TUTORIAL: [M21410 Epigraphy-I] Examine different significant aspects of the inscriptions at the Sanchi Stupas.

COURSE NAME: M21410 Epigraphy-I

M. A. SEMESTER 1

TUTORIAL 1

TUTORIAL TOPIC: Examine different significant aspects of the inscriptions at the Sanchi Stupas.

SUBMITTED BY: Pranav Kushwaha

[DISCLAIMER: The following tutorial is being shared so students of CHS, JNU can get some idea regarding how a tutorial is to be written. This tutorial is by no means of high quality, and you might find some factual, spelling, and grammatical errors. Please refer to the BIBLIOGRAPHY section and the ENDNOTES for verifying the contents of the tutorial and for further study.

In the original file that I submitted, (i) the numbers in the square brackets were used to denote footnotes and were written in superscripts, and (ii) there was no dedicated section titled 'Endnotes', as each page contained footnotes. Endnotes are acceptable, but I'd advise you to use footnotes instead. Better yet, confirm from your professor what is required.]

                       

[NOTE: The historians whose works have been referenced in this tutorial have each given a different estimate of the number of inscriptions found at Sanchi. I believe this is either due to the discovery of more inscriptions after an earlier work was penned down, or due to a different method of categorization of these inscriptions. I have taken utmost care to place footnotes whenever numerical data from different sources is referenced.]

Regarded as the first Buddhist stūpa, the famous Great Stūpa at Sanchi was built by emperor Aśoka Maurya around 250 BCE. The original structure was an earthen mound, with burnt bricks forming its outer shell, complemented perhaps by a wooden railing.[1] It was only during the period from the second century BCE to the first century CE that stone was introduced to the structure.[2] Being a much more durable material, stone was used to encase the bricks, to build the stairways and balustrades, to erect gateways, and to pave two circumambulatory paths (pradakśiṇāpath) along with a number of other modifications made to the structure. These additions were not carried out because of some royal order, but were financed by donations made by the common people coming from a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds.[3] It is only fitting that while the earliest Sanchi inscriptions are attributed to the aforementioned Mauryan emperor, almost all the other inscriptions – more than 800 in number [4] – carry the name of the common people.

The Sanchi inscriptions provide us with crucial insights into the socio-political and cultural aspects of the Indian subcontinent. These inscriptions tell us about the relationship between the lay believers and the members of the Saṅgha for a period of 1200 years (from the third century BCE to the ninth century CE).[5] In this tutorial, we shall take a brief look at a specific inscription of Aśoka (third century BCE) before moving on to a large group of inscriptions datable from the second century BCE to the first century CE. The rest of the inscriptions – from the second century CE to the ninth century CE – will be discussed in brief.

 

 

The Aśokan inscription at Sanchi is found in the form of an edict and addresses the issue of schism in the Buddhist Order (Saṅgha). Written in the Prākṛta (Prakrit) language in the Brāhmi script, the edict mentions that the once fractured Saṅgha has been made whole again under Aśoka. In the inscription, he orders that if a monk or a nun is found causing a division or schism in the Saṅgha (Saṅgha-bhed), then that person would be made to wear white robes and would have to live outside the monastery (āvāsa) of the Saṅgha. This edict is one of three such Schism Edicts of the Aśokan period – the other two are found at Kausambi and Sarnath. This tells us two things. First, Sanchi (or Kāknāva, as it was then known), Kausambi, and Sarnath were important places where Buddhist monastic centres were located in considerable numbers. Second, the fact that three such edicts exist points to a strong possibility that by Aśoka’s time, major divisions had occurred within the Saṅgha, and that the interference of the emperor was required to sort out these divisions. Moreover, his involvement in this matter signifies that the Mauryan emperor had gained a significant amount of respect within the Saṅgha.[6]

 

 

As we move towards the post-Mauryan era, we stumble upon a treasure of more than 800 ‘votive’ inscriptions. They are said to be ‘votive’ in nature because they recorded the monetary donations being made by the people for the expansion and renovation of the Sanchi Stūpa. These donations financed the paving stones, crossbars, railing pillars, and sculptures, which were then engraved with the name and other credentials of the donors.[7] Thus, they not only contributed towards the preservation of their faith, but they also tried to leave behind their name for future generations to remember.

These donations were made by people from all walks of life. We have inscriptions that mention donations being made by Buddhist monks (bhikkhu) and nuns (bhikkhuni) as well as by lay worshippers (upāsaka and upāsikā). Several donors identify themselves either as the male head of a household (gahapati) or as the wife (ghariṇī) of the said gahapati. Donations were also made collectively by family members, sects, guilds and assemblies (goṭhi). These donations came not only from Sanchi, but from Ujjain and Vidisha (in Madhya Pradesh), Abu and Pushkar (in Rajasthan), and Paithan (in Maharashtra) as well – highlighting the extent of influence and devotion a Buddhist project could inspire during that period.[8]

 

 

Out of 802 inscriptions found at Sanchi, 104 are fragmentary, while 20 others are the result of donations made by groups that perhaps had both men and women as their members. The remaining 678 inscriptions are attributed to individual donors. The 327 inscriptions attributed to individual women donors can be divided into two categories: 218 inscriptions attributed to the upāsikās and 109 inscriptions attributed to the bhikkhunis. On the other hand, 245 inscriptions are attributed to the upāsakas and 106 inscriptions are attributed to the bhikkhus for a total of 351 inscriptions attributed to individual men donors.[9] These figures clearly demonstrate that women not only participated in the Buddhist religious affairs to a great extent, they also rivalled (if not equalled) the men when it came to financially contributing towards the longevity and grandeur of their common faith.[10]

A closer inspection of these inscriptions throws light on the importance of kinship as well. 71 women and 20 men donors identify themselves via their relationship to a family member. Only four women donors identify themselves as daughters (dihitā, duhitā), and keeping the one instance of fragmentary evidence aside, all of them mention their fathers and not their mothers. On the other hand, twelve men donors identify themselves as sons (puta, putra); five mention their fathers while seven mention their mothers. These small number of references suggest that these donors in particular were dependent on their parents, and dependent men and women, in general, had limited access to resources that they could distribute as gifts. Moreover, matrilineal relationship was an important identifier in the case of men donors, and hence, patrilineal relationship was not the dominant identifier as would appear from the inscriptions of the individual women donors.[11]

Out of the 218 inscriptions attributed to the upāsikās, thirty-four identify their donors as mothers.  On the other hand, only two out of 245 inscriptions attributed to the upāsakas identify their donors as fathers. There are some other cases of mothers making donations along with their daughters and men making donations along with their sons. Thus, motherhood comes across as being a far more important method of identifying oneself for women, while men don’t seem to have given much importance to their fatherhood when it came to expressing their identity. Although sons are mentioned more than daughters – 26 times and 11 times, respectively, the numbers suggest that daughters had a similar societal status as sons.[12]

These divisions based on gender are also reflected in the way the donors have identified themselves on the basis of their marital status. There are twenty-two cases where women identify themselves as wives, using terms such as pajāvati (prajāvati = she who possesses offspring), jāyā and bhayā (bhāryā). On the other hand, we don’t find a single case where a man identifies himself as a husband.[13]

Thus, a trend seems to emerge. Relatively speaking, identifying oneself in relation to a family member seems to have been far less important to men donors. For women donors, familial and marital statuses played a far greater role in the expression of their identity. More focus was imparted upon their motherhood than upon their wifehood.[14]

We also have inscriptions that record donations made by an entire kula or lineage group. These include the Dhamakas, Tāpasiyas, Magalakaṭiyas, and Vakiliyas – all of whom belong to Ujjaini. Another inscription mentions the donation made by the Kācāniputas (Kātyāyanīputras) of Vāghumata. Several inscriptions identify their donors as sisters (bhagini), brothers (bhātā), daughters-in-law (husā, nusā, hnusā), son-in-law (jamata), nephew and niece (bhagineya and bhagineyī, respectively) – thus rounding up the categories of familial roles these donors have used to identify themselves with.[15]

 

 

Thirty-eight out of the 245 upāsakas identify themselves by their occupation. These include money-lenders (seṭṭhis), merchants (vaṇijas), horsemen or troopers (asavārikas), weavers (sotikas), cloak sellers (pāvārikas), scribes (lekhakas or lipikāras), rural officers associated with revenue administration (rajukas), artisans (kamikas), stonemasons (vaḍhakis), and foremen or supervisors of artisans (avesan). Along with the seṭṭhis, the gahapati was considered one of the most important upāsakas. A gahapati not only claimed a high status in the social hierarchy, but also possessed a decent amount of landed property, wealth, and political power.[16] Despite such a long list, not a single upāsikā is identified with any occupation. The sole exception is a woman who is identified as a grahiṇi or housewife, her name being Sijhā.[17]

 

 

The donations made by the bhikkhunis and the bhikkhus could have come about in several ways. Bühler has theorised that monks and nuns collected the resources required to make such donations through begging.[18] A second possibility is that they made these donations before joining the Saṅgha. Another possibility is that laypeople made these donations in the name of the bhikkhus and the bhikkhunis.[19]

Another significant set of details that we can glean from these inscriptions is the number of ways Buddhist monks and nuns were identified. This also yields valuable information regarding the status of men and women in relation to each other within the Saṅgha. Apart from the numbers mentioned by Roy, another estimate by Singh counts a total of 252 inscriptions attributed to Buddhist monks and nuns. These include 123 donations made by individual monks, 118 by individual nuns, six groups of monks, and five groups of nuns. In addition to the terms like bhikkus and bhikkhunis, some are identified as students of senior monks. The terms used in these cases include atevāsin and atevasini, sejha and sādhivihārin, and sāmanera and sāmanerī (novice monks and nun, respectively).[20]

However, when it comes to the distribution of teachers on the basis of gender, we encounter clues about the relatively lower status of women within the Saṅgha. Honorific titles – aya, bhādata, thera – have been used to identify at least sixteen male teachers, yet no such title precedes the name of a single woman teacher. Several monks have identified themselves through epithets such as dhamakathika (one who preaches the law), pācanekāyika (one who is versed in the five Nikāyas of the Sutta Piṭaka); inscription 631 in particular records the donation by Budharakhita who was a sutātika, i.e., well versed in the suttāntas. On the other hand, there is only one instance of a woman being referenced by an epithet that signifies her knowledge of the text. This reference comes from inscription 304 which identifies a sutātikini by the name of Avisinā. Apart from inscription 704 which mentions a female student under a male teacher, all teachers and their students belonged to the same sex.[21]

 

 

Until now we have discussed the Sanchi inscriptions belonging to the laypeople and those within the Saṅgha separately. Now, let’s discuss them together on the basis of the place of residence that the donors have used to identify themselves.

The place of residence has been mentioned in the case of at least 102 lay women donors out of a total of 218 (46.78 per cent). For 59 out 218 lay women, this is the only basis for their identification (27.06 per cent). In the case of laymen, 133 donors out of a total of 245 associate themselves with a geographical location (54.28 per cent), and it is the only basis for identification for at least 104 of them (42.44 per cent).[22]

Although it might seem that the geographical location of one’s residence was more important for men as compared to women, this notion gets flipped upside down when one considers the monks and nuns on the same basis. 72 out of 109 nuns mention their native place as compared to just 30 out of 106 monks who associate themselves with a place. In terms of percentage, this amounts to 66.05 per cent versus 28.30 per cent for nuns and monks respectively.[23]

These stark differences in figures indicate that life within the Saṅgha was organized in such a manner that left nuns confined to a geographical location, while monks enjoyed a greater degree of freedom to travel. However, when one considers the number of places that are linked only with laywomen (6) and laymen (26) and those that are associated only with nuns (1) and monks (5), we get a different picture. These figures demonstrate that for whatever reason – be it a division of labour on gender lines or something else – women were confined to a geographical location across the board. In this scenario, it didn’t matter if a given woman was a lay believer or a member of the Saṅgha, she had a lesser chance of going to Sanchi to get her donation recorded in an inscription.[24]

 

 

From the second century CE onwards, the number of inscriptions at Sanchi begins to dwindle. Here, we see an increase in the number of royal inscriptions. We also see that a fundamental change occurs in the way people used to worship the Buddha and the bodhisattvas, i.e., apart from the symbols related to the Buddha – like the Bodhi tree and the dhammacakka – imagery related to a physical form of the Buddha begins to be worshipped.

Only three inscriptions belonging to the Kuśaṇa period have been found. All three inscriptions (number 828, 829, and 830) were donated by women, and were engraved either on an image of the Buddha (number 829), or an image of a bodhisattva (number 828 and 830).* Eight inscriptions (number 832-840) have been found from the Gupta Era, i.e., from the fourth to the sixth century CE. These are written in Sanskrit. Inscription number 833 is attributed to a Gupta commander by the name of Āmrakārddava and references Chandragupta II as well. There is only one female donor (number 834) by the name of Harisvāminī in this set of inscriptions. Inscriptions 833 and 834, both make donations in perpetuity for the maintenance of lamps and the feeding of monks at the vihāra at Kākanādaboṭa (Sanchi). This set of inscriptions is the first example of monetary investments and land grants made at Sanchi. Inscriptions 841 and 842 are the only inscriptions belonging to the early medieval period (sixth to ninth century CE). The latter mentions the bodhisattvas Lokanātha and Vajrapāṇi and the construction of a vihāra at Boṭa-Śriparvata (Sanchi).[25]

To conclude, the Sanchi inscriptions contribute immensely to our understanding of the relationship between the people and the Buddhist faith for more than a millennium. These inscriptions chronicle how the establishment at Sanchi went through a phase of royal patronage to a phase of patronage provided exclusively by the common people. Beginning in the first millennium CE, the adherents of the faith took to worshipping a physical form of the Buddha. Royal inscriptions make a short-lived comeback and give us an idea of the political changes taking place at the time. One constant amongst these growing changes, however, was the continuous and greater degree of patronage provided by women to the Saṅgha, even though they were not in a position of wealth or power, nor was their status within the Saṅgha equal to their male counterparts.

                       

ENDNOTES

[1] Vidya Dehija, “The Collective and Popular Basis of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 BC-AD 250”, in Barbara Stoler Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992, p. 36.

[2] Upinder Singh, “Sanchi: The History of the Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, volume 33, issue no. 1, March 1996, pp. 3-4. (Retrieved January 26, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/001946469603300101)

[3] Dehija, “Sacred Monuments”, p. 36.

[4] Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, p. 7.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., pp. 7-8.

[7] Dehija, “Sacred Monuments”, pp. 37-38.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Kumkum Roy, The Power of Gender and the Gender of Power, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 39-40.

[10] Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, p. 11.

[11] Roy, The Power of Gender, pp. 42-43.

[12] Ibid., pp. 43-44.

[13] Ibid. pp. 44-45.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.; Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, pp. 12-13.

[16] Dehija, “Sacred Monuments”, pp. 37-38; Roy, The Power of Gender, pp. 45; Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, pp. 12-14.

[17] Roy, The Power of Gender, p. 46.

[18] Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, p. 17.

[19] Roy, The Power of Gender, p. 48.

[20] Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, pp. 15-16.

[21] Roy, The Power of Gender, pp. 46-47; Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, p. 16.

[22] Roy, The Power of Gender, pp. 39-40.

[23] Ibid., p. 39.

[24] Ibid., pp. 39-40.

* The image on inscription 830 is of the bodhisattva Maitreya.

[25] Singh, “Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, pp. 28-33.

** Although I have used the book for reading and citation purposes, these pages were originally published as part of a collection of seminar papers in 1988. This has been mentioned in the corresponding chapter (chapter 2) of the book itself. According to this information, the proper citation would be as follows:

Roy, Kumkum, “Women and Men Donors at Sanchi: A Study of the Inscriptional Evidence”, L. K. Tripathi (ed.), Position and Status of Women in Ancient India (Seminar Papers), Vol. I, Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1988, pp. 209-23. 

                       

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dehija, Vidya, “The Collective and Popular Basis of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 BC-AD 250”, in Barbara Stoler Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 35-45.

Gupta, S. S., Sanchi Through Inscriptions. PDF file. (Retrieved January 19, 2022 from https://asibhopal.nic.in/pdf/recent_activity/200_years_of_discovery_of_sanchi_31_jan_2019/sanchi_through_inscriptions_dr_s_s_gupta.pdf)

Roy, Kumkum, The Power of Gender and the Gender of Power, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 38-52.**

Singh, Upinder, “Sanchi: The History of the Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment”, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, volume 33, issue no. 1, March 1996. (Retrieved January 26, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/001946469603300101)