Lectures on the Ancient History of India

by D R Bhandarkar

  “Let the Saṁgha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N. N. desires to receive the upasaṁpadā ordination from the venerable N. N. The Saṁgha confers on N. N. the upasaṁpadā ordination with N. N. as upajjhāya. Let any one of the venerable brethren who is in favour of the upasaṁpadā ordination of N. N. as upajjhaya be silent, and any one who is not in favour of it speak.

  “And for the second time I thus speak to you: Let the Saṁgha (&co., as before).

  “And for the third time I thus speak to you: Let the Saṁgha, &c.

  “N. N. has received the upasaṁpadā ordination from the Saṁgha with N. N. as upajjhāya. The Saṁgha is in favour of it, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand.”

  As the motion has here been thrice put to the assembly, it is Jñapti-chaturtha Karma, i.e. it comprises three Karmavāchās and one Jñapti. A Karma or official act of the Saṁgha to be lawful must consist of one Jñapti and one or three Karmavāchās. When a resolution is placed before as assembly and all the members have observed silence, it is said to be adopted unanimously. If there was any debate and difference of opinion expressed, the matter was settled by what was called Yebhuyyasikā, i.e. the vote of the majority. This was done by issuing tickets or Śalākās as they were termed. The Bhikshu who collected these ticket was called Śalākā-gāhāpaka.60 If any member of thew Saṁgha, owing to illness or other disability, was unable to attend a meeting he was entitled to give an absentee vote which was known as Chhanda.61 What is more, if at any meeting of the Saṁgha it is anticipated that the minimum number of the members required will not be forthcoming, care was taken to secure the necessary quorum. The ‘whip’ was called Gaṇa-pūraka. It will be too tedious for me to give a full and exhaustive account of the code of rules that regulated the meetings of the Buddhist Saṁgha, but what I have stated is enough to show you that it was of a highly specialized character. We hear not only of announcing a motion and placing it before a meeting, but also of ballot-voting, votes of absentees and, above all the ‘whip’—items which we are so much accustomed to think to be charactertic of the modern civilised age that I shall not at all wonder if my account appears to be incredible to you. But my authority, the Vinaya-piṭaka, is there before you, and you can at any time read it along with the translation published by Professors Oldenberg and Rhys Davids, and I am sure that you will agree with me in saying that the set of rules for conducting the deliberations of the Buddhist Saṁgha was of a highly developed order, and shows how the regulation of debate was carried almost to a perfection. Again, it is worthy of note that most of the terms technical to Saṁgha debate have nowhere been explained by Buddha. If he had been the first to invent these rules and coin new names for the various procedures, he would have explained them in extenso. But nowhere has Buddha told us what Yebhuyyasikā, Chhanda and so forth signify.62 Evidently he borrows these terms which were already well-known in his time and which called for no explanation. We may therefore not unreasonably conclude that the various terms and rules of debate which Buddha adopted for his religious Saṁgha were those which could fit popular assemblies only and must have already been followed by Saṁghas, whether political, municipal or commercial.

  The End

  1Modern Review, 1913, pp. 585-641 and 648-68.

  2III. 3. 86; the second Sūtra is III. 3. 42, which teaches the formation of the word nikāya in the sense of ‘a Saṁgha but without any conception of its gradation.’ The third is V. 2. 52. From the time of Buddha onwards we find the word Gaṇa used to denote religious and political bodies. In the former case it was employed promiscuously with Saṁgha. But in the political sense, Gaṇa denoted only one kind of Saṁgha, viz. an oligarchy, as we shall see subsequently.

  3E.g. the Mahā-parinibbāna-sutta, 58.

  4In translating the passage from this sutta, Prof. Rhys Davids missed the true sense of the terms Saṁgha and Gaṇa and also of the phrase Samaṇa-brāhmana (SBE.,XI. 105 and n.1). The latter he translates by “the Brahmans by saintliness of life” and not by “Samaṇas and Brāhmaṇs” because none of the heads of these religious Saṁghas was a Brāhman according to the Sumaṇgala vilāsinī How far the authority of this commentary in this matter is reliable I do not know, but that the phrase samaṇa-brāhmaṇa is a Dvandva and not a Karaṁadhāraya compound as Prof. Rhys Davids takes it, is clear from the following: Nāhaṇ-taṁ passāmī samaṇaṁ vā brāhmaṇām va saṇghiṁ gaṇim gaṇāechariyaṁ.etc. (Maj-N., I. 227).

  5Com are e.g. the phrase pañchannaṁ isi-satānaṁ Gaṇa-satthā which we meet with in the Jātakas (II. 41. 10-11; 72, 12 and & c.).

  6The expression actually used here is Kāmbhoja-Surāshṭra-kshatriya-śṛeṇy-ādayo vārta-sastra-opajīvinaḥ (p. 376), which I render as follows: “Kambhoja and Surāshṭra śreṇis (guilds), Kshatriya śreṇis (fighting corporations) and so forth are (Saṁghas) which subsist on industry and arms.” Elsewhere too Kauṭilya distinguishes śreṇi (guild) from an āyudhhīya (fighting) body (p.263).

  7When I say that these Saṁghas were tribal bands of mercenaries, I do not mean that any particular band of them must necessarily exhaust the whole tribe. This certainly was not the case with the Yaudheyas as we shall see later on. Though in Kauṭilya’s time the fighting Saṁghas were Kshatriyas, in Pāṇini’s time some of them were also Brāhmaṇs, as is no doubt implied from his Sūtra, V .3, 114.

  8That most of the allusions to the Asuras in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa refer to a foreign tribe has been clearly established by Mr. Jayaswal in a note which he contributed to the ZDMG. immediately before the war and the rough copy of which he was kind enough to show me. This emboldens me in identifying the Asuras with the Assyrians and consequently the Parśus with the Persis.

  9IV. 308-9.

  10(P.T.S.), II. 3. 1. § 10.

  11IV. 1. 168.

  12Arthaśastra, 376.

  13I. 231; I do not think that the words saṁgha and gaṇa are here used exactly synonymously. Saṁgha here is the genus and Gaṇa a species. The Lichchhavis and Mallas were specifically Gaṇas.

  14III. 1; IV. 148.

  15Jāt. IV. 148-9.

  16Ibid, IV . 148. 11. 21. 2.

  17Parāśara-Mādhava (Bib. Ind.), III, 250.

  18Vs 27.28 and 30.

  19Arthaśāstra, 377.

  20Vivādaratnākara, 179.

  21Lefmann’s Ed., p. 21.

  22JRAS.,VII. 993. n.2; Kachchāyana’s Pāli Grammer by James D’ Alwis, 99-100.

  23The expression occurs also in one of the Dāmodarpur grants which being edited by Prof. Radhagovinda Basak. As regards kula see Manu, VII. 119.

  24Arthaśāstra, 376.

  25JRAS., 1897, 889.

  26Kukura is twice associated with Aparānta, once in the Nāsik-Cave inscription of Vāsishṭhīputra Puḷumāvi and another time in the Junagaḍh rock inscription of Rudradāman (EI., VIII. 44 and 60). As Aparānta is Konkan, Kukura should correspond to Gujarāt.

  27Above, p. 52.

  28JRAS., 1900, 416 and 420-1.

  29Mc. Crindle’s Ancient India : Its invasion by Alexender the Great, 155, 252 and 292.

  30Ibid, 155, n. 2.

  31IA., I, 23.

  32Mc. Crindle, 115.

  33Ibid, 154.

  34His gloss on Pāṇini, IV . 1, 168.

  35Mc Crindle, 79-81.

  36Megasthenes also refers to republics in Ancient India. Thus he makes the general remark that “those who live near the sea have no kings” and also mentions the Maltecorāe and four other tribes who “are free and have no kings” (I.A., VI. 810-1).

  37III, 76.

  38Rhys Davids’ Buddhist India, 18.

  39Ibid, 19.

  40VP., II, 181. The preambles of some Jātakas (e.g. Nos 466 and 536) lead us to infer that the Sakyās were a Gaṇa and not a Kula. But these preambles do not form part of the Buddhist Canon and are certainly of a much later age that the Vinaya-Piṭaka. What is narrated by them is based not upon contemporary or very nearly contemporary evidence, but rather up
on tradations handed down by Āchāryas, which were sometimes conflicting or different (e.g. Jāt., V.413.10). The Jātakas preambles cannot, therefore, be taken as possessing any authority when they run counter to what the canonical texts say.

  41Buddhist India, 20-1.

  42Cf. Grote’s History of Greece, Pt. II, Cap. IX. Sidgwick says : “But speaking broadly and generaIly, it is doubtless safe to affirm that when political society passed in Greece out of the stage of primitive kingship, it passes into that of primitive oligarchy.”—The Development of European Polity, p. 72.

  43CCIM., p. 180 & ff.

  44CII., III. 252.

  45CCIM., p.180 & ff.

  461.4. 11-3; I am indebted to Mr. R. C. Majumdar for this reference.

  47I may also mention that Gaṇa (= Vrāta or Śardha) in the sense of a guild appears to have had Vedic precedents as was first pointed out by the Roth in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. They are referred to in the Paṁchavimśa Brāhmaṇa, VI. 9. 25 ; xvii. 1. 5. 12, Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā. XVI. 25. and Taittiriya-Saṁhitā, 1. 8. 10. 2.

  48ASI,-AR., 1903-4. p. 107 & ff ; 1911-12, p. 56; 1913-14, p. 138 & ff.; some of these seals have on them the legends: Śreshṭhi-sārthavā-ha-kulika-nigama, Śreshṭhi-kulika-nigama, Śreshṭhi-nigama, and Kulika-nigama. Nigama in these legends has been taken to signify a corporation, but there is no authority for it. According to the Amarakośa nigama means a vaṇik-patha, pura or Veda. The last sense is of course impossible here. Nor is the first sense practicable, because Kauṭilya’s Arthaśastra (p. 60), we know that a vaṇik-patha is a road of traffic whether on land or by river. The meaning is, therefore, unsuitable. The third sense alone is therefore possible, and is by no means unsuitable. This alone can explain why, along with the seals of these Nigamas, we have seals of officials or temples sometimes assciated. The seals of officials and temples side by side with those of the Nigamas are intelligible, if Nigama denotes ‘a township’ but not if it signifies ‘a corporation’ supposing this sense to be possible, for a commercial corporation is an exclusive body and will not brook the sealing of any foreign member side by side with their own.

  Since writing the above, I was able to see the transcripts of the Dāmodarpur copper plates through the courtsey of Mr. Radhagovinda Basak who is editing them for the Epigraphia Indica. They belong to the time of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty and are thus contemporaneous with the seals referred to above. While setting forth the administrative details the town officials also are therein specified, viz. Nagara-śreahṭhin, Sārthāvaha, Prathama-Kulika and Prathama Kāyastha. It is thus clear that the word nigama of the seals can mean a town only and that in the Gupta period while some towns were administered by Śreahṭhin, Sārthavāha and Kulika together, some were governed Śreahṭhin and Kulika only conjointly or severally. Along with the Nigama seal was associated that of Kumār-āmātyā. This agrees with the administrative fact furnished by the Dāmodarpur plates that immediately above the town officials just mentioned was Kumār-āmātyā.

  49According to the Amarakośa: kulakaḥ syāt kula-śreshṭhi, on which Kshīrasvāmin gives the following gloss: Kulaṁ kāyati Kulakah, Kulika ity=anye, sreny-adav Sreshth-arthah kule vanig-vrinde sreshthatvam=asty= Kula-sreshthi. Bhāṇuji Dikshīta’s commentary is: dve karu-saṁghe mukhyasya.

  50CCIM., pp.164-5 & 179-80; JRAS., 1907, pp. 92-3.

  51JRAS.,1908, pp.540.1. That the word Rājanya denoted a particular people was known even to Pāṇini, who mentioned them in his asphorism: rājanyādibhyo vuñ (IV.2.53). The Sūtra teaches us that if vuñ is applied to terms such as Rājanya and others, the word so formed becomes expressive of their country. Thus Rājanyaka means the country of the Rājanyas. Evidently by Rājanya a specific people is meant, a conclusion strengthened by the fact that along with Rājanyas are mentioned Udumbaras, Ārjunayanas and others who are well-known peoples and who form the Rājanya-gaṇa of Pāṇini.

  52ASIR.. VI. 202-4; XIV. 146-7; EHI. p. 213. Madhyamikā is commonly taken to denote Nagarī near Chitorgarh in Rājputānā and identified with that mentioned by Patañjali (IA., VII. 266). But that does not preclude us from taking it also as the name of the province which has the city of Madhyamikā as its capital. We similarly have avanti and Ayodhyā denoting each both a city and the province of which it is the principal town. In fact, this meaning alone can render the legend of the coins clear and intelligible. That Madhyamikā was the name also of a province is certain. Chapter 32 of the Sabhā-Parvan of the Mahābhāhrata places M(ā)dhyam(i)keyas to the south of Pushkar. Evidently they are the people of the Madhyamikā country, i.e round about Nagarī. The Bṛihat-saṁhiṭā also places Mādhyamikas in the Middle Country along with Matsyas. Mādhyamikas here can denote only the people of the Madhyamikā country.

  53pp. 177 & 180. The word naigama cannot mean a guild here, as it has been distinguished from Śreṇin.

  54II. 192.

  55Indian Studies, III. 49 & n.1; Indian Palaeography (Trans.), 9. Bühler takes negamā here to mean a mercantile guild. But the proper word for ‘guild’ is Śernin which is so frequently met with in Jātaka literature and epigraphic records. The word naigamāḥ again had never been proved to signify a guild. Again, we do not find mention of any guild without the specification of the craft for which it is organised. Besides, we never hear of a mercantile guild having minted any money, at any rate in india. Such a fact would certainly have been mentioned, if it had been really so, in the passage of the Visuddhi-magga referred to above especially as the expert knowledge of a heraññika or banker is there alluded to and guild coins would have therefore been the first to be mentioned if they had really existed. To say, therefore, that negamā of the Panjāb coins stands for a guild is nothing but a gratuitous assumption. It is therfore, natural to take negamā in the sense of naigamāḥ (=body of townsmen) such as that mentioned in the Yājñavalkya and Nārad Smṛitis and distinguished from the Śerṇis or guilds.

  56B.G., XVI. 590. This interperation has been called in question by M. Senart (EI., VIII. 92), who says: “We have met with more than one instance of a genitive joined to the name of a donor, to indicate the community, district or clan to which he happened to belong. I suppose the case is same here and the Dhambhika village, which had contrived at the common expense (nothing is more frequent than the paying of such religious expenses from the resources of the community) to decorate the entrance of the cave, must have belonged to the general population or to the township of Nāsik.” I am afraid, Nāsikakanaṁ must mean “of the inhabitants of the Nāsik city” and never “of the clan or district of Nāsik” as is clearly but incorrectly implied by M. Senart (compare e.g. Nāsik Inscription No. 22). The suffix ka has so far been found applied to the name of a village or town to denote an inhabitant of that village or town. And until an instance is adduced of this suffix being added to the name of a town and of the whole term so formed being used in the plural in the sense of ‘district or clan’, the interpretation proposed by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji seems to be the natural one. Besides, in the Śātavāhana period, not Nāsik but Govardhana was the name of the district.

  57VOJ., I. 169 and ff.

  58SBE., XX. 408.

  59Ibid., XIII. 170.

  60E.g. Chullavagga, IV. 9; SBE., XX. 25.

  61E.g. Mahāvagga, II. 23 ; SBE. XIII. 277.

  62Of course, Jñapti has been fully explained by Buddha, as will be seen from the quotation from the Chullavagga given in the text above. But Buddha is here perhaps singling out one out of many forms of Jñapti prevalent in his time. The details specified by him about valid or invalid Karma, valid or invalid votes, and so on are so many and so complicated that they appear to have come into general cognisance after several centuries’ working of the popular assemblies.

  ~ Glossary ~

  Aṅg. N.-Aṅguttara-Nikāya.

  ASI.-Archaeological Survey of India Annual Report.

  ASIR.-Archaeological Survey of India,

  ASR.-Reports. By Cunningham.

  ASS-Ānandāśra
ma Sanskrit Series, Poona.

  ASSI-Archaeological Survey of Southern India.

  BG.-Bombay Gazetteer.

  Bib. Ind.-Bibliotheca Indica.

  BSPS.-Bombay Sanskrit and Prākrit Series.

  BSS.-Bombay Sanskrit Series.

  CCIM.-Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. By V. A.Smith.

  CII.-Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum.

  EC.-Epigraphia Carnatica. By L.Rice.

  EHI.-Early History of India. Third Edition. By V. A. Smith.

  EI.-Epigraphia Indica.

  GOS.-Gaekwad’s Oriental Series.

  HASL.-History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. By F. Max Müller.

  IA.-Indian Antiquary.

  Jât-Jātakas.

  JBBRAS.-Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

  JBORS.-Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society.

  JRAS.-Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

  Maj. N.-Majjhima-Nikāya.

  PR.—WC.-Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey, Western Circle.

  PTS.-Pali Text Society.

  Saṁ.N-Samyutta-Nikaya.

  SBB. - Sacred Books of the Buddhists.

  SBE. - Sacred Books of the East.

  TSS. - Trivandrum Sanskrit Series.

  VOJ. - Vienna Oriental Journal.

  VP. - Vinaya Piṭaka.

  ZDMG. - Zeitschrift der Deuschen Morgeländischen Gesellschaft.

  [All references to the Mahābhārata are from Pratapchandra Ray’s edition.]