Fwd: [Ind-Arch] where is the place of birth of Buddha?

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded message ----------sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:30 AM[ind-Arch] Re: where is the place of birth of Buddha?IndiaArchaeology

 

 

 

 

IndiaArchaeology , " kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> {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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref1> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref2>. *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref3>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref4>.*

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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref5>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref6>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref7>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref8>.* 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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref9>

>

> *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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref10>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref11>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref12>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref13>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref14>

>

> *The site was – and indeed, still is - supposedly called

'Rummindei', this

> being considered to be a later variant of the name 'Lumbini'.* *15*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref15>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref16>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref17>.* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref18>

> *who* *having assassinated one Prime Minister of Nepal and plotted

against

> two others, was eventually compelled to flee to British India and

> sanctuary).* *19*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref19>.

> * 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref20>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref21>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref22>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref23>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref24> *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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref25>

> .* Note that 'if genuine'; this shows that Watters not only had his

> doubtsabout 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref26>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref27>.

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref28>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref29>.* 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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref30>.*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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref31>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref32>*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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref33>

> *. 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*.

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref34>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref35>.*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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref36>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref37>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref38>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref39>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref40>.* 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 <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig1>*

*) 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref41>.* 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref42>

>

> *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<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig5>

> * *) 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref43>*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<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig2>

> * *). 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref44>*(see **Fig.

> 6<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig6>

> * *). 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref45>

> .* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref46>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref47>.* 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref48>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref49>* 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig7>*). 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<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#fig8>

> * *). 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref50>. **

>

> · *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref51>

>

> · *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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref52>.*

> *

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref53>.* *

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref54> *attempted to

> solve the problem by relocating Sravasti itself to an area near

Balapur, ten

> miles north-east of Nepalganj.* *55*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref55>.* Later

> excavations confirmed Cunningham's identification of Sravasti with the

> Sahet-Mahet site however,* *56*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref56>*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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref57>

>

> *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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref58>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref59>.* 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref60>.*

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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref61>*. One also

notes

> 'the prominent association of this place (Maghar) with Buddhism'* *62*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref62>*(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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref63>.* 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*.

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref64>*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

> Buddhistsite, 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref65>.* *

>

> *'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

> kheracontaining 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*

> <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref66>

>

> *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<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref67>

> *.* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref68>

> *.*

>

> *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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref69>

>

> *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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref70>* - is

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

beside a

> lake. **71*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref71>.*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

> *<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref72>

> *(since 'bhar/bihar' = 'vihara').*

> *73*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref73>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref74>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref75>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref76>

> .* 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*

<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref77> *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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref78>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref79>

>

> *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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref80>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref81>

> .* 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref82>

>

> *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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref83>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref84>

> *. He also mentions a 'yellowish-black' soil at the site, which he

believed

> might contain relics.*

> *85*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref85>

>

> *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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref86>

> .* 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* <http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref87>.* 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<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref88>

> *.* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref89>

> .* 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*<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref90>

> .* *

>

> *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

> *<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref91>

> *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

> *<http://www.lumkap.org.uk/Lumbini%20On%20Trial.htm#ref92>

> *(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 discove...[Message clipped]