|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
beyond all particular limitation ; and this is why the donor adds savâna vâsavâsitânaṁ. In
fact, it was for the retreat of the varsha that the monks of every other denomination or residence (châtudisa saṁgha) could be brought to take up their abode in the caves of Valûraka along with
their resident hosts. If the donor had meant only the monks living at Valûraka, he would have
said simply Valûraka-saṁgha, as in the following inscription. In the same way a gift is made in
Nâsik No. 15, l. 7, Triraśmiparvatavihâravâstavyasya châturdiśabhikshusaṁghasya gilânabhêshajârthaṁ i.e. “to be applied for the medical treatment of the monks of every origin who shall
reside in the vihâras of the Triraśmi hill.” Monastic communities may be classified in two
respects, viz., according to their residence and according to the sect to which they belong. This
double restriction is excluded in principle by the mention of the châtudisa saṁgha, though in
some cases and according to the dispositions of the donor it may mean specially one or the other.
Thus in Nâsik No. 10, l. 4 f. a donation is made as follows : eto mama leṇe vasatânaṁ châtudisasa
bhikhusaghasa nukhâhâro bhavisati. Here we have a restriction to a certain locality, while châtudisa excludes only the restrictions as to sect ; and the donation is according intended for
the feeding of the monks who reside or shall reside in this cave, to whatever denomination they
belong. The same is the case in Nâsik No. 12, l. 2, where a rent is allotted to the châtudisa
saṁgha, y[a] imasmiṁ leṇe vasaṁtânaṁ bhavisati chivarika . . . . . . . , i.e. “for furnishing
clothes to the monks who shall resides in this cave without reserve or distinction as to sect.”
The
same idea is expressed in the donation recorded in Nâsik No. 24, l. 3 f. On the other hand, in
Kârlê No. 20, l. 3, “a hall of nine cells is given to the saṁgha châtudisa as property of the
Mahâsâṁghikas,”─ Mahâsaghiyânaṁ parigaho saghe châtudise dina. We have to compare a
passage in the inscription of Tôramâṇa at Kura (Ep. Ind. Vol. I, p. 240). Bülher has justly
remarked the antithesis existing between châturdiśa saṁgha and parigraha âchârya-Mahîśâsakânâṁ. But I feel inclined to think that he has not solved it in a quite satisfactory manner.
According to him “the meaning seems to be that all Buddhist monks shall participate in the use
of the vihâra, but that it is specially made over to the Mahîśâsaka teachers.” Does it not rather
seem that, in allotting to the châturdiśa saṁgha the gift which was at the same time made
the property of the Mahâsâṁghikas or Mahîsâsakas, Tôramâṇa in the Kura inscription and
Ṛishabhadatta in the present case desired that their donation should benefit only the members
of the sect which they wanted to favour, of whatever origin and usual residence ? This conclusion seems to be strongly corroborated by the comparison of Kârlê No. 19, l. 1 f., where the village
of Karajaka is given “for the support of the Mahâsâṁghika monks residing in the caves of
Valûraka,”[1]─ leṇesu Vâlurakesu vâthavâna pavajitâna bhikhuna nikâyasa Mahâsaghiyâna
yâpanâya. Here the donation is expressly restricted to the Mahâsâṁghika monks residing at
Valûraka. Shall we not conclude from this, that, in other cases where the châturdiśa saṁgha is
referred to, the gift is made to the Mahâsâṁghikas of whatever origin ? While in the preceding
examples the wording excluded all restriction as to sect, it excludes here all restriction founded on
origin or residence. It is hardly necessary to add that, if used alone and without an explicit
clause, the expression excludes both the first and second restrictions. No. 19 informs us that
the village of Karajaka was given to the monks of Valûraka by Vâsiṭhîputa Puḷumâyi or
Gotamîputa Sâtakaṇi. This inscription is certainly later than the present one. Though it does
not allude to a previous donations, and though the form Karajika, which we have here, differs
slightly from Karajaka, the only form which occurs in No. 19, I think that Bühler is right in
admitting (AS. p. 113 ; compare p. 24) that the two names refer to the same village. The renewal
of the donation was brought about by the new state of affairs created by the victories of Gautamîputra Sâtakaṇi and by the destruction, of which he boasts, of that dynasty of the Khaharâtas with
which our Ṛishabhadatta was directly connected by his father-in-law Nahapâna. What persuades
________________________________
[1] This shade of meaning is expressed with particular precision by such a phrase as that which we find in the
inscription of Chandragupta II. at Sâñchi, where a donation is made Kâkanâdabôṭaśrîmahâvihârê . . . .
chaturdigabhyâgatâya . . . . . âryasaṁghâya ; Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 31.
|
