Corporate Bodies in Early South Asian Buddhism

[Full title: Corporate Bodies in Early South Asian Buddhism: Some Relics and Their Sponsors According to Epigraphy]

religions Article Corporate Bodies in Early South Asian Buddhism: Some Relics and Their Sponsors According to Epigraphy Matthew D. Milligan Department of Philosophy, Religion, and Liberal Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, Georgia College & State University, 231 W. Hancock St., Milledgeville, GA 31061, USA; mattdmilligan@gmailcom Received: 8 November 2018; Accepted: 12 December 2018; Published: 22 December 2018 Abstract: Some of the earliest South Asian Buddhist historical records pertain to the enshrinement of relics, some of which were linked to the Buddha and others associated with prominent monastic teachers and their pupils. Who were the people primarily responsible for these enshrinements? How did the social status of these people represent Buddhism as a burgeoning institution? This paper utilizes early Prakrit inscriptions from India and Sri Lanka to reconsider who was interested in enshrining these relics and what, if any, connection they made have had with each other. Traditional accounts of reliquary enshrinement suggest that king Asoka began the enterprise of setting up the Buddha’s corporeal body for worship but his own inscriptions cast doubt as to the importance he may have placed in the construction of st upa -s and the widespread distribution of relics. Instead, as evidenced in epigraphy, inclusive corporations of individuals may have instigated, or, at the very least, became the torchbearers for, reliquary enshrinement as a salvific enterprise. Such corporations comprised of monastics as well as non-monastics and seemed to increasingly become more managerial over time. Eventually, culminating at places like Sanchi, the enshrinement of the corporeal remains of regionally famous monks partially supplanted the corporeal remains of the Buddha. Those interested in funding this new endeavor were corporations of relatives, monastic brethren, and others who were likely friends and immediate acquaintances. In the end, the social and corporate collectivity of early Buddhism may have outshined some textual monastic ideals of social isolation as it pertained to the planning, carrying out, and physical enshrinement of corporeal remains for worship, thus evoking an inclusive sentiment with the monastic institution rather than disassociation Keywords: Buddhism; epigraphy; relics; corporation; patronage 1. Introduction Since the Buddha’s parinibbana (Skt parinirvana ) and partitioning of relics according to legend, the body of the Buddha seems to have been an extremely accessible tool by which the everyday person, in addition to monastics and royalty, had an opportunity to engage in what might be characterized as “merit-making activity.” For example, in the Pali version of the Sariradhatuvibhajana section of the Mahaparinibbana-sutta 1 (DN 72), the king Ajatasattu of Magadha had heard that the Buddha was deceased and concluded that “[Since] the Lord was a khattiya (Skt ksatriya ), and so am I, I deserve a portion of the Buddha’s relics. I will build st upa -s for them” ( bhagavapi khattiyo ahampi khattiyo ahampi arahami bhagavato sariranam . bhagam . ahampi bhagavato sariranam . th upañca mahañca karissami”ti ) 2 1 This text is considered to be very early within the Pali canon according to von Hinüber ( 2008 ) and Witzel ( 2009 ). 2 Unless stated otherwise, all translations from text or epigraphy are my own Religions 2019 , 10 , 4; doi:10.3390/rel 10010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 2 of 22 Following suit, six groups—namely the Licchavis of Vesali, the Mallians of Kusinara, the Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, the Bulas of Allakappa, the Koliyans of Ramagama, and the Mallians of Pava—came from all over northern India and similarly decided that they also deserved a portion of the Buddha’s relics 3 However, the difference lies in in that none of these groups defined themselves by their leader as the Magadhans did through Ajatasattu. Instead, each of these other six collectives—or what we may come to identify as corporate bodies—communally highlighted their connection to the Buddha and claimed portions of the resulting corpus of bodily relics for themselves to take back to their home territories and worship. Although this story from the Mahaparinibbana-sutta and its extraordinary number of parallels 4 may not be an exact history of how the body of the Buddha came to be worshipped, we do know that the corporate sentiment of the non-Magadhan peoples present within the story seems to have been an actual feeling of many people who did, in fact, sponsor the enshrinement of reliquaries attributed to the Buddha and also to the reliquary mounds ( st upa -s) that often surrounded these important objects of faith It is fitting that the Latin etymology of the English word “corporate” ultimately derives from the word “corpus,” meaning “body,” since, as will be discussed, the genesis of corporate-style patronage in Buddhism begins with the enshrinement of the Buddha’s bodily relics, likely at the st upa site Piprahwa in the late 3 rd century BCE. The word corporation comes from the Latin past participle corporatus meaning “fashioned or made into a body.” Herein, I juxtapose between the Buddha’s “corporeal body” and the later “corporate bodies” of Buddhist reliquary sponsors to elucidate a gradual diachronic shift away from the Buddha’s body and toward different kinds of bodies altogether. Therefore, it is something of a historical irony that the ´Sakya family—our first corporate body—at Piprahwa in northern India seemed to set the standard for non-royal patronage from non-royal persons wishing to express their piety at Lumbini by moving the corporeal remains of the Buddha to a more locally accessible spot of their choosing, thus using a sacred “body” as an instrument to legitimize their own corporate and familial “body.” The aim of this paper is to flesh out these types of individuals—mostly combinations of lay and monastic individuals—who came together collectively like the ´Sakyas to form a single entity that sponsored—presumably through the marshaling of their pooled funds—some of the earliest and most important Indian Buddhist sites. We will navigate many of the earliest known reliquary inscriptions from South Asia 5 and use them to map an answer to the question: who was interested in establishing the Buddha’s relics? Further, what are the implications of evaluating patronage demographics? We know that the birth of the Buddhist sam . gha , according to texts, is traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. However, historically, the growth, spread, and institutionalization of the sam . gha seems to have taken place in a space of interplay between the charismatic, iron-will of King Asoka in the middle of the 3 rd c. BCE and the widespread, inclusivistic decentralization of Buddhism to all corners of South Asia by means of the societal collective from approximately the 2 nd c. BCE onwards, perhaps beginning at or near the time the Piprahwa reliquary vase was enshrined. Where Asoka created something of an innovative theocratic state, whereby he was the standard-bearer for devotion embodied, the decentralized sam . gha (-s) appearing as far away as Gandhara in the Northwest and 3 It should be noted that eight parties claimed portions of the relics initially. Including Ajatasattu the king of Magadha we may add to the list a lone brahmana named Vethadipa 4 According to the SuttaCentral website, there are no less than 114 parallels from throughout the Buddhist literary world. For a detailed discussion of the Mahaparinibbana-sutta and some parallels regarding sa ˙ngiti , Analayo’s recent paper is an excellent resource and starting point ( Analayo 2015 ). 5 There are many relevant inscriptions to examine from ancient Gandhara ( Baums 2012 ). Unfortunately, the earliest ones do not add much to the overall argument of this paper beyond what is already discussed. Incorporating these inscriptions, of which there are dozens, into future work would be essential for any investigation of corporeal remains, especially ones involving longer diachronic time periods ( Baums 2018 ). A companion paper to the current study might re-consider the nature of dispersing merit to the community at-large via the establishment of reliquaries. Such a topic would be undoubtedly well-rooted in the early Gandharan reliquary inscriptions.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 3 of 22 Sri Lanka to the far South seemed to have stolen the metaphor of the “ideal” Buddhist patron and revolutionized it to fit the highly varied demographics existing beyond the royal palace walls Already nearly thirty years ago, historian Romila Thapar ( 1992 ) and art historian Vidya Dehejia ( 1992 ) convincingly argued that the everyday patrons—many of whom were monks and nuns—who helped Buddhism root itself materially were largely part of widespread communities which tended to sponsor Buddhist monuments through an “egalitarian” approach. While focusing on epigraphy, they suggested two major concepts: (1) that the generosity of the “commoner” helped spur South Asian Buddhism’s major artistic switch from working with impermanent materials such as wood and bamboo into more permanent and structurally reliant stones ( Dehejia 1992 , p. 35) and (2) that “patronage [was] a deliberate act of choice [that] can be seen when a community decides to donate wealth and labor towards the building of a monument which encapsulates its religious beliefs and social values [and] where the patron is not a single person but a recognizable group” ( Thapar 1992 , p. 19). It should be noted that most donative records from the Common Era describe the practice of patronage as some kind of permanent endowment, such as relating to interest-earning assets like land, but such information is scarce Before the Common Era. The only hint of the financial practices of these communities relates to their consistent use of the Sanskrit verb √ da , meaning “to give.” Historically in South Asia, the practice of dana , meaning something like “a gift” and/or “the act of charity” itself dates to the Vedic period and implies some kind of financial or, at the very least, asset-transacting relationship between patrons and ritual actors ( Findly 2003 ; Gonda 1965 ; Heesterman 1985 ). It seems, then, that within this context, the financial practices of early South Asian Buddhists were not altogether different in function than gifts given to priests as payments for rituals or sacrifices, although Thapar has discussed the subtleties of how this practice changed through urbanization ( Thapar 2000 , pp. 521–22) Further, such acts were public declarations of belief ( Thapar 1992 , p. 25) involving groups or even mixed groups of monks, nuns, self-identifying laity, merchants, and others throughout society Although Dehejia and Thapar’s ideas have framed the discussion on early Buddhist patronage since 1992, scarcely have scholars returned to or challenged what was originally presented. Even more surprising, neither Dehejia nor Thapar referred to or examined the most obvious evidence in support of their arguments. The work done in this paper is simultaneously both an assessment of their argument as it pertains to a specific, obvious collection of epigraphs that were ignored and is also a recalibration of the overarching sentiments 6 Put simply, I seek to begin telling the story of the corporate bodies of people whose joint donations are evidence of the collaborative nature of early Buddhism in some of the earliest material sources available for study. I primarily rely upon reliquary inscriptions from Piprahwa, Bhattiprolu, and Sanchi while reinforcing these with some of Asoka’s inscriptions and related inscriptions known from early Sri Lanka. I conclude by emphasizing the nature of monastics vis- à -vis non-monastics with regard to the examined corporate bodies and identify several historical trends present within the accumulated data. Such observations about monastic Buddhists mark a stark contrast to the (in)famous—and perhaps blatantly misleading—literary tradition which paints the Buddhistic path of enlightenment as solitary for many ( Clarke 2014 ) or, at the very least, socially restrictive 2. Corporations Before examining the epigraphic evidence in detail and exploring their basis as perhaps the first major inkling of corporations taking a foothold in early Buddhist social structures throughout South Asia, it is worthwhile to consider the primary word I am translating into English as “corporate body”: 6 It should be noted that some recent work on Indian Buddhist epigraphy at Sanchi has questioned the “egalitarian nature” of the inscriptional corpus ( Milligan 2016 ). The argument observes that the epigraphic corpus, despite being an interesting representative sample from all levels of society, probably still reflects wealthy elite at some level, even from within the institutionalized sam . gha . For the sake of the current paper, it does not matter whether the corporate body was “elite” or not but rather that it was, in fact, a corporation of collected individuals.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 4 of 22 gothi (Skt gosthi ). A gostha was originally an abode for cattle, perhaps something like a grazing ground or a stable/pen since the combination of go (=“cow”) plus -stha from √ stha (=“to stand”) may equal something literal such as “a stand for a cow.” 7 In terms of religious usage, a gosthi´sraddha was one of twelve types of ancestral offerings and had prominence at least during the time of Manu in the first few centuries CE if not earlier ( Olivelle 2005 , p. 267). The Satavahana period saw the term gosthi expand its meaning semantically to include urban administrative units in addition to its classical association with trade guilds ( Ray 1989 , p. 449). Looking even further through time, in medieval royal courts, and perhaps as early as the Gupta dynasty, a gosthi was a key institution which linked social circles whereby it perhaps functioned as a type of cosmopolitan “salon” 8 ( Ali 2004 , p. 65) but also retained the dual meaning of referring to male corporations whose individuals, called dharmasthanagosthika -s, were committee members who managed temple and monastery affairs ( Sircar 1966 , p. 94). More directly, a gosthi was thus summarized by D. C. Sircar in his epigraphic glossary as “an assembly; a corporate body” ( Sircar 1966 , p. 118) Given this brief lexicographic survey, we can arrive at the conclusion that a gosthi was some kind of group or clan possessing some sort of power, probably social and economic at its heart ( Chakrabarti 1995 , p. 200). We see this in the early Buddhist inscriptions also, as at Sanchi during the 1 st c. BCE we have four inscriptions utilizing the word gothi in the same manner as at Bhattiprolu, a major reliquary st upa site from Andhra discussed below. The three Sanchi donative inscriptions clearly state bodhagothiya dhamavadhanana danam (=“a gift of the Bodha gothi from Dhamavad.hana.”) 9 We know that the gothiya compound is in the genitive and therefore the maker of the gift but what can we make of dhamavadhanana ? As is typical in the Sanchi inscriptions, this word is in the ablative singular (=“from [a place called] dhamavadhana ”) to designate the locality of the donor(s). While Dharmavardhana may, in fact, be a real place (it is mentioned in Valmiki’s Ram¯ayan.a 2.71.10), in a religious context the word may be translated as “that place which increases dharma.” It would therefore make sense that a corporate body made up of monastics and laity ( bauddha-gosthi ) from somewhere pious in their Buddhist devotion came to the great st upa at Sanchi and made gifts. However, gifts from what money? Perhaps, if we are to believe the Bhattiprolu inscriptions below, the corporate body was a type of management committee in charge of pooled financial resources. The same term occurs in the same context again at Sanchi in reference to what appears to be a family named the Barulamisa, 10 at Amaravati 11 in perhaps the 1 st c. CE, and in Sri Lanka (as gota ) in perhaps the 2 nd c. BCE 12 Therefore, we may conclude that these special types of corporate bodies ( gothi -s) were consequential for the funding and sociality of early Buddhist groups throughout South Asia To historicize the development of corporations in early Buddhism, we may also take note of the idea of the “corporation” in ancient Sri Lanka. The concept of the gothi (Skt gosthi ) is attested to in a single inscription from Sri Lanka as the Old Sinhalese Prakrit word gota from about the early 1 st c BCE and refers to a cave gifted by an upa´sika (=“female lay devotee”) named Cita, wife of a Gopala, 7 Apparently, in some modern vernaculars a gostha is contrasted with a matha , or “meadow,” which may indicate the sense of direct presence or place ( Sarkar [1928] 1985 , p. 7). However, beyond Sarkar’s unsourced reference, I am unable to identify to which “vernaculars” he is referring 8 Gosthi -s appear also in the Kamas utra as such, see 14.34–36 9 All non-Asokan edict epigraphic editions are from Tsukamoto’s catalogue ( Tsukamoto 1996 ). However, this catalogue does not adequately connect each inscription with the associated reliquary from the site. For this, I have presented Tsukamoto’s editions in the order they are presented in the Utta˙nkita Sanskrit Vidya Aran.ya Epigraphs volume 2 ( Krishnan 1989 ), henceforth referred to as the USVA. It should be noted that the USVA’s edition does not directly correspond to what Tsukamoto lists. Tsukamoto appears to favor the older editions of Lüders ( 1912 ), which tend to make more sense than what is the USVA, which is largely not translated completely. The translations in the USVA are summaries only and are slightly misleading and incoherent when compared to the text. In Tsukamoto, these inscriptions are numbered as 82, 83, and 84 which are identical 10 Tsukamoto no. 164 11 Tsukamoto no. 212 12 There the inscription ( Paranavitana 1970 ) reads: L 1 gotakabojhi[ya]na parumakagopalaha bariya upasika citaya lene ´sagasa and may be translated as “A cave [to] the sam . gha , [a gift] of the female lay member Cita, wife of Gopala, and head of the Kabojjiya corporate body.” It is numbered by Paranavitana as #990. Translation is mine.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 5 of 22 named the chief ( parumaka , Skt pramukha ) of something called a gotakabojhiya . It is unclear what a Kabojhiya is exactly but it is likely a family name. Thus, the “corporation” at work in this inscription is not made up of a vast array of members from miscellaneous families and groups but rather a single, individual family 13 Although joint family donations do appear in Sri Lanka, the type of corporation associated with the word gosthi appears to be rare there, if not entirely supplanted by another kind of corporation that might have either taken its place or been the result of corporate evolution The word p uga 14 for corporation in Old Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions is more common and likely more descriptive because of its broad associations. Where gosthi refers to a group centered around something specific, perhaps a village’s cow-rearing or even gossiping (in medieval times) at salon-esque social venues, p uga , in its simplest form, can mean “assemblage,” relating to the Sanskriticpuñja , a heap of something pressed together. However, the term is much more legally specific in the Sanskrit Dharmasastric tradition. The Artha´sastra (1.13.2), Katy¯ayana Smrti (225; 678), and even the later Vyavaharamay ukha of Nilakantha (132) contextualize p uga as some kind of formal association of commercial agents. The Yajñavalkya Dharmasastra (2.30) even goes as far to allow p uga -s judicial functions and power below the royal court as allowed by the king ( Olivelle 2015 , p. 256). Although these legal texts are later than our inscriptions from Sri Lanka, we can see not only the high esteem for p uga -s but that they represent a kind of logical maturation of the corporate entity in South Asia centered around what we might find to be something akin to modern corporate bureaucracy. Take, for instance, an inscription from perhaps the 1 st c. CE in Sri Lanka: Anuradhapura: Avukana #1152 15 (1 st c. CE?) L 1 pukana lene padagamadata jetha tipati dina L 2 pusamahatavare “On the day when Pusa was president [of the corporation], a cave [and] three shares [of revenue] were gifted [by] the corporation, which has as its alderman a man named Data Pad.agama.” This oddly specific donative inscription seems to reveal that a Buddhist p uga , or generic corporate body, is intimately fastened with the vested finances of that corporate body and requires an increasing number of administrators to manage. Adding to the recognition (in texts) of p uga -s as types of legal corporations with genuine power, the epigraphic evidence mustered below outlines a historical trajectory from Asoka onwards of groups of people functioning as a single, corporate entity to achieve common goals (namely, to sponsor the enshrinement of relics) 3. Asoka’s Patronage One of the most curious features of the Asoka legend—which has not, to my knowledge, been previously discussed at any length—is the discrepancy between Asoka’s (later) textual biography and the information, or, rather, lack of information, he generously contributes in his own royal inscriptions. Asoka’s legendary patronage may turn out to be just that—a legend—as his own inscriptions are limited in their reference to the most important material objects in all of Buddhism Asoka’s role in establishing the Buddha’s relics for public worship would have been, like all his other imperial achievements, worthy of the same grandiose proclamations found elsewhere. What we find in the inscriptions is something altogether different and the idea of constructing st upa -s to house relics is missing 13 This is much more akin to the gothi -s from places like Sanchi in India referring either to the monastic kin group centered on a local luminary named Gotiputa or the gothi group called the Barulamisas, mentioned above 14 P uga is also used frequently in the Pali canon, especially the vinaya . Some references are: Vin II.109, 212; IV.30, 78, 226, 252; M III.48; A III.300 15 Edition for all Sri Lanka epigraphs comes from Paranavitana ( 1970 ). Translations are my own.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 6 of 22 The main item of contention here is the legendary establishment of 84,000 st upa -s across the Indian subcontinent after opening the original st upa -s to obtain and further distribute the Buddha’s corporeal remains, presumably to not only spread Buddhism as a faith but also to further Asoka’s own imperial agenda of uniting a vast territory under a benevolent—at least in his eyes—ideology. We find a standard version of the tale in the Sanskrit Asokavadana , dating from probably around the 2 nd c. CE ( Strong 1983 ). The text is obviously a legendary account of the famous king’s life and therefore cannot be taken as a completely faithful reflection of events that occurred four hundred years previously. However, it is worth comparing its version of the story of the Buddha’s relics with Asoka’s own words The relevant section from the Asokavadana reads: tato raja bhagavacchariradhatum . vistarisyamiti catura ˙ngena balakayena gatvajatasatrupratisthapitam dronastupamutpatya sariradhatum. grhitavan/yatra uddharanam. ca vistarena krtva dhatupratyam.sam. dattva st upam . pratyasthapayat/evam . dvitiyam . st upam . vistarena/bhaktimato yavat saptadronad grahaya st upam . sca pratis.thapya ramagramam . gatah./ Asokavadana 52 “Then King Asoka, intending to distribute far and wide the bodily relics of the Blessed One, went together with a fourfold army to the Drona st upa that Ajatasatru had built. He broke it open, took out all the relics, and putting back a portion of them, set up a new st upa . He did the same with the second Drona st upa and so on up to the seventh one, removing the relics from each of them and then setting up new st upa s as tokens of his devotion.” 16 yavad raja caturasitikarandasahasram. karayitva sauvarnarupyasphatikavaiduryamayanam. tesu dhatavah. praksiptah./evam. vistarena caturasitikumbhasahasram./ Asokavadana 53 pattasahasram. ca yaksanam. haste dattva visarjitam/asamudrayam. prthivyam. hinotkrstamadhyamesu nagaresu yatra kotih. paripuryate tatra dharmarajika pratisthapayitavya/ Asokavadana 53 “Then Asoka had eighty-four thousand boxes made of gold, silver, cat’s eye, and crystal, and in them were placed the relics. Also, eighty-four thousand urns and eighty-four thousand inscription plates were prepared. All of this was given to the yaksas for distribution in the (eighty-four thousand) dharmarajikas [= st upa -s] he ordered built throughout the earth as far as the surrounding ocean, in the small, great and middle-sized towns, wherever there was a (population of) one hundred thousand (persons).” It would not be a stretch to say that this version of the story—or one like it—is not only the popular image of Asokan patronage but also of Buddhist patronage more broadly. The trope, established within the text, runs that the devout king wishes to repair or ensure his karmic future and therefore unilaterally takes matters into his own hands by committing to a virtuous patronage task, like building 84,000 st upa -s to allow the mass worship of the Buddha’s relics. Indeed, for the character of Asoka in the Asokavadana , the enormous task of establishing 84,000 st upa -s is meant to make up for his past indiscretions. However, even though the Asoka known from the edicts attributed to the real king Asoka Maurya is also remorseful for killing thousands of Kali ˙ngas as he discussed in the 13 th Major Rock Edict, his follow-up action is different from the textual account The Nigali Sagar Minor Pillar Edict in the Kapilavastu district in modern day Nepal records Asoka’s first known engagement with a st upa —but the st upa is, unfortunately, not one attributed to ´Sakyamuni Buddha: 16 Translation comes from Strong’s book ( Strong 1983 , p. 219).

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 7 of 22 Nigali Sagar Minor Pillar Edict of Asoka (Mid 3 rd c. BCE) 17 L 1 devanam . piyena piyadasina lajina codasavasa[bhisi]tena L 2 budhasa konakamanasa thube dutiyam . vadhite L 3 [visativa]sabhisitena ca atana agaca mahiyite L 4 [silathabhe ca usa]papite [//] “When King Piyadasin, beloved of the gods, was consecrated for this 14 th regnal year he enlarged the st upa of the Buddha Konakamana to be double [in size] and during his 20 th regnal year [he] came here to pay reverence and construct a stone pillar.” Beyond the fact that Asoka is paying reverence ( mahiyite ), the key part of the inscription for our argument rests in an analysis of the past participle vadhite in the grammatical nominative singular Asoka—or at least whoever was his official state composer—was quite fond of this word as it appears in several of his edicts (nine or more times), usually meaning roughly the same thing: “increased.” Therefore, we can say that, at the very least, Asoka knew precisely what he was saying when he deployed this word. Since it is formed in the causative, we also get a sense of the “heavy hand” of Asoka himself as the one behind the scenes initiating the task via his power. Some of the shades of meaning for this formation of √ vrdh beyond “increased” might be “carved,” “fashioned,” “built,” “augmented,” or even “strengthened.” Each of these seems to fit the context rather well. Moreover, the inscription is also salient in that vadhite is only referring to the structure of the thuba (= st upa ) and not anything that is inside of it. The adjective dutiyam (=”double [in size]”) also implies a structural augmentation and does not coincide with any type of relic “splitting” that may be derived from taking √ vrdh in the sense of vardhayati (=”to divide”), especially since the relics, if we are to believe the legendary textual accounts, were divided not twice ( dutiyam ) but many more times. In both of Asoka’s confessed visits to the site Asoka does not mention relics or any objects contained therein, thus establishing the conundrum outlined above. If Asoka had any reason at all to “split” open a holy Buddhast upa (for the second time, = dutiyam ?), it must have been an easily justifiable reason—a reason, perhaps, that would have been worth mentioning in his very public document that was, by his own words, supposed to be read aloud to his subjects The only other tangentially related Asokan writing, from Lumbini, has been interpreted and translated as completely and deliberately ignoring the idea of a relic. That inscription may be read as: Rummindei Minor Pillar Edict of Asoka (Mid 3 rd c. BCE) L 1 devanapiyena piyadasina lajina visativasabhisitena L 2 atana agaca mahiyite [/] hida budhe jate sakyamuni ti L 3 silavigadabhica kalapita silathabhe ca usapapite [/] L 4 hita bhagavam . jate ti lum . m . inigame ubalike kate L 5 athabhagiye ca [//] “When King Piyadasin, beloved of the gods, was consecrated for his 20 th regnal year he himself [came] to pay reverence [here]. [The King] had [both] a stone railing and stone pillar set up [because] it is said that ‘the Buddha was born here.’ Since it is known that ‘the Lord was born here,’ [the King] has made the village of Lummini tax-exempt and made it [have] a share of the eight.” 17 Editions to the Asokan edicts come from Falk ( 2006 ).

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 8 of 22 From this pair of Asokan edicts we get a strong sense that by his 20 th regnal year, Asoka’s faith was not only cemented into his persona, but, furthermore, he felt obligated as a powerful king of a vast territory to carry out special tasks. At Kapilavastu, during his 20 th year he returned to the site to construct a stone pillar (seemingly ignoring the previously enhanced st upa ’s base) as per the aforementioned inscription and then traveled to Lumbini to construct more monuments in permanent stone as presented in the edict there. Although the word silavigadabhi ( ca? ) is anything but certain, at the very least scholars may all agree that it was a stone (= sila ) something , whether it was a railing ( vedika ) ( Falk 2006 , 2012 , 2017 ), a wall ( Fleet 1908 ; Norman 1994 ), an artificial bathing pond 18 ( Deeg 2003 ), or perhaps something like a sacred marker stone being in its natural condition ( Tsukamoto 2006 ). While the arguments for silavigadabhi ( ca? ) being either a railing enclosing something sacred or a “stone being in its natural condition” are intriguing, for the sake of simplicity and consistency with what is found at most other post-Mauryan st upa sites we may envision the concept of a vedika —a stone, fenced enclosure which encircles something which could be a (bodhi?) tree, a st upa , or even a smaller portion of the st upa like a sunshade ( chattra ). Asoka simply does not mention erecting a st upa or even enlarging an existing st upa as he did at Nigali Sagar. It is very clear, then, that within this context that this Lumbini, the place where Asoka believed to be the actual birthplace of the Buddha, was completely devoid of bodily relics to be worshipped. Provocatively, Asoka may have tried to remedy that problem Examining the compound athabhagiye offers some clues. Literally, we have “that which is of/from/connected to shares ( bhagiya = Skt bhagika ) of eight ( atha = Skt asta ).” Bhagiya may easily be rendered, as it has by most scholars previously, as “[a village] paying one eighth of the produce [instead of the usual rate of one sixth or so]” ( Sircar 1966 , p. 30) since the word bhaga refers to the king’s grain share. Such an interpretation proves reasonable especially given that the previous word ubalika (Skt udbalika ) refers to a type of tax owed to the sovereign Bali also seems to have its origin as the name of an offering to a deity, which also makes sense given that the pious Asoka would have wanted the people to offer bali to the Buddha rather than to him. However, since the Rummindei pillar inscription comes within a Buddhist context, we are forced to consider a Buddhistic meaning for bhagiya since it could be redundant for Asoka to render Lumbini as a village tax-free as well as having a discounted land revenue ( bhagiya ) share he would normally be rightfully owed as well. Harry Falk recently suggested that we should “rid our mind from preconceived notions [since] we don’t know if there was a st upa at Lumbini in the time of Asoka” and if athabhagiya actually did refer to a second type of tax on the “tiny village in the Terai” then that would make Asoka a rather strange ruler since he would be essentially waiving most of his kingly rights to the village ( Falk 2012 , pp. 205–6). Falk found a solution stemming from a new inscription found at Kanaganahalli in Karnataka. A labeling inscription refers to a now vanished relief scene on a st upa vedika : L 1 ramagamilo athabhagathubho upari = “Above (you see) the st upa of Ramagrama (containing) one-eighth part.” 19 It is very likely that the reference here is to some scene that is an artistic rendering of the Digha Nikaya ’s version of the relic division after the Buddha’s demise. As Falk has noted, Lumbini is curiously absent from the textual list, implying that Lumbini had not (yet) received a portion of the relics ( Falk 2012 , pp. 206–7). Asoka, then, was simply remedying the situation. From Lumbini, a now-lost reliquary and its contents were once excavated from a Mauryan-era square pedestal that may have once been encircled by a silavigadabhi , or a stone enclosure ( vedika ) that demarcated something sacred ( Falk 2012 , pp. 208–11). Asoka’s redundancy of manipulating two different types of “taxes” on a small village is now explained away, and we get a glimpse of his role as instigator of the 84,000 st upa -s erected across South Asia 18 This interesting suggestion takes the very difficult vigada as deriving from the root vi+ √ gah into vigadha meaning “to take a bath, dive into, enter” ( Deeg 2003 , p. 20). However, Falk has refuted such an interpretation, explaining that this interpretation violates “several sound laws” and confuses the archaeological evidence ( Falk 2012 , p. 216) 19 Edition and translation come from Falk ( 2012 , p. 206).

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 9 of 22 To the contrary, in Sri Lanka, all the early inscriptions that refer to bhagiya (and its various forms) do not refer to ashes or other types of bodily relics as we might expect given the prevalence and adherence to the Pali canon which contains stories resembling the ones presented briefly at the beginning of this paper from the Digha Nikaya . Instead, they simply mean land-revenue shares as known from their material and patronage contexts ( Paranavitana 1970 ). We may then come back to the underlying problem: is Asoka the exception rather than the rule? If we take his donative inscriptions at Nigali Sagar and Lumbini at face value, Asoka himself would have answered the question affirmatively in that he thought he was starting something new and setting up a standard to be emulated. In this way, he was exceptional—but his patronage model may not have been as prevalent across South Asia as he might have liked as the evidence from the reliquaries themselves depicts an altogether different kind of demographic interested in setting up these important objects for worship. Even if Falk is correct in associating athabhagiya as referring to the eight shares of relics deposited throughout the countryside—and we have no reason to doubt this interpretation—Asoka does not concede to even constructing a special structure to house them beyond perhaps a strange silavigadabhi, nor does he ever discuss spreading them around the countryside in any number, let alone 84,000 deposits. This critique of Asoka should not undermine his undoubted influence for the rooting of the Buddhist institution throughout South Asia. Rather, the goal here is to make the actual evidence for Asoka’s royal patronage translucent; that is, to diffuse Asoka’s influence in the category he is perhaps most famous for (as in stories like that found in the Asokavadana ) and permit other patrons” generosity and efforts to visibly shine forth 4. Piprahwa: The First Corporate Gift We may begin our examination of corporate-style patronage in early South Asian Buddhism with perhaps the single most famous and controversial Buddhist epigraph. Discovered in January of 1898 by local English Landlord of the Birdpur Estate named William Pepp é , Piprahwa is a st upa site on the Indian side of the border (Uttar Pradesh) between India and Nepal and dates to perhaps the early 2 nd century BCE. During his excavation, Pepp é discovered many important Buddhist antiquities The one most pertinent to our historical survey is a nearly 700 kg sandstone box containing a soapstone reliquary, crystal bowl, and four soapstone vases, among of which is the inscribed vase that may be our earliest historical reference to the Buddha ( Falk 2017 ; Allen 2008 , 2012 ; Härtel 2000 ; Pepp é 1898 ). Although the exact history of these artifacts is obscure, Falk ( 2017 , p. 67) provocatively argued recently that the crystal reliquary—and not the inscribed soapstone vase—are perhaps Asokan (3 rd c. BCE) and therefore earlier than the Piprahwa st upa which enshrined it At Lumbini, the Asokan edict claims the King brought relic bones of the Buddha to the site and installed something called a silavigadabhi ( ca? ), which was made of stone. Further, the coffer at Piprahwa was also made of the same type of sandstone, quarried near Kaushambi, used by Asoka for his pillars Falk notes that the coffer itself has no Indic predecessor and only smaller successors. Given that the star-shaped flowers of some of the jewels is extremely like those associated with the Indo-Greek Kings in the Ai-Khanum treasury, and that the cost of constructing these items must have been extraordinarily expensive, it does seem likely that there was a wealthy royal benefactor, which agrees with the Asokan legend ( Falk 2017 ). Although this line of thought is only speculation, the timeline appears consistent logical historically given that the Piprahwa st upa itself is younger than the Mauryas and has a first phase of construction dated to approximately the end of the 3 rd c. BCE or perhaps the early 2 nd c BCE. For whatever reason—perhaps legitimation or pure piety—Falk’s timeline suggests that a ´Sakya family seemed to have removed Asoka’s crystal reliquary at Lumbini and transported it 15 km to Piprahwa and enshrined it within the st upa there. During this enshrinement, they probably constructed the box and the vase and placed the crystal reliquary within it. Before enclosing the vase—and thus the Buddha’s remains—within the sandstone box and finally inside the large brick st upa , the family inscribed it with their words.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 10 of 22 Falk ( 2006 ) has intimately reconsidered the epigraph and deemed it genuine after some years of controversy as to whether it may have been a forgery. His corrected edition, with my own translation, reads: Piprahwa Vase Inscription (3 rd/2 nd c. BCE?) L 1 20 sukitibhatinam . sabhaginikanam . saputadalanam L 2 iyam . salilanidhane budhase bhagavate sakiyanam “This enshrinement of the corporal remains of the Lord Buddha of the ´Sakya clan [is the gift] of the very famous ´Sakya brethren concurrently with their sisters, and sons’ wives.” The word nidhane functions as the subject albeit without a verb and has nearly always been understood to mean the vessel itself. Falk convincingly suggested its translation as “enshrinement” to better suit the original circumstances of the vessel as an object that itself was worshipped, perhaps in the open-air, and not as contained within a burial mound ( st upa ) or larger shrine ( Falk 2006 , p. 59) The Prakrit inscription is somewhat odd because it does not contain a noun or verb which corresponds to typical donative terminologies which frequently describe such objects as either a “gift” ( danam ), a “construction” ( k¯arita ), “that which was [caused to be] established” ( pratisthapita ), or perhaps even the infrequently occurring “presented” ( niry¯atita ). Rather, the inscription only implies one of these verbs. It is possible that the vessel and its inscription is old enough to date to a time prior to a common reliquary formula being in use; however, Asoka himself is not foreign to these verbs to connote the “establishment” of a physical object so the absence here is fascinating since he so frequently used all of these words or word derived from the same roots (for example, danam / √ da appears in RE 5, 8, 9, 11, 12; PE 4, 7, Queen’s, Barabar), karita/ √ kr (Nigali Sagar, Delhi-Topra), etc Looking closer, we have perhaps the first usage of the important sadesignation to indicate a joint donation. The inscription itself yields sabhaginikanam. ( =“with [their] sisters”) and saputadalanam (=“with [their] sons” wives”], which are in support of the chief benefactors who are described as the sakiyanam sukitibhatinam (=“the famous brothers who are ´Sakyan”). There is an admittedly difficult translation problem in that sakiyanam undoubtedly qualifies sukitibhatinam . However, according to legend, we also know that the Buddha himself was of the ´Sakya clan, so we may tentatively take extend the association to the grammatically singular budhase bhagavate which does not agree in number with the genitive plurals that we find in the rest of the inscription The other curiosity pertaining to my argument is the reliquary’s reference to those who are doing the establishing, namely the famous ´Sakyan brethren along with their sisters, sons, and wives ( sukitibhatinam . sabhaginikanam . saputadalanam ). The first observation we must make is something surface-level: these words all grammatically qualify sakiyanam , meaning they are members of the ´Sakya clan specifically. In the genitive plural, the interpretation of sabhaginikanam. saputadalanam hinges on sukitibhatinam , which may be taken in several ways. First, it could be, as Lüders has attempted to read, a compound whereby -bhatina* qualifies sukiti- , thus making it a genitive tatpurusa translated something like “the brothers of Sukiti.” Falk’s recent translation understands the compound in the same way. Both translations imply that sukiti- , which is very likely sukirti 21 in Sanskrit, is a proper noun, either a name unto itself which happens to mean “highly famous” or a referent to the obvious family relative, meaning the Buddha, who is, of course, very famous. However, a karmadharaya compound is also possible and potentially improves the situation, thus taking sukitias an adjective qualifying the substantive -bhatina* disassociates sukitiwith any kind of emphasis (such as a proper name or as 20 Note that the inscription itself does not actually appear on two lines. Rather, the separation into two lines here is for the sake of presentation only. The original inscription encircles the vase, hence leading to some discussion after excavation as to how to exactly render the Prakrit original edition. Nearly all experts now agree with the edition presented here 21 Sircar has speculated that it is perhaps “of the [brothers] Sukirti and Bhakti.” However, Falk outright dismisses this rendering into Sanskrit.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 11 of 22 referring to the Buddha) and thus actually redirects the grammatical emphasis on -bhatina* , making the “brethren” the focus of the compound instead of the awkward “highly famous.” The brethren as the focus better concerts with the second half of the descriptive genitive plurals which inclusively marshals together the entire ´Sakya clan. In the end, by shifting this singular, small piece of grammar we can highlight and account for the inclusivistic corporate body responsible for the enshrinement. As we shall see, further early brahmi epigraphs from the reliquaries at Bhattiprolu display a remarkably similar sentiment albeit further in time, thus indicating a continuation of the corporate-style sponsorship 5. Bhattiprolu: Corporate Bodies Aligned Beyond Piprahwa, we see evidence of direct continuity in the enshrinement of reliquaries by corporate bodies that was previously only implied. At Bhattiprolu in the Guntur district of modern day Andhra Pradesh a large st upa mound yielded several important artifacts relevant to the history of Buddhism. These were three inscribed receptacles containing relics as well as jewels, gold leaves, other precious objects such as coins, beads, pearls, etc., and one inscribed piece of crystal. Although we might once again be wary of the potential difference in dating between the excavated mound and the objects, based on some palaeographic assumptions and observations which are complex and need not be improved upon here we may assign a late 2 nd c. or even early 1 st c. BCE date to the inscribed objects. The editions of the inscriptions have remained largely the same since Bühler ( 1892 ) and Lüders ( 1912 ) examined them. In the modern era, Tsukamoto ( 1996 , p. 290) has made some subtle improvements to our understandings of the sometimes-confusing grammatical characteristics The brahmi aksara -s were likely the result of one major attempt at making innovations to the known Asokan script to account for local Dravidian vernaculars ( Falk 2014 , p. 51) 22 Bhattiprolu’s inscriptions strongly highlight this importance as the inscriptions are not only early but of a slightly different nature than the donative inscriptions at Sanchi, Amaravati, or in Sri Lanka. Where the donative inscriptions at the st upa sites were clearly meant to be read, or at least publicly observed, given their status as visible to the naked eye of visitors to these sites, the Bhattiprolu inscriptions were enshrined alongside the relics and therefore likely never intended to be read, much less understood. The fact that they articulate, with rather fine precision, the social details of the corporate bodies involved in their patronage is rather remarkable and of extreme importance to the historian of early Buddhism. We may begin with the first casket inscription: Bhattiprolu Casket 1 (2 nd/1 st c. BCE?) L 1 kurapituno kurama[t]u ca kuras.a capiva 23 kacamajusa ˙ m panati phaligasamuga ˙m ca budhasarirana ˙ m nikhetu [/] banavaputasa kurasa sapitukasa majusa [/] utaro pigahaputo kanitho [//] “A quartz casket and a crystal box was arranged [for the] installation the corporeal relics of the Budha by the father of Kura [named Banava], the mother of Kura, and Kura. The receptacle, [was the gift] of Kura concurrently with his father, Banava. Utara, the youngest son of Pigaha [was also involved].” The first casket bears a relatively short inscription and designates the primary importance of the site: to enshrine the corporeal remains of the Buddha himself. The words of the inscription are somewhat straightforward except for the final sentence which may only be estimated by context 22 Only a recently published gold ring ( Raman and Mahadevan 2010 ) has suggested that there was any continuation at all this peculiar form of what is now called Tamil-brahmi as even when compared against the other Tamil-brahmi inscriptions from the Early Historic Period in India or Sri Lanka the script maintains some unusual variants. According to Salomon ( 1998 ), there are two primary deviations. These were the -gha- , -ja- , -ma- , -la- , and -saaksara -s ( Salomon 1998 , p. 34) as well as the system of notation for the postconsonantal vowels -aand -a- ( Salomon 1998 , p. 35) 23 It is important to note a minor detail but Bühler read siva[sa] in place of capiva kaca- , a reading that many subsequent scholars have chosen to follow. However, Tsukamoto has corrected this reading.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 12 of 22 alone. From the inscription, which is donative in nature, we are to understand just how precious the relics of the Buddha are from the donors’ enshrinement in a series of receptacles made of precious stones like quartz and crystal. Grammatically noteworthy here is the usage of the infinitive nikhetu (Pa nikkhettum ) to imply not just a donation but an actual enshrinement as the Sanskrit verb ni+ √ ksip literally means to “lay down,” to “pour in,” or even “to deposit” more directly. So, then, just who is doing the enshrinement? Unlike at Piprahwa, which is vague about the ´Sakyan clan involved (referring to them as a relatively unidentifiable group of unknown number), here we get some details if not a lineage. The project was spearheaded by immediate family of someone named Kura. The donative inscription is also interestingly repetitive as the second sentence employs repetition to drive home the point that it was Kura and his family—and not anyone else—responsible for the endeavor. We may note the usage of the joint donation marker sa-* in the second sentence which refers to Kura’s father The final section of this inscription, referring to a completely unknown individual named Utara, presumably connects a second sponsor—or even whole family again—to the installation of the relics by giving Utara a short but important genealogy to his mother, named Pigaha, and also by utilizing the rarely occurring superlative kanitha (Skt kanis.tha ) to outright state that Utara was not a single child since he undoubtedly has other, older brothers who may or may not have also been involved in the sponsorship. Pigaha is not written with the long -avowel to indicate probable gender; however, if we consider the phrase pigahaputa to be a metronymic in the same style as those found at Sanchi ( gotiputa , kodinaputa , kosikiputa , mogaliputa , etc.) and those found in donations at most Satavahana cave sites like vasithiputa (at Ajanta), kam . cikaputa (at Karle), and vachiputa (at Pitalkhora), etc., then Pigaha may, in fact, be the name of Utara’s mother rather than his father. Furthermore, the name of one Utara’s father is given below in the inscription for Casket 2 (Uposatha). I have translated the third sentence involving Utara with some flourish to hypothesize a tentative connection to Kura and his family by assuming that Utara (and his family?) were also involved in the enshrinement in some way. Between these three sentences, Bhattiprolu represents a distinct new turn in the enterprise of corporeal reliquary enshrinement in South Asia as we now are getting individual names of donors of the reliquaries for the first time—and these individual names are not alone. Rather, they are embedded within their larger corporate structure of the nuclear family who must work together to install the corporeal remains of the Buddha for worship The second Bhattiprolu casket contains many words and yields yet further evidence as to the importance of individual donor details since it is primarily a lengthy list of the members of the corporate body ( gothi ). It reads as follows: Bhattiprolu Casket 2 (2 nd/1 st c. BCE?) L 1 gothi L 2 hirañavaghava L 3 v[u]galako k[a]laho L 4 visako thorasisi L 5 samano odalo L 6 apaka . . + samudo L 7 anuga[h]o kuro L 8 satugho potako [p]oto alinaka+ L 9 v[a]runo piga[la]ko kosako L 10 suto papo kabherakh[o] [ghale]ko L 11 samana[d]aso bharado L 12 odalo thoratiso tiso L 13 gilano ja ˙mbho

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 13 of 22 L 14 putara abo L 15 galavata . . (?) janako L 16 gosalakana ˙ m k uro L 17 uposathaputo utaro L 18 karahaputo [/] L 19 sama[nada]sa[to hita] . . a . . budhasa sarirani mahiyanuka ˙mma . . [/] L 20 gothisamano kubo [/] L 21 hiranakaragamaniputo bubo [/] L 22 sa gothi nigamaputana ˙m rajapamukha sa . . sa puto khubirako raja sihagothiya pamukho [/] tesa ˙m a ˙mna ˙m majus[a ˙m] phaligasamugo ca pasanasamugo ca [/] L 23 samano cagha[ña]puto utaro aramu taravet[i] [//] “A corporate body consisting of members hereby named: Hirañavaghava, Vugalaka, Kalaha, Visaka, Thorasisi, Samana, Odala, Apaka[ra?], Samuda, Anugaha, Kura, Satugha, Potaka, Pota, ¯ Alinaka, Varuna Pigalaka, Kosaka, Suta, Papa, Kabherakha, Ghaleka, Samanadasa, Bharada, Odala, Thoratisa, Tisa, Gilana, Jambha, Putara, ¯ Aba, Galavata, Janaka, K ura of the Gosalakanas, Utara who is the son of Uposatha, [and] one who is the son of Karaha The relics of the Budha . . . [were installed by?] Samanadasa . . . [?] The ascetic (monastic?) corporate body consisted of Kuba (and others) while the treasurer [of the whole operation] was B uba, the son of a village-chief [Each] corporate body, namely the one whose members consisted of residents of a small market village, as well as the Lion (=monastic?) guild, had the king Khubiraka as its chief The casket, crystal box, and stone box were their [patronage] The ascetic Utara, son of Caghaña, presented a grove [for the objects].” Analyzing the list of committee members is simple given that all the personal names are in the grammatical nominative singular. However, three of those are also listed alongside their familial identifiers, namely K ura of the Gosalakanas, Utara, the son of Uposatha, and one man listed only as being the son of someone named Karaha. K ura of the Gosalakanas is a different member than Kura who is the son of Banava listed in Casket 1 and presumably marked here as well. The Gosalakanas were probably a particularly famous clan or, perhaps, a group of persons associated with cows since the go´sala means, literally, a “cow stall.” It may be that cow-tending is this family’s occupation or that this refers to a group, potentially a group of ascetics, who occupy places like cow pens. Either way, K ura might be a representative official of the group or is someone of prominence and thus deserves further description compared to the others. Utara may be the Utara, son of Pigaha (?), known from Casket 1 who also seems to have involved his family in the sponsorship of Buddha-relics Unfortunately, L 19 after the corporate body member list is mangled, although we can decode that the purpose of this casket was also to enshrine or probably worship the corporeal relics of the Buddha. It is possible that mahiyanukam . ma* is some form derived from the common mahiyite (=“to pay homage”) found in the Asokan inscriptions and elsewhere since mahikr.* is a known formation probably meaning something “to make reverential,” especially since mahiya is an attested feminine noun meaning “happiness.” Alternatively, an extended meaning might have something to do with the earth, i.e., the ground itself since mahi as a feminine noun refers to the earth as a substance. Either context makes sense and the √ kr derived substantive as the second member of the compound may loosely fit into a multitude of meanings L 20 contains the beginnings of what appears to be a second corporate body, explained as a gothi of samana -s, or “ascetics” (Skt ´sramana ). From the thousands of other inscriptions found throughout

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 14 of 22 South Asia during the pre-BCE period of Buddhism we also know that samana may also be used as a personal name. However, here it likely refers to a type of collective body consisting of a man named Kuba. L 21 contains the key phrase hiranakaragamaniputa as an adjective for B uba. B uba likely is the cog in the machine for the enterprise of enshrinement as he is not only a type of social elite, being that he is the son of a village chief (= gamani-puta ) but also in that he is a hiranakara Hiranya is, of course, gold and a hiranyakara is a “maker of gold,” or a “goldsmith” more generally Lüders ( 1912 ) has translated this as “treasurer,” which is somewhat speculative. In Sri Lanka, from probably the late 2 nd c. BCE onwards there is a known member of Buddhist society described as a “treasurer” (= badagarika / badakari etc. in Old Sinhalese Prakrit, derived from the Sanskrit bhanda , meaning “wares”), while in India a hiranyasamudayika is a collector of tax in cash ( Sircar 1966 , p. 37) and a hairanyaka ( Sircar 1966 , p. 125) is certainly someone who works directly with gold, probably as a minter. Between these meanings and contexts, we may infer that B uba is at the crux of the whole enterprise since he either is the actual craftsman/minter or the collector/manager of funds. Given that we have a multiplicity of corporate bodies involved in the actuation of the reliquary enterprise, I opt for B uba’s occupation to be something closer to a “treasurer” since someone trust must have been in charge of keeping the accounts since the complexity of the whole endeavor involved dozens of persons of varying statuses (and knowledge of record-keeping) as well as dozens of persons who likely did not live in the same locality and may or may not have had any direct engagement with one another. I therefore view B uba as a type of manager for the enterprise pertaining to the sponsoring of the Bhattiprolu caskets We see in L 22 that the primary agent for the whole process was a king (perhaps a local chieftain?) named Khubiraka. It is unclear if the Kabherakha from L 10 in the committee member listing is the same individual but whether it was does not matter insofar as we have raja Khubhiraka’s importance deliberately laid out for us in the inscription. The corporate body from the village (= sa gothi nigamaputa ) had Khubiraka as its pamukha —that is, their “chief.” The term parumaka in its various forms is extremely well attested to by the hundreds in early pre-BCE Sri Lanka and even within the Pali canon a pamokkha is defined as a leader (A II 168). In Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, a pramukhya is similarly implied to be a chief while the Sanskrit pramukha is “one who is at the head,” or “foremost,” suggesting that a pramukha therefore is the leader of a committee, which is, of course, in this case, the corporate body dealing with the enshrinement of the Buddha’s relics. A second gothi qualified as siha* (=“lion”) also had the king as its pramukha . Both are linked to the caskets through the genitive plural pronoun tesam , which literally makes the caskets ( majusa , phaligasamuga , and pasanasamuga ) “of them,” meaning the “of the corporate bodies.” The meaning of the sihagothi is unclear but we may speculate that it is an endearing term for the samanagothi mentioned in L 20. Finally, L 23 clearly illustrates that one of the samana ( siha? ) gothi members named Utara presented ( taraveti in the causative from √ t¯r ˚ ) an arama , meaning a “grove” or “park.” ¯ Arama in many Buddhist texts may refer to a monastery but here could refer directly to the earth/land/area where the reliquaries themselves were to be enshrined. That a samana , who may or may not be the Utara mentioned above as a member of the gothi -s, was responsible for this part of the project may not be a surprise given that the monastics, as a corporate body themselves, had control of the relics in the first place The last of the caskets contains more of the same types of information already provided as the names of some of the village corporate body are now presented. It is unclear if this is yet another group involved in the project or if this is a subgroup or even list of generous contributors who are not “official” members of any of the previously mentioned gothi -s. The inscription from Casket 3 is: Bhattiprolu Casket 3 (2 nd/1 st c. BCE?) L 1 negama L 2 vacho cagho L 3 jeto ja ˙ mbho tiso

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 15 of 22 L 4 reto acino sabhiko L 5 akhagho kelo keso maho L 6 seto chadiko okhabulo L 7 sonutaro samano L 8 samanadaso samako L 9 kamuko citako [/] L 10 arahadinana ˙ m gothiya majusa ca sa[m]ugo ca [/] tena samayena kubirako raja a ˙msi [//] “Some inhabitants of the small market village are: Vacha, Cagha, Jeta, Jam . bha, Tisa, Reta, Acina, Sabhika, Akhagha, Kela, Kesa, Maha, Seta, Chadika, Okhab ula, Sonutara, Samana, Samanadasa, Samaka, K¯amuka, and Citaka The casket and the box are [gifts] of the Arahadina corporate body. During that time, the king was Kubira.” Like L 1 from Casket 2’s inscription, L 1 from Casket 3 is simply a single word to indicate the beginning of a list of names, presumably once again members of the group or committee. We do not know anything about these persons although it is possible that Samanadasa is the same person known from L 19 in Casket 2 and that Cagha may or may not be connected to one of our Utaras. L 10 contains a direct statement that the maj usa and the samuga belong to or were the fruit of the generosity of a gothi called arahadina . We know that arahadina is equivalent to the Sanskrit arhad-datta (=“he who has gifted and who is an arhant ”). However, the situation is complicated considering that there are nine donative inscriptions from Sanchi in which arahadina or some Prakritic variation ( arahadasi ) appears to be personal names of individual donors (and not groups) 24 Evidence for these words being personal names come from the fact that they frequently appear with obvious descriptors, such as monk, nun, etc., and are in the singular. At Bhattiprolu, the word in L 10 is grammatically plural and is itself relating to the word gothi , thus forming, in English, something akin to “the casket and box of the gothi , which itself is of the arahadina -s.” There are two likely possibilities for arahadina : (1) it refers to a family name and therefore gothi is referring to them as a singular unit; or (2) we may take arahadina more literally and separate the compound into “they who are donors as well as arhants .” Considering the history of the adjective araha describing one as “worthy” or “deserving,” in Pali (Dh 195), in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (Mv I 347.18), and classical Sanskrit more broadly, it may be worthwhile to consider the notion that the gothi was not full of enlightened beings, as the formal religious title might imply in Theravada Buddhism. Instead, they may have been described as “worthy” or “noble” due to their actions of enshrining the Buddha for the public. As such, we may tentatively take the sentence arahadinana ˙ m gothiya majusa ca sa[m]ugo ca as something closer to “the casket and the box are [gifts] of the corporate body ( gothi ) which was both generous ( dina ) and worthy ( arahat ).” The concluding sentence reminds the reader that the king, here spelled Kubira and not Khubiraka as in L 22 of Casket 2, was also involved in the project albeit perhaps as more of a symbolic guiding hand than at the micro-management level of B uba, the treasurer/manager The last inscription from the Bhattiprolu reliquaries comes from an extremely rare artifact Not only is such an object unique in its composition as a hexagonal crystal piece of jewelry but it is also distinguished because it is inscribed. The inscription may be read and translated: Bhattiprolu Crystal Pendant Inscription 25 (2 nd/1 st c. BCE?) L 1 matugamasa [na ˙ m]dapurahi 24 The inscriptions are listed in Tsukamoto as #87, #143, #144, #210, #466, #530, #639, #837, and #886 25 This piece was found within one of the boxes. It was likely a pendant or an amulet.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 16 of 22 L 2 suvanamaha L 3 samanude´sana ˙m ca L 4 gilanakarasa ayasaka- L 5 [ya]thiyo L 6 gopiy[a] agadana ˙ m [//] “An iron-colored pearl-like pendant, which consists of a particular weight in gold, [was] the foremost gift of a village mother from Nam . dapura, of [a group of] novices, and of [a woman] named Gopi who cares for the meek.” Finally, our last inscription from Bhattiprolu, the crystal pendant inscription found inside one of the reliquary boxes, adds one last layer to the exceedingly complex enterprise of enshrining the Buddha’s relics. We may start by discussing the focus of the inscription, agadanam , which qualifies the donated object, ayasaka[ya]thiyo Agadanam may be analyzed as agra-danam (=“chief gift”) in Sanskrit, thus amplifying the danam indicating that it is something unique and special. To my knowledge, no other inscription in early South Asia describes any gift as such, although agra does appear in Gandhara but never with danam . The object itself, which we can easily assume is a piece of jewelry based on visual appearance only, is called ayasakayathiyo and has, until Tsukamoto ( 1996 , p. 290) reconsidered the phrase, eluded scholars ¯ Ayasa is, of course, iron and given the *ka diminutive suffix might mean something like “iron esque” rather than made of iron. According to Tsukamoto, yathiya is not gothiya , as many scholars have suggested before, but rather the Prakritic version of yasti , meaning a thread or string of precious jewels, especially pearls in classical Sanskrit literature 26 Given that the object itself is seemingly a pendant made of a precious object (crystal), we may conclude that the text is describing itself literally as “an iron-colored pearl-like pendant.” We may further support this derivation by taking the two words as a compound rather than as separate substantives. Although our word for corporation here, gothi , is missing, we can easily remedy the absence since three separate donors, of varying degrees of social status, were in concert with each other to sponsor the creation of this unique agadanam The matugama from Nam . dapura is likely an older woman with some disposable funds and full of piety, whereas the samanudesa -s (Skt sramanoddesa , Pa samanoddesa ) 27 were likely novices who were poorer than the matugama who had to pool together funds to sponsor the gift. Lastly, I take the word gopiya as the genitive singular for a female personal name Gopi as there is no other logical conclusion. The unusual but very descriptive adjective for Gopi, then, is gilan.akara , which could be translated as something like glan.a-kara in Sanskrit, or “one who is a worker for the ill.” Therefore, our last sponsoring agent for the crystal pendant is an extremely virtuous as well as devout woman. Startlingly absent from this agadanam is any member of the wealthy elite or the royalty. In place of the elite, we have a trio of donors who, although coming from vastly different social backgrounds, form a special type of corporation whose remarkable gift matches any other known reliquary gift from the entirety of early South Asia To conclude our examination of the scarcely utilized Bhattiprolu inscriptions, we might summarize our findings. Unlike the enshrinement at Piprahwa, which was not forthright about the details of why the deposit existed in the first place and who was responsible for it, Bhattiprolu’s lengthy corpus of inscriptions are much more explicative. They begin to tell the story of the cooperation of several vastly different corporate bodies working together toward a common goal. Whether or not these corporate bodies had further involvement with each other beyond this reliquary enterprise remains to be seen. Fortunately, it is clear that some kind of inclusive attitude was at work socially within this community 26 Yasti does carry the meaning in many earlier texts of staff, pillar, or vertical support object but clearly this does not coalesce with the context at Bhattiprolu 27 Some Pali canonical references for this term’s usage may be found in D I.151; M III.128; S V.161; Vin IV.139; A II.78.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 17 of 22 We may speculate that such a sentiment was in the spirit of the early Buddhist religion; however, it is equally possible if not altogether parallel phenomenon that the business venture of enshrining relics at Bhattiprolu was too large of an undertaking to be done without vast amounts of financial (as well as intangible) resources and aligned managerial cooperation from several corporations similarly inspired. One can also not help but to notice the lack of detail concerning the corporeal remains since they are not given any adjectives or description whatsoever. The receptacles containing those corporeal remains, on the other hand, are given exact details (of their stone). Perhaps we could be catching a glimpse of the shifting importance of reliquary enshrinement away from what was enshrined and toward the appearance and significance of the enshrinement itself. For that, we may turn to our largest single-site repository of art and inscriptions from early historic Buddhist South Asia: Sanchi in central India 6. Sanchi: Corporeal Monastic Corporations Sanchi as an important early Buddhist pilgrimage site needs little introduction, but it should suffice to say that it was a bastion of early Buddhist activity since the hundreds of donative epigraphs found at the site (and its other local st upa sites) forms one of the largest epigraphic corpuses throughout all South Asia. Located in central India outside Bhopal, Sanchi’s relief artwork is largely one of the symbols for Indian Buddhism generally; however, little attention is paid to the importance of the Sanchi sam . gha ’s founding members. These founding members appear to be the instigators of a new type of corporate body and, ironically, the only reason we know anything at all about them is because their corporeal bodies were enshrined for worshipped throughout the region. We know that Asoka, via his schism pillar edict, likely began Buddhist activity in the vicinity but little is known about just what he constructed and whom he assigned to oversee the monuments (and monasteries?), if anyone at all. In the period immediately after Asoka, we know of a tight-knit group of interrelated elite monastic Buddhists who appear to have been the local chiefs in charge and ultimately themselves were enshrined for worship. We may begin by analyzing a few of the reliquary inscriptions from Sanchi and its vicinity: Sanchi St upa 2 Stone Relic Box (Dhatukarandaka) 28 Side (2 nd c. BCE?) L 1 savina vinayakana aram . kasapa= L 2 gotam . up¯adaya aram . ca vachi= L 3 suvijayitam . vinayakam “[The corporeal remains] of all the vinayaka -s, including the Noble Kasapagota as well as the Noble Vachi Suvijayita who are both vinayaka -s [also].” The term vinayaka is a common epithet of a Buddha in both Buddhist Sanskrit and Pali. Stemming from the root vi+ √ ni , the term generally refers to one who is a leader or guide (hence √ ni ’s meaning of “to lead” or even “to instruct”), which conforms to the given context. We may logically conclude that the term refers to locally renowned monastic teachers, as suggested since their discovery and discussion by Cunningham ( 1854 ), Lüders ( 1912 ), Majumdar ( Marshall et al. 1982 ), and Willis ( 2001 ), since these enshrined teachers were named specifically and do not correspond to any mythological Buddhas. Of course, it is worth noting that the term does not specifically connote a relationship between the vinayaka and the Buddhist monastic discipline called the vinaya , although it may be true under some circumstances that some vinayaka -s themselves were likely monastics and/or masters of the monastic code ( vinaya ). In short, the stone relic box from Sanchi’s st upa 2 is our reference point for 28 This edition was recently re-edited by Michael D Willis ( 2000 , p. 70), as are all the reliquary inscriptions cited in this section Translations are mine.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 18 of 22 Sanchi’s patronage activity since it demonstrates the power associated with those who are enshrined at Sanchi beyond the Buddha, who has never been confirmed to be enshrined anywhere in the vicinity Amongst the five reliquary inscriptions found at Sanchi proper—as opposed to the fourteen found within the Vidisha region ( Willis 2000 )—is the following donative inscription attributing the enshrinement of all the presumed teachers ( vinayaka -s) in the area to a specific kind of corporate donor body: Sanchi St upa 2 Side of the Stone Relic Box (Dhatukarandaka) Steatite Reliquary No. 2 (2 nd c. BCE?) (Outer circle) L 1 sapurisasa vachiya suvijayitasa goti[puta] atevasino (Inner circle) L 1 kakanavapabhasa sihana dana “[Corporeal remains] of Vachiya Suvijayita, a ‘good person’, and [monastic?] pupil to Gotiputa. The gift [from] the students of the Light of Kakanava.” For perhaps the first time, we find a South Asian Buddhist reliquary inscription describing the enshrinement of someone other than the Buddha. The first observation that must be noted is that the object of the gift, namely the corporeal remains themselves, are those of Vachiya Suvijayita, one of our primary vinayaka -s named in the above inscription. Here Vachiya Suvijayita is given two more honorifics: sapurisa (Skt satpurusa ), meaning literally “a good person” or “saint” if we are to believe Majumdar’s extrapolation ( Marshall et al. 1982 ). In Pali, the term sappurisa , which is undoubtedly related to this Prakritic expression, has a specific meaning of a person who “gives a gift respectfully, with his own hand, with consideration, in purity, and with a view to the future” ( Findly 2003 , p. 192) The new title concords well with the old vinayaka title considering it implies a leader within the community if not even a monastic teacher. Willis” translation of “[one who is] worthy” is decidedly less descriptive of the type of person the Pali canon seems to qualify and is somewhat redundant consider in the first Sanchi reliquary inscription cited here Vachiya Suvijayita is also given the title of aram , probably derived from ¯arya (=“noble”). Although a number of sutta -s are titled Sappurisa-sutta we may cite, specifically, the text in the A ˙nguttara-Nikaya ’s which portrays a sappurisa as one who speaks truthfully, does not discredit himself, and speaks about his qualities (as a good person) confidently (A II 77). Elsewhere in the A ˙nguttara (A IV 244) a sappurisa nurtures those around him by bringing welfare and happiness to them. Those who benefit from a sappurisa ’s birth are listed as parents, wives and children, workers and servants, friends, and companions, departed ancestors, kings, deities, and, last but certainly not least, ascetics and brahmana -s. The sappurisa is here compared metaphorically to a marvelous rain cloud that nurtures crops by sprinkling down rain during a drought. The metaphor speaks directly to the generosity of a sappurisa . Numerous other references throughout the Pali canon (M III 37; A IV 243; A III 172; S V 19) present many similar qualities of such an esteemed person, but the point remains clear: the type of person that Vachiya Suvijayita was thought to be was one who was terrifically regarded by those who were inspired by him if not directly elevated through his good works and/or teachings Finally, we may turn our attention to the corporate donor body itself. The word sihana is grammatically genitive plural and corresponds to all of the students of the “Light of Kakanava (Sanchi)” ( kakanavapabhasa ), who is known only by his metronymic gotiputa (=“son of Goti”). The substantive sihana is extremely rare and probably derives from the Ardha-Magadhi seha , itself made from the Sanskrit saiksa (=“pupil”). Although not labeled a gothi like at Bhattiprolu, it is clear that the students and grand-students of this revered person (Gotiputa, who himself was also enshrined in st upa 2 at Sanchi and also in a crystal st upa at nearby Andher and Sonari according to other reliquary inscriptions) were themselves a powerful corporate group sponsor, setting up not just the relics for enshrinement

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 19 of 22 (as evidenced here) but also contributing (probably more so than nearly any other identifiable single group) to the entire st upa complex at Sanchi. We catch a glimpse of the importance of lineage within the Sanchi teacher corporation by looking at one of Gotiputa’s own reliquary inscriptions from Sonari: Sonari St upa 2 Crystal Reliquary (sphatikapatra) (2 nd c. BCE?) (side one) L 1 sapurisasa goti= L 2 pugasa hemavata (side two) L 3 sa dudubhisa= L 4 radayadasa “[Corporeal remains] of the ‘good person’ Gotiputa, himself the heir [to the teaching] of Dudubhisara, the Hemavata [teacher].” It is virtually certain that this personal name Dudubhisara corresponding with the specific Hemavata school was the same Dudubhissara mentioned in both the Pali Mahavam . sa and Dipava ˙ msa as missionaries. Some of the other monastic missionaries were also seemingly enshrined in the Sanchi area, namely those named Majhima and Kasapagota. The legacy of Gotiputa lived on through his monastic pupils (like Vachiputa and Mogaliputa) and the pupils of his pupils. All these Sanchi area reliquary inscriptions suggest that not only was Gotiputa worthy of enshrinement—and corporate sponsorship—but so too were his pupils. Given that no reliquaries identify the Buddha as having been enshrined at Sanchi, it would not be unreasonable to argue that Sanchi and its sister sites in and around Vedisa were primarily dedicated to monastic teacher veneration, thus implying yet another shift in patronage away from the Buddha’s physical importance and toward the importance (and symbolism) of corporate lineage The century after the enshrine of Gotiputa and his pupils in the st upa -s saw the continuation of the lineage as revealed through further patronage ( Milligan 2016 , pp. 265–89). The direct kinsman of Gotiputa—and their own pupils—were responsible for a few prominent vedika donations, thus confirming the spread of the relic corporation beyond the reliquaries themselves. One member of this corporation, named Subahita, was labeled a rajalipikara (=“royal scribe”) and, along with his wife named Majhima, gifted at least four separate times to Sanchi in the 1 st c. BCE. A monastic member of the Gotiputa family was named Bham . duka and donated himself multiple times at Sanchi. Furthermore, so did Bham . duka’s own monastic pupils. One, named Kana, was given the title aya (Skt arya ), meaning “noble,” the same title afforded Bham . duka himself in several of his inscriptions. Other pupils of his were Budharakhita, Dhamadata, Arahatapalita, and Sam . ghila 29 Indeed, Bham . duka, like his relative Gotiputa who was enshrined, was an esteemed member of the Sanchi sam . gha and a prime mover in the corporate sponsorship of Sanchi as a whole as his special monastic corporation was responsible for the construction of relics to be worshipped but specifically for the construction of relics of their own corporate body to be worshipped, thus critically expanding the influence and basic idea of just what the duty corporate body was in the last century BCE The cooperative spirit at Sanchi persisted beyond the enshrinement of the famous luminaries enshrined in Sanchi st upa 2 and many of the other st upa -s from the surrounding vicinity. Sanchi’s main hilltop contains one of the largest repositories of Buddhist donative epigraphy in South Asia and provides scholars with an abundance of social historical data from which to understand the development of early Buddhism. The 606 readable inscriptions from st upa -s 1 and 2 appear on the 29 For these names, one may consult Marshall and Majumdar’s catalogue of Sanchi inscriptions ( Marshall et al. 1982 ).

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 20 of 22 sandstone vedika pillars, crossbars, and coping stones encircling the various circumambulatory paths The names of the donors—many of whom are from named families, monastic lineages, mercantile guilds, and other types of “corporate bodies”—appear throughout and are a noteworthy feature to the vast material culture. Using the chronology for Sanchi’s vast corpus of donative epigraphy I previously developed ( Milligan 2015 , 2016 ) to briefly study the phenomenon of joint patronage, we may tentatively divide the majority of the inscriptions into two periods beginning with 244 donations belonging to the middle of the 1 st c. BCE (what I call Generation 1) and ending with 362 donations dateable to the last few decades of the same century (Generation 2). Within Generation 1, there were nineteen identifiable donations that come from joint patronage, which is slightly under 8% of the total number of epigraphs. Generation 2 had twenty-five such donations equaling nearly 7%, thus implying that the sheer number of corporate bodies involved in the patronage of the Sanchi st upa -s across two generations of donors remained remarkably consistent. We may suggest without too much of a leap in logic that another, more powerful corporate body, such as the monastic institution at large, headed perhaps by members of Gotiputa and Bham . duka’s ilk, actively worked to keep this number at roughly the same percentage due to some overarching patronage strategy to keep (their own?) corporations socially and financially strong 7. Conclusions From Asoka in the 3 rd c. BCE, to Piprahwa after that, Bhattiprolu in the 2 nd or early 1 st c BCE, Sanchi in the mid to late 1 st c. BCE, and then, finally, to Sri Lanka during the 1 st centuries BCE and CE we may be observing some type of progression of corporate bodies into mature, managerial Buddhist corporations. For Asoka, there was no corporate body, nor was there much of an overt interest in corporeal bodies since Asoka appears to not be the grand builder later reverential literature makes him out to be. However, at Piprahwa, a corporate body of ´Sakyas, who may or may not have included monastics, came together for perhaps the very first time to design a shelter or corporeal remains for worship. Bhattiprolu advanced the idea quite a bit further by outright stating that there were both monastic and non-monastic corporate bodies combining their efforts to enshrine relics of the Buddha The sheer number of people involved in the process, along with a potentially high volume of financial resources required for such an ornate enshrinement, required the expansion of the idea of a corporate body to include several hierarchical members, including perhaps a treasurer and a local ruler. Sanchi’s corporate bodies were sustained by a seemingly even larger number of members, many of whom were related to those who had their own corporeal remains established for worship in the st upa -s since the Buddha’s remains were not enshrined. Lastly, in Sri Lanka, as stated earlier in the paper, we see the institution of corporations proceed along roughly the same kind of trajectory but culminate in what appears to be an administrative heavy organization that established cave monasteries (and probably open-air monasteries) throughout the island Two trends have become apparent throughout this paper. The first involves the members of the corporate bodies. From Piprahwa onwards, we see that the early corporations were heavily reliant upon family members and nearby friends/acquaintances, which eventually involved royalty, probably as a primary financial backer. As the corporations became larger, so too did the number of official administrative positions required to operate the corporations—as one might expect. The second trend is the gradual disassociation of corporeal bodies from corporate bodies. By the time of Sanchi’s expansion, the Buddha was no longer the singular important entity to enshrine and worship as regionally famous monastic teachers were thusly afforded the luxury of being worshipped post-mortem as well. In Sri Lanka, the lack of relics described in the early inscriptions also concerts with such a disassociation since the corporate bodies now had to ensure the sustained patronage (and financial success) of monasteries. In returning to the observations regarding patronage that Dehejia ( 1992 ) and Thapar ( 1992 ) once made, we may now reinforce their idea of “collectivity” using these reliquary inscriptions while also rejecting monastic social isolation. Monastics in early Buddhism were just as much a part of the corporate enterprise as non-monastics and—if we are to take their very serious interest in enshrining

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 21 of 22 themselves at places like Sanchi using corporate funds—it is likely that their inclusion into society was well planned, highly regular, and in concordance with their ideas about the collaborative nature of early Buddhism Acknowledgments: This research was partially funded through the generosity of Georgia College & State University’s Faculty Research Grant for archival and fieldwork in South Asia in 2018. I also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers as well as Ann Heirman, the editor of the Special Issue. All errors are my own Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest References Ali, Daud. 2004 Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Allen, Charles. 2008 The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal . London: London Haus Allen, Charles. 2012. What Happened at Piprahwa: A Chronology of Events Relating to the Excavation in January 1898 of the Piprahwa Stupa in Basti District, North-Western Provinces and Oude (Uttar Pradesh), India, and the Associated “Piprahwa Inscription”, Based on Newly Available Correspondence Zeitschrift für Indologie und Südasienstudien 29: 1–19 Analayo. 2015. The First Sa ˙ngiti and Theravada Monasticism Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies 4: 2–17 Baums, Stefan. 2012. Catalog and Revised Texts and Translation of Gandharan Reliquary Inscriptions. In Gandharan Buddhist Reliquaries . Edited by David Jongeward, Elizabeth Errington, Richard Salomon and Stefan Baums Seattle: University of Seattle Press, pp. 200–51 Baums, Stefan. 2018. A Framework for Gandharan Chronology based on Relic inscriptions. In Problems of Chronology in Gandharan Art . Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 53–70 Bühler, Georg. 1892. The Bhattiprolu Inscriptions. In Epigraphia Indica ; Edited by James Burgess. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, vol. 2, pp. 323–29 Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1995. Buddhist Sites across South Asia as Influenced by Political and Economic forces World Archaeology 27: 185–202. [ CrossRef ] Clarke, Shayne. 2014 Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms . Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press Cunningham, Alfr. 1854 The Bhilsa Topes, or, Buddhist Monuments of Central India . London: Smith, Elder and Co Deeg, Max. 2003 The Places Where Siddhartha Trod: Lumbini and Kapilavastu . Bhairahawa: Lubmini International Research Institute Dehejia, Vidya. 1992. The Collective and Popular Bases of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 BC-AD 250. In The Powers of Art . Edited by Barbara Stoler Miller. Delhi and New York: OUP, pp. 35–45 Falk, Harry. 2006 Asokan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography . Mainz: Philipp von Zabern Falk, Harry. 2012. The Fate of Asoka’s Donations at Lumbini. In Reimagining Asoka: Memory and History . Edited by Patrick Olivelle, Janice Leoshko and Himanshu Prabha Ray. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 204–16 Falk, Harry. 2014. Owners’ Graffiti on Pottery from Tissamaharama. In Zeitschrift für Archäologie Aussereuropäischer Kulturen . Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 45–94 Falk, Harry. 2017. The Ashes of the Buddha Bulletin of the Asia Institute 27: 43–75 Findly, Ellison Banks. 2003 Dana: Giving and Getting in Pali Buddhism . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Fleet, John F. 1908. The Rummindei Inscription and the Conversion of Asoka to Buddhism Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 40: 471–98 Gonda, Jan. 1965 Change and Continuity in Indian Religion . Mouton: The Hague Härtel, Herbert. 2000. On the Dating of the Piprahwa Vases. In South Asian Archaeology 1997: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Held in the Instituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, Palazzo Brancaccio, Rome, 7–14 July 1997 . Edited by Maurizio Taddei and Giuseppe de Marco. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa et l’Oriente, pp. 1011–24 Heesterman, Jan C. 1985 The Inner Conflict of Tradition . Chicago: University of Chicago Press Krishnan, Kodaganallur Ganapati. 1989 Utta˙nkita Sanskrit Vidya Aranya Epigraphs . Mysore: Utta ˙nkita Vidya Aranya Trust, vol. 2 Lüders, Heinrich. 1912 A List of Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to about A.D. 400 with the Exception of Those of Asoka . Epigraphia Indica 10. Appendix. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, pp. 1–179.

Religions 2019 , 10 , 4 22 of 22 Marshall, John H., Alfred Foucher, and Nani G. Majumdar. 1982 The Monuments of Sañchi . Delhi: Swati Publications, vols. 1–3 Milligan, Matthew D. 2015. Five Unnoticed Donative Inscriptions and the Relative Chronology of Sanchi St upa II Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology 18: 11–22 Milligan, Matthew D. 2016. Of Rags and Riches: Indian Buddhist Patronage Networks in the Early Historic Period PhD. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA Norman, Kenneth R. 1994. A Note on silavigadabhica in Asoka’s Rummindei Inscription. In The Buddhist Forum, Volume III: 1991–1993 . Edited by Tadeusz Skorupski and Ulrich Pagel. London: School of Oriental and African Studies Olivelle, Patrick. 2005 Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra . New York: Oxford University Press Olivelle, Patrick. 2015 A Sanskrit Dictionary of Law and Statecraft . Delhi: Primus Books Paranavitana, Senarat. 1970 Inscriptions of Ceylon . Colombo: Dept. of Archaeology, vol. 1 Pepp é , William Claxton. 1898. The Piprahwa St upa, Containing Relics of Buddha Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 30: 573–78 Raman, Sankaran, and Iravatham Mahadevan. 2010. A Unique Gold Ring from Karur—and some Reflections on the Bhattiprolu Script Studies in South Indian Coins 20: 33–36 Ray, Himanshu Prabha. 1989. Early historical trade: An overview The Indian Economic & Social History Review 26: 437–57 Salomon, Richard. 1998 Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press Sarkar, Subimal Chandra. 1985 Some Aspects of the Earliest Social History of India (Pre-Buddhistic Ages) . London: Janaki Prakashan. First published 1928 Sircar, Dineschandra. 1966 Indian Epigraphical Glossary . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Strong, John S. 1983 The Legend of King Asoka . Princeton: Princeton University Press Thapar, Romila. 1992. Patronage and Community. In The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture . Edited by Barbara Stoler-Miller. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–34 Thapar, Romila. 2000 Cultural Pasts . New Delhi: Oxford University Press Tsukamoto, Keish o. 1996 Indo Bukkyo himei no kenky u (A Comprehensive Study of Indian Buddhist Inscriptions) Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, vols. 1–3 Tsukamoto, Keish o. 2006. Reconsidering the Rummindei Pillar Edict of Asoka: In connection with “a piece of natural rock” from Mayadevi Temple Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 54: 1113–20 von Hinüber, Oskar. 2008. Hoary Past and Hazy Memory The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29: 193–210 Willis, Michael D. 2000 Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India . London: British Museum Press Willis, Michael D. 2001. Buddhist Saints in Ancient Vedisa Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 11: 219–28. [ CrossRef ] Witzel, Michael. 2009. Moving Targets? Indo-Iranian Journal 52: 287–310. [ CrossRef ] © 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommonsorg/licenses/by/4.0/).