where is the place of birth of Buddha?

[Guest guest]

{Some of the historians accuse that there are frauds in fixing the birth place of Buddha. While I have no comments to offer, I have come across this site in my search about Upagupta. I invite comments from the group - Kishore patnaik }

http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm Lumbini

On Trial: The Untold Story

 

There are compelling reasons for believing

that the present site of Lumbini, the Buddha's birthplace, is the result of an

astonishing hoax. The details of its discovery in 1896 reveal a tale of deception

and intrigue, which is now told for the first time.

At present, controversy continues to surround

the location of Kapilavastu, the Buddha's native town, with both India

and Nepal

promoting bids for this historically significant site. The Indian claim is

based on the finds made at Piprahwa, in Basti District, Uttar Pradesh; the

Nepalese, by that of Tilaurakot and its surrounding sites, in the Western

Tarai of Nepal.

It is my intention in this paper, however, to demonstrate that neither of these

claims can be considered as acceptable, and to show that equal doubt attaches

to the present site of Lumbini also. I further propose to nominate what I

believe to be the correct locations for these and other major Buddhist sites,

and to give detailed evidence in support of these proposals.

Any attempt to assess the reliability of the

present identifications for Lumbini and Kapilavastu should begin by taking a

close look at the circumstances surrounding their discovery. Chief among the

participants in those events - and in my view central to them all - was the

extraordinary figure of Dr Alois Anton Fuhrer, a German archaeologist employed

by the (British) Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh between

1885-98, and co-discoverer of the present Lumbini site.

Modern Indologists, whilst aware of Fuhrer's

unsavoury reputation, have nevertheless neglected to conduct any close scrutiny

of his activities, fondly believing that these have long since been

satisfactorily catalogued and assessed, and that Fuhrer may be safely consigned

to oblivion in consequence. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case.

Fuhrer, in fact, drove a coach and horses through critical areas of Indological

research, and his deceptions continue to have far-reaching consequences for Indian

history to this day. He was a prolific plagiarist and forger (who worked,

alarmingly, on the first two volumes of the Epigraphia Indica) 1 and

I have good reason to believe that his deceptions were sometimes condoned, even

exploited, by the Government of the day, for imperial reasons of their own. I

believe that these fraudulent activities included both the Piprahwa discoveries

and those of the Nepalese Tarai, and that these are fair game, in consequence,

for any assessment which keeps Dr Fuhrer very firmly in mind. Following

Fuhrer's dismissal in 1898, the Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor of the

North-Western Provinces remarked, in a letter to central Government, that 'His

Honor fears it must be admitted that no statement made by Dr Fuhrer on

archaeological subjects, at all events, can be accepted until independently

verified'.2 . Unfortunately this

verification was by no means as rigorous as one might perhaps have wished, as

we shall shortly see.

Fuhrer's

Early Years

Fuhrer was appointed to the position of

Curator at the Lucknow Provincial

Museum in 1885, and

became Archaeological Surveyor to the Government of the North-Western

Provinces and Oudh

shortly thereafter. In 1889, he challenged the accepted location for the site

of Kapilavastu (then thought to be the site of Bhuila Dih in Basti District) an

event which should doubtless be borne in mind whilst reviewing later

developments in his career. 3

Fuhrer's first venture into fraudulent

activity appears to have occurred in 1892, when he copied entire passages from

Buhler's articles on Brahmi inscriptions at Sanchi and Mathura into the report

of his own excavations at the site of Ramnagar, in the Bareilly district. 4 . Astonishingly, this wholesale

and extensive plagiarism appears to have passed completely unnoticed during

this period (including, apparently, by Buhler himself, with whom Fuhrer was

then in correspondence). He also fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to

stone exhibits in the Lucknow

Museum at this time,

forgeries which should also be noted in the light of subsequent events. 5

The

Nigliva Discovery

In 1893, Major Jaskaran Singh, a wealthy

landowner from Balrampur, reported the discovery of an inscribed Asokan pillar

at Bairat, a deserted spot near Nepalganj, on the Indo-Nepalese border. 6 . Two years later Fuhrer 'left

for Balrampur...to look up the Asoka pillar' which Singh had reported, but 'it

turned out that the information furnished by Major Jaskaran Singh was

unfortunately misleading as to the exact position of this pillar', and 'after

experiencing many difficulties', Fuhrer found a pillar near the village of Nigliva,

about 100 miles east of Singh's originally-stated location. 7 . An Asokan inscription was

reportedly discovered by Fuhrer on a broken piece of this pillar, the main

shaft of which lay close by. Though the local villagers supposedly informed him

that 'other inscriptions were hidden beneath the soil' in which this stump was

partly buried, Fuhrer was refused permission to excavate it, and he was thus

'compelled to content myself with taking impressions and paper moulds of the lines

visible above ground'. Permission to excavate was granted two months later, but

as this was 'without any results whatsoever', it is evident that the

inscription was that of 'the lines visible above ground' on Fuhrer's arrival.

8 . This is most important, as we

shall shortly see.

The inscription referred to Asoka's

enlargement of the stupa of the 'previous Buddha', Konagamana, which according

to Fuhrer was situated nearby, 'amidst vast brick ruins stretching far away in

the direction of the southern gate of Kapilavastu'. Fuhrer gave extensive

details of this ancient and impressive structure, declaring that it was

'undoubtedly one of the oldest Buddhist monuments in India',

and stating that 'on all sides of this interesting monument are ruined

monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures'. 9

All this was pure moonshine however, as later

surveys soon revealed. Fuhrer's

Konagamana stupa didn't exist, and its elaborate details (including those 'ruined

monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures') were shown to have been

lifted directly from Alexander Cunningham's book 'Bhilsa Topes' 10 . The stupa was presumably

invented by Fuhrer as an additional support for the Asokan inscription at the

site; but why should he consider this deception necessary if the inscription

itself were genuine - as is still supposed - one is then prompted to ask?

Further grave doubts, moreover, arise from Fuhrer's statement that this inscription

was 'visible above ground' on his arrival. For in a later (1899) report by Drs.

Hoey and Waddell, it emerged that in 1893 - i.e. two years prior to

Fuhrer's visit - Hoey had commissioned the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher, to

take rubbings of any inscriptions on pillars in the area, 'but these were

not of Asoka lettering'. This later report also showed that Fuhrer was

lying when he claimed that his excavations had revealed that the inscribed

portion of this pillar was 'resting on a masonry foundation', the precise

measurements of which he also gave ; this didn't exist either, the broken piece

being merely stuck into the ground at the site. 11

Finally, the Divyavadana describes how

Asoka was conducted to Lumbini for the first time by his spiritual preceptor,

Upagupta, who pointed out to the king the spot where the Buddha was born.

Whilst the inscription on the Lumbini pillar states that this visit occurred

when Asoka had been anointed twenty years, the inscription at nearby Nigliva

states that Asoka 'increased for the second time the stupa of Buddha

Konagamana' when he had been anointed fourteen years. 12 . This is absurd. Why would

Asoka decide to enlarge the Konagamana stupa - and for the second time - six

years before he had even set foot in the Lumbini area?

The

Lumbini Discovery

The following year (1896) found Fuhrer back in

Nepal

once more, this time 'to explore the whole neighbourhood of Taulihawa as far as

Bhagvanpur, where there is said to exist another Asoka Edict pillar'. 13 . Fuhrer had referred to this

other 'Asoka Edict pillar' a year earlier, in his Progress Report for 1895.

There was no reason at this time for believing that this pillar - the present

Lumbini pillar - was Asokan; V. A. Smith had had rubbings taken from it 'a

dozen years' earlier, and as with Hoey and the Nigliva pillar, reported only

'mediaeval scribblings' on its exposed portion at that time. 14

The site was – and indeed, still is -

supposedly called 'Rummindei', this being considered to be a later variant of

the name 'Lumbini'. 15 .

But as E. J. Thomas observed:

'According to

Fuhrer, "this deserted site is still locally called Rummindei" (Monograph,

p. 28). This statement was generally accepted before Fuhrer's

imaginativeness was discovered, and is still incautiously repeated. Yet he

admitted that it was not the name used by the present Nepalese officials. "It

is a curious fact (he says) that the true meaning of this ancient Buddhistic

name has long been forgotten, as the present Nepalese officials believe the

word to signify the sthan of Rupa-devi". V. A. Smith said "the name

Rummindei, of which a variant form Rupadei (sic) is known to the hill-men, is

that of the shrine near the top of the mound of ruins". This gives no further

evidence for Fuhrer's assertion, and it appears that neither the Nepalese

officials nor the hill-men called it Rummindei'. 16

The Indian Survey map of 1915 shows the spot

as 'Roman-devi'; it should be noted that another 'Roman-dei' exists about 30

miles WSW of the Nepalese site, near the Indian town of Chandapar. 17 . Today, the site is situated in

the 'Rupandehi District' of Nepal.

The Lumbini Pillar Inscription.

Whatever the event, in December 1896 Fuhrer

met up at this Nepalese 'Rummindei' with the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher

('a man with intrigue in his bones', 18 who having assassinated

one Prime Minister of Nepal and plotted against two others, was eventually

compelled to flee to British India and sanctuary). 19 . The subsequent excavations

around the pillar reportedly disclosed an Asokan inscription about one metre

below ground, and level with the top of a surrounding brick enclosure.

The credit for the discovery of this

inscription later prompted an official enquiry, since Fuhrer had supposedly

left the site - quite inexplicably - immediately before any further excavations

had begun, leaving the Governor and his 'sappers' to do the digging. In his

official letter on the matter, Fuhrer stated that he had advised the Governor

'that an inscription would be found if a search was made below the surface of

the mound' on which the pillar was situated. 20 . Since, as we shall shortly

see, there was no previous historical reference to such an inscription, one

wonders at Fuhrer's remarkable prescience on this occasion. However, since this

inscription forms the real basis for the present identification of this site

with Lumbini, I propose to deal with it in further detail before passing on to

evidences afforded by other features at this location.

The appearance of this inscription in 1896

marked its first recorded appearance in history. The Chinese pilgrims, Fa-hsien

and Yuan-chuang, make no mention of it in their accounts of the Lumbini site

(though Yuan-chuang does mention Asokan inscriptions on pillars at the nearby

towns of Konagamana and Krakuchandra Buddhas) and concerning Kapilavastu and

its associated sites (such as Lumbini) Thomas Watters observed:

'We have no

records of any other pilgrims visiting this place, or of any great Buddhists

residing at it, or of any human life, except that mentioned by the two

pilgrims, between the Buddha's time and the present. No doubt pilgrims went to

the place and worshipped and wrote their names on topes or columns, but they

did not tell of their pilgrimages to the sacred sites nor did others write

their stories for them.' 21

In Watters' book 'On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India'

(prepared from an unpublished manuscript after his death in 1901) the following

statement is made with reference to the Lumbini pillar inscription:

'Yuan-chuang,

as we have seen, mentions a stone pillar, but he does not say anything about an

inscription on it. The Fang-chih, however, tells us that the pillar recorded

the circumstances of Buddha's birth'.

22

The Fang-chih (which is merely a shortened

version of Yuan-chuang's account) does nothing of the sort, since it also

refers to a stone pillar only, and no inscription is mentioned in this text

either. 23 . Watters was referred to by V.

A. Smith as 'one of the most brilliant ornaments' of Chinese Buddhist

scholarship, and it is quite inconceivable that he would have made this

critical and extraordinary error. There are frequent references to the

Fang-chih throughout the rest of Watters' book, and it is evident that he was

perfectly familiar with its contents. Following Smith's earlier assertion that

the Lumbini inscription 'set at rest all doubts as to the exact site of the

traditional birthplace of Gautama Buddha', 24 Watters had retorted that 'it would be more

correct to say that the inscription, if genuine, tells us what was the spot

indicated to Asoka as the birthplace of the Buddha'. 25 . Note that 'if genuine'; this shows

that Watters not only had his doubts

about this inscription, but that he was prepared to voice those doubts in

public. Indeed, according to Smith, 'Mr Watters writes in a very sceptical

spirit, and apparently feels doubts as to the reality of the Sakya principality

in the Tarai'. 26 .

From all this, it is clear that this Fang-chih 'mistake' (which appears to show

Watters giving textual support for this inscription) is totally at variance

with his 'very sceptical spirit' concerning these supposed Tarai discoveries:

and I shall therefore conclude that this was a posthumous interpolation

into Watters' work by its editors, Rhys Davids, Bushell, and Smith (Watters'

original manuscript can no longer be found, I am informed). If this conclusion

is correct, then the reasons behind this appalling deception can only be

guessed at, I need hardly add. 27 .

Fuhrer was later found to have fraudulently laid

claim to the discovery of about twenty relic-caskets at sites close to Lumbini,

which allegedly bore Asokan, and even pre-Asokan inscriptions. 28 . One of these caskets

supposedly contained a tooth-relic of the Buddha, which Fuhrer illicitly

exchanged for various expensive gifts with a Burmese monk, U Ma (the

correspondence between these two makes for lamentable reading, with Fuhrer

exploiting U Ma's gullibility pretty unmercifully). 29 . Following an official enquiry

into the matter, this tooth-relic was found to be 'apparently that of a horse':

Fuhrer had explained its large size to an indignant U Ma by pointing out that

according to 'your sacred writings' the Buddha was nearly thirty feet in height!

 

According to Fuhrer, this 'Buddhadanta' had

been found by a villager inside a ruined brick stupa near Tilaurakot, and was

'enshrined in a bronze casket, bearing the following inscription in Maurya

characters: "This sacred tooth-relic of Lord Buddha (is) the gift of Upagupta"'

(the mentor of Asoka). 30 .

Having obligingly parted with the relic, the villager had refused to part with

the inscribed casket itself 'which is still in his possession'. Fuhrer reported

finding this Asokan item (denounced as spurious by the enquiry) during his

Nepalese visit of December 1896, the selfsame visit which saw his

involvement with the discovery of the Asokan inscription at Lumbini. Even

more ominously, Fuhrer's Progress Report on the Lumbini discovery finds him

excitedly pointing out that the Lumbini inscription includes words which were

supposedly spoken by Upagupta whilst showing Asoka the Buddha's

birth-spot (at least, according to the Divyavadana) :

'It would almost appear as if Asoka had engraved on this pillar the identical

words which Upagupta uttered at this place', Fuhrer tells us, all wide-eyed.

31 . However, what with a phoney

Upagupta quote on the casket, an Upagupta quote on the pillar, and Fuhrer's keen

taste for forging Brahmi inscriptions, one wonders whether Fuhrer himself

didn't have Upagupta fatefully on the brain around this particular period (and

here, we may recall that he had fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to

stone four years earlier: see 'Fuhrer's Early Years'). And indeed, this pillar

inscription 'appeared almost as if freshly cut' when Rhys Davids examined it in

1900, 32 a view echoed by Professors N. Dutt and

K. D. Bajpai, who observed that 'it appears as if the inscription has been very

recently incised' when they examined it fifty years later. 33 . W. C. Peppe's original

article on the Piprahwa events (which reveals that his 1898 JRAS article was

considerably polished and reworked, presumably by the ubiquitous V. A. Smith)

was later privately published at Calcutta (n. d.). In this version, Peppe',

writing of the 'Lumbani' pillar, mentions that 'the rain falling on this pillar

must have trickled over these letters and it is marvellous how well they are

preserved; they stand out boldly as if they had been cut today and show no

signs of the effects of climate; not a portion of the inscription is even

stained'. Inscriptions on other Asokan pillars located at sites associated with

the Buddha's life and ministry - Sarnath and Kosambi, for example - contain no

references to their Buddhist associations, as this pillar so conspicuously (and

twice) does; and no other inscription makes reference to any erection of a

particular pillar by Asoka (as this one does) either. And with the exceptions of Sarnath and Sanchi

(where only broken bases of pillars have been found) all other inscribed Asokan

pillars display six or seven lengthy

inscriptions on each column, whereas this pillar and the Nigliva pillar

display only single brief

inscriptions of 4 -5 lines, and as J. F. Fleet has pointedly observed they are

not really edicts at all. 34.

There is an additional mystery here. As noted above,

Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before the inscription was unearthed.

Yet he had travelled up from Lucknow,

crossed the Tarai to Nigliva (a difficult and laborious undertaking) and then

been further redirected to the 'Rummindei' site, where he had been appointed to

superintend the excavations. The existing accounts state that having finally

arrived at the site, Fuhrer had identified the pillar as Asokan, told Khadga

Shamsher that an inscription would be found after further excavation, and then,

astonishingly, left before the inscription was actually exposed. Given the

momentous significance of these events, this is about as likely as Howard

Carter walking away from the entrance to the tomb of Tutankhamun. Following his

supposed discovery of the Konagamana inscription at Nigliva the previous year,

Fuhrer would have known that this second pillar would then be regarded as the

Lumbini pillar, according to the accounts given by the Chinese pilgrims. So why

then, after several days' arduous efforts to reach this site, would he leave

precisely when he thought that this world-shaking discovery was so close at

hand – a couple of hours' excavation away at most - only to return soon after

it had occurred? V. A. Smith states that Duncan Ricketts, a nearby landowner,

'had the good fortune to be present while the inscription was being unearthed.

Dr Fuhrer arrived a little later' (Smith thus ignoring Fuhrer's earlier presence at the site, before

this exposure occurred). 35 .

However, since there is no reference to Ricketts in the accounts of these

events which were furnished by Fuhrer and Khadga Shamsher, one assumes that

Fuhrer had alerted him to these excavations following this mysterious departure

(Ricketts lived a mere five miles away). So what's to stop Fuhrer from forging

the inscription, filling in, then notifying Ricketts of events at the site (an

action which would have served to remove any subsequent awkward questions on

the matter)? Only this scenario, it seems to me, can serve to explain Fuhrer's

astonishing departure at this historic moment, by far the most important,

indeed, in his entire career.

Fuhrer twice refers to a 'pilgrim's mark' on

the upper part of this pillar, and whilst giving no details of its language,

script, or content, he nevertheless dates it at around 700 AD. He states that

since this item was visible above ground whilst the Asokan inscription lay

hidden beneath the soil, this somehow explains Yuan-chuang's failure to notice

the latter during his visit to Lumbini around 635 AD. 36 . However, since this 'pilgrim's

mark' does not, in fact, exist anyway, this 'explanation' can hardly be said to

apply; and again one wonders - as with the phoney Nigliva stupa – whether

Fuhrer's invention of this item wasn't simply another clumsy attempt to add

credence to the Asokan inscription at this site also. Why else would Fuhrer

invent it?

A further problem would appear to arise with

the occurrence of the term 'Sakyamuni' in this inscription. I can find no other

instance of this term, in this form, in any other Brahmi inscription,

whether Asokan or otherwise; these show 'saka muni', the form 'Sakyamuni' being

found in much later (Kushan) Kharosthi inscriptions only. 37 . Whilst it occurs in the Pali

scriptures, these were written down much later, and as J. F. Fleet observed:

'The

inscriptions of India are the only sure grounds of historical results in every

line of research connected with its ancient past; they regulate everything that

we can learn from coins, architecture, art, literature, tradition, or any other

source.' 38

A similar caution has been expressed by

Richard Salomon:

'...there can

be no question that in Buddhological studies as a whole the testimony of the

inscriptions has not generally been given the weight it merits, and that the

entire field of the history of Buddhism, which has traditionally been dominated

by a strongly text-oriented approach, must be re-examined in its light.' 39

The

Location of the Lumbini Pillar

The pillar at the present Lumbini site is in

the 'wrong' place; that is, it is in a very different position, relative to the

so-called 'Sacred Pool', from that mentioned by Yuan-chuang (and the pillar

rests upon a support-stone, it should be noted here). 40 . According to this pilgrim, a

decayed 'Asoka-flower' tree lay twenty-five paces to

the north of the pool at Lumbini, marking the birth-spot of the Buddha. To the

east of this lay an Asokan stupa, marking the spot where 'two dragons' bathed

the newly-born prince; to the east of this were two more stupas, close to two

springs; to the south of these was another stupa; close to this were four more

stupas; and close to these was the stone pillar itself, broken in half and

lying near to a little 'river of oil'. A little elementary geometry will

disclose that the pillar thus lay - apparently at some distance - to either the

east or to the south-east of the pool. At the present site, however, the pillar

(on its support-stone, remember) stands a mere 75 metres or so to the north-north-west

of the pool, a position diametrically opposed to that given by Yuan-chuang in

his carefully detailed account.

The

Mayadevi Temple

In 1994, I photographed an official notice at

the present Lumbini site (see Fig. 1 )

the text of which ran as follows:

'The famous

Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang says :- "Lumbini is on the

bank of the River Telar where an Asokan pillar (with a split in the centre),

the Mayadevi Temple, the Sacred Tank, and a few stupas are situated".'

Yuan-chuang, alas, makes no such statement,

and like Fa-Hsien, his account makes no mention whatsoever of any 'Mayadevi

Temple' at Lumbini.

He is also, as we have seen, quite specific about the stupas at the site, and

of their significance, and his account mentions only a 'little river of oil',

and not the River Telar (which runs about a kilometre away from the present

site anyway). As for the 'Mayadevi

Temple' itself, I can

find nothing to connect this structure with Lumbini, let alone with anything

specifically Buddhist. Neither pilgrim makes any reference to it in their

Lumbini accounts as I have noted, and the present structure is an entirely

modern affair anyway, beneath which lay the remains of an earlier structure

exposed by P.C. Mukherji in 1899. 41 .

The carved bricks which formed part of this earlier edifice were identical to

those found in structures at the nearby Sivaite sites of Kodan and Sagarwa,

these being dated by Debala Mitra at 'not earlier than the eighth century AD'.

42

Similarly, the sandstone image in this

'temple', supposedly of Mayadevi giving birth to the Buddha, appears equally

dubious on a closer examination of its origins. This bas-relief, in

which the figures are so defaced as to be virtually unrecognizable (see Fig. 5 ) evidently

formed part of the cache of broken statuary which Mukherji found during his

visit to the site in 1899. These items included various figures of Brahmanical

deities such as Varahi, Durga, Parvati and the like, 43 and

it is noted that the supposed image of Mayadevi bears a striking resemblance to

figures of yakshis and devatas also (see Figs. 2-4 ).

It is by no means certain that the all-important top section of this figure

(with its raised arm holding a tree-branch) was originally associated with the

torso, either. When Hoey first saw it in 1897 the figure was headless, the

present top piece having been discovered by Mukherji in 1899, lying among the

broken pieces of statuary mentioned above. During a later visit, Landon noted

that among various examples of Mukherji's careless assembly of these pieces was

one displaying a head of Ganesh wrongly placed on to 'the headless body of a

female deity' 44 (see Fig. 6 ).

Whatever the event, it seems evident that all of these items - the 'Mayadevi'

figure included - were associated with the earlier structure found by Mukherji,

and that they are therefore mediaeval and Brahmanical in consequence.

The

Piprahwa Discoveries

In January 1898, Mr W. C. Peppe', landholder

of the Birdpur Estate in north-eastern Basti District, U. P., announced the

discovery of soapstone relic-caskets and jewellery inside a stupa near

Piprahwa, a small village on this estate. An inscription on one of these caskets

appeared to indicate that bone relics, supposedly found with these items, were

those of the Buddha himself. Since this inscription also referred to the

Buddha's Sakyan kinsmen, these relics were thus generally considered to be

those which were accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, following the Buddha's

cremation.

The following year (1899) these bone relics

were ceremonially presented by the Government of India

to the King of Siam,

who in turn accorded portions to the Sanghas of Burma

and Ceylon.

45.

Concerning this discovery, however, the following points should be noted:

·

Peppe' had been in contact with Fuhrer just

before his announcement of the Piprahwa discovery (Fuhrer was then excavating

nearby, at the Nepalese site of Sagarwa). 46 . Immediately following Peppe's

announcement, it was discovered that Fuhrer had been conducting a steady trade

in bogus relics of the Buddha with a Burmese monk, U Ma. Among these items –and a year before the

alleged Piprahwa finds - Fuhrer had sent U Ma a soapstone relic-casket

containing fraudulent Buddha-relics of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, together with

bogus Asokan inscriptions, these deceptions thus duplicating, at an earlier

date, every important detail of Peppe's supposedly unique Piprahwa finds.

47 . Fuhrer was also found to have

falsely laid claim to the discovery of seventeen inscribed 'pre-Asokan' caskets

at Sagarwa, his report even listing the names of seventeen 'Sakya heroes' which

were allegedly inscribed upon these caskets. 48 . The inscribed Piprahwa casket

was also considered to be both Sakyan and pre-Asokan at this time - though its

characters have since been shown to be typically Asokan - and no other

pre-Asokan Sakyan caskets have been discovered either before or since this

date.

·

the bone

relics themselves, purportedly 2500 years old, 'might have been picked up a few

days ago' according to Peppe', 49 whilst a

molar tooth found among these items (and retained by Peppe') has

recently been found to be that of a pig.

Though this latter item was unable to be carbon-dated, a bone from a bird's

foot (also retained by Peppe) has been carbon-dated to the 15th

century AD (on this point, see the references to Sagarwa in refs. 42 and 50).

·

despite their dark, heavily-mottled

appearance in 1898, the Piprahwa relic caskets - apart from the inscribed item

– have since become bleached to a uniform dull white (soapstone colours do not

fade) and are evidently plaster copies of caskets found by Cunningham at Sanchi

(see Figs. 7-12 ). A photograph of the 'rear' of the

inscribed casket, taken in situ at Piprahwa in 1898 (and never published

thereafter) discloses that a large sherd was missing from the base of the

vessel at this time (see Fig.

8 ). Having examined

this casket in 1994, I discovered that a piece had since been inserted into

this broken base (though the join had obviously been 'nibbled' in a rather

clumsy attempt to get the inset piece to fit). The photograph also reveals a

curious feature on the upper aspect of the casket; this, I discovered, was a

piece of sealing-wax (since transferred to the inside) which had been applied

to prevent a large crack from running further. From all this, it is evident

that this casket had been badly damaged from the start, a fact unmentioned in

any report. But is it likely, one is prompted to ask, that this damaged

casket, supposedly containing the Buddha's relics, would have been reverently

deposited inside the stupa anyway? Or is this the broken casket, 'similar in

shape to those found below', which was reportedly found at the summit of the

stupa, and which promptly vanished without trace thereafter? This broken (summit) casket was the

earliest of the alleged Piprahwa finds : so did Peppe

take it to Fuhrer, and did Fuhrer then forge the inscription on it? Is the Piprahwa inscription, in fact,

merely another Fuhrer forgery? Epigraphists

with whom I have raised this question have argued that Fuhrer did not have the

necessary expertise for such a deception; but in his position as Assistant

Editor on the Epigraphia Indica, Fuhrer would have been at the very cutting

edge of palaeographical studies at this time, quite apart from his close

association with the great epigraphist, Georg Buhler. Furthermore, H. R. Dani

has drawn attention to both the carelessness and crudity of this inscription's

execution, and there are distinct peculiarities in some of the characters also.

50 .

·

on his return

to the U.K.,

Peppe' was contacted by the London

Buddhist Society, and agreed to answer readers' questions on his finds. Shortly

afterwards however, the Society was notified that Peppe' had suddenly been

taken seriously ill, and was therefore unable to answer questions as proposed.

The Society declared the matter to be 'in abeyance' in consequence; but Peppe'

died six years later, leaving all such questions still unanswered. 51

·

the

declassified 'Secret' political files of the period reveal the disquiet felt by

the Government of India

over French and Russian influence at the Siamese royal court at this time.

Hence, no doubt, this bequest! 52 .

If this 1898 find is spurious, then it is

evident that any later claims for this site may be safely dismissed in

consequence. In 1972 an Indian

archaeologist, K. M. Srivastava, made the startling claim to have discovered

yet further relics of the Buddha in a 'primary mud stupa' below the

Peppe' one. He then stated that since

the Peppe bone relics could not be safely determined to be those of the Buddha

(due to the 'indiscriminate destruction' caused by Peppe's excavation) the

inscribed casket of 1898 somehow 'pointed' to those relics allegedly found

lower down, and that these were the real relics

of the Buddha, as mentioned by the casket's inscription. This somewhat bizarre

notion thus rests upon the notion that the 1898 casket is genuine, but since we

have already noted that Fuhrer had earlier fraudulently duplicated Peppe's

find, then this later claim becomes equally unreliable in consequence. I also

note that Srivastava makes no mention, in any of his various books or articles

on his alleged finds, of the 1898 bequest to Siam : naturally, one wonders why. 53 .

The

Kapilavastu of the Chinese Pilgrims

It is thus with a certain sense of relief that

one finally turns to the testimonies of the two Chinese pilgrims, Fa-Hsien and

Yuan-Chuang, who are the only really reliable guides that we have to the

whereabouts of the Kapilavastu and Lumbini locations. After all, not only did these pilgrims

actually visit these sites (in the 5th and 7th centuries AD) but their

accounts reveal precisely how they got there also. These accounts remain the

Rosetta Stone, as it were, on the whereabouts of ancient Indian Buddhist sites,

and without them much of Indian history would have remained a closed book, as

Cunningham and others have gratefully acknowledged.

Now the pilgrims' accounts are in perfect

agreement as to the location of Kapilavastu (and since, I shall repeat, they

both actually went there, then this

surely renders any further argument superfluous on the matter). From the city of Sravasti,

both pilgrims place Kapilavastu in a south-easterly direction, and at a

distance of 500 li (Yuan-chuang) or 12 yojanas (Fa-Hsien). This is about 84

miles. Yet neither of the present identifications for Kapilavastu shows the

slightest accordance with these perfectly plain indications. Piprahwa lies east

of Sravasti at about 55 miles or so, whilst Tilaurakot lies

east-north-east at about the same distance. V. A. Smith, having

acknowledged the impossibility of reconciling these locations with the

pilgrims' accounts, 54 attempted

to solve the problem by relocating Sravasti itself to an area near Balapur, ten

miles north-east of Nepalganj. 55 .

Later excavations confirmed Cunningham's identification of Sravasti with the

Sahet-Mahet site however, 56 and this intractable problem has

remained ever since (though discreetly ignored by all subsequent researchers,

it would appear). Here, it should be pointed out that prior to Fuhrer's

Nepalese identifications, most researchers, following the pilgrims' directions,

had placed Kapilavastu somewhere in the south-eastern area of Basti District

(an area, like the adjoining Gorakhpur District, rich in ancient Buddhist

sites, still largely unexcavated and unexplored).

Before proceeding further, it will be

necessary to point out that of the original Kapilavastu site,

most archaeological traces will have long since disappeared anyway. As

Professor Herbert Härtel has pointed out:

'The hope to

recover the original structures and ruins of a town or habitation of the time

of the Buddha, let us say Kapilavastu, is almost zero'. 57

The problem being that the earliest burnt

brick buildings found in India date to the second century BCE (with the

exception of the Harappan sites, which need not concern us here) and any

earlier remains would have long since returned to clay in consequence. This

being so, one is compelled to rely upon whatever local traditions may tell us,

and this in an area where following the extinction of Buddhism, and successive

Islamic and Rajput depredations, all threads of any such traditions disappeared

as the sites were abandoned to the jungle. Astonishingly, however, one such

tradition appears to have survived; and I propose to examine this in detail,

since it would appear to hold what may prove to be the key to the Kapilavastu

problem at last.

Will

the Real Kapilavastu Please Stand Up?

At the correct distance from Sravasti

(about 84 miles), and in the right direction also (south-east) lies the

pilgrimage site of Maghar, about sixteen miles west of Gorakhpur. At present

this site is visited by Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim pilgrims, since it is said to

mark the final resting-place of the great poet/saint Kabir, who died at this

spot in 1518 AD or thereabouts. Kabir's sayings disclose that he had not only

received spiritual enlightenment at Maghar, but that he had also elected to die

there, in deliberate defiance of contemporary Brahmin teachings. 58 . These declared that Maghar was

'accursed', and held that whilst dying in Varanasi assured rebirth in heaven,

death at 'barren' Maghar meant rebirth in hell, or as an ass, etc. Such dire

fulminations from the Varanasi Brahmins against the Maghar site - a full 200

kms. distant - constitute a sure indication that

Maghar represented an important rival religious site which they found it

necessary to discredit. But why should anyone have wished to die at Maghar

anyway? The answer is not far to seek. According to Buddhist tradition, 'the

Buddha was, after his parinirvana, in some sense actually present at the

places where he is known to have formerly been', and 'a devout death that

occurred within the range of this presence assured for the individuals involved

- and these were both monks and laymen - rebirth in heaven'. 59 . Since, as we shall now see,

there is compelling evidence to show that Maghar was once the site of Kapilavastu

itself, then the reason for people electing to die there then becomes

abundantly clear, as, indeed, does Brahmin hostility towards this place.

For A. C. L. Carlleyle, who did archaeological

tours of this area in the 1870s, tells us not only that the Maghar site is

'very ancient', but that it was 'reputed to have been the seat of Buddhist

hierarchs for some time after Kapilavastu was destroyed'. 60 .

Kapilavastu was destroyed during the Buddha's lifetime, by the king of Sravasti;

yet despite this catastrophe, when the Chinese pilgrims visited the Kapilavastu

site a thousand years later, they still found Buddhist monks in residence there

(and given the site's importance, one might safely assume that these would have

included 'Buddhist hierarchs'). 61 .

One also notes 'the prominent association of this place (Maghar) with Buddhism'

62 (including Buddhism in its later,

so-called 'concealed' forms, such as Nathism, Tantricism, etc) together with

the curious tradition that with the arrival of Kabir, a dried-up local stream

began to flow once more. This is more likely to refer to the reawakening, at

Maghar, of the anti-Brahmanical, anti-caste tradition of Buddhism by the similar

teachings of Kabir, one feels, than to any sudden and supernatural antics of

the local River Ami. And just who, one wonders, was the protective 'Lord' of

the (Buddhist) Tharus - the earliest

recorded inhabitants of Maghar - whose place of worship (beneath a tree) was

called the 'Thakur-dih', or high place of the Lord, but upon whose name

'tradition is silent'? 63 .

According to D.C. Sen ('History of Bengali Language and Literature') the

worshippers of 'Thakur' were a Buddhist sect, and the word was applied to the

image of the Buddha. 64. On

visiting the 'Thakur-dih' site in 2005, I was twice informed by local sources

that Chinese travellers had visited the place long ago, and that they had

stayed in the area for a while. I also noted the presence of ancient bricks.

Whatever the event, it is evident that Maghar

was formerly a major Buddhist site, and one which was reputedly occupied

by important Buddhist monks after Kapilavastu had been destroyed. We have

direct historical evidence, from Kabir, that people were still electing to die

at this place following the demise of Indian Buddhism, and whilst the Varanasi

Brahmins declared that dying at Maghar meant rebirth in hell, Buddhists

believed that to die in a place associated with the Buddha's historical

presence meant rebirth in heaven. Local tradition states that Maghar was

visited by Chinese travellers long ago, and its position accords precisely with

that which was given by both of the Chinese pilgrims for the location of

Kapilavastu itself. So what else could this place be, if not the actual site

of Kapilavastu itself?

Lumbini

 

From the palace-city of Kapilavastu,

Yuan-chuang travelled to the Arrow Well. He states that this lay 32 li (between

5-6 miles) to the southeast of the city, a bearing which accords with that

which is given by Fa-hsien. From here, Yuan-chuang travelled '80 or 90 li

north-east' to the Lumbini Garden - about 15 miles - though he gives no direct distance between Kapilavastu and

Lumbini. Fa-hsien, however, states that he went directly from Kapilavastu '50

li east' to Lumbini (about nine miles), but this distance is impossible to

reconcile with Yuan-chuang's triangulation. If Yuan-chuang's bearings are

correct - and they are usually more precise than those of Fa-hsien - then

Lumbini must have been just a few miles further on.

According to the Buddhist scriptures, the

Rohini River constituted the border between the neighbouring Sakyan clans of

Kapilavastu and the Koliyans, and the Lumbini pleasure-park was used by both

clans for their mutual

recreation. From this it would appear that they thus regarded Lumbini as a

territorially 'neutral' site, which presumably, therefore, lay on or close to

this river border. 65 .

 

'About one

and-a-half miles to the north-west of Gorakhpur, close to the junction of the

Rohini with the Rapti, is a large and high mound, the ruins of the ancient

Domangarh, said to have been founded by, and to have received the name from, a

ruling tribe called Dom-kattar. The bricks which compose the interior or oldest

portion of the ruins of Domangarh are very large and thick, and of a square

shape. During the construction of the Bengal and North-West Railway, in 1884, a

relic-casket was discovered near this khera containing an amulet of thin

plate gold, representing Yasodhara and Rahula, the wife and son of prince

Siddhartha, as well as the ornaments of a child. The relics are deposited in

Lucknow Provincial Museum.' 66

Since this deposit obviously predates the

mediaeval fort at this khera (mound) it is evident that Domangarh

(nowadays Domingarh) was formerly an ancient Buddhist site, and the interment

of a relic-casket there shows that it was a place of Buddhist sanctity also

(there are stupa remains still present at the site). The representations on the

amulet are of interest, whilst the large size and square shape of the oldest

bricks strongly suggest that they are Mauryan, and may therefore be part of the

Asokan stupa mentioned by Yuan-chuang at Lumbini (on this point, see

ref.70). Kushan terracottas (1st -

3rd centuries AD) and Northern Black Polished Ware (500-100 BCE)

have also been discovered at the site, these artefacts being housed in the

Purvayatan Museum at Gorakhpur University. 67. These latter finds thus push the dating of this site's

occupation back to a very ancient period indeed, the NBP Ware finds being

possibly contemporaneous with the Buddha himself.

Domingarh lies about 14 miles east of Maghar,

bearings which accord acceptably with those travelled by Yuan-chuang between

Kapilavastu and Lumbini. Its position also accords precisely with the bearing –

about 35 miles east - to the pilgrims' next place of visit, which was

that of the Rama Stupa (which I take to be the Ramabhar Stupa, for reasons

given below) and it is, indeed, directly en route from Maghar to this stupa.

The site lies on the Rohini river - there are no other ancient sites along its

banks - and since it formerly became an island during the rains, it would thus

have been accepted as a 'neutral' recreational place by the two Sakyan clans in

consequence. It is still a pleasant place to visit, being on a slightly

elevated stretch of ground with fresh air and good views, and local Europeans

even built a sanatorium - a place of healing - upon it, and would also repair

to it for purposes of recreation. Close to it, curiously, is a village called

Koliya, and the great mediaeval saint, Gorakhnath (whom many regard as a crypto-Buddhist)

chose a nearby site for his ashram. During a recent visit to the site, a friend

was informed by locals that Domingarh was named after a queen

: this may link with Yuan-chuang's version of 'Lumbini' as

'La-fa-ni' ('beautiful woman') whilst other accounts state that Lumbini was

named after a Koliyan queen. 68.

The

Rama Stupa

Both pilgrims report that having left the

Lumbini Garden, they travelled east 200 li / 5 yojanas (about 35 miles) to

'Lan-mo' (Rama) where they found an Asokan stupa, with its attendant vihara,

situated beside a lake. Earlier traditions regarding the Rama stupa are

mentioned by both pilgrims in considerable detail. One of these traditions

declared that it was the only stupa containing original relics of the Buddha

which had remained unrifled by Asoka, whilst another tradition held that wild

elephants had repeatedly paid homage at the stupa with gifts of flowers. 69

Taking Domingarh as Lumbini, we find the Kasia

site about 35 miles due east. By far the oldest structure at

this site - the bricks are deemed to be Asokan 70 -

is that of the Ramabhar Stupa, which, like the Rama stupa, is situated beside a

lake. 71.

Whilst this name – 'Ramabhar' – has always been a puzzle to scholars, I take it

to signify the stupa of Rama and its

attendant vihara 72

(since 'bhar/bihar' = 'vihara'). 73. At this site, a life-size statue

of a seated Buddha (the so-called 'Matha-Kuar') once bore an inscription - now

abraded - which began with the words 'Rama rupa' (a rupa being an image

of the Buddha). 74.

In excavations of 1904-5 a plaque was discovered, also bearing a seated Buddha,

showing a row of elephants carrying flowers, precisely as depicted in

the tradition mentioned by the pilgrims for the Rama stupa. 75. Very few of the kind of votive

offerings which were found at the Ramabhar stupa were found elsewhere at the

Kasia remains, a fact which attests to the stupa's position as the central

sacred feature at this site. 76. Since, as previously mentioned, the Rama stupa's

Buddha-relic was left untouched by Asoka, this would signify the Buddha's

'parinirvanic presence' at Kasia, 77 thus explaining the 'parinirvana'

statue, the 'parinirvana' copperplate, and the sealings of the 'monastery of

the Mahaparinirvana', all of which were found at this location. At present,

Kasia is identified with the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died; but if

this identification is correct, and we backtrack from Kasia using the pilgrims'

accounts, we shall then find Kapilavastu situated somewhere northwest of

Allahabad, and Sravasti located northwest of Lucknow. Nobody, I trust, would

seriously attempt to support such proposals.

From

Rama to Kusinara

From the Rama Stupa, both pilgrims travelled

100 li / 3 yojanas (about 21 miles) east to the spot where Siddhartha sent back

his charioteer, Khanna, following the flight from the palace. The scriptures

state that the prince left by the eastern gate of Kapilavastu at midnight, and

having finally crossed the Anoma River at daybreak, he thus found safety within

the neighbouring kingdom of the Mallas. Having instructed Khanna to return to

Kapilavastu, the prince then cut his hair, changed his royal robes for those of

an ascetic, and spent the following week at a nearby mango-grove before heading

south.

Both of the Chinese pilgrims appear to have

followed the prince's escape route from Kapilavastu, and their accounts reveal

that not only had Siddhartha travelled directly eastwards to reach this place of renunciation, but that in doing so he had

left both his father's domain, and also – rather daringly - crossed Koliya, the

domain of his in-laws. Since both of these Sakyan territories were then part of

Kosala (and were thus, in turn, subject to the rule of the king of Sravasti) it

would appear that the young prince had resolved to leave Kosala entirely, and

to flee to a place from which he could not be compelled to return. Authorities are agreed that the eastern

border of Kosala was then the Great Gandak river. From the Rama Stupa the Chinese pilgrims

travelled 3 yojanas / 100 li (21 miles) eastwards to this place of

renunciation, and since this distance and direction equate precisely with those

from the Ramabhar Stupa to the Great Gandak, it seems evident enough that this

great river border was indeed the Anoma River of the scriptures.

Kusinara

From this place, both pilgrims travelled 180

li / 4 yojanas southeast to the Ashes Stupa of the Moriyas of Pipphalivana, and

from there, having travelled through a 'great forest' (Yuan-chuang) they

arrived at the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died. Now whilst Fa-hsien

gives '12 yojanas east' (about 84 miles) from the Ashes Stupa to the Kusinara

site, Yuan-chuang, contrary to his usual custom, gives no distance, but

corrects Fa-hsien's direction to 'northeast'. This overall distance/direction

is confirmed by the 'Fang-chih' moreover, which gives 500 li northeast - also

about 84 miles - for this journey. 78. These bearings take us straight

to the ancient Champaran area of north-western Bihar,

an historically fascinating area, now sadly

strife-torn and neglected, which nevertheless 'presents an immense field for

research' according to V. A. Smith.

The Champaran gazetteer, whilst referring to

what I take to be the 'great forest' crossed by Yuan-chuang, also mentions

Champaran's glorious Vedic past:

'Legendary

history, local tradition, the names of places and archaeological remains, all

point to a prehistoric past. Local tradition asserts that in the early ages

Champaran was a dense primeval forest, in whose solitude Brahman hermits

studied the aranyakas, which, as their name implies, were to be read in

silvan retreats; and the name Champaran itself is said to be derived from the

fact that the district was formerly one vast forest ( aranya ) of Champa

(magnolia) trees.... it was a place of retreat for Hindu ascetics, where,

removed from worldly ambitions, they could contemplate the Eternal Presence in

the silence of a vast untrodden forest. Various parts of the district are

connected by ancient tradition with many of the great Hindu rishis ...

such as Valmiki, in whose hermitage Sita, the banished spouse of Rama, is said to have taken shelter. This great sage is

reputed to have resided near Sangrampur, and the village is believed to be

indebted for its name (which means the city of the battle) to the famous fight

between Rama and his two sons, Lava and Kusha ... it seems probable that

Champaran was occupied at an early period by races of Aryan descent, and formed

part of the country in which the Videhas settled … and founded a great and

powerful kingdom. This kingdom was in course of time ruled over by king Janaka .... under his rule

according to Hindu mythology, the kingdom of Mithila was the most civilized in India. His court was a centre of learning, and attracted

all the most learned men of the time; Vedic literature was enriched by the

studies of the scholars who flocked there; his chief priest, Yajnavalkya,

inaugurated the stupendous task of revising the Yajur Vedas; and the

speculations of the monarch himself, enshrined in the sacred works called the

Upanishads, are still cherished by the Hindu community.' 79

These details perhaps recall that in response

to Ananda's plea not to die in this 'little wattle-and-daub town' of Kusinara,

the Buddha replied that 'long ago' - also a reference to Vedic times - Kusinara

had once been a great royal city called Kushavati. 80. The Champaran area is noted for

having what are believed to be the only Vedic remains ever discovered in India

(thought to be royal tombs) at the site of Lauriya Nandangarh, where an Asokan

pillar also stands. Here several great burial mounds were found, in one of

which was discovered an iron coffin containing 'unusually long' bones,

presumably of some ancient warrior-king. 81. I believe that this was the

region into which the young Gautama had earlier disappeared, seeking wisdom

from its forest rishis, and that it was also the area towards which he

later struggled, despite sickness and pain, as his deliberately-chosen place to

die. There is compelling evidence to show that this event - the parinibbana,

or passing-away of the Buddha - occurred at the Champaran site of Rampurva,

near the present Indo-Nepalese border. 82

Both pilgrims agree with the Mahaparinibbana

Sutta in stating that the Buddha died on the bank of the river Hiranyavati (or Ajitavati)

between two sal trees, Yuan-chuang adding that Asoka had commemorated the spot

with a stone pillar. 83.

This pillar Yuan-chuang locates four li - about a kilometre - northwest of what

still remained of the town of Kusinara at the time of his visit. Another stone

pillar was located to the north of the town, and marked the place of the

Buddha's cremation; this pillar he places '300 paces' from the river's edge. 84. He also

mentions a 'yellowish-black' soil at the site, which he believed might contain

relics. 85

The Asokan site of Rampurva still awaits

proper excavation, most of it having disappeared beneath the alluvial deposits

left by successive inundations from a nearby large river. 86. This river I take to be the one mentioned by the

Chinese pilgrims. When they were discovered in 1877, the two Asokan pillars at

this site were situated 300 yards apart (precisely as indicated by Yuan-chuang

for those pillars seen at Kusinara) and were also placed in similar bearings to

those given by this pilgrim, one being situated slightly to the west of the

other. 87.

The pilgrims mention only two sites at which two Asokan pillars were found -

those of Sravasti and Kusinara - and Rampurva is the only site in India where there are two Asokan pillars to be seen

(there are none, I should add, at Kasia). The so-called 'Southern Pillar' at the Rampurva site I therefore

take to mark the place of the parinibbana, whilst the 'Northern Pillar'

marked the Buddha's cremation-spot. At the time of its discovery, the former

pillar was situated, between two mounds; these I take to mark the locations of

the two sal trees. 88.

The material which covered these mounds was a yellowish kankar, or lime,

not known in this vicinity (it was also found in the Lauriya Nandangarh mounds

mentioned above); this I take to be the curious 'yellowish-black soil'

mentioned by Yuan-chuang at the Kusinara site. 89. Sir John Marshall declared that

the 'Southern Pillar' at Rampurva (on which no inscription has been found)

'appears to have been wilfully mutilated, perhaps with the purpose of

destroying some inscription on it'. Should Marshall's observation be

correct, then I shall assume that this deed was perpetrated by later enemies of

Buddhism who believed, as Yuan-chuang's guides evidently did, that it mentioned

the details of the Buddha's final passing at this spot. 90.

Finally, I note that Fa-hsien gives 12 yojanas

- about 84 miles - as the distance between Kusinara and a stone pillar near

Vaishali. If this refers to the famous Asokan lion-pillar near this place (and

no other pillar has been found near there) 91 then this distance matches that

between Rampurva and Vaishali, the corresponding distance from Vaishali to the

Kasia site (60- 65 miles) being much too short. V. A. Smith noted that

Yuan-chuang 'expressly states that Vaishali lay on the road from Pataliputra to

Nepal. Basar (Vaishali) lies on the ancient royal road from the capital

(Pataliputra) to Nepal, marked by three of Asoka's pillars, which passed

Kesariya, Lauriya Araraj, Betiya, Lauriya-Nandangarh, Chankigarh, and Rampurva,

entering the hills by the Bhikna Thori Pass' 92 (and thereby traversing the

ancient Mithila kingdom also, of which this portion of the Tarai once formed

part). This 'ancient royal road' is quite clearly marked, with a double broken

dotted line, on the 1 " to 1 mile Survey of India maps. It was, I believe,

the ancient via regis that was trodden by the

Buddha to Kusinara (Rampurva), the same route being followed thereafter by

Asoka, and later, by the Chinese pilgrims themselves.

© 2007, T. A . Phelps. All rights and permissions reserved.

Any comments on this paper would be most

welcome. Please direct them to: taphelken

References

1.

H. Luders, 'On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum', Journal of the

Royal Asiatic Society (UK) 1912, fn., p. 167. Fuhrer was then Assistant Editor

(to Burgess) on the Epigraphia Indica. See ref. 4 also.

2. Proceedings of the Government of the North-Western

Provinces and Oudh, Public Works Department, B. & R. Branch,

'Miscellaneous', Aug. 1899, Proceeding no. 100 (India Office Library, London).

3. A. A. Fuhrer, 'The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur'

(1889), Archaeological Survey of India Reports (New Imperial Series) Vol. 11,

p. 69.

4. See ref. 1, pp. 161-8. Luders neglects to mention that Fuhrer had

supplied Buhler with the details of these and other inscriptions – almost 400

in all – for Buhler's assessment in the Epigraphia Indica, and epigraphists

will now have the unenviable task of establishing the authenticity of these

items. Immediately following Fuhrer's exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake

Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically

endorsed all of Fuhrer's supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder

whether this tragedy was accidental.

5. See ref. 1 (Luders) pp. 176-79, and 'Catalogue of

Archaeological Exhibits in the United Provinces Museum, Lucknow' (Part 1 :

Inscriptions) by Pandit Hirananda Shastri,

1915, fn. 4, p. 39.

6. 'The Pioneer', Allahabad, 15th September, 1893, p. 3 ; J. Burgess, 'The

Academy' (London) 44 (October 14th, 1893) p. 324 ; Annual

Progress Report (Fuhrer) Arch. Survey, N. -W. P. & Oudh Circle, y/e 1894, para. 22 ; and P.

C. Mukherji, 'A Report on a Tour of

Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal', Archaeological Survey of India Reports, New Imperial Series, Vol. 26 (1901) p. 2 ( not of V. A. Smith's 'Prefatory Note' to this work)

..

7. Annual Progress Reports, Archaeological Survey, N.

-W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section, y/e 1895 and 1897. It would appear from these accounts that

Singh had redirected Fuhrer to Nigliva (where Singh owned some villages) at

this time. But if so, then why did Singh revise his original - and quite

specific – report so drastically? The first notification of Singh's alleged

find was by Fuhrer (see ref. 6, 'The Pioneer', 1893). According to this report,

Singh had discovered an Asokan 'lion-pillar' near Bairat, a village 21 miles

inside Nepal, which was supposed to bear all of of the seven known Asokan

pillar inscriptions, as well as two new ones in a new script. Fuhrer even gave

details of the contents of these two

exciting new inscriptions, which were supposedly 'addressed to the Buddhist

clergy of the Visas, the early predecessors of the Bais of Nepal'. All this

was, of course, complete nonsense, and the subsequent pillar at Nigliva bore

not the slightest resemblance to this 'lion-pillar' with its nine Asokan

inscriptions (which has never been found, I need hardly add). But why didn't

Singh himself promptly protest the untruthfulness of this report when it

appeared in the 'Pioneer'? Since this newspaper was noted for its links to

intelligence, and Singh was a relative of the Maharajah of Balrampur (a

powerful zamindari family which had

aided the British during the Mutiny) one wonders whether this item was perhaps

some sort of plant, designed to further imperial 'forward' interests in Nepal.

Whatever the event, this phony discovery paved the way for all the other

alleged Asokan discoveries in the Nepalese Tarai ('Rummindei' included) but an

increasingly paranoid Nepalese Government eventually closed the lid on these

archaeological intrusions into its territory, and the border became firmly

closed to all such 'surveys' shortly thereafter (cf. Smith's fulminations on

the matter in the JRAS (UK) 1897, pp. 619-21).

8. Ibid, y/e 1895, p. 1. See also 'Notes and News', pp.

691-2, JRAS (UK) 1895.

9. 'A Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's Birthplace', by

A. A. Fuhrer (1897) Arch. Surv. of Northern India Reports, Vol. 6,

p. 25 (reprinted in Varanasi (1972) as 'Antiquities of Buddha Sakyamuni's

Birthplace'). See also ref. 8, p. 2.

10. See ref. 6, Smith's 'Prefatory Note' to Mukherji's

report, fn., p. 4.

11. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, Proceedings nos. 90-91, pp.

29-33 (India Office Library, London). The same details are also disclosed in

the Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue &

Agriculture, Archaeology & Epigraphy, April 1899, File no. 6 ; see

'Enclosure 1' (Report) of letter no. 53A, and also letter no. 41A in this file.

(National Archives of India, New Delhi). This report by Waddell and Hoey, detailing the

results of their own (1899) excursion into the Tarai, exposes the 'appalling

audacity of invention' displayed by Fuhrer regarding many of his supposed Tarai

discoveries, and led to the Government suppression of his 'Monograph on Buddha

Sakyamuni's Birthplace' shortly thereafter.

In a letter accompanying this report, Waddell stated that the alleged

stupa of Konagamana 'did not in reality exist - it was a pure fabrication to

reconcile this false identification with the descriptions of the Chinese

pilgrims'. There is, however, good reason to believe that the deception also

extended to the inscription itself. Hoey

stated that following his appointment at nearby Gorakhpur in 1892, he had

'employed an agent who travelled over these parts and the Nepal Tarai, and

brought me notes of the pillar at Nigali Sagar and other remains including

Piprahwa and Rumindei'. In 1893 Hoey

befriended Khadga Shamsher, the Governor of this Tarai area, who 'sent me

rubbings from pillars, but these were not of Asoka lettering'. From this it is evident that since Hoey knew

about the Nigliva pillar before Fuhrer's arrival (and according to

Fuhrer this pillar was 'known far and wide to the people of the Tarai') it is

also evident that it would have been included in Khadga Shamsher's earlier

examinations on Hoey's behalf. But

whereas Shamsher found no Asokan inscription in 1893, Fuhrer supposedly arrived

at Nigliva in 1895 and found an inscription 'visible above ground', and without

any need for excavation. And if, as

Fuhrer states, the local villagers were aware of this inscription also, then why

hadn't they alerted the Governor to its presence during his earlier examination of the site?

12. See ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph

) pp. 33-4.

13. See ref. 7, y/e 1896, p. 2.

 

14. 'The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha', by V. A. Smith,

JRAS (UK) 1897, fn., p. 617.

15. 'The Rummindei Inscription', by V. A. Smith, Indian

Antiquary, Vol. 34 (1905) p. 1.

16. 'The Life of Buddha', by E. J. Thomas (1927) fn., p.

18.

17. See ref. 6, pp. 4, 43, and Plate 1. See also V. A.

Smith, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological Survey Circle, N. -W. P. &

Oudh, y/e 1899, p. 8.

18. 'Nepal', by Perceval Landon (1928) Vol. 2, p. 76.

19. 'Nepal under the Ranas', by Adrian Sever (1993) p.

469. See also 'Princess', by Vijayaraje Scindia (1985) pp. 5-8.

20. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, proc. no. 12 (p. 5).

21. 'Kapilavastu in the Buddhist Books', by Thomas

Watters, JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 563.

22. 'On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India', by Thomas

Watters, Vol. 2 (1905) p. 17.

23. 'She-Kia-Fang-Che', trans. by P. C. Bagchi

(Calcutta, 1959) p. 69. A Sinologist, who has consulted a recent Chinese

variorum of the Fang-chih, assures me that Bagchi's translation, whilst 'not

very good', is nevertheless correct upon this most important point.

24. See ref. 14 (Smith) p. 619.

25. See ref. 21 (Watters) p. 547.

26. See ref. 6 (Smith's 'Prefatory Note') p. 17.

27. In the Preface to Watters'

book, Rhys Davids writes that 'We have thought it best to leave Mr Watters's

Ms. untouched, and to print the work as it stands'. This statement was a

demonstrable lie. Rhys Davids was evidently unaware that Watters had already

published a considerable portion of this work in an earlier series of articles

entitled 'the Shadow of a Pilgrim' (there are online extracts from these) in

'The China Review', Vols. 18-20 (1890-92). A comparison of the text of these

articles with that of the book discloses that these posthumous editors of

Watters had, in fact, substantially tampered with his original text, omitting

entire paragraphs and radically rearranging others. Unfortunately, these 'China Review' articles

stop just short of Yuan-chuang's account of his visit to the Kapilavastu area,

so we will never know (unless his original manuscript is found) just exactly

what Watters did write in this

subsequent section of his work. My

enquiries have been both wide and extensive as to the whereabouts of this

missing manuscript, but alas, have drawn a perfect blank.

28. A. A. Fuhrer, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological

Survey, N. -W. P. & Oudh Circle. y/e 1898, p. 2. See also ref. 6 (Smith's 'Prefatory Note' to Mukherji's report) p.

4, and also ref. 17 (Smith, Ann. Prog. Rep. 1899) pp. 1-2.

29. Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department

of Revenue & Agriculture (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898, File

no. 24 of 1898, Proceedings nos. 7-10. (National Archives of India, New Delhi).

30. Ibid. See also ref. 6 (Smith's

'Prefatory Note' to Mukherji's report) p. 4.

31. See ref. 7, y/e 1897, p. 3; and ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph ) Chapter 5, concluding paragraph.

32. 'Lumbini', by T. W. Rhys Davids, 'Encyclopaedia of

Religion & Ethics', Vol. 8, p. 196.

33. 'Development of Buddhism in Uttar Pradesh', by N.

Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, (Lucknow, 1956) p. 330.

34. 'Asokan Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence (2)',

by John Irwin, Burlington Magazine, Vol. 126, p. 714 (Dec. 1974) ; J. F. Fleet, 'The Rummindei Inscription and the

Conversion of Asoka to Buddhism', JRAS (UK) 1908, p. 472.

35. 'The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha', by V. A. Smith,

JRAS (UK) 1897, p. 618.

36. See ref. 9, pp. 27-8, and Fuhrer's Annual Progress

Report, Archaeological Survey, N. -W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section,

y/e 1897, pp. 3-4. This is not, of course, the 12 th

century Tapu Malla inscription near the top of the pillar, nor the Tibetan 'Om Mani Padme Hum' inscription close to it.

37. See entry 'Sakyamuni (= Saka-muni)' in H. Luders, 'A

List of Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to About 400 A.D. with the

Exception of Those of Asoka': Epigraphia Indica 10, p. 197. The only other

early inscriptions containing the form 'Sakyamuni' appear to be those of the

Kurram Casket ('Sakyamunisa') and the Wardak Vase ('Sakyamune'). Both of these

inscriptions have been dated to the 1st-2nd century A. D., were written in the

Kharoshthi script, and were found in Afghanistan. The term 'silavigadabhi'

which occurs in this pillar inscription also appears to have baffled all

attempts at translation thus far. Fuhrer himself stated that 'Vigadabhi

is equivalent to the Sanskrit vigardabhi "not so

uncouth as an ass," i.e., a horse; it is a compound adjective, qualifying sila'

(ref. 9, p. 34). However, since no Sanskritist that I have approached has ever

even heard of 'vigardabhi' (let alone agree that it could remotely be

translated as "not so uncouth as an ass") I can only surmise that Fuhrer

perhaps intended this absurd 'translation' as some sort of bizarre private gibe

towards his detractors at this time.

38. J. F. Fleet, 'Inscriptions', Encyclopaedia

Britannica, Vol. 14, 11th edn. (1911) p. 622.

39. 'Indian Epigraphy', by Richard Salomon (1998) p.

242.

40. See article (in Nepali) by Tara Nanda Mitra,

published in the Saturday supplement to the 'Gorkhapatra' newspaper, Kathmandu,

27 Baisakh, 2043 (1986) and 'Evolution of Buddhism and Archaeological

Excavations in Lumbini', by Tara Nanda Mishra, in 'Ancient Nepal', no. 155,

June 2004.

41. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) pp. 35-6 and Plates 21 &

22. The former 'modern,

mean construction' (Fuhrer, 1897) has recently been removed from the face of

the earth, and has been replaced by a larger (and even more modern)

construction.

42.

'Buddhist Monuments', by Debala Mitra (Calcutta, 1971) p. 251.

43. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) p. 36 and Plates 24, 24a, and

26.

44. 'Nepal', by Perceval Landon, Vol. 1, pp. 9-10.

45. V. A. Smith, 'The Piprahwa Stupa', JRAS (UK) 1898,

p. 868. See also Mahabodhi Society Journal (Calcutta) May 1900, pp. 2-3.

46. Govt. of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of

Revenue & Agriculture, (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898,

Proceedings no. 15, File no. 30 of 1898, p. 2. (National

Archives of India, New Delhi).

47. See ref. 29. In a letter to U Ma dated 19th

November, 1896, Fuhrer

writes : 'My Dear Phongyi, The relics of Tathagata,

sent off yesterday, were found in the stupa erected by the Sakyas of

Kapilavastu over the corporeal relics (saririka-dhatus) of the Lord. The relics were found by me during an

excavation in 1886, and are placed in the same relic-casket of soapstone in

which they were found. The four votive tablets of Buddha surrounded the

relic-casket. The ancient inscription

found on the spot with the relics will follow, as I wish to prepare a

transcript and translation of the same for you'. Since Peppe was deemed to have made an

identical discovery a year later ( viz., that of an

inscribed soapstone casket containing those relics of the Buddha that were

accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu after the Buddha's cremation) it would

appear that this earlier deception was thus merely a 'dry run', as it were, for

the supposed Piprahwa finds of 1898.

Fuhrer's letters to U Ma - there are eleven of them, stretching

between 1896 to 1898 - have never seen the public light of day, and make both

instructive and entertaining reading.

48. See ref. 28 (all refs. quoted).

49. W. C. Peppe', 'The Piprahwa Stupa, containing relics

of Buddha', JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 576.

50. Ibid, p. 574. The caskets (including the inscribed

item) are now in the custody of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, the Siamese having

also been granted pieces of a 'decayed sandalwood casket' found within the

stupa. No drawing or photograph was ever made of the missing broken (summit)

casket however, the earliest of the supposed finds. It is absent from the Indian Museum's collection (and Accession List) of the Piprahwa

items, and no mention of it occurs in Smith's detailed list of the Piprahwa

finds either (see ref. 45 (Smith) pp. 868-70).

Of the twenty drawings of the Sagarwa and Piprahwa items which were

listed in Fuhrer's 1898 Progress Report, the three Piprahwa drawings are now

missing from the ASI archives at Agra (including the drawing of the inscribed casket). As

for the Piprahwa jewellery, Smith stated that 'Mr Peppe has generously placed

all the objects discovered at the disposal of Government, subject to the

retention by him, on behalf of the proprietors of the estate, of a reasonable

number of duplicates of the smaller objects' (see ref. 46, Smith's reference to

those 'duplicates' being later repeated in the JRAS :

see ref. 45). Since recent events have

shown, however, that Peppe retained precisely one-third - 360 pieces - of the original items of

Piprahwa jewellery (which, my researches have shown, may well have been taken

from Fuhrer's Sagarwa excavations anyway, the jewellery from this site having

promptly disappeared) it is evident that this proposal to 'place all the

objects discovered at the disposal of Government' was not met, and the question

thus arises as to whether these items were unlawfully retained thereafter (see

'The Sunday Times Magazine' (UK) March 21st, 2004, pp. 36-42). One also wonders

why Smith found it necessary to lie - to central Government, no less - upon the

matter of those 'duplicates'.

51. 'Buddhism in England' (Journal of the Buddhist Society, London) July 1931, pp. 61-4; Oct. 1931, p. 78; Mar- Apr.

1932, p. 180.

52. 'Political and Secret', Home Correspondence, 1898

(India Office Library, London). The official correspondence immediately

following this discovery (see ref. 46) draws attention to the political

advantages to be gained from awarding the relics to surrounding Buddhist

countries, and also makes various pointed references to the presence in India

at this time of a Siamese crown prince, Jinavarmavansa (a cousin to the King)

who soon showed a keen interest in acquiring the bone relics for Siam.

53. See 'Discovery of Kapilavastu', by K. M. Srivastava

(1986), 'Buddha's Relics from Kapilavastu' (same author) 1986, and 'Excavations

at Piprahwa and Ganwaria' (1996). He also claimed to have discovered (precisely

as Debala Mitra had earlier predicted) clay inscriptions bearing the word

'Kapilavastu', in monastic remains adjacent to the stupa. Alarmed by these

claims however, that doyen of Buddhist archaeologists, Herbert Härtel, declared

sharply at the EASAA Conference in Rome (1997) that 'it is high time to set a

token of 'scientific correctness' in this extremely important matter', but his

call for action went unheeded, authorities worldwide preferring to maintain a

deafening silence instead (see Herbert Härtel, 'On the Dating of the Piprahwa

Vases', in 'South Asian Archaeology 1997', pub. Rome, 2000). In

2006, a conference was held under the auspices of the Royal Asiatic Society at

Harewood House, in England, in an attempt to 'clear the air' over the vexed

problem of Piprahwa, but it was decided not to publish the findings that were

then disclosed (some of which have been published in this paper) the

authorities electing, yet again, to discreetly close the lid on this particular

Pandora's box. It is, in fact, high time that this tiresome old 'relic of

Empire' was finally put to bed, but since many powerful agendas are at stake

here – religious, political, financial, and academic - this is unlikely to

happen at present.

54. 'Sravasti', by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1900, pp. 6-7.

55. 'Kausambi and Sravasti', by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK)

1898, pp. 520-31.

56. 'The Site of Sravasti', by J. Ph. Vogel, JRAS (UK)

1908, pp. 971-5, and 'Archaeological Exploration in India, 1907-8', by J. H.

Marshall, JRAS (UK) 1908, pp. 1098-1104.

57. 'Archaeological Research on Ancient Buddhist Sites',

by Herbert Härtel, in 'The Dating of the Historical Buddha' (Pt.1) p. 62, (ed.

Heinz Bechert, 1991).

58. 'A Weaver Named Kabir', by Charlotte Vaudeville

(1993) pp. 56 and 61-2.

59. Gregory Schopen, 'Burial 'Ad Sanctos' and the

Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism': Religion, Vol. 17,

pp. 193-225 (1987). The issue of the Buddha's 'parinirvanic presence' in

stupas, images, relics, places, etc., is also examined in 'Embodying the

Dharma', ed. by K. Trainor and D. Germano (New York, 2004) and 'Relics of the

Buddha', by John S. Strong (Princeton University Press, 2004). See also ref. 77

(below).

60. 'Report of Tours in Gorakhpur, Saran, and Ghazipur

in 1878-80', by A. C. L. Carlleyle, Archaeological Survey of India Reports (Old

Series) Vol. 22, p. 72, (1885). See also ref. 58 (Vaudeville) p. 61-2.

61. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 1.,

and 'Travels of Fa-Hsien', by H. A. Giles, p. 36 (1926). Yuan-chuang noted the

remains of around 1000 ruined monasteries and ten ruined cities in the

Kapilavastu region. Whilst such features appear to be absent from the areas

around the present nominations for the site of Kapilavastu, Carlleyle noted

that the remains at Tameshwar, near to Maghar, appeared to be those of 'an

ancient city of considerable size and importance... (with)

many Buddhist viharas and monasteries'. Similar nearby sites were also noted by

Carlleyle at the time of his visits in the 1870s - Koron-dih, Mahasthan,

Bakhira-dih, etc. All still await excavation.

62. See ref. 58, pp. 61-79.

63. 'The History, Antiquities, Topography, and

Statistics of Eastern India', (usually referred to as 'Eastern India') by

Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (ed. R. M. Martin) Vol. 2, p. 393 (1838).

64. 'Kabir and the Bhagti Movement', by Mohan Singh, p.

78 (Lahore, 1934).

65. 'A Manual of Budhism', by R. Spence Hardy (1853) p.

144; and 'The Life or Legend of Gaudama', by P. Bigandet, vol. 1, p. 12. The

present Lumbini site lies 27 kms. west

of this river border. This would thus have located it deep inside any former

Kapilavastu territory, and its position cannot be reconciled with this

important detail in consequence.

66. 'Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions of the

North-Western Provinces', by A. A. Fuhrer (1891) p. 242. See also Proceedings

of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Part 1) p. 56 (1884), and Minutes of the

Managing Committee (North-Western Provinces and Oudh Provincial Museum) Vol. 1,

1885-6, Appendix A (p. 107). Since Lucknow Museum has informed me that neither

this casket nor its associated items can now be traced, no date for this

deposit is presently available (though since coins were also found, this may

suggest a Kushan provenance). For fairly detailed (earlier) topographical

accounts of the site, see ref. 63 (Buchanan-Hamilton) pp. 352-3, and ref. 60

(Carlleyle) pp. 64-7. Buchanan-Hamilton referred to the presence of 'many small

detached heaps' at the site during his visit in the early 1800s : were these

votive stupas, one wonders? He also mentions two ancient shrines of Mohammedan

holy men at Domingarh. Doubtless these were Sufi pirs, remarkably

eclectic in their spiritual outlook, whose cult 'often developed by taking over

an old Buddhistical site' according to Prof. Vaudeville (as Kabir did at

Maghar). Though the decline of Buddhism in India often saw the conversion of

remaining Indian Buddhists to Islam, this was done largely for pragmatic social

reasons, and Buddhist sites and beliefs were by no means promptly abandoned by

such conversion.

67. 'Archaeological Geography of the Ganga

Plain', by Dilip Chakrabarti (2001) p. 219. Chakrabarti states that this

information was a 'personal communication' from Krishnanand Tripathi, at

Gorakhpur University's Department of Ancient History. Following a telephone

call however, Tripathi carefully evaded answering my questions on these finds

(as did his Department) and instead proposed that I contact Prof. P. N. Singh

at Banaras Hindu University. Both Singh

and his colleagues have proved equally unforthcoming on the matter, and have

flatly refused to respond to any of my emails.

A road has recently been driven clean through the Domingarh site, though

the place obviously warrants prompt, careful, and extensive excavation. An old

bed of the Rohini formerly ran to the east

of the mound (cf. Yuan-chuang's 'little river of oil') and if my conclusion

that Domingarh was Lumbini is correct, then any buried Asokan pillar remains

should be sought in this area.

68.

See ref. 63 (Buchanan-Hamilton) vol. 2, pp. 352-3: 'It is called the Domingarh, or the castle of the Domlady'.

69.

See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 20, and ref. 61 (Giles) p. 39.

70.

Hirananda Sastri, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India (Northern

Circle) 1910-11, p. 69. Sastri mentions 'the very heavy square bricks of the

Mauryan type of which it is mostly built'. Cf. the oldest bricks, 'very large

and thick, and of a square shape', found at the Domingarh site mentioned above,

and similar bricks found at Rampurva (see below, 'Kusinara') which Daya Ram

Sahni identified as 'the remnants of an extensive floor laid in Asoka's time'

('Excavations at Rampurva', ASI Director-General's Report, 1907-08, p. 183).

71.

The Ramabhar Tal (lake) : see A. Cunningham,

Archaeological Survey of India Reports (Old Series) Vol. 1, Plate 27, and also ref.

70 (Sastri) p. 69. In a letter to Hoey dated 12th March 1893, Waddell likewise convcluded that 'Kasia and the

Ramabhar Chour (sic) is Ramagram' (Special Collections and Western Manuscripts,

Bodleian Library, Oxford University). See ref. 82 also.

 

72.

The stupa appeared to be 'the centre of a group of religious buildings'; see

ref. 70 (Sastri) p. 70.

73.

'Kusinara or Kusinagara', by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1902, p. 153. The State of

Bihar supposedly drew its name from Muslim chroniclers, who noted the large

number of Buddhist viharas in the province.

74.

See ref. 63 (Buchanan-Hamilton) pp. 357-8.

Sastri mentions 'an inscribed stone' found at the south-eastern aspect

of this stupa, which 'has some five lines of writing on it which is much worn'

(ASI Annual Report, Northern Circle, 1911-12, p. 140). Unfortunately, he gives no date, script, or

possible content of this inscription, and the stone

itself now appears to have been either buried or removed. Was this the inscription

seen by Yuan-chuang, which purportedly mentioned the appearance of the naga

from the lake during Asoka's visit?

75.

J. Ph. Vogel, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India (Punjab and United

Provinces Circle) 1904-5, p. 47.

76.

See ref. 70 (Sastri), p. 72 ('Miscellaneous', no.17).

77.

'Simply put, the presence of relics is equal to the presence of the Buddha.

This is confirmed by early inscriptions.' (Michael Willis,

'Buddhist Reliquaries From Ancient India', p. 14, British Museum Publications, 2000).

See also ref. 59.

78.

See ref. 22 (Watters) pp. 25-6, and ref. 23 (Bagchi) p. 70. It should always be

borne in mind, I feel, that for Fa-hsien 'east' meant anywhere east of a

north-south axis (ditto with regard to other directions also) whilst for Yuan-chuang,

similarly, 'north-east' meant anywhere between north and east. Throughout this

essay I have utilised Sir H. M. Elliot's conclusion that the yojana of Fa-Hsien

was 'as nearly as possible' 7 miles, as revealed by the known distances between

presently-identified sites (Vaishali to Pataliputra (Patna) for example, 35

miles for 5 yojanas). This, in turn,

shows the li of Yuan-chuang to have been about 308 yards (since this pilgrim

cites 40 li to the yojana). On the

fascinating question of how the pilgrims navigated between sites, it must be

remembered that the Chinese had utilised the lodestone as early as the 4th

century BC., and that this had been improved by the introduction of a

magnetized needle by 600 AD (which may account for Yuan-chuang's greater

accuracy in these matters). As monks they would also have stayed in monasteries

en route, where the resident monks would presumably have supplied them with

guides.

79.

Champaran District Gazetteer (1907) by L. S. S. O'Malley, pp. 14-15.

80.

Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

81.

See ref. 73 (Smith) pp. 154-5, and ref. 71 (Cunningham) p. 70. It is perhaps

worthy of remark that the Buddha's body was cremated inside two iron 'vessels',

according to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

82.

Having arrived at this conclusion by the simple expedient of following, on a

map, the distances and directions from Sravasti to Kusinara which are given by

the Chinese pilgrims, I was intrigued to note that L. A. Waddell, presumably

using the same process, had arrived at a similar conclusion also: 'I believe

that Kusinagara, where the Buddha died, may be ultimately found to the north of

Bettiah, and in the line of the Asoka-pillars which lead hither from Patna

(Pataliputra)' ('A Tibetan Guide-book to the Lost Sites of the Buddha's Birth

and Death', Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1896, p. 279). Rampurva

lies thirty-odd miles north of Bettiah (along the Narkatiaganj-Gawnaha Road

railway line, and about 3 kilometres s/w of the latter station). One suspects

that Sir John Marshall entertained similar notions also, particularly after the

reconfirmation of Sahet-Mahet as Sravasti; hence, presumably, his evident

interest in the apparently 'missing' inscription at Rampurva (see ref. 90,

below).

83.

See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 28.

84.

Ibid, pp. 39-42.

85.

Ibid, p. 39.

86.

Daya Ram Sahni, 'Excavations at Rampurva', Archaeological Survey of India,-General's Report (1907-8) p. 182 : 'Up to the depth of 7 feet the

digging was quite easy, for we were digging through layers of clay alternating

at irregular intervals with sand, deposited obviously by some large river...'

87.

See ref. 60 (Carlleyle) : the orientation arrow on

Plate 6 (map) would appear to confirm this. See also ref. 86 (Sahni) p. 185. Since

the pillars were subsequently moved to the top of the western mound near the

'Southern' pillar (see Ann. Rep., Arch. Surv. of India, Eastern Circle,

1912-13, p. 36) their original find-spots presumably await rediscovery at the

site. Whilst the pillars at Sravasti have never been found, a correspondent

informs me that in 1976 he saw part of one in use as a sugar-cane crusher in a

nearby village, though on a later visit it had disappeared.

88.

See ref. 60 (Carlleyle) p. 53.

89.

See ref. 22 (Watters) pp. 39-40, and Theodor Bloch, Archaeological Survey of

India (Eastern Circle) Annual Report, 1906-7, p. 121.

90.

'Archaeological Exploration In India, 1907-8', by J. H. Marshall, JRAS (UK) 1908, p. 1088. A respected and reliable source at

Rampurva has recently despatched photographs of this pillar. These reveal,

quite clearly, that a large section of the surface around its fracture

has been deliberately hacked away (which probably accounted for its subsequent

breakage at this point) damage which is wholly commensurate with the removal of

an inscription. Since the upper part was found lying on the Asokan flooring at

the site, other researchers have concluded that this pillar was broken at an

early date, but I see no particular necessity to endorse this proposal. The

lion-capital on the 'Northern' pillar would appear to have been deliberately -

and literally – 'defaced' also (a notorious Muslim practice) and

Cunningham records that a Muslim raiding-party, returning from Bengal, took

cannon pot-shots at the nearby Lauriya Nandangarh lion-capital in 1660,

damaging it in the mouth. The pillars at Rampurva could thus have been damaged

along with these later events, and with the entire site being heavily

waterlogged – 'a morass', according to Carlleyle and Garrick - the broken

pieces from the 'Southern' pillar could easily have sunk down through the silt

thereafter. Long trenches, over two metres deep, which were dug by Carlleyle in

1877, had silted over when Garrick visited the site a mere three years later.

91.

V. A. Smith points out - quite correctly, in my opinion - that Fa-hsien's

account regarding the location of this 'leave-taking' pillar (which this

pilgrim states was inscribed) is in error, and that Yuan-chuang's account is

the more reliable in placing it close to Vaisali (see ref. 73 (Smith) pp.

146-9). Since the present Vaisali pillar appears to have sunk under its own

vertical weight, its shaft has yet to be fully revealed in its entirety, and

the question of whether it is inscribed remains unresolved in consequence.

92.

'Vaisali', by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1902, pp. 270-1. See also ref. 60

(Carlleyle) p. 50. The maps are available in the Map Room of the British

Library, London.

Illustrations

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.

1. Sign at present Lumbini site, 1994.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2. Mukherji's

1899 drawing of the 'Mayadevi' sculpture. Note join at neck, and compare with

Fig. 5. This item has now been replaced with an 'improved' (1956) version at

the site.

 

 

 

Fig.

3. Chulakoka (devata). (Bharhut Stupa).

 

 

 

Fig.

4 Chanda (yakshini). (Bharhut Stupa).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 5.

Photograph of Fig. 2 .

 

 

 

 

Fig. 6.

Landon's photograph (taken around 1920 at the present Lumbini site) showing

P. C. Mukherji's assembly of a head of Ganesh on the torso of a female deity.

Is this the correct torso for the 'Mayadevi' head (see Figs. 2 and 5) ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.

7. The Sonari (Bhilsa) casket.

 

 

 

Fig. 8. The

inscribed Piprahwa casket, photographed at Piprahwa in 1898. Compare with

Fig. 7 item, and note the appearance, on both caskets, of the final two

characters above the inscriptional line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 9. The

Mogallana casket from Sanchi, as shown in Alexander Cunningham's book,

'Bhilsa Topes'.

 

 

 

Fig.10.

The small (uninscribed) Piprahwa casket. Compare with Fig. 9 item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig.

11. The Satdhara (Bhilsa) casket.

© The British

Museum.

 

 

 

Fig. 12. The

lota from Piprahwa, photographed in 1898. Note double bands of incised rings

(top and middle) as on Fig. 11 item : the vessels are also of identical size.

This item, and the casket shown in Fig. 10, have now faded to a dull

grey-white.