Who Were Upagupta and His Asoka

8/13/2019 Who Were Upagupta and His Asoka

1/24

ANANDA W. P. GURUGE

WHO WERE UPAGUPTA AND HIS AOKA?

1. Introduction

The oldest record so far to name Upagupta as a prominentBuddhist monk of India is the Sanskrit Buddhist work Divyvadna a collection of 38 typical Avadnas based on pious deeds or sanctifiedlives. Four of these Avadnas are connected with a king named Aokaand it is in Avadna 26 that the life of Upagupta is dealt with. The pre-vailing consensus among scholars is that Divyvadna could be datedbetween 200 and 350 A.D. Whether the hypothetically profferedAokarjastra or Aokarjvadna as possible Sanskrit originals forthe Chinese Ayu-wang-chin and yu-wang-chuan were earlier or laterthan the Avadnas of Divyvadna remains a moot point with no evi-dence for either argument 1. But whatever texts, taken to China and

translated as Ayu-wang-chuan by An-Fa-King in Loyang between 281and 306 A.D. and as Ayu-wang-chin by Sanghabhata or Sanghabhara

1. Jean Przyluskis hypothesis was that the two Chinese works were translationsor adaptations of two Sanskrit works. But no evidence of such works has not yet beenfound, What Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya presented as Aokvadna (SahityaAkademi, New Delhi 1963) and John S. Strong translated into English as Legend ofKing Asoka (Princeton Library of Asian Translation, Princeton University Press,Princeton N.J. 1989) are the four Avadnas occurring as Chapters 26, 27, 28, and 29of Divyvadna. (Ed. P.L. Vaidya, Buddhist Sanskrit texts, No. 20, Bihar MithilaInstitute, 1959).


2/24

136 Ananda W. P. Guruge

of Funan in 512 A.D., retain the information as in the Divyvadnawith only minor variations 2.This information has been subjected to scrutiny by several

Asokan scholars who had reached different conclusions 3. It appearsnecessary, however, to examine the same data more closely as thequestion of who exactly were Upagupta and his Aoka remainsunsolved. Its resolution has important implications for both the historyof India, in general, and the history of Buddhism, in particular.

So far the life and career of Upagupta has been studied with an

overt or covert assumption that Aoka connected with him was thethird Maurya Emperor Aoka more specifically named in Buddhistliterature as Aoka the Righteous, Beloved of Gods, king of Magadha(Devanapiya Piyadasi Aoka Magadharja of Brahmi inscriptions).How far is this assumption correct and acceptable? If not, what causedthis assumption to be made and when and where? These are the ques-tions for which answers need to be found.

This analysis of data begins with the identification of Upagupta asfar as all available data would permit. It has to be noted at the veryoutset that no record of a monk of any sort by the name of Upagupta ishitherto found in the Pali Canonical, commentarial or sub-commentar-

2. Jean Przyluski: La Lgende de lempereur Aoka, Paris (1923) (Tr. DilipKumar Biswas The Legend of Emperor Aoka in Indian and Chinese Texts, BrahmoMission Press, Calcutta 1967) and Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya, op. cit., are still themain works for the study of these texts. Taisho No. 2042 A-yu-wang-chin is trans-

lated by Li Rongxi as The Biographical Scripture of King Aoka, BDK EnglishTripitaka 76-11, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley,California 1993.

3. L. Augustine Waddell and Vincent A. Smith, who preceded Jean Przyluski,depended on the records of Chinese Pilgrims Fa-xian and Xuan-Zhang to comparewith data in the Divyvadna. Waddell called Upagupta the High Priest of Aokaand Smith referred to him as Aokas Father Confessor. Despite discrepancies,almost all earlier Aokan scholars associated Upagupta with Maurya Emperor Asoka.A. K. Warder explained the problem as follows: There is considerable confusion inthe records of the Sarvastivda and Mahyna writers, especially in that they havegenerally identified Aoka the Just [Maurya Aoka] with Asoka the Black [Kloka],when compiling accounts from earlier sources Thus all the events from the VailAffair in the time of Aoka the Black down to those of the reign of Aoka the Justhave been condensed into a single reign. p. 273).


3/24

137Who were Upagupta and his Aoka?

ial literature. So all available data come from Sanskrit, Chinese,Tibetan and Japanese 4 sources only.

2. Upagupta the Disciple of nakavsi

The first mention of Upagupta is in a prophecy ascribed to theBuddha in Psupradnvadna (No. 26). The Buddha is said tohave told nanda at Mathur that

1. a hundred years after the Buddhas demise, there would be aperfume merchant at Mathur by the name of Gupta; and

2. his son, Upagupta, would be a Buddha without marks(alakaako Buddho- i.e. a Buddha without the thirty-twosigns of a Great Person) and a hundred years after theBuddhas demise would perform the function of a Buddha(Buddhakrya). (Vaidya. P.L. p. 216).

The Avadna, in faith-evoking details, spells out how theprophecy came to be fulfilled. The important historical detail in thisepisode is that Upagupta becomes a disciple of nakavsi (the wearerof a hempen or jute robe) who resided in a monastery namedNaabhaika in rumua or Rrumua (both readings being indis-criminately used by Vaidya). (Ibid. p. 222)

nakavsi is a name or more precisely an epithet equally well-known as that of a monk of significant stature in the Buddhist literature

of all traditions. In fact, of all the leading figures in the monastic historyof Buddhism, nakavsi has the distinction of being recorded in theannals of Theravda, Sarvstivda and Mahyna traditions. In addition,all sources agree that he was a disciple of nanda, the closest disciple ofBuddha and lived a hundred years after the death of the Buddha. In theMahyna Buddhist tradition he is revered as the third patriarch follow-

4. Ayu-wang-chuan has two chapters among chapters 6-10 which refer toUpagupta. Chapter 6 Avadna of Upagupta and Chapter 8 Avadna of Disciples ofUpagupta. But none of these occurs in Divyavadna.


4/24


ing Mahkyapa and nanda 5. Thus nakavsi occupies in Buddhistchronology the single most important fixed point on which all traditionsagree. That an event of utmost significance to all Buddhist traditionstook place with a pivotal role played by him a hundred years after thedeath of the Buddha is undeniable. But what was it?

The Pali Canon is specific that nakavsi played such a role inregard to the Second Buddhist Council held in Vaili as a result often points of disagreement regarding monastic discipline.

The account of the Second Buddhist Council occurs in Chapter

XII of the Cullavagga of the Vinaya Piaka. It was Yasa, the son ofKkaak, who on a tour of the Vaili region came across the Vajjimonks engaged in collecting money. His objection resulted in discipli-nary action taken by Vajji monks against him. Yasa then decides tocampaign against the ten points such as taking salt in a horn to seasonfood, eating a little later than mid-day, drinking unfermented toddyand receiving gold and silver, which the Vajji monks consideredallowable contrary to orthodox view of Vinaya. Having sent messen-gers to Pv and Avanti to mobilize support for his campaign, Yasagoes personally to Ahogang mountain slope to enlist the support ofnakavsi, whose real name was Sambhta. He was known asnakavsi, which meant the wearer of a coarse hempen or jute robe,because he wore such a robe 6. It was to Ahogag mountain slope thatsixty monks from Pv and eighty-eight monks from Avanti came toplan their strategy to counter the ten points. Though Cullavagga is

5. Chinese works Fo-tsu-tung-ki and San-kiau-yi-su, which refer to Upagupta as

the fourth patriarch attribute to him many miracles. As the gth by which Upaguptatransmitted Dhamma to the fifth Indian patriarch, Lu Kuan Yu (Charles Luk) quotes,Mind is the primal mindWhich is devoid of DharmaIf Dharma and Primal mind existBoth mind and primal Dharma will be false.Chan and Zen Teaching (Series Two), Rider and Company, London, 1961 p. 34.

Probably on the basis of Japanese sources, Jean-Paul Bertrand says that Upagupta wasthe fifth out of 24 successors to the Buddha and calls Shnvavsa the fourth successorDictionnaire du Bouddhisme, Editions du Rocher, Tokyo 1983, p. 497.

6. While Divyvadna refers to him as nakavsi as his only name, the Palisources call him by his personal name Sambhta and describes him using Snavsias an epithet, meaning wearer of a hempen or jute robe. Xuan-Zhan apparentlyheard his name as Sambhoga.


5/24


silent on why Sambhta alias nakavsi happened to be the first con-sulted or why the first meeting took place in his place, it is evidentthat nakavsi was at this time a monk of significant influence to bethe rallying point for Yasa and the one hundred and fifty-eight agita-tors against Vinaya violations.

It was nakavsi who advocated the enlistment of Revata as thebest-qualified expert on Vinaya to argue the case against the tenpoints. At Revatas bidding, nakavsi goes ahead to see Sabbakmi,the eldest monk of the Sagha (Saghatthera) whose leadership was

essential for the legal issues of discipline to be resolved. Again, it wasnakavsi who presented the issues for Sabbakmi to determine.When after prolonged discussion, a council of arbitration with eightmonks was chosen, Snakavsa was one of the four monks from Pv.Though not specifically stated, he could have been one of the sevenhundred participating monks in the Second Buddhist Council.(Cullavagga Chapters XII, pp. 407-430).

Sambhta nakavsis importance might have resulted from thefact that he was disciple of nanda. Sambhta, further, has the distinc-tion of having a poem of his included in the Canonical Theragth.(Theragth vv. 291-4) Despite all this, the early Buddhist tradition,which does not have a line of recognized patriarchs as the Mahynaand Zen traditions do, has not mentioned him as Saghatthera (theelder of the Sagha) a title, which had been used for Mahkassapaand Sabbakmi. Nor is it anywhere mentioned in early Buddhistrecords that he had a disciple by the name of Upagupta.

Divyvadna episode has nakavsi as preparing himself for the

coming of Upagupta to fulfill the Buddhas prophecy. He establishes amonastery on the mountain of rumua near Mathur and eventuallybefriends Gupta, the perfume-merchant. Every time a son was born toGupta, nakavsi approached him with the request that the son begiven to the Sagha. It was his fourth son, Upagupta, who was finallypromised. But Upaguptas decision to be a monk had to await his ownconviction on the futility of life and luxury and this happens throughthe fate of a courtesan named Vsavadatt. Upaguptas discourse toVsavadatt is described as resulting in his attaining the perfection of

Angmi (non-returner) and her that of Sotpanna (stream-entry). Atthis point, nakavsi ordains Upagupta and took him to Naabhaika


6/24


forest hermitage, where he attained Arhatship.Divyvadna digresses to narrate a miraculous encounter withMra, which made Upaguptas fame soar to a point that through himthe rain waters of the true Dharma fell on hundreds of thousands ofbeings who had previously sown seeds of merit in most excellentBuddha fields, and the sprouts of liberation grew in them, there onMount rumua (Strong 1989 p. 198).

3.Sought by a king Aoka as Spiritual Guide for life or a SinglePilgrim

One such person to benefit from Upaguptas benevolence, accord-ing to the legend, was a King Aoka who, in a previous life, has pre-sented a gift of dirt to the Buddha and wished for sovereignty overearth. Again, Divyvadna attributes to the Buddha a prophecy thatthe boy who gave him a gift of earth would be reborn as Aoka inPaliputra a hundred years after the Buddhas demise. IfDivyvadna is the first literary work to deal with this episode (and soit might be, as nothing anterior to it has yet been found) this is thepoint where the identity of Upaguptas Aoka first arises.

By attributing to the prophecy the mention of Paliputra as the capi-tal, the identification of Aoka becomes ambiguous. In Indian history ofthe pre-Christian era, two Aokas ruled from Paliputra: namely

1) Aoka the Black (crow-colored) 7 or Kloka of the iunga

Dynasty who actually shifted the capital of the MagadhaKingdom to Paliputra: the hundredth anniversary of theBuddhas demise coincided with his tenth regnal years; and

7. Puras record Kkavarnin as successor of iunga, thus agreeing with theSri Lankan Pali sources which call him more formally as Klsoka Asoka the Black.Divyvadna in its convoluted lineage mentions Kkavarin though without mention-ing iunga. Sri Lankan Chronicles used nick-names descriptive of kings to distin-guish them from others having identical personal names: e.g. Kkavaa Tissa (Crow-coloured Tissa) Vankansika Tissa (Tissa with a crooked nose); Puakaa Tissa(Tissa whose ears were like winnowing fans) and Thlathana (he with fat breasts).


7/24


2) Aoka the Righteous of the Maurya Dynasty who, too, reignedin Paliputra but more than a century later 8.

Which one was it who was destined to be guided by Upagupta?The historical inexactitude of Divyvadna a feature common ingeneral to Northern Buddhist literature of India in Sanskrit and inher-ent in its Chinese and Tibetan translations is further exemplifiedwhen it gives the genealogy of this Asoka as follows:

Bibisra

His son Ajataatru

His son Udyin

His son Mua

His son Kkavarin

His son Sahalin

His son Tulakuci

His son Mahmaala

His son Prasenajit

His son Nanda

His son Bindusra

His son Aoka

8. That the Maurya Dynasty ruled from Paliputra is attested to by the eye-wit-ness account of Palibothra, found in extracts of Indika, written by Megathenes, theAmbassador of Greek ruler Seleukas Nicator to the court of the founding emperor ofthe Dynasty, Candragupta.


8/24


Very little scrutiny is needed to establish the fallacies of thisgenealogy in the light of more reliable information from not only Palisources preserved in Sri Lanka but also the Puras of India. Dynasticchanges and multiplicity of kings in each dynasty are overlooked andmost glaringly Candragupta, the founder of the Maurya Dynasty, theouster of the last of nine Nandas and grandfather of Aoka isconspicuous by his absence in the list 9.

Equally historically unfounded is the account of Aokas acces-sion to the throne, and his incredible cruel acts of violence in court,

culminating in a torture-house for wonton murder of innocents, whichDivyvadna elaborates with an unimaginable flair to paint Aoka as aspecimen of the blackest inhuman nature 10. Aokas conversion toBuddhism is ascribed to the miraculous escape of Samudra from tor-ture. It is by this monk that Aoka is informed of the prophecy of theBuddha and told of his mission for the promotion of Buddhism. Aokadeclares his resolve in a verse:

Because of my faith in the Blessed One,Because of his venerability,I resolve today to adorn the earth with the chief of Jinas caityasThat are as white as the conch, the moon, and the crane. (Strong 1989 p. 218)

Of course, the piety thus expressed did not prevent him from see-ing that the keeper of the torture-house was burned to death 11.

9. For a discussion on the difference as regards literary genre between Avadnas

and Vasas, see John S. Strong: The Legend of King Asoka pp. 22-23. For an analysisof the problem of historical sense as it affected Indian historiography adversely, seemyMahvasa the Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka pp. 77-80.

10. Divyavadna and the Avadna literature in general as well as the Chineseand Tibetan works dependent on them point Aoka as having had an extremely crueldisposition and even portray him as a fanatic using violence even after conversion toBuddhism. (e.g. the story about a pogrom again Jain monks for having desecrated aBuddha statue). For a detailed discussion, see my Asoka the Righteous A DefinitiveBiography, Central Cultural Fund, Colombo 1993, pp. 78-87.

11. This incident and the story of the pogrom against Jain monks contradictRock Edict XIII where Aoka expresses deep remorse on Kliga War. While heeschewed military action after this war, evidence exists that he neither disbanded thearmy nor abolished the death penalty. To his sons and grandsons his advice is to beforbearing and mild in punishment in the case of military action. See my The


9/24


What follows in Divyvadna is an account of how relics wereobtained by the king from seven of the eight original stpas in whichthe Buddhas bodily relics were enshrined, how they were distributedto various communities, how 84,000 stpas called Dharmarjikas wereconstructed, how Yaas 12 of Kukkurma ensured miraculously thatall stpas were completed on the same day at the same time, and howAoka the Wicked thus came to be known as Aoka the Righteous andhow a quinquennial festival was celebrated with lavish gifts to theSangha. In this account are quoted two verses in which the king is

referred to as Maurya (Vaidya pp. 241, 260).It is after several more episodes on the Kings display of piety

that he is apprised by monk Yaas of Upagupta, destined to be thebest of preachers, a Buddha without marks, who will carry on thework of a Buddha (Strong 1989 p. 238). The king wished to go toUrumua to meet Upagupta and the latter, realizing the inconven-ience of catering for a royal entourage, decided to come to the capitalwith eighteen thousand Arhats. The king requests Upagupta to takehim on a pilgrimage to holy places connected with the Buddhas lifeand Upagupta obliges. After the pilgrimage the king takes leave ofUpagupta.

This is all a brief encounter restricted to a pilgrimage thatDivyvadna records about Upagupta and his king Aoka. That is allthe information that Chinese A-yu-wang-chuan and A-yu-wang-chinhave preserved being faithful translations of the Sanskrit sources.

Apart from being superlatively described as a Buddha withoutmarks and doing the Buddhas function a hundred years after his

demise, Upagupta does not figure in Divyvadna and related Chineseversions as anyone of the stature of a patriarch succeeding in such a

Evolution of Emperor Aokas Humanitarian Policy: Was Capital PunishmentAbolished? inRecent Researches in Buddhist Studies Essays in Honor of ProfessorY. Karunadasa (Ed. Kuala Lumpur Dhammajoti et al). Hong Kong 1997.

12. Yasa or Yaas, if at all, merits the description as the high priest of Aoka,until Moggaliputta-tissa enters the scene with his joint initiatives with Aoka pertainingto the purge of the Sagha, the Third Buddhist Council and the nine missions to outly-ing regions. Upagupta in various texts in Chinese plays the roles assigned elsewhere toSamudra, Yasa and Moggaliputta-tissa. Upagupta, as his personality evolved in aprocess of hagiography in the Mahsghika, Sarvstivda and Mahyna traditions isa subject which I commend strongly for closer investigation (See Conclusion).


10/24


leadership position as Mahakyapa, Ananda and nakavsi. KingAoka of his acquaintance had not conferred on him any such rankand the history of the Buddhism recorded in Pali sources has no placefor not even a casual mention of Upagupta. How could this be? Isit because Divyvadna was a work of early Buddhists prior to theadvent of Mahyna? 13

4. Upagupta in Later Buddhist Literature

As Buddhism evolved and Mahyna trends developed, theencounter between Upagupta and Aoka had become a motif for pres-entation of discussions whether religious in content or purely literary.Thus Vratvadnamla (Garland of Avadnas on festivals or rites)takes the form of dialogues between them and BhadraKalpvadnacomprises 34 legends which Upagupta is said to have narrated toAoka. (Hajime Nakamura pp. 138-139). The same is done in otherAvadnas in verse such as Kalpadrumvadnaml, Aokvad-naml, and Dvvistyavadna as well as Avadnakalpalat ofKemendra. (Guruge 1993 p. 344).

How and when Upagupta rose in stature to be the fourth patriarchis not revealed by any literary records in India. Fa-xian in the fifthcentury A.D. has made no reference to him pertaining to any sites hevisited, which included Mathur.

Xuan-Zhang in the seventh century, however, had been told ofSaghrmas constructed by Upagupta on a mountain about 5 or 6 li

east of the city of Mathur. (Beal I, pp. 181-82). At Paliputra, he hadheard a version of the Divyvadna account in which Upagupta ismentioned as an Arhat whom Aoka met after destroying the torture-

13. Divyavadna reflects Buddhism in its early stage when the ideal of Arhatshipwas the goal of spiritual pursuit. Upagupta is not only described as an Arhat but he issaid to have helped so many others to become Arhats. (Cf the story of filling a largecave with chips of wood, each representing a person he had let to Arahatship.) (Vaidyap. 222) It has since been worked on by Mahsghika, Sarvstivda and Mahynaeditors. The reference to Upagupta as a Buddha without marks of a Great Personrecalls the question in Vajrachedika or Diamond Stra: Can the Tathagata be seen byhis thirty-two marks or not? (Hsing Yun 2000, p. 24).


11/24


house. The revelation of the Buddhas prophecy on building numerous(number not given) stpas and the miracle of covering the sun toenable stpas to be completed simultaneously attributed to Samudraand Yaa in Divyvadna are in this version ascribed to Upagupta.(Beal II pp. 87-90). Here, too, Aoka was said to have been a hundredyears after the Buddhas demise. To the Southwest of the old palace ofPaliputra, Xuan-Zhang had also been shown a mountain valley withseveral tens of dwellings which Aoka-rja made for Upagupta andother Arhats (Beal II p. 93). Once more, Xuan-Zhang had been told

of Upagupta as a great Arhat who sojourned frequently in the king-dom (of Sindh) preaching the Dharma. The places where he stoppedand the traces he left are all commemorated by the building ofSanghramas or erection of stpas. These buildings are seen every-where. (Beal I pp. 272-273). An important point is that these monu-ments are not ascribed to Aoka, whereas in the same area Aoka issaid to have erected several tens of stpas in places where the sacredtraces of the Buddhas presence were found. (Ibid).

What emerges from these few and brief references to Upagupta inXuan-Zhangs writings is that in Indian tradition Upagupta was still anArhat associated with a king Aoka a hundred years after theBuddhas death and not at all a or the patriarch of Srvstivda,Mahyna or Chan (Zen) Buddhism. This evidence is of the utmostimportance because Xuan-Zhang was deeply involved with MahynaBuddhist institutions of India over a period of two decades and hadacquired a profound knowledge of its traditions.

Thus, Upagupta of Indian records is an enigmatic figure of whom

the only information we could glean is the following:

1) He was born in Mathur and lived around a hundred yearsafter the Buddhas demise.

2) He was a disciple of nakavsi, who was prominent enoughto play a major role in activities leading to the SecondBuddhist Council of Vaili which was held a hundred yearsfrom the Buddhas demise.


12/24


3) He was reputed as an Arhat (i.e. strictly in accordance with theearly Buddhist tradition), the best of the preachers of theDhamma of his time and so esteemed as a Buddha without thethirty-two marks of a Great Man (Mahpurualakaa).

4) His fame prompted a king by the name of Aoka who wasalready converted to Buddhism to visit him in his forestmonastery in rumua near Mathur; but to avoid the incon-venience of hosting a royal entourage he decided to go to the

Kings capital.

5) What he actually said or did with the king is differentlyremembered and even confused with roles of two other monksand the only activity he was involved in was guiding the kingon a pilgrimage to places connected with the Buddhas life.

6) All he did with the king seemed to have lasted a few months atthe most.

It is very clear on an in-depth analysis of all evidence that thereexists no justification at all for the conclusion of John S. Strong thatUpagupta was a Buddhist monk who eventually comes to play amajor role in Aokas career (Strong 1989 p. 16).

What Xuan-Zhang heard of Upagupta in Sindh, however, is note-worthy. The statements that Saghrmas and stpas had marked placeswhere Arhat Upagupta sojourned is perhaps the only indication thateither Upagupta the disciple of nakavsi or another by the same name

had achieved spiritual eminence to be commemorated with monumentsin an area where especially the Sarvastivada tradition became predomi-nant. Could it be that from here the fame of Upagupta traveled to Chinavia the Silk Route to become recognized as the fourth patriarch?

For Upagupta, the disciple of nakavsi, to be an eminentMahyana figure, one may hypothesize a scenario with the caveat thatit can be nothing more than a guess. The Second Buddhist Councilwhere nakavsi figured prominently marked the first major schismof the Buddhist Sangha and with it came into existence the Mah-

snghika School. Could it be that Upagupta, with his distinction as adisciple of nakavsi, became a leader of the Mahsnghika School


13/24


and was recognized as the progenitor of the new tradition? Such a sit-uation could explain how he was considered a direct successor tonakavsi but in the new movement. As the Mahsnghika Schoolevolved with other traditions as Sarvastivada and Mahayana, espe-cially in the Western Region of the Indian sub-continent (mainly,Kashmir, Gandhara and possibly neighboring Sindh), Upaguptasrecognition in that role could have solidified. This matter, however,needs to be pursued in greater depth utilizing whatever evidence avail-able in the historical records of Central and East Asia.

5. Aoka the Possible Contemporary of Upagupta

All Buddhist records Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan agree that nakavsi lived a hundred years after the demise of theBuddha and his disciple Upagupta, likewise, belonged to the sametime. According to the Pali records, especially the Mahvasa of theearly Ahakaths in Sinhala, preserved in Sri Lanka, the SecondBuddhist Council was held in the tenth regnal years of Kloka,which coincided with the hundredth anniversary of the Buddhasdemise. (Cullavagga Chapter XII; Mahvasa IV, vv. 5-8). The SriLankan Chronicle Mahvasa is rightly described by John S. Strongto be a vasa (chronicle) naturally concerned with history and line-age (Strong 1989 p. 22) and primarily interested in Aoka as animportant link in the chain of legitimacy connecting the Buddhism ofSri Lanka (and in particular the kings of that island) with Buddhism of

ancient India, and ultimately with the Buddha himself (Ibid. p. 23). Itgives a precise chronological list of dynasties from the demise of theBuddha to the Second Buddhist Council as follows:

Buddhas demise in the 8th year of Ajtasattus reign.

renika DynastySince then Ajtasattu reigned 24 yearsUdayabhadda reigned 16 years

Anuruddha and Munda reigned 8 yearsNgadsa reigned 16 years


14/24


iunga DynastySusunga reigned 32 yearsUp to the Second Buddhist Council Klsoka reigned 10 years

The reigns total to 106 years and that is explainable as due tofractions of years being counted as full years 14.

The second Buddhist council at Vaili was known to Fa-xian andhe records in Fo-Kwo-Ki:

One hundred years after the Nirva of the Buddha, these were atVaili certain bhikshus who broke the rules of the Vinaya in ten partic-ulars, saying that Buddha had said it was so, at which time Arhats andorthodox bhikshus, making an assembly of 700 ecclesiastics, comparedand collated the Vinaya Piaka afresh. Afterwards men erected a toweron this spot (Vaili), which still exists (Beal p. liv).

Xuang Xang, two centuries later came to the same spot andrecoded the following:

Going south-east from the city 14 or 15 li, we come to a great stpa. Itwas here the convocation of the seven hundred sages and saints washeld. One hundred and ten years after the Nirva of Buddha there werein Vaili some Bhikshus who broke the laws of Buddha and pervertedthe rules of discipline. At this time Yaada (Ye-she-to) yushmat wasstopping in the country of Ksala (Kiao-so-lo); Sambgha (Sun-pu-kia)yushmat was dwelling in the country of Mathur; Rvata (Li-po-to)yushmat was stopping in the country of Han-jo (Kanykubja?); Sla(Sha-lo) yushmat was stopping in the country of Vaili; Pujasumira(Fu-she-su-mi-lo=Kujjasbhita?) yushmat was stopping in the countryof Sha-lo-li-fo (Salarbhu?): all these were great Arhats, possessed ofindependent power, faithful to the three piakas, possessed of the threeenlightenments (vidys), of great renown, knowing all that should beknown, all of them disciples of nanda.At this time Yaada sent a message to summon the sages and saints to aconvocation at the city of Vaili. There was only wanting one to make

14. Cf. Mahvamsa XX, 1-6. ik (Vamsatthappakasini) explains the datesgiven for various events in Aokas life as adding up to 41 years whereas the figureshould be 37 years as fractions of years are added as full years. (Guruge 1989 p. 858).


15/24


up the 700, when Fu-she-su-mi-lo by the use of his divine sight saw thesaints and sages assembled and deliberating about religious matters. Byhis miraculous power he appeared in the assembly. Then Sambgha inthe midst of the assembly, baring his right breast and prostrating him-self, (arose) and exclaimed with a loud voice, Let the congregation besilent, respectfully thoughtful! In former days the great and holy king ofthe Law, after an illustrious career, entered Nirva. Although years andmonths have elapsed since then, his words and teaching still survive. Butnow the Bhikshus of Vaili have become negligent and pervert thecommandments. There are ten points in which they disobey the words ofthe Buddha (the ten-power-daabla). Now then, learned sirs, you knowwell the points of error; you are well acquainted with the teaching of thehighly virtuous (bhadanta) nanda: in deep affection to Buddha let usagain declare his holy will.Then the whole congregation were deeply affected; they summoned tothe assembly the Bhikshus, and, according to the Vinaya, they chargedthem with transgression, bound afresh the rules that had been broken,and vindicated the holy law.

Details in this statement as regards leading monastics campaign-ing for orthodoxy strengthen the authenticity of the information:Yaada and Revata, in particular, are easily identified and there is lit-tle doubt that Sambogha of Mathura stands for Sambhta, the name ofnakavsi. It is apparently a similar account that the Tibetan histo-rian Bu-ston included in his History of Buddhism in India and Tibetin the fourteenth century. Bu-tsons accounts include a final sentenceto the effect that the almsgiver of monks of this council was the piousking Aoka. (Guruge 1989 p. 1069).

Xuan-Zhangs references to Aoka-rja need to be scrutinizedcarefully to ascertain whether he had been told of one Aoka or two oreven more. One reference which could be dismissed easily is to anAoka-rja of Kie-pan-to (apparently a central Asian kingdom) whoon shifting his palace to a new site converted the old site to aSaghrma for the use of Kumralabdha of Takaila (Beal p. 302).Over a hundred references to Aoka-rja are in connection with anenormous number of saghrmas and stpas shown to Xuan-Zhang

by the people as constructed by Aoka. Here the memory recalledcould be of Aoka, the Maurya Emperor regarding whom all Buddhist


16/24

traditions have records on his taking the Buddhas relics from sevenout of the eight original stpas and constructing 84,000 stpas all overthe Indian sub-continent. Similarly all instances where stone pillarsand inscriptions are mentioned, the reference is undoubtedly to theMaurya Emperor. What is significant to the present study is thatXuan-Zhang had been told of another Aoka-rja and that in connec-tion with a well-established historical event: namely, the shifting ofthe capital of Magadha from Rjagha to Paliputra. (MalalasekeraDPPN sv. Kloka) On one page, the two Aokas are mentioned by

Xuan-Zhang using two names as noted by Samuel Beal:

1) To the north of the old palace of the king is a stone pillar sev-eral tens of feet high; this is the place where Aoka (Wu-yau)rja made a hell.

2) In the hundredth year after the Nirva of the Tathgata was aking clled Aoka (O-shu-kia), who was great-grandson ofBimbisra-rja. He changed the capital from Rjagha to Pali

(Putra), and built an outside rampart to surround the city.

3) Since then many generations have passed and now there onlyremains the old foundation walls. (Beal II p. 85)

On the next page, where the tyrannies of Aoka the Wicked aredealt with, he is referred to as Wu-yau. But this distinction in translit-eration of name had not been maintained as seen from another refer-ence to the transfer of the capital:

It is said Ajtaatru first founded this city (Rjagha), and the heir-apparent of Ajtaatru having come to the throne, he also appointed it tobe the capital, and so it continued till the time of Aokarja, whochanged the capital to Paliputra, and gave the city of the Rjagha tothe Brahmans (Beal p. 167).

Here, the name appears as Wu-yau. It is the same translated formthat is used when a prophecy is attributed to the Buddha on the trans-

fer of the capital:



17/24


A hundred years hence (says the Buddha) there shall be a king Aoka,great-grandson of Ajtaatru; he shall build here his capital and estab-lish his court. When Aoka (Wu-yau) had ascended the throne, hechanged his capital and built this town (Paliputra) (Beal II p. 90).

Thus although the two names are used indiscriminately, it isamply clear that Aoka, who is mentioned in connection with theshifting of the capital to Paliputra is Kloka. His being regarded agreat-grandson of Ajtaatru is, however, erroneous. If even a rela-

tionship to iunga Dynasty had been possible from maternaldescent, Kloka could have been the great-great-great-great-grand-son of Ajtaatru.

Xuan-Zhang was apparently unaware of the Sri Lankan Vinayacommentary translated into Chinese as Shan-jian-lu-piposha bySaghabhadra in 489 A.D. 15. If he did, he would have recognized thisAoka to be Kloka, the son of iunga who is mentioned as hav-ing sided with Vajji Bhikkhus in the dispute leading to the SecondBuddhist Council held a hundred years after the Buddhas demise.

(Bapat pp. 18-19). The statement that Kloka sided with the Vajjissuggests that in such a relationship Upagupta, if he was on their sideas we surmise, could have been associated with him. Shan-jian-lu-piposha, being based on a work of Sri Lanka, reflecting the SouthernBuddhist tradition and its chronology, dates the accession of Aokathe Maurya Emperor 218 years after the demise of the Buddha.

The conclusions derivable from this discussion are:

1) Upagupta as an immediate disciple of nakavsi belongs tothe time of the Second Buddhist Council which was held ahundred years after Buddhas demise;

15. Shan-jian-lu-piposha has been hitherto regarded a translation ofBuddhaghosas Samantapasadika, the Vinaya Commentary on the basis of a referenceto what has been taken as Visuddhimagga. On a closer examination, it appears that theoriginal could have been a Sinhala or Sanskrit version. Cf. My Shan-jian-lu-piposhaas an Authentic Source on the Early History of Buddhism and Asoka inDhammavihari Felicitation Volume, Colombo 2005.


18/24

2) It is dated in the more detailed and hence more reliablechronology of Buddhist history in Pali sources and repeated inShan-jian-lu-piposha as taking place in the tenth year ofKloka, the son of iunga;

3) Kloka has sided with the faction opposing the orthodoxy ofnakavsi, Yasa, Sabbakmi etc.

4) Upagupta, though not so recorded in any sources hitherto

available, could have played a lead role in Mahsnghika fac-tion which eventually evolved into Mahyana tradition, as evi-denced first by the existence of sanghrmas and stpas inSindh in the Northwestern region of the Indian subcontinentand second by the recognition awarded to him as the fourthpatriarch in Mahyana and Zen schools; (Thomas 1933 p. 36)and

5) Upaguptas Asoka, therefore, was Kloka of isunga

dynasty and not Aoka the Maurya Emperor as implied inDivyvadna and other Avadnas as well as in Chinese andTibetan sources dependent on them.

6.Why Upagupta Cannot be Associated with the MauryaEmperor Aoka

The Maurya Emperor Aokas date in the third century B.C. isabout the firmest point in Indian chronology because of

1) the contemporaneity with as many as four Greek rulers men-tioned in Rock Edicts II and XIII, whose dates are reliablyestablished;

2) Greek records which makes Candragupta a contemporary ofAlexander the Great; and

3) the overall acceptability of the lengths of the reigns of Aokas



19/24


grandfather and father (mutually corroborated by PaliBuddhist and Pura data).

Similarly the fact that Kloka, the contemporary of nakavsiwhose disciple Upagupta was, was anterior to Candragupta is clearlyindicated by the historical information that not only Candragupta butalso his predecessors, the Nanda Dynasty, had Paliputra as the capi-tal. It is to Kloka that all known records, including Xuan-Zhang,ascribe the credit for changing the capital from Rjagha to Palipu-

tra. Simply, on these bits of information alone the contemporaneity ofMaurya Emperor Aoka and Upagupta remains completely disproved.

The only activity in which Upagupta is said to have contributed toMaurya Emperor Aoka is the extended pilgrimage, which allegedlycommenced from Lumbin and followed a route determined by thechronology of events of the Buddhas life rather than geographicallocations and distances. This account is also replete with chronologi-cal problems when compared with data in Aokan inscriptions: viz.

1) Rock Edict VIII clearly states that Aokas first pilgrimagewas to the Bodhi tree in the eleventh regnal years (10 yearsfrom consecration) and his pilgrims commenced with it (andnot from a visit to Lumbin);

2) The visit to Lumbin and the nearby Nigali Sagar in NepalTerai was in the 21st regnal year as dated in Pillar InscriptionsI and II, that is eleven years later than the first pilgrim to theBodhi tree.

3) Only other tour to be mentioned is one on which he issuedMinor Rock Edict II while being on tour for 256 days. Thefour copies with this notation are in far-flung locations likeUttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka andrecord no information on the route or destination other than amention of an obscure Upanithavihara in Manemadesa in oneof the versions.

With these chronological contradictions relating to the possibilityof a joint pilgrimage by Upagupta and the Maurya Emperor Aoka, it


20/24

is timely to examine the theory proffered by early Aokan scholarsand willy-nilly copied from publication to publication without criticalexamination to the effect that Upagupta and Moggaliputta-tissa wereone and the same person, but differently named in Northern andSouthern Buddhist records. L.A. Waddell was perhaps the first scholarto adopt this line of argument in his pioneering article Upagupta, theFourth Buddhist Patriarch and High Priest of Aoka, published in

Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. 66 (1897): Vincent A. Smithwith his popular work on Aoka in 1902 perpetuated the tendency to

denigrate Pali sources.(Guruge 1993 pp. 346ff.).Since 1897, more had been found out about Moggaliputta-tissa,

who appears to have a higher or even the sole claim to the title ofHigh Priest of Aoka, Maurya Aoka. Sri Lankan traditions whichWaddell described as relatively vague and less trustworthy andSmith condemned as a tissue of absurdities and silly fictions ofmendacious monks have been amply revalidated through archeologi-cal and epigraphical evidence. Moggaliputta-tissa, it had been estab-lished, was a historical personage, eminent in Buddhist circles for hisashes to be enshrined in Tope 2 of Sanchi in a relic casket on whichhis name was engraved in Aokan Brahmi script as Sapurisasa

Moggaliputasa (of the good or saintly man Moggaliputta).That the purification of the Sangha by disrobing and expelling

from monasteries the undesirables, which, according to Pali sources,Aoka did along with Moggaliputta-tissa is attested to by the threeSchism Edicts of Aoka at Sch, Srnth and Kaumb (now atAllahabad).

While the Third Buddhist Council, presided over by Moggali-putta-tissa is not referred to in any Asokan inscriptions so far found,its historicity is established by the inclusion of his own bookKathvatthu in the Abhidhamma Piaka of the Buddhist Canon whichtook shape at this Council.

Finally, the most far-reaching achievements of Moggaliputta-tissa,which has brought the greatest credit to Aoka the nine missions whichtransformed Buddhism from a regional monastic system to a world reli-gion is also established by the vindication of Sri Lankan Pali sources

by (i) the reliquaries found in Tope No. 2 of Sonari group with names ofKassapagotta as Hemavatacariya, as well as Majjhima and



21/24


Dundubhissara and (ii) the Rassagala inscription in Sri Lanka with thenames of Mahinda and Itthiya, marking a stupa enshrining their relics.Further, Majjhantikas mission to Kashmir is recorded by Xuan-Zhang.

With Moggaliputta-tissas role being so convincingly establishedas the prime mover of activities associated with Maurya EmperorAoka, it is in no way possible to attribute the function of his ChiefHigh Priest to Upagupta regarding whom evidence of equal validityhad not yet been found.

7. Conclusion

Conclusions from this analysis are the following:

Upagupta as the disciple of nakavsi, a leading figure in theSecond Buddhist Council held a hundred years after Buddhasdemise, was definitely a contemporary of Kloka, the son ofiunga, as this Council was held in the tenth year of the reignof this king. That iungas son is called Kkavarin (crow-colored) in the Puras is significant as it is synonymous withKla (black).

Upagupta, due to this chronological factor, which dates him overa century before Maurya Emperor Aoka, cannot be equated withMoggaliputta-tissa for whose identity ample reliable evidence isavailable.

The reason for Upagupta to be excluded from Pali records in spite

of the fact that he was a disciple of nakavsi could be that, inthe dispute over the ten controversial points of discipline, he mighthave taken the side of the Vajji bhikkhus. Samanta-psdika as wellas Shan-jian-lu-piposha records that Klsoka, too, took their side.Mahavamsa records that he was persuaded by his sister to side withthe orthodox monks. It is quite possible that he did so at the begin-ning and supported the Second Buddhist Council. Later after theschism, he might have taken the side of the Vajji faction andbecame associated with the Mahasanghika movement.

Upagupta in all likelihood had played a major role in theMahsnghika sect and what Northern Buddhist records recall


22/24

could be a close relationship that Upagupta had with Kloka,whose High Priest he could have been. Upaguptas guided tour of sites sacred to the life of the Buddha

apart, Divyvadna account of Aoka-rja establishing stpas inhonor of the immediate disciples of the Buddha could reflect anactivity in which Kloka most likely was involved byUpagupta. Both Fa-xian and Xuan-Zhang had been shown stpasin Mathur the seat of Upagupta in honor riputra,Mudagalaputra, nanda and Rhula (Fa-hians list) and riputra,

Mudgalaputra, Pra-maitryaputra, Upli, nanda, Rhula,Manjuri and other Bodhisattvas (Xuan-Zhangs list). (Beal pp.xxxviii xxxix and I pp 180-181).

Upaguptas acquisition of eminence in the evolving Mahynatradition, especially in Aparanta, the Northwestern Region of theIndian subcontinent, is attested by Xuan-Zhang who had beenshown Saghrmas and stpas in Sindh (Zind), which commem-orated Upaguptas sojourn in the region. His association withKashmir, as suggested in later Tibetan sources, is also very likely.It could be in this region that Upagupta acquired his eminence asthe fourth patriarch of Mahyna Buddhism.

With the principal conclusion that Upaguptas Aoka wasKloka and Upaguptas omission in Pali sources could be duehis partiality to Mahsghikas resulting later in the eminence hegained in Mahyna tradition, a need for research is indicated onsuch issues as the following:

a) What evidence is available from Indian, Chinese and Tibetansources hitherto not examined from this point of view?b) What, if at all, was Klokas role in the promotion of the

Mahsghika School?c) Is it possible that the Council which Tibetan sources date as

taking place 110 years after the demise of the Buddha be aMahsghika council held ten years after nakavsisSecond Council at Vaili?

d) Is there any foundation for Xuan-Zhangs account that a coun-

cil was arranged by a king Aoka to drown the attendingmonks?



23/24


e) How did Upagupta get associated with Aparanta and Kashmirand what really won for him the lasting recognition to be com-memorated with Saghrmas and stpas?

f) When and where did Upagupta attain the status of the fourthpatriarch of Mahyna Buddhism?

References

Bapat, P. V. in collaboration with A. Hirakawa, Chan-Chien-Piposha, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1970

Beal, Samuel, Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World,(London 1884), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1981.

Guruge, Ananda W.P.,Mahvamsa: The Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka Chapters One to Thirty-seven An Annotated Translation withProlegomena, Associated Newspapers of Ceylon, Colombo 1989;Revised new edition, Godage International Publishers, Colombo 2005.

Guruge, Ananda W.P.,Asoka, The Righteous: A Definitive Biography,Central Cultural Fund, Colombo 1993.

Horner, I.B. (Tr), The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-Pitaka) Vol. V(Cullavagga) Pali Text Society, London 1975.

Hsing Yun, Describing the Indescribable A Commentary on theDiamond Sutra, Wisdom Publications, Somerville MA, 2000.

Li Ronxi (Tr) The Biographical Scripture of King Asoka, Numata Centerfor Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley, California 1993.

Mukhopadhyaya, Sujitkumar, The Asokvandna Sanskrit Text com-pared with Chinese Versions, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1963.

Nakamura, Hajime,Indian Buddhism A Survey with BibliographicalNotes, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1987.

Przyluski, J., La Lgende de lEmpereur Aoka dans les Textes

Indiens et Chinois, Annales du Muse Guimet, Paris 1923.


24/24


Strong, John S., The Legend of King Asoka A Study and Translationof Asokvandna, Princeton Library of Asian Translations, Princeton,N.J. 1983.

Thomas Edward J., The History of Buddhist Thought, Kegan Paul,London 1933.

Vaidya, P.L., Divyvadna, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, No. 20, BiharMithila Institute, Darbanga, 1959.

Warder, A.K.,Indian Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1970.

Yu, Lu Kuan (Charles Luke), Chan and Zen Teaching, Rider andCo., London 1961.

Documents

Who Were Upagupta and His Asoka