Indian Buddhist Biographies (1)

This very interesting blog entry posted on earlyTibet kickstarted some thoughts about Indian Buddhist biographies. I could not come up with that many off the top of my head, so Sam's assertion, namely that:

"The vast amount of biographical and autobiographical literature produced in Tibet over the centuries is an interesting phenomenon. For a culture so pervaded by the Buddha’s teaching of non-self, there is an awful lot of writing about the lives of individuals. And, interestingly, this is something that was not done to the same extent in India, the primary source of Tibetan Buddhism."

is probably correct. Note, however, that he did say "to the same extent in India". Indeed, "biographies" of Indian Buddhists do exist and some of them are absolutely fascinating. True, there are not that many. Here is one of my favourites from the time of Devapāla (most likely around 810-840 CE). The inscription is usually referred to as the Ghosrawa inscription. It celebrates the life, endowments, and career of one Vīradeva, a native of Nagarahāra (Nangarhar in today's Afghanistan).

Copy of an estampage as published in the Gauḍalekhamālā.

The text is remarkably rich in biographical details. We come to know that Vīradeva's father was one Indragupta, who became a confidante of the king (who is unfortunately not named). He had a faithful wife, Rajjekā (or perhaps: Rajjokā). Their son proved to be a very intelligent boy and he displayed lack of interest in this-worldly affairs from a very early age. After his Vedic studies he went to the Kaniṣka monastery (in today's Peshawar) and became a student of one Sarvajñaśānti. At some point he came to Mahābodhi to bow to the Vajrāsana. After he had done so he went to meet his compatriot monks at the Yaśovarmapura monastery (this toponym to my knowledge is still unidentified). He became so famous that he was venerated by Devapāla himself. Later on he was appointed to a high office at Nālandā and became a munificent donor for several important buildings.

(For editions see Kielhorn in Indian Antiquary vol. XVII - which I do not have at hand now -; the Gauḍalekhamālā, and Tsukamoto's wonderful collection of Indian Buddhist inscriptions. Here I tried to follow the estampage as much as possible, but several problems remain. Bear with me until I get hold of Kielhorn's article.)


@ śrīmān asau jayati sattvahitapravṛtta-
sanmānasādhigatatattvanayo munīndraḥ| 
kleśātmanāṃ duritanakradurāsadāntaḥ 
saṃsārasāgarasamuttaraṇaikasetuḥ|| 1


asyāsmadguravo babhūvur abalāḥ saṃbhūya hartuṃ manaḥ 
kā lajjā yadi kevalo na balavān asmi trilokaprabhau| 
ity ālocayateva mānasabhuvā yo dūrato varjitaḥ 
śrīmān viśvam aśeṣam etad avatād bodhau sa vajrāsanaḥ|| 2


asty Uttarāpathavibhūṣaṇabhūtabhūmir 
deśottamo Nagarahāra iti pratītaḥ| 
tatra dvijātir uditoditavaṃśajanmā 
nāmnEndragupta iti rājasakho babhūva|| 3


Rajjekayā dvijavaraḥ sa guṇī gṛhiṇyā 
yukto rarāja kalayāmalayā yathenduḥ| 
lokaḥ pativratakathāparibhāvanāsu 
saṃkīrtanaṃ prathamam eva karoti yasyāḥ|| 4 


tābhyām ajāyata sutaḥ sutarāṃ vivekī 
yo bāla eva kalitaḥ paralokabuddhyā| 
sarvopabhogasubhage 'pi gṛhe viraktaḥ 
pravrajyayā sugataśāsanam abhyupetum|| 5 


vedān adhītya sakalān kṛtaśāstracintaḥ 
śrīmatKaniṣkam upagamya mahāvihāram| 
ācāryavaryam atha sa praśamapraśasyaṃ 
Sarvajñaśāntim anugamya tapaś cacāra|| 6 


so 'yaṃ viśuddhaguṇasaṃbhṛtabhūrikīrteḥ 
śiṣyo 'nurūpaguṇaśīlayaśo'bhirāmaḥ| 
bālenduvat kalikalaṅkavimuktakāntir 
vandyaḥ sadā munijanair api Vīradevaḥ|| 7 


Vajrāsanaṃ vanditum ekadā'tha 
śrīmanMahābodhim upāgato 'sau|
draṣṭuṃ tato 'gāt sahadeśibhikṣūn 
śrīmadYaśovarmapuraṃ vihāram|| 8 


tiṣṭhann atheha suciraṃ pratipattisāraḥ 
śrīDevapālabhuvanādhipalabdhapūjaḥ| 
prāptaprabhaḥ pratidinodayapūritāśaḥ 
pūṣeva dāritatamaḥprasaro rarāja|| 9 


bhikṣor ātmasamaḥ suhṛd bhuja iva śrīSatyabodher nijo 
Nālandāparipālanāya niyataḥ saṅghasthiter yaḥ sthitaḥ| 
yenaitau sphuṭam IndraśailamukuṭaŚrīcaityacūḍāmaṇī 
śrāmaṇyavratasaṃvṛtena jagataḥ śreyo'rtham utthāpitau|| 10 


Nālandayā ca paripālitayeha satyā 
śrīmadvihāraparihāravibhūṣitāṅgyā| 
udbhāsito 'pi bahukīrtivadhūpatitve 
yaḥ sādhu sādhur iti sādhujanaiḥ praśastaḥ|| 11


cintājvaraṃ śamayatārtajanasya dṛṣṭyā 
Dhanvantarer api hi yena hataḥ prabhāvaḥ| 
yaś cepsitārthaparipūrṇamanorathena 
lokena kalpatarutulyatayā gṛhītaḥ|| 12 


tenaitad atra kṛtam ātmamanovad uccair 
Vajrāsanasya bhavanaṃ bhuvanottamasya| 
saṃjāyate yad abhivīkṣya vimānagānāṃ 
KailāsaMandaramahīdharaśṛṅgaśaṅkā|| 13 


sarvasvopanayena sattvasuhṛdām audāryam abhyasyatā 
saṃbodhau vihitaspṛhaṃ saha guṇair visparddhivīryaṃ tathā| 
atrasthena nije nijāv iha bṛhatpuṇyādhikāre sthite 
yena svena yaśodhvajena ghaṭitau vaṃśāv Udīcīpathe|| 14 


sopānamārgam iva{ṃ} muktipurasya kīrtim 
etāṃ vidhāya kuśalaṃ yad upāttam asmāt| 
kṛtvāditaḥ sapitaraṃ guruvargam asya 
saṃbodhim etu janarāśir aśeṣa eva|| 15 


yāvat kūrmo jaladhivalayāṃ bhūtadhātrīṃ bibharti 
dhvāntadhvaṃsī tapati tapano yāvad evograraśmiḥ| 
snigdhā lokāḥ śiśiramahasā yāmavatyaś ca yāvat 
tāvat kīrtir jayatu bhuvane Vīradevasya śubhrā|| 16 

Lost and found

[Make sure you read the UPDATE below] First of all, a small rant. Why can we not have something like this for Sanskrit manuscripts? Hats off to Prof. Witkam, especially since he scanned this book as well: The Art of the Book in India (you will have to scroll down the list to 'Jeremiah P. Losty'). The introduction of this very nice publication has a few things to say about copper plates as well and it is there that we find the image on the left of this text on p. 11. The caption reads: "Single copper plate issued at Monghyr in c. AD 854, with Pāla seal riveted on. Iveagh Bequest." 

Get the book if you want to read some of the text, this image is not very good. On and off some akṣaras are legible on the paper version. For now you will have to believe me that the seal reads śrīdevapāladevasya. Yes, this seems to be the Monghyr copper plate of Devapāla, "the first Sanskrit inscription that was ever brought to the notice of European scholars" as Kielhorn says (Indian Antiquary, September 1892, p. 253 ff.). This issue of the IA is available at DLI, you can check the references given there for the first publication and other studies. 

What is interesting here is that as of 1892 the plate got lost (again paraphrasing Kielhorn here, perhaps the plate was lost even earlier). Apparently it somehow made it into the Iveagh collection, where it was photographed by Losty. Why on earth would this collection of paintings (famous Rembrandts included) and other things have the Munghyr copper plate, I have no idea. But it seems to be there, just a few dozen miles away from me, at a place called Kenwood House in Hampstead. Stay tuned for more. 

Meanwhile, to modestly celebrate the resurfacing (at least for me) of this inscription, here is one of my favourite verses from the edict: 

bhrāmyadbhir vijayakrameṇa karibhiḥ svām eva Vindhyāṭavīm 

uddāmaplavamānabāṣpapayaso dṛṣṭāḥ punar bāndhavāḥ | 

Kambojeṣu ca yasya vājiyuvabhir dhvastānyarājaujaso 

heṣāmiśritahāriheṣitaravāḥ kāntāś ciraṃ vīkṣitāḥ || 

And here is Kielhorn's translation (1892): 

"In the course of conquest his elephants, roaming over their own Vindhya forest, met again with their kindred who shed plentiful tears (of joy); and, after he had crushed the power of other kings, his young chargers in Kamboja at last saw their mates, and it was a pleasure to hear them loudly neigh at each other."

And that of Wilkins (Esq.) (1799):

"He who, marching through many countries making conquests, arrived with his elephants in the forests of the mountains of Beendhya, where seeing again their long lost families, they mixed their mutual tears; and who going to subdue other princes, his young horses meeting their females at Komboge, they mutually neighed for joy."

Crying elephants: that sounds familiar.

UPDATE: Ok, forget about the whole thing. The plate was known to have resurfaced, cf. Bhandarkar's list and EI XVIII, pp. 304 f. and Pl.

Of the sons of donkeys and sows (a note on bureaucratic vulgarity)

Perhaps because of having dealt with so many wonderfully absurd bureaucratic situations Thor bu loves a bit of vulgarity in official documents. Apparently those good old Biharis (and Tibetans, on which a bit later) also loved a non-veg joke in their documents. This image comes from a grant dating to the early 13th century. A local king, the rather nebulous Aśokacalladeva, and/or his ministers built a small vihāra and left some endowments. The language of the document is pretty horrible. If you want to read more about it I suggest you download Epigraphia Indica 12. There are several other publications on this inscription, but unfortunately they are not available to me at the moment.

If you are reading Tsukamoto's Indo bukkyo himei no kenkyu ('A Comprehensive Study of the Indian Buddhist Inscriptions') you will perhaps get excited at the sight of one Kashmiri Abhayaśrī being mentioned. Unfortunately he is not. I still can't figure out what the name of Kashmiri fellow is, but I'm willing to wager a good bottle of wine that it is not Abhayaśrī.

Back to the image. Here is the bigger picture:

Apparently those good old Victorian gentlemen did not share the sense of humour of the people they were studying. Here is the same inscription in Sir Alexander Cunningham's Mahābodhi:

Notice the difference? Indeed, no more unlawful carnal knowledge between... but what are they? Well, we could argue about it, but I'm pretty sure it is a donkey and a sow (or more precisely a wild boar sow). But it's not because I'm so good at zoology; I could not tell you the difference between a boar and a badger (whatever those are). It's because the - I think rather well-executed - sketch is a somewhat unusual representation of an imprecation, which is, however, almost standard at the end of land grants. An inscription dating from 32 years later from the same location says:

vaṃśe madīye yadi ko 'pi bhūpaḥ
śiṣṭo 'thavā duṣṭataro vinaṣṭaḥ |
vyatikramaṃ cātra karoti tasya
tātaḥ kharaḥ sūkarikā ca mātā ||

"And should any king of my lineage,
be him learned/superior or wickedly damned,
violate [the terms of] this [donation], his
father is a donkey and his mother a sow."

So, what the image is saying is: 'I gently remind you to respect this here donation' (take that, semiotics!). Other standard verses, more common on Pāla grants, promise rebirth as a worm in excrement. Why can't we have things like this on our contracts? [sigh]

What about the Tibetans? Well, I came across this image some time ago in here.

I even remember having somehow deciphered some of the writing under the smudge, but I lost the higher resolution images some time ago. Maybe you will have more luck. The young scribe no doubt expressed how he felt about scribbling for the zhang blon, or for the other chap, who had nothing better to do but bother him with dictating a letter about how his yearly crops went on what I imagine to have been a sunny afternoon.

Grandpa sends the elephants home

This lovely little verse comes from the Monghyr copper plate of Devapāla:

vijitya yenājaladher vasundharāṃ
vimocitā moghaparigrahā iti |
sabāṣpam udbāṣpavilocanān punar
vaneṣu bandhūn dadṛśur mataṅgajāḥ ||

[yena = Gopālena, who was Devapāla's grandfather]

Crying elephants!

The martyrdom of Karuṇāśrīmitra

Roughly one thousand years ago a roughly similar sight greeted a marauding army from Bengal. For reasons best known to themselves they came here - the great monastery of Somapura - to set it on fire. We know of this because four academic generations later a monk called Vipulaśrīmitra commissioned an inscription describing how the fountainhead of his lineage met his end in this sad event.

"For example, we find construction in honor of the martyrdom of the eminent monk Karuṇāśrīmitra, who went to the Buddha's heaven after having been burned to death by a Baṅgāla army while he was trying to save his monastery of Somapura. A disciple in his line constructed statues and monasteries in several locales around North India, including a monastery specifically dedicated to his Vinaya lineage, the Mitras. The interesting part, though, is the inscription celebrating this in the proximity of the Nālandā grounds, where it was set up so that its message might gain greater response and achieve the public appreciation that was its due."

Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism (p. 110)

There are several problems with these statements. It seems that the inscription was not commissioned to commemorate Karuṇāśrīmitra's martyrdom, but rather the collective achievements of Vipulaśrīmitra himself and possibly his masters beginning with Karuṇāśrīmitra. That an army should burn monks is not unusual, attrocities are committed everywhere and against everyone. But here it seems that Karuṇāśrīmitra simply refused to leave the hall which was burning around him. Instead he clutched the feet of the Buddha (most likely an image) and died, presumably consumed by the fire. He did not go to "the Buddha's heaven", this somewhat odd collocation is the result of miscontruing a genitive. The text simply says in a polite manner that 'he died', lit. 'went to heaven'. Whether he was trying to save the monastery or not is unclear. I do not see any strong evidence for this in the verse. There are more problems with the paragraph, but I'll leave it here for the moment. Instead, here is the stanza in question:

śrīmatSomapure babhūva Karuṇāśrīmitranāmā yatiḥ
kāruṇyād guṇasaṃpado hitasukhādhānād api prāṇināṃ[|]
yo Vaṅgālabalair upetya dahanakṣepāj jvalaty ālaye
saṃlagnaś caraṇāravindayugale Buddhasya yāto divam|| [2]

"There was in majestic Somapura an ascetic/a devotee called Karuṇāśrīmitra, who - because of his compassion, abundance of virtues, as well as his dedication to act for the welfare and happiness of beings - when the armies of Bengal arrived and started a conflagration, passed away in a burning hall clutching the lotus-feet of the Buddha."

UPDATE: for a high-resolution b/w image of the inscription click here.

An inscription from Spu hreng

Sam of earlytibet fame posted a very interesting article recently. In the comments thereon I suggested that the text was defaced in order to 'recycle' the text. Today however this interesting little inscription came to my attention which should perhaps be added to the argument, although this defacement (if it is one) is of an entirely different nature.

It has been some years that Precious Deposits has been published and shame on me for not browsing through its five volumes earlier. Volume one (amongst many other fascinating things) has a picture of this Avalokiteśvara statue (p. 173, sorry about the quality; I could not take out the book from the library so a bad photocopy-scan will have to do). According to the caption the statue was found in Zhi bde village in Spu hreng county.

Then there is this dedicatory inscription (p. 172) with all kinds of good wishes from the donor. I will not transcribe it since it is quite legible in the book.

But here is the interesting part: who is the donor? The right side says Seng ge zhang chen po 'Bro(?) khri(?) brtsan sgra||(!) mgon po rgyal, (?) meaning that you can barely make out the letters. The other side has a slight variant for the name: zhang 'Bro(?) khri(?) brtsan sgra mgon po rgyal. Notice how the clan name 'Bro and the khri are almost illegible in both cases. Furthermore, is khri some kind of pretense of royalty (at any rate, is that what the vandal thought)? But then why is he calling himself zhang and zhang chen po?

Below you will find the names. I might just be paranoid, but it is highly unlikely that someone vandalizes two sides of an inscription in exactly the same places where the donor identifies his clan and possibly arrogates to himself the royal khri. Quite clearly, this guy had a problem with the 'Bros. And who would those be? Well, who did not have a problem with them?

Suggestions/comments are highly welcome.

Bsam yas rdo ring

The attractive new coating. I guess it makes it a little bit more legible but they should have used some pink and neon green I feel.

Madan Mohan, the pawned deity

Bishnupur (Viṣṇupura for you and me) in Bankura district boasts one of the finest collections of terracotta temples in West Bengal. Amongst them Madan Mohan may not be the most spectacular, yet it has a curious little story attached to it.

When this image greeted me at the entrance I instantly knew that I was going to like this place.


Madan Mohan was perhaps some kind of local divinity who later became incorporated into/conflated/homologized with Kṛṣṇa. The strangest thing was that I already knew a Madan Mohan temple in North Calcutta. It turned out that this is not a coincidence at all. Early into the last century the temple in Bishnupur was in dire need of money and they pawned (!) their central deity to the wealthy and mighty Mitras of North Calcutta. The Mitra house still stands, although the owners have been evicted for some reason. One of the upper floors, obviously a former living room, is now converted into a place of worship. Every evening devotees come and sing bhajans in front of the image (this is a Kṛṣṇa playing the flute accompanied by Rādhā by the way). Presumably the Bishnupur temple is not interested in honouring their debt anymore, since now they have a perfect copy of the original enshrined in their Madan Mohan.


And here is the inscription (in śārdūlavikrīḍita) on the Bishnupur temple:

śrīrādhāvrajarājanandanapadāmbhojeṣu tatprītaye |
mallābde* phaṇirājaśīrṣagaṇite māse śucau nirmmale |
saudhaṃ sundararatnamandiram idaṃ sārdhaṃ svaceto'linā |
śrīmaddurjanasiṃhabhūmipatinā dattaṃ viśuddhātmanā ||

*The Mallas of Viṣṇupura had an era of their own starting with 694-5 CE, the coronation date of their first (legendary) king. The date is written with numerals at the bottom (1000 Malla era), that is 1694-5 CE. Phaṇirāja is of course Śeṣa, who is a thousand-headed serpent, hence: 'In the year of the Mallas numbering the head of the Serpent Lord'. I'm not sure I understand ceto'linā.


Here are a couple of images from the Mitra house, now known as a 'temple'. These pictures were taken two years ago just before Durgāpūjā, hence the clay idols in the making in the courtyard of what must have been a very imposing residence in its time.

Rāhularuci

The Khaḍipadā image inscription is largely overlooked in historical studies of Vajrayāna, yet it seems to be tremendously important. The publisher of the inscription, A. Ghosh, assigns it to the seventh century on palaeographical grounds (Epigraphia Indica XXVI 1941-42, pp. 247-248). The short inscription was found on the left edge of a Padmapāṇi statue. It records the name of the king under the rule of which the donation occured, the name of donor, and the name of the craftsman who incised the inscription:

oṃ śrī-śubhā(or śuhā-?)karadeva-rājye mahāmaṇḍalācārya-paramaguru-rāhularucināṃ tasya dedharmmo yaṃ | utkīrṇṇaṃ kuḍhā(?)-sūttradhāreṇaḥ ||

The rendering is a bit uncertain. As Ghosh suggests, de dharmmo obviously stands for deyadharmmo, and we should probably ignore the visarga in sūttradhāreṇaḥ. Ghosh proposes rāhularucināmā for rāhularucināṃ which is also feasible, but I'm not really convinced. So the text must means something along the lines of:

Oṃ. During the reign of śrī Śubhākaradeva [of the Bhaumakara dynasty, there was a man] called Rāhularuci, a chief maṇḍalācārya and royal preceptor. This is his pious gift. Incised by Kuḍhā, the craftsman.

Niceties aside, the most important facts are that there was a guy called Rāhularuci, a very Buddhist name, who was a 'paramaguru', a title reserved for the royal chaplain, and he was also a (mahā)maṇḍalācārya. This, as far as I know, is the earliest occurence of the term maṇḍalācārya. The fact that the royal preceptor is a Buddhist also seems quite unique. The Bhaumakaras should be given much more attention.

PS: due to an unfortunate data transfer I lost the link to Mori's website which had a photo of this particular Padmapāṇi statue. I'd be very grateful if someone could post it.