Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 77

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VII.
beyond all particular limitation, and this is why the donor adds savana vásavasitánan. In fact, it was for the retreat of the varsha that the monks of every other denomination or residence (chátudisa sangha) could be brought to take up their abode in the caves of Valûraka along with their resident hosts. If the donor had meant only the monks living at Valdraka, he would have said simply Valúraka-sangha, as in the following inscription. In the same way a gift is made in Nasik No. 15, 1. 7, Trirasmiparvataviháravástavyasya chaturdisabhikshusanghasya gilânabhêshajárthan, i.e." to be applied for the medical treatment of the monks of every origin who shall reside in the viháras of the Triraśmi hill." Monastic communities may be classified in two respecte, vis. according to their residence and according to the sect to which they belong. This double restriction is excluded in principle by the mention of the chdtudisa saingha, though in some cases and according to the dispositions of the donor it may mean specially one or the other. Thus in Nâsik No. 10, 1.4 f. a donation is made as follows: eto mama lene vasatanamh chátudisasa bhikhusaghasa mukhdharo bhavisati. Here we have a restriction to a certain locality, while chátudisa excludes only the restriction as to sect; and the donation is accordingly intended for the feeding of the monks who reside or shall reside in this cave, to whatever denomination they belong. The same is the case in Nåsik No. 12, 1, 2, where a rent is allotted to the chátudisa sa agha, y[a] inasmin leno vasantánam bhavisati chivarika. . . . ., 1.e. "for furnishing clothes to the monks who shall reside in this cave without reserve or distinction as to sect." The same idea is expressed in the donation recorded in Násik No. 24, 1. 3 f. On the other hand, in Karlé No. 20, 1. 3, "a hall of nine cells is given to the samgha chdtudisa as property of the Mahasamghikas," - Mahdsaghiyanarle parigaho saghe châtudise dina. We have to compare a paggage in the inscription of Tôramâņa at Kura (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 240). Bühler has justly remarked the antithesis existing between chaturdisa sa mgha and parigraha acharya Mahifasakandn. But I feel inclined to think that he has not solved it in a quite satisfactory manner. According to him the meaning seems to be that all Buddhist monks shall participate in the use of the vihdra, but that it is specially made over to the Mahisasaka teachers. Does it not rather seem that, in allotting to the chaturdida sangha the gift which was at the same time made the property of the Mahasanghikas or Mahildsakas, Toramana in the Kara inscription and Rishabhadatta in the present case desired that their donation should benefit only the members of the sect which they wanted to favour, of whatever origin and usual residence. This conclu. sion seems to be strongly corroborated by the comparison of Kårld No. 19, 1. 1 f., where the village of Karajaks is given. " for the support of the Mahasanghika monks residing in the caves of Valdraka,"l lenesu Valurakesu våthavana pavajitâna bhikhuna nikayasa Mahdsaghiyana yapandya. Here the donation is expressly restricted to the Mah&sånghika monks residing at Valdraka. Shall we not conclude from this, that, in other cases where the chaturdida sangha is referred to, the gift is made to the Mahasanghikas of whatever origin P While in the preceding examples the wording excluded all restriction as to sect, it excludes here all restriction founded on origin or residence. It is hardly necessary to add that, if used alone and without an explicit clange, the expression excludes both the first and second restrictions. No. 19 informs us that the village of Karajaka was given to the monks of Valûraka by V Asithipata Pulumayi or Gotamiputa Satakani. This inscription is certainly later than the present one. Though it does not allude to a previous donation, and though the form Karajika, which we have here, differs slightly from Karajaka, the only form which occurs in No. 19, I think that Buhler is right in admitting (AS. p. 113; compare p. 24) that the two names refer to the same village. The renewal of the donation was brought about by the new stato of affairs created by the victories of Gautamiputra Satakapi and by the destruction, of which he boasts, of that dynasty of the Khaharatas with which our Rishabhadatta was directly connected by his father-in-law Nahapana. Wbat persuades
This shade of meaning is expressed with particular precision by such » phrase as that which we find in the Bacription of Chandragupta Il. at Så fichi, where a donation is made Kdkanddabofafrimaldvildri. . . . chaturdigabhydgałdya .. .. .aryasang dya; Dr. Vleet's Gupta Inscriptions, p. 81.