmitīyas, who were Vātsīputras, were responsible for the Pudgala-vāda tenet. Pudgala-vāda is exactly the same in signification as Sva-mata which alone can again explain the etymology of the name Sāṁmitīya, of which no Buddhist text or no Buddhist scholar has yet been able to give a satisfactory derivation. That they were Vātsīputrikas is also clearly proved by a Sārnāth inscription.1 But now we learn from the Mathurā inscription referred to above that the Sāṁmitīyas looked upon Śākyamuni not only as the Perfectly Enlightened One, but also as God and Creator of the World. How far, therefore, they differed from the Lōkōttara-vādins it is very difficult to determine. What we are told according to traditional history is that whereas the Sāṁmitīyas belonged to the Thēravāda, the Lōkōttaras were Mahāsāṁghikas.
Let us now proceed one step further. The Sāṁmitīyas were not the only Buddhist sect
that were settled at Sārnāth. For at least two inscriptions of the Sarvāstivādins have been
found engraved in the south chapel of the Main Shrine. The beginning of one is practically
identical with beginning of the other.2 The beginning of both is in Sanskrit and in practically identical terms and has been assigned to the fourth century A.D. The end portion,
however, is different. One of these is older by about four centuries and is in Prakrit. Evidently,
the first part of the earlier inscription was erased and replaced by a new one. What name was
comprised in the older one it is difficult to imagine. Perhaps it contained the name of the
Mahāsāṁghikas with whom the Sarvāstivādins were in opposition just a century ago, as is
clear from an inscription on the Mathurā Lion Capital.3 It was in the Kushāṇa period that
the Sarvāstivādins were rising to power and spreading over the whole of North India. In this
connection we have to notice another inscription4 found at Sārnāth. It is the celebrated inscription dated the third year of Kaṇishka and recording the donation of Bhikshu Bala, conversant
with Tripiṭaka and co-resident brother (saddhyēvihāri) of Bhikshu Pushyavuddhi. He was
associated in this donation, among others, with (the nun) Buddhamitrā, conversant with
Tripiṭaka. But what was the nature of his donation? It was the statue of a standing Bōdhisattva with his umbrella and its post. Further, it is worthy of note that another inscription of
this Bala is known. It is the one engraved on a standing figure discovered years ago by General
Cunningham at Saheṭ-Maheṭ (Śrāvastī).5 It also records the gift of the statue of Bōdhisattva 1 Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 172.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|