9

The Fate of A1okas Donations

at Lumbini
Harry Falk

At Lumbini Queen Maya gave birth to Siddhartha, the Buddha to be.

According to all available ancient descriptions of the event, she stood
erect for delivery, holding tight to a branch of a Sal tree. This standard
depiction was changed slightly for hagiographical purposes with the
addition that the baby came out of her body not the normal way but
from her right loin, head first and upright. Two gods received the newborn baby with washing water and towels. Just after he was born, the
baby mounted a throne-chair and marched seven steps. Leaving aside
the fanciful additions, two points seem to have a historical basis: The
site and the tree.
The short text found on the pillar at Lumbini erected by A1oka is
well-known. It says:
When king Priyadar1in, dear to the gods, had been anointed for twenty years, he
came in person and paid reverence. Being aware that the Buddha was born here,
he had a vigadabhi of stone constructed on the site and a stone pillar erected.
Being aware that the Lord was born here, he made the village of Lumbini taxfree and athabhagiya.

Two terms are left untranslated, vigadabhi and athabhagiya, on which I

would like to comment. First, we have to imagine how the site of Lumbini
looked like when A1oka arrived around 236 bce. Was it marked in any
way? Were there attendants, guesthouses, monks? For an understanding
we have to compare the text engraved on the nearby pillar of Nigliva:

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 205

devanampiyena piyadasina lajina codasavasa[bhisi]tena

budhasa konakamanasa thube dutiyam vadhite
[visativa]sabhisitena ca atana agaca mahiyite
[silathabhe ca usa]papite
When king Priyadar1in, dear to the gods, has been anointed for fourteen years,
he enlarged the stupa of Buddha Konagamana to double its size. When he was
consecrated for twenty (?) years, he came in person and paid reverence and had
a stone pillar erected.

This means that in his fourteenth regnal year, A1oka directed that
something had to be done at the site of Buddha Konagamana. He had heard
about it, he knew that there was a stupa, which he has not seen personally.
Nonetheless, he pays tribute to a Buddha of old by having it enlarged.
In comparison, the text at Lumbini neither refers to the fourteenth
year nor mentions a stupa. Why did A1oka not enlarge a supposed stupa
of the 2akyamuni at Lumbini on the same occasion? Possibly, because
none was there.
In his twentieth year, A1oka arrives in person, both at Lumbini and at
the stupa of Konagamana. At Konagamanas site he has a pillar erected.
At Lumbini he sets up a vigadabhi made of stone and likewise has a pillar
erected. But there is no word about a stupa. Why? Possibly, because none
was there.
Was there a stupa at all at Lumbini? This simple question is hardly
ever addressed in the literature while, apart from Deeg (2003: 40), most
scholars seem to take the presence of a stupa at Lumbini for granted. This
is possibly the result of the stotras from the tenth century praising the
eight great stupas. They list all important events and the respective sites in
the Buddhas life, starting with Lumbini or Kapilavastu, inserting larger
cities were the Pali texts speak of minor places instead (Bagchi, 1941).
If we rid our mind from preconceived notions, we can only say that
we dont know if there was a stupa at Lumbini in the time of A1oka.
Remnants from that time are none and even the Chinese pilgrims are
silent about a stupa commemorating the birth of the Buddha (Deeg,
2003: 40). To understand what actually was there we have to reflect again
on the term athabhagiya. This term has received many explanations.
Since long it has been taken to denote a reduction of taxes from onesixth to one-eigth. In 1991, I pointed out that this assumption makes
A1oka a sort of bazari, who just releases his grip slightly without waiving
his rights completely. How much tax could he have expected from a tiny
village in the Terai? Was it adequate for the king of India to dismiss, say,

206 Reimagining Asoka

Rupees 20 or so annually in praise of a venerated Buddha? Certainly

not. Nevertheless, most of the many explanations1 of this donative text
take the alleged tax reduction for granted.
My alternative solution of the problem at that time was basically
that of Richard Pischel who in 1903 had pointed to certain rights,
often eight, which come with land grants during many centuries of the
Common Era. They include, for instance, the right to the tax-free use of
trees, water, stones, and buried treasures.
Although that solution made A1oka a more generous donor, it still
collapsed instantly when a text from Kanganhalli, near Sannathi in
Karnataka, became known recently. Large stone slabs once decorated the
Satavahana stupa at that place all around in two tiers. One of the slabs
shows a series of balustrade posts with flower ornaments in the lower
register, while the upper part is broken away. An inscription, however,
tells us what once could be seen above it (see Figures 9.1 and 9.2)
ramagamilo athabhagathubho upari
Above (you see) the stupa of Ramagrama (containing) one eighth part.

This translation is based on the report about the division of the ashes
of the Buddha into eight parts as it is found in the Dighanikaya (Pali
Text Society Edition, II: 167). Here we learn that one part of the ashes
each went to Rajagrha, Vai1ali, Kapilavastu, Allakappa, Ramagrama,

Fig. 9.1: Picture slab at Kanganhalli

Courtesy of Christian Luczanits

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 207

Fig. 9.2: Close-up of the inscriptions

Courtesy of Harry Falk

Vethadipa, Pava, and Ku1inagara, where they reached divided into

eight equal parts.2 Note that Lumbini is missing from the list. A stanza
preceding the text cited declares that the relics should be atthabhaga,
so that the stupas containing them can be constructed in the eight
directions.3 The eight parts are thus linked to eight stupas in eight
directions and Ramagrama is not the least amongst them.
What did A1oka mean when he tells us that he made Lumbini
athabhagiya? I think the comparison with the line on the Kanganhalli
slab clearly indicates that before A1oka came there, Lumbini had not
yet received a share of the Buddhas ashesand that A1oka provided
Lumbini with a share of it for the first time. The term also seems to
have a legal and/or fiscal connotation, exempting the village from
royal jurisdiction and placing it directly under the rule of those clerics
looking after it. A1oka clearly was in a position to do so after he had
collected ashes from seven of the eight original sites and redistributed
them in a diluted form all over the subcontinent. Since in early times
there was no stupa without relics we are safe to state that before A1okas
visit at the site, no stupa hallowed the place in memory of the birth of
the 2akyamuni. Hence, A1oka must have changed Lumbini from an
insignificant place in the woods to a possible centre of pilgrimage. The
difference between Nigliva and Lumbini is thus very clear: The stupa
at Nigliva preserved nothing less than the undivided ashes or the full
body4 of Buddha Konagamana. A1oka enlarged this stupa early in his
reign and had a pillar erected. Lumbini initially had nothing at all until
A1oka provided the site with relics and a pillar and thereby made it a
powerful site for a pilgrimage.

208 Reimagining Asoka

This interpretation can be compared to the account of the

Divyavadana (Vaidya, 1959: 249) [= A1okavadana (Mukhopadhyaya,
1963: 83)] where Upagupta takes A1oka to diverse sites of the Buddhas
life and gets him to build a caitya first at the site where the Buddha
was born.5 A caitya, if of the 1aririka type, can be a stupa. More often,
however, it is of the paribhogika type, containing items the Buddha had
used, or still more frequent, of the udde1ika type, commemorating a
place where the Buddha had done a more or less remarkable deed (Rhi,
2005: 169f.). According to the Vinaya of the Mahasamghikas, a caitya
is generally different from a stupa; it never contains relics and it marks a
place of significance, for example, the place where the Buddha was born
(Rhi, 2005: 169). If we follow the lead of the author(s) of that Vinaya,
then, no stupa could have stood at Lumbini. Returning to the account
of the Avadanas, we have the choice of crediting A1oka with the erection
of a caitya with or without relics. If it had relics, the shape of the edifice
should have resembled a stupa, which is hard to imagine since no stupa
has ever been found which could be dated back to A1okas times. If
A1oka, according to his own words, gave Lumbini a share in the ashes of
the Buddha, we have to look for a different solution.
The site of Lumbini does provide several other edifices. First of
all, we have A1okas pillar, which is beyond dispute. Then we have the
so-called Mayadevi Temple, excavated recently down to its foundations
(NN, 2005). Moreover, there is a pond and a monastery as well as
many of the usual small stupas, often called or rather mislabelled votive
stupas. A large structure
which would resemble a
stupa of Mauryan origins,
however, is missing. As far
as we know, A1okan stupas
are not removed but only
enlarged. This precludes
the possibility of finding
an A1okan stupa below the
large, square sub-structure
on which the Mayadevi
Temple once stood.
Human bones from a
Fig. 9.3: Square pedestal adjoining the
reliquary have been found
northern wall of the former Mayadevi
by Rijal in the 1976/77
temple
excavation in a square
From Rijal (nd)

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 209

Fig. 9.4: Broken and collapsed pedestal with golden lid of a reliquary from
Rijal (nd)

construction which he calls a square based stupa of Mauryan period

(1979: 10; see Figure 9.3). It was cut down from top to bottom, possibly
by the team of General Kesher Sumsher J.B. Rana, who devastated the
site from 1933 to 1939 in the name of a misunderstood archaeology. In
this square construction, a reliquary was found, the gold capsule opened
and its content spilled on the ground (see Figure 9.4). Even the golden
lid of the capsule was lost and left forgotten in the debris (see Figure
9.5). It appears that the reliquary was inside the square foundation and
not in a hemispherical superstructure, if there ever was one. This allows
us to surmise that the relics must not necessarily presuppose a stupa. In
certain cases, a pedestal may serve the same purpose.
In short, there is nothing at Lumbini that could be taken as a stupa
founded by A1oka. But, do we need one? The Lumbini pillar speaks
only of a vigadabhi made of stone. So far this expression has been mostly
interpreted as referring to the pillars capital or to the pillars enclosing
wall. If we take A1oka seriously, we can also say that vigadabhi in the
Lumbini text is on a par with the stupa at other sites, that is, the most
prominent construction in its own right and not a secondary enlargement
of the pillar or a stupa.
Now, what exactly deserved to be marked at Lumbini? All pilgrimreports lay stress on the tree under which the future 2akyamuni was
born. Would it be appropriate to mark this place under a tree by a stupa?

210 Reimagining Asoka

Fig. 9.5: Contents of a reliquary found together with the golden lid from
Rijal (nd)

I dont think so. The original tree may still have been standing, since Sal
(Shorea robusta) grows slowly. How does one mark such a spot? It could
be fenced in, or it could be marked by a pedestal, or by both.
It is dangerous to etymologize the phrase silavigadabhica, which may
consist of two or of three words, depending on how one interprets the

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 211

final ca. With regard to the

basic root, I concur with
Pischel (1903: 728), who
pointed to gad avarane in
the Dhatupatha and to gada
known to the ko1akaras
denoting vyavadhana, a
screen. But I depart from
his interpretation when he
takes vi in the privative sense
understanding vi-gada-bha as
free from obstacles. I rather
see the repelling aspect of vi
present here, as in vi-nud,
to dispel, to drive away,
resulting in a bar, obstacle
for vigada. The closing -bhi
was traced previously by me
to a root noun -bhrt (Falk,
2006: 180); we can also
consider the root bhri in the
same sense, bhara ity eke, Fig. 9.6: Square pedestal at Lumbini later
according to the Dhatupatha. topped by an excentrical stupa from
A vigadabhi would then be a Rijal (nd)
construction holding bars.
Looking at the few but telling illustrations from Rijals excavation,
we see that several of the later stupas start as square pedestals (see Figure
9.6). At least one of the later added stupa domes has no structural
connection to its square base below. Let us keep this picture in mind
for the moment.
In my A1okan Sites and Artefacts (Falk, 2006) I have proposed that
we should expect a railing, similar to the one found in Sarnath, behind
the vigadabhi (see Figure 9.7). Here I would like to go one step further
and propose that the railing found at Sarnath could, in fact, be the very
vigadabhi from Lumbini.
This proposal is not as far-fetched as it may appear at first. The
railing at Sarnath is unique. It measures 2.5m on every side and is 1.45
m high. It is made from one single stone, which had a volume of about
10 cubic metres. Sandstone has a specific weight of 2.2 to 2.35 tons per
cubic metre, so that a rock of this size weighed at least 22 tons. This

212 Reimagining Asoka

Fig. 9.7: Broken railing at Sarnath completed by brick-work, with a pedestal

within, later topped by an excentrical stupa
Courtesy of Harry Falk

is more than the weight of some of the smaller A1okan pillars. With
its inner part chiselled away, the railing still must have weighed several
tons. The workmanship is perfect, the polish is excellent, so A1oka has
already been suspected as the sponsor of this work. Unfortunately, the
railing has found its place north of the so-called Jagat Singh stupa at
Sarnath and an early surmise was that it once crowned this stupa as a
vedika and broke when it fell down from there. Against this we must
say that no other stupa shows any sign of a monolithic vedika at the top.
On the other hand, John Marshall, in his excavation report of 190607
(Marshall and Konow, 190607: 89), says:
The railing is in fact a remarkable tour de force, and was undoubtedly
erected, in the first instance, on some especially hallowed spot. Whether this
spot is the one on which it now stands, cannot be definitely affirmed. The
railing is unfortunately badly fractured, and must have been so from an early
age, as there are large breakages on the north and west sides, which had been
made good with brick-work long before the main shrine, as it now stands, was
built. It is quite possible, therefore, that the railing originally stood elsewhere
and was transferred to this spot in sections, after it had been broken, perhaps
at the time that the later inscription was engraved upon it.

Not only is the railing unique, it also aroused some antiquarian

sentiments in that it was preserved and maintained even after its

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 213

destruction. It was made

complete by brickwork
(see Figure 9.8), and was
incorporated with these
repaired parts into the huge
temple in Gupta times.
The inscription that
Marshall mentions in the
singular, are, in fact, two.
One was found by Oertel in
the 190405 campaign on
the front of the lower stone
on the east side (Marshall
and Konow, 190607: 96).
Marshall found the second Fig. 9.8: Fragmentary railing with holes
on the base of the south for flagstaffs reconstructed by brickwork,
railing. Both are remarkable. adjoining the wall of the later Gupta temple
On the east (see Figure 9.9), Courtesy of Harry Falk
Oertel read (190405: 68):
aca[rya*]nam sarvvastivadinam ... parigahetavam, translated faultily as
Homage of the masters of the Sarvastivadin sect, as if this school was
responsible for its erection. Sten Konow, who seems to be responsible for
this reading, remarks in a footnote that only the last word is old, dating
to the first century bce or ce, whereas the beginning was inscribed four
centuries later after erasing the name of a different school. In fact, the
difference in time seems to be much shorter.
This inscription is covered by sand these days; its extremely low
situation seems to indicate that it was first inscribed when the railing
fragment was lying flat on the ground.
The second inscription (see Figure 9.10) on the south railing is quite
similar. It is found on the upper side of the lower horizontal stone ...

Fig. 9.9: Rubbing of an inscription on the lower front of the railing from
Oertel, ASIAR 19045, plates XXXII, IX

214 Reimagining Asoka

Fig. 9.10: Rubbing of an inscription on the lowest bar of the railing from
Marshall and Konow, ASIAR 19067, plates XXX, IV

divided into two parts, one on each side of the central bar (Marshall
and Konow, 190607: 96). This again is a very low situation, and it
must have been incised there when this fragment stood already upright.
Konow realized that the east side text is older, with one part erased
and he concluded that the south side text is nothing but an improved
version of the re-worked east side text. Still he misunderstands the
purpose of both inscriptions, in that he sees an anxiety evinced by the
Sarvastivadins to be considered as the donors of the railing (Marshall
and Konow 190607: 96). As we now know, a parigraha does not
refer to the donor, but to the donee. Thus, the Sarvastivadins were
anxious to be recognized as the owners or caretakers of the railing, not
as the donors. Finally, Salomon (2009: 118) remarked that the second
text too shows traces of reworking, indicating in both cases that the
Sarvastivadins would have succeeded in replacing another branch. To
document possession, the name of the earlier caretakers was erased on
the railing, just like the Sammaitiyas in turn some time later erased the
name of the Sarvastivadins from the pillar of A1oka, which as well was
regarded as a parigraha (Falk, 2006: 212).
A1okas pillar and this railing at Sarnath thus received the same
treatment: Both were regarded as given into the care of a certain group
of monks, and these monks used all means to substantiate their claim.
Why so? Pillar and railing seem to have attracted visitors; they emanated
a sanctity of their own and pilgrims were prompted to leave a token of
respect, preferably coins. The pillar was thus a means of income, labha,
and so was the railing.
The pillar palimpsest made it clear that Sarvastivadins and
Sammatiyas were involved in the change of possession, with the latter
leaving the latest evidence on the pillar. On the railing the contrary
could be the case, with the Sarvastivadins overwriting the name of the
Sammatiyas. The possibly mutual overwritings attest to two rival groups

The Fate of Asokas Donations at Lumbin- 215

present at Sarnath at the same time. Who was first? We do not know but
Xuanzangs report on Kapilavastu tells us that there were thirty monks
of the Sammatiya School (Deeg, 2003: 50), while other schools are
not mentioned. From this it seems probable that Sammatiyas were also
present at Lumbini.
Let us now look at the railing. It was re-erected at Sarnath on a brick
platform. We do not know when, but certainly after A1oka. Inside we
see a strange construction (see Figure 7.7). On top of a square pedestal, a
round miniature stupa was added later, missing the centre of the pedestal
intentionally. What does this mean?
The square pedestal below is removed to the northwestern corner,
partly hiding the bricks that replace the missing beams. The stupa placed
on top of it, rather, marks the centre of the railing. It was added later, as
was seen by Marshall and by Kumar (19856). Its position would have
looked more natural had the inside of the railing been filled with earth,
covering the pedestal below. When Oertel started excavating, only the
top of the railing and the brick stupa was above ground.
To make a long story short: I would suggest that we identify this
edifice at Sarnath as the broken parts of the vigadabhi from Lumbini,
which in that location could have enclosed a flat pedestal. After the
railing was destroyed in Lumbini, two remaining sides and one corner
piece were transferred to Sarnath by local Sammatiya monks and
re-erected on a brick base, making use of brick walls to supply the
missing side parts. The Sammatiyas noted their possession on one side
of the railing in a script of the first century bce. This was overwritten
in the second century ce by the Sarvastivadins who added a second
possession note on the second large fragment as well. Inside the
reconstruction, a square pedestal was built of bricks, probably copying
a similar pedestal at the original location.
The original pedestal at Lumbini could well have housed a reliquary
containing part of the ashes of the Buddha, making the site astabhagika,
independent of any stupa.
At Lumbini, the railing and pedestal would thus have marked the site
of the birth of the 2akyamuni below the branches of a tree. The pedestal
could have served as a table for flowers or any other kind of donation.
Let me now repeat the text from Lumbini:
When king Priyadar1in, dear to the gods, had been anointed for twenty years,
he came in person and paid reverence. Being aware that the Buddha was born
here, he had a stone fencing constructed on the site [of the birth] and a stone
pillar erected. Being aware that the Lord was born here, he made the village of

216 Reimagining Asoka

Lumbini tax-free and and provided it with a share in the eight parts [the ashes
of the Buddha had originally been divided].

The destruction of the railing must have occurred before it was

inscribed on the present eastern side because the situation of the
inscription on the vertical side very close to the ground suggests a
horizontal position of the broken part. Palaeographically, the oldest
part of the inscription would best fit into the second half of the second
or into the first century bce. The destruction of the railing, preceding
the inscribing, could have taken place in the so-called 2u3ga phase, the
subsequent transfer of the remnants to Sarnath, possibly centuries later.
The antiquarian sense of those saving the remnants in antiquity has
to be noted and admired; the subsequent use as a means for collecting
donations may have further helped to preserve a unique piece of art
which at the same time provides further proof for the artistic vision and
insistance on quality by an extraordinary king, A1oka.

Notes
1. The latest extensive survey is by Tsukamoto (2005) which includes ten
interpretations, to which the one by Deeg (2003, 20f.) must be added, who
takes the term equalling 1ila-vigadha-abdhi, a stone bathing pond, a solution
that violates several sound laws as well as archaeological evidence. For my own
view cf. Falk (1991).
2. Dighanikaya, Pali Text Society, II:166. bhagavato sarirani atthadha samam
suvibhattam vibhajitva.
3. sabbeva bhonto sahita samagga sammodamana karom atthabhage. Vittharika
hontu disasu thupa bahu jana cakkhumato pasanna; repeated in other words in
the dhatunidhanakatha of the second pariccheda of the Dhatuvamsa.
4. At least according to Xuanzangs report on a place 50 li south (Dighanikaya,
Pali Text Society, Vol. II, p. 166, 10 to 20 km) of Kapilavastu where the relics of
the complete body of Krakucchanda were interred (cf. Deeg, 2003: 52).
5. Bagchi (1941: 225) cites this text in the conviction that it proves the existence
of old stupas at the important places in the Buddhas life, in line with the new set
of eight stupas in the stotras. T.N. Mishra (2004) takes caitya here to denote a
temple, a very unlikely proposal.