Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 22.djvu/15

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.


Ambapili possessed a park, Ambapdlivana, which she bequeathed on Buddha and the community. From there he went to Ves&li, where he converted the general-in-chief (of the Li^Aavis), a lay-disciple of the Nirgranthas (or <7aina monks). Now it is highly probable that- the Ko/ig- g&ma of the Buddhists is identical with the Ku#*/agg&ma of the Gainas. Apart from the similarity of the names, the mentioning of the iVStikas, apparently identical with the Gn&trika. Kshatriyas to whose clan Mah&vlra belonged, and of Siha, the Caina, point to the same direction. Kuwrfa- gr&ma, therefore, was probably one of the suburbs of Vaudli, the capital of Videha. This conjecture is borne out by the name Vesdlie, i. e. Vau&lika given to Mah&vira in the Stitra- kntcitiga I, 3 1 . The commentator explains the passage in question in two different ways, and at another place a third explanation is given. This inconsistency of opinion proves that there was no distinct tradition as to the real meaning of Vaw&lika, and so we are justified in entirely ignoring the arti- ficial explanations of the later (7ainas. VaLftUika apparently means a native of Vaiskli : and Mah&vira could rightly be called that when Ku//*/agr<lma was a suburb of VaLr&H, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner. If then Kuwrfagr^ma was scarcely more than an outlying village ofValr&lt, it is evident that the sovereign of that village could at best have been only a petty chief. Indeed, though the Cainas fondly imagine Siddh&rtha to have been a powerful monarch and depict his royal state in glowing, but typical colours, yet their statements, if stripped of all rhetorical ornaments, bring out the fact thirdly, in the last clause, in the singular. Buddhaghosa explains this by saying that there were two villages of the same name on the shore of the same piece of water.' The plural iV*atika denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Gin^akavasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahaparinibbana-Sutta and in the Mah&vagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nadika is used in the singular. I think the form Nadika is wrong, and jv*atika, the spelling of the Mahavagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his trans- lation : ' N&dika, near Patna.' It is apparent from the narrative in the Maha- vagga that the place in question, as well as Ko/iggama, was near Vesali. 1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 26a. Digitized by VjOOQlC