Abstract

Some of the earliest South Asian Buddhist historical records pertain to the enshrinement of relics, some of which were linked to the Buddha and others associated with prominent monastic teachers and their pupils. Who were the people primarily responsible for these enshrinements? How did the social status of these people represent Buddhism as a burgeoning institution? This paper utilizes early Prakrit inscriptions from India and Sri Lanka to reconsider who was interested in enshrining these relics and what, if any, connection they made have had with each other. Traditional accounts of reliquary enshrinement suggest that king Aśoka began the enterprise of setting up the Buddha’s corporeal body for worship but his own inscriptions cast doubt as to the importance he may have placed in the construction of stūpa-s and the widespread distribution of relics. Instead, as evidenced in epigraphy, inclusive corporations of individuals may have instigated, or, at the very least, became the torchbearers for, reliquary enshrinement as a salvific enterprise. Such corporations comprised of monastics as well as non-monastics and seemed to increasingly become more managerial over time. Eventually, culminating at places like Sanchi, the enshrinement of the corporeal remains of regionally famous monks partially supplanted the corporeal remains of the Buddha. Those interested in funding this new endeavor were corporations of relatives, monastic brethren, and others who were likely friends and immediate acquaintances. In the end, the social and corporate collectivity of early Buddhism may have outshined some textual monastic ideals of social isolation as it pertained to the planning, carrying out, and physical enshrinement of corporeal remains for worship, thus evoking an inclusive sentiment with the monastic institution rather than disassociation.

Highlights

  • Since the Buddha’s parinibbāna (Skt. parinirvān.a) and partitioning of relics according to legend, the body of the Buddha seems to have been an extremely accessible tool by which the everyday person, in addition to monastics and royalty, had an opportunity to engage in what might be characterized as “merit-making activity.” For example, in the Pāli version of the Sarıradhātuvibhajana section of the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta1 (DN 72), the king Ajātasattu of Māgadha had heard that the Buddha was deceased and concluded that “[Since] the Lord was a khattiya (Skt. ks.atriya), and so am I, I deserve a portion of the Buddha’s relics

  • Buddhism may have outshined some textual monastic ideals of social isolation as it pertained to the planning, carrying out, and physical enshrinement of corporeal remains for worship, evoking an inclusive sentiment with the monastic institution rather than disassociation

  • South Asia, it is worthwhile to consider the primary word I am translating into English as “corporate body”: It should be noted that some recent work on Indian Buddhist epigraphy at Sanchi has questioned the “egalitarian nature” of the inscriptional corpus (Milligan 2016)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since the Buddha’s parinibbāna (Skt. parinirvān.a) and partitioning of relics according to legend, the body of the Buddha seems to have been an extremely accessible tool by which the everyday person, in addition to monastics and royalty, had an opportunity to engage in what might be characterized as “merit-making activity.” For example, in the Pāli version of the Sarıradhātuvibhajana section of the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta (DN 72), the king Ajātasattu of Māgadha had heard that the Buddha was deceased and concluded that “[Since] the Lord was a khattiya (Skt. ks.atriya), and so am I, I deserve a portion of the Buddha’s relics. In South Asia, the practice of dāna, meaning something like “a gift” and/or “the act of charity” itself dates to the Vedic period and implies some kind of financial or, at the very least, asset-transacting relationship between patrons and ritual actors (Findly 2003; Gonda 1965; Heesterman 1985) It seems, that within this context, the financial practices of early South Asian Buddhists were not altogether different in function than gifts given to priests as payments for rituals or sacrifices, Thapar has discussed the subtleties of how this practice changed through urbanization Such observations about monastic Buddhists mark a stark contrast to the (in)famous—and perhaps blatantly misleading—literary tradition which paints the Buddhistic path of enlightenment as solitary for many (Clarke 2014) or, at the very least, socially restrictive

Corporations
Aśoka’s Patronage
Piprahwa
Bhattiprolu
Sanchi
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.