Ramgram Stupa (𑀭𑀸𑀫𑀕𑀸𑀫𑀣𑀽𑀧)

 

Location and Background

• Ramgram Stupa is located in Parasi District, Nepal, about 23 km from the Indian border.

• It is mentioned in important Buddhist literature such as:

  • Samantapāsādikā (Vinaya Commentary)

  • Travel records of Faxian (Fa-Hien, 5th c. CE)

  • Travel accounts of Xuanzang (Hiuen-Tsang, 7th c. CE)

The stupa also appears in artistic depictions and inscriptions at major Buddhist sites such as Bharhut, Sanchi, Amarāvatī, Nagarjunakoṇḍa, and Sarnath.

Archaeological Evidence

At Amarāvatī Stupa (Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh), British archaeologist Sir Walter Elliot excavated the site in 1859 CE (B.E. 2402), uncovering a massive stupa and numerous relics.

One important find was a white marble slab carving depicting:

• An elephant king offering flowers at the stupa

• A Nāga (serpent deity) coiling around the stupa

This panel is understood as representing Ramgram Stupa.

The Inscription

At the base of this Amarāvatī panel, an inscription in Prakrit language and Brāhmī script (c. 3rd–5th century CE, per Alexander Cunningham) reads:

𑀣𑁂𑀭𑀲𑀘𑁂𑀢𑀺𑀬𑀯𑀤𑀓𑀲𑀪𑀓𑀬𑀢𑀩𑀼𑀥𑀺𑀦𑁄𑀪𑀕𑀺𑀦𑀺𑀬𑀪𑀺𑀔𑀼𑀦𑀺𑀬𑀸𑀩𑀼𑀥𑀸𑀬𑀘𑀤𑀸𑀦𑀤𑁂𑀬𑀤𑀫𑀲𑀻𑀳𑀣𑀦

Transliteration (simplified):
Therasa Cetiya-vadakasa bhagavato Buddhi-bhaginiya bhikkhuniya Buddhāya ca dāna-deyadhammam sīhasthāna

Translation:
“The pious gift of this lion-throne was made by Elder (Thera) Buddhi, the one who extended the base of the stupa, together with his younger sister, the bhikkhunī (nun) Buddha.”

Significance

1. Religious Heritage

   • Ramgram Stupa is unique in tradition: it is believed to contain one of the original eight relic shares of the Buddha, and according to texts, it was never opened or distributed further because it was protected by Nāgas.

   • Its depiction at Amarāvatī and elsewhere confirms its centrality in Buddhist sacred geography.

2. Donors and Monastic Life

   • The inscription preserves the names of two important religious figures:

     • Thera Buddhi (a senior monk)

     • Bhikkhunī Buddha (his younger sister, a Buddhist nun)

   • This is a rare example where both male and female monastics are jointly credited as patrons in a stupa-related inscription.

3. Preservation

   • The Amarāvatī slab with this depiction and inscription is now housed in the British Museum, London.

Conclusion

The Ramgram Stupa, through both textual tradition and archaeological evidence, emerges as one of the most important monuments in early Buddhism. Its artistic representation at Amarāvatī and the associated inscription not only connect it to the wider Buddhist world but also immortalize the devotion of Thera Buddhi and Bhikkhunī Buddha, whose joint offering still inspires reverence today.

🙏 Respect and homage to Thera Buddhi and Bhikkhunī Buddha, whose gift continues to guide later generations in understanding the sacred Buddhist past.

“Raya Asoka”: Epigraphic and Sculptural Evidence of Emperor Aśoka from Sannati

 

Introduction

Emperor Aśoka the Great (Ashoka, c. 268–232 BCE) is remembered as one of the most illustrious rulers of ancient India, both as a sovereign and as a patron of Buddhism. Since India’s independence, he has been celebrated across political and religious lines—by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains alike—as a national statesman of unmatched stature.

The four-lion capital from his pillar at Sarnath has been adopted as the national emblem of India, and the name Ashoka remains immensely popular—borne by millions across the subcontinent.

Reign and Relationship with Buddhism

According to the Mahāvaṃsa and Samantapāsādikā, Aśoka ascended the throne around 218 years after the Buddha’s Parinibbāna (though dates vary depending on the source).

Initially a follower of Brahmanism, Aśoka later embraced Buddhism and became its most prominent royal supporter. His patronage, however, caused rival ascetic sects to lose influence, leading many to infiltrate the Saṅgha—sometimes legitimately, sometimes fraudulently. This resulted in widespread disarray, to the point that arahants refused to participate in communal rituals.

When Aśoka attempted to intervene by sending troops, soldiers exceeded their orders and killed numerous monks. To restore order, he sought counsel from Moggaliputta Tissa Thera, who oversaw the Saṅghasodhana (purification of the monastic community) by determining which monks were properly ordained.

Aśoka subsequently dispatched missionaries to nine regions beyond India, ensuring the Dharma’s survival abroad. His own reflection was that:

“If the Bodhi tree (the Dharma) should fall in its original land, its branches spread abroad will continue to flourish.”

Discovery of the “Raya Asoka” Inscription

Strikingly, no authentic sculptural representation of Aśoka had been identified in India—despite his renown—until the late 20th century.

In 1965 (B.E. 2508), Indian archaeologists excavating near Sannati in Karnataka uncovered the ruins of the Kanaganahalli Stupa (built c. 3rd century BCE). The stupa’s drum was decorated with finely carved marble slabs, many bearing donor inscriptions in Brāhmī script that listed 35 monks, 12 nuns, numerous lay devotees, and 67 members of the Sātavāhana dynasty.

Among the slabs was a particularly significant one: a standing male figure sheltered by attendants with a parasol. Above the image, a Brāhmī-Prakrit inscription reads:

𑀭𑀸𑀬𑀸𑀅𑀲𑁄𑀓 – Raya Asoka
(“Raya Asoka” = Raja Asoka, “King Aśoka”)

This is the first known sculptural depiction of Aśoka, identified explicitly by inscription.

Linguistic Note: “Raya” vs. “Raja”

The inscription’s use of “Raya” instead of the standard “Raja” is philologically intriguing.

In several inscriptions from Karnataka, the consonant cha (च) appears regularly as ya (य), reflecting regional phonetic shifts. This variation is comparable to dialectical differences in Thai, where:

• Standard Thai: Racha (ราชา)

• Northern Thai: Racha / Rāja

• Lao/Isan: Rasa

Thus, “Raya” should be understood not as a different title, but as a localized orthographic variant of “Raja.”

Historical Significance

1. First Visual Evidence of Aśoka – The Kanaganahalli slab provides the earliest known sculptural representation of Aśoka, corroborated by inscription.

2. Epigraphic Linguistics – The “Raya” spelling illustrates regional phonological tendencies in ancient Karnataka.

3. Religious Context – The depiction confirms Aśoka’s role as a pious lay Buddhist (upāsaka) devoted to the Five Precepts.

4. Governance of the Saṅgha – Aśoka’s policy was not one of arbitrary interference, but of “protecting true monks, expelling false monks”, implemented in consultation with arahant elders and rooted in Vinaya, not merely royal law.

Conclusion

The Kanaganahalli inscription of “Raya Asoka” is a landmark discovery that reshapes our understanding of the Mauryan emperor. It provides the first combined epigraphic and sculptural confirmation of Aśoka’s image, his Buddhist identity, and the linguistic milieu of early Deccan inscriptions.

Aśoka emerges not only as a legendary ruler but also as a historical figure whose presence can now be seen—literally—in stone. His example underscores the principle that authentic protection of the Saṅgha requires fidelity to the Dharma-Vinaya, rather than reliance on worldly law or authoritarian intervention.

The Bandhugupta Inscription at Sarnath: An Epigraphic and Art Historical Study

Introduction

Among the significant epigraphic remains of early Indian Buddhism, the inscription of the Elder Bandhugupta discovered at Sarnath stands as a unique testimony to both the religious life of the Gupta era and the artistic innovations of its sculptors. Situated beneath the pedestal of a headless Buddha image, this inscription not only preserves the memory of a revered elder but also exemplifies a rare technique of stone carving. The present study translates, contextualizes, and analyzes the Bandhugupta inscription within the wider framework of Gupta history, Buddhist art, and epigraphic practice.

The Archaeological Context

The inscription was unearthed in 1902 (B.E. 2445) near the Dhamekh Stupa at Sarnath by Friedrich Oertel, during systematic excavations of the site. The image to which the inscription belongs is a seated Buddha in bhūmisparśa-mudrā (earth-touching gesture), a canonical representation of the Buddha’s victory over Māra at Bodh Gaya.

Although the head of the statue was already missing at the time of its discovery, the prabhāmaṇḍala (halo) behind the figure remained intact. Stylistically, the sculpture belongs to the Gupta school of art, characterized by idealized proportions, serene expression, and subtle modeling of the body.

What distinguishes this statue, however, is not its form but the raised-letter inscription carved beneath its pedestal—a rare feature in Indian epigraphy.

The Inscription

The text of the inscription, in Sanskrit and Brahmi script of the Gupta period, reads:

देयधर्मो यं शाक्यभिक्षो स्थवीर बन्धुगुप्तस्य

Transliteration:
Deyadharmo yaṁ Śākyabhikṣo sthavīra Bandhuguptasya

Translation:
“This pious gift (deyadharma) belongs to the Śākya monk, the Elder (Sthavīra) Bandhugupta.”

Epigraphic Note

The terminology is significant:

• Deyadharma – denotes a religious gift, merit-making donation, or pious endowment. It indicates that the image functioned as a material support for Buddhist devotion, consecrated through the act of donation.

• Śākya Bhikṣu – literally “the monk of the Śākya lineage,” a standard honorific for ordained monks tracing spiritual descent from the Buddha.

• Sthavīra – a Sanskrit equivalent of the Pali Thera, denoting an elder or senior monk, often with the connotation of spiritual authority.

The use of such terminology situates Bandhugupta within the monastic hierarchy of the Gupta period and reflects the continuity of early Buddhist honorific titles.

Artistic Technique

Unlike most inscriptions that were incised by chiseling grooves into the stone, the Bandhugupta inscription was created in raised relief. This method required the sculptor to carefully cut away the stone surrounding the drafted letters, leaving the inscription standing out in high relief.

Such a process was exceptionally demanding, as even a minor error could damage or detach the letters. The result is an inscription of remarkable visual prominence, suggesting that both the donor and the artisans intended to emphasize its enduring visibility.

To date, this is the only known example of such relief-carved inscription at Sarnath, marking it as a unique artifact in Gupta epigraphy.

The Gupta Dynasty and Religious Patronage

The Gupta dynasty (c. 240–550 CE / B.E. 783–1093) was one of the most influential dynasties of early India. Seventeen rulers carried forward the lineage, their names often ending with the suffix -gupta, such as Chandragupta, Samudragupta, Skandagupta, and Buddhagupta.

The capital at Pāṭaliputra (modern Patna) served as the political and cultural hub, with influence extending across Bihar, Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan. While the dynasty supported Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the period is particularly noted for the flourishing of Buddhist art at Sarnath and the growth of Nālandā University as a major center of Buddhist learning.

Monks Bearing the Gupta Suffix

An interesting phenomenon of the Gupta era is the adoption of the suffix -gupta not only by rulers but also by monks and intellectuals. Known examples include:

1. Bandhugupta – Sarnath inscription (this study)

2. Prajñāgupta – Kurkihar inscription

3. Kṣāntigupta – Nālandā inscription

4. Dharmagupta – Kanheri Cave No. 3 inscription

5. Nandigupta – Sanchi inscription

6. Buddhagupta – Ajanta Cave No. 2 inscription

7. Manorathagupta – Sarnath inscription

8. Saṅghagupta – Ajanta Cave No. 10 inscription

9. Arahantagupta – Sanchi inscription

This practice suggests that the Gupta name carried symbolic prestige, possibly signifying both cultural affiliation with the ruling dynasty and a spiritual identity within the Buddhist order.

Significance of the Bandhugupta Inscription

The Bandhugupta inscription provides crucial insights into the Buddhist landscape of the Gupta age:

1. Religious Identity – It confirms the active role of monks as patrons of religious art, not merely recipients of royal donations.

2. Epigraphic Rarity – The raised-relief inscription demonstrates an extraordinary technique, unique in the corpus of Gupta inscriptions.

3. Historical Continuity – The title “Sthavīra” links the monastic hierarchy of the Gupta era with earlier Buddhist traditions.

4. Integration with Royal Culture – The monk’s adoption of the “-gupta” suffix reflects the interconnection between the Buddhist Sangha and the ruling dynasty’s cultural sphere.

Conclusion

The Bandhugupta inscription at Sarnath represents a confluence of religious devotion, artistic innovation, and historical identity. As the only known relief-carved inscription of its kind at the site, it bears testimony to the refinement of Gupta artisanship and the active participation of Buddhist monks in the cultural life of the dynasty.

Far beyond a simple donor’s record, the inscription memorializes the Elder Bandhugupta’s devotion and preserves for posterity a glimpse into the religious and artistic vibrancy of Gupta India.

The Amaravati Stupa Inscription: Evidence of the Ancient Indian Saṅgha

Introduction

The Great Stupa of Amaravati, located in present-day Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh (South India), is one of the most important Buddhist monuments of early India. Its construction began around 300 B.E. (c. 1st century BCE). Originally built of stone and red bricks, it was later encased with carved marble slabs of remarkable artistic and epigraphic value.

Numerous inscriptions have been recovered from the site. Among them, one particularly noteworthy inscription provides unique evidence about the ancient Buddhist monastic community (Saṅgha), including the continuity of arahants well into the Common Era.

The Inscription

This inscription was engraved on a white marble pillar, now preserved in the Amaravati Museum. Written in Prakrit language using the Brāhmī script, it dates to approximately 300–500 B.E. (c. 1st–2nd century CE).

Text (transliteration):

𑀭𑀬𑀲𑁂𑀮𑀦𑀺𑀯𑀸𑀲𑀺𑀦𑁄 𑀯𑀲𑀺𑀪𑀽𑀢𑀲
𑀫𑀳𑀸𑀣𑁂𑀭𑀲 𑀅𑀬𑀭 𑀪𑀽𑀢𑀭𑀔𑀺𑀢𑀲
𑀅𑀢𑁂𑀯𑀸𑀲𑀺𑀓𑀲 𑀘𑀽𑀮𑀅𑀬𑀭𑀲 𑀅𑀭𑀳
𑀢𑀲 𑀅𑀬𑀺𑀭 𑀩𑀼𑀥𑀭𑀔𑀺𑀢𑀲 𑀅𑀢𑁂𑀯𑀸
𑀲𑀺𑀦𑀺𑀬𑀸 𑀪𑀺𑀔𑀼𑀦𑀺𑀬𑀸 𑀦𑀤𑀲 𑀣𑀪𑁄 𑀤𑀸𑀦𑀁

Restored reading:

(Ra)yaselanivāsino Vasibhūtasa (Ma)hātherasa ayira Bhūtarakkhitasa (Ate)vāsikasa Cūlāyilasa Ara(h)atasa ayira Budharakkhitasa atevā- siniyā Bhikkhuniyā Nandasa thabho dānaṃ

Translation:

“This stone pillar is the meritorious gift (dāna) of Cūlāyila, the pupil (antevāsika) of the Great Elder (Mahāthera) Bhūtarakkhita, skilled in vasi, who resided at Rayasela; and also a pupil of the bhikkhunī Nandā, who herself was a pupil of the Arahant, the Great Elder Buddharakkhita.”

Key Information from the Inscription

1. The Donor:

   • The donor was Cūlāyila, identified as an antevāsika (pupil or disciple).

2. Lineage of Teachers:

   • He was a disciple of Mahāthera Bhūtarakkhita, described as “skilled in vasi” and resident of Rayasela.

   • He was also a disciple of the bhikkhunī Nandā, herself a pupil of the Arahant Mahāthera Buddharakkhita.

3. Reference to an Arahant:

   • The explicit mention of “Arahat Mahāthera Buddharakkhita” is of great historical significance, since it provides epigraphic evidence of arahants still active in India around 500–600 B.E. (c. 1st–2nd century CE).

Historical Significance

• Evidence of Arahants: This inscription is among the rare epigraphic records that explicitly attest to the existence of arahants in the centuries after the Buddha’s Parinibbāna.

• Integration of Bhikkhunīs: The lineage highlights the active role of bhikkhunīs (nuns) in transmitting the Dhamma and training disciples.

• Regional Buddhist Networks: The reference to Rayasela suggests the presence of established monastic centers beyond Amaravati itself, connected through discipleship lineages.

• Continuity of Saṅgha Traditions: The document illustrates how discipleship (antevāsika relationships) preserved continuity within both male and female branches of the Saṅgha.

Conclusion

The Amaravati pillar inscription not only preserves the memory of its donor, Cūlāyila, but also offers invaluable insights into the early Buddhist monastic community. Its reference to both monks and nuns, and especially to an Arahant Mahāthera, underscores the vibrancy and sanctity of the Saṅgha during the early centuries CE.

It stands as a vital piece of epigraphic evidence confirming that arahants were still present in India well into the Common Era, and that both monks and nuns played crucial roles in sustaining the lineage of discipleship at the great centers of Buddhist devotion such as Amaravati.

---

The Mathurā Lion Capital Inscription: Evidence of Early Buddhist Sects

 

Introduction

Around 200 years after the Buddha’s Parinibbāna, the Buddhist community began to branch into as many as 18 different schools (nikāyas). These sects developed due to differences in interpretation of doctrine and monastic discipline. Among them were the Theravāda (the original school), Mahāsāṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, Sarvāstivāda, Sāṃmitīya, Dharmaguptaka, Kassapīya, and others.

Archaeological discoveries at Mathurā provide important evidence for the existence of these schools in early India. Inscriptions found there mention at least four Buddhist sects:

• Mahāsāṃghika

• Sāṃmitīya

• Dharmaguptaka (Dharmottarika)

• Sarvāstivāda (Sabbatthivāda)

The most famous example of this sectarian epigraphy is the Lion Capital Inscription, discovered in the 19th century.

The Discovery

In 1869 CE (B.E. 2412), Indian archaeologist Pandit Bhagwan Lal Indraji uncovered a lion sculpture in Sītala village, Mathurā. The sculpture, carved from red sandstone, was artistically simple and somewhat crude in workmanship.

What makes the artifact extraordinary is the long inscription carved around the lion, even extending under its base.

• Script: Kharoṣṭhī

• Language: Prakrit with Sanskrit elements

• Unusual Feature: Kharoṣṭhī script was normally used in northwestern India (Taxila, Swat Valley, Bamiyan, Afghanistan). Its appearance in Mathurā—where Brāhmī was dominant—suggests that the lion capital may have been transported from Taxila.

Today, the Lion Capital is preserved in the British Museum, London.

The Inscription

The inscription was dedicated by members of a royal family of Indo-Scythian (Śaka) heritage. The most important figure is the Great Queen Ayasia Kamuia, daughter of Prince Kharaosta Kamuia, linked to the ruling line of the Mahākṣatrapas (Great Satraps).

Translation (Summary):

• Queen Ayasia Kamuia, together with her mother Nadha Diaka, grandmother Abuhola, and other relatives, established a sacred site outside the monastery (saṅghārāma).

• They enshrined relics of the Buddha Śākyamuni, after homage to the deity Muki, and consecrated a stūpa, horses, and a monastery.

• The offering was specifically made for the monastic community of the Sarvāstivāda sect, welcoming monks from all four quarters (cāturdikā).

• Prince Kharaosta Kamuia consecrated other princes—Khalamasa and Maja—with approval of the royal family.

• Monks Buddhadeva and Buddhila, both identified as members of the Sarvāstivāda sect, were given a cave monastery and the "water of liberation" (mukti-jala).

• The dedication honors all Buddhas, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and all kings.

• The inscription also names Taxila (Takkasilā) and figures such as Khardasa, Kronina of Taxila, and the Kalasamusa.

Key Point:

The term “Sarvāstivādin” occurs four times in the inscription, making it one of the strongest epigraphic evidences for the presence of this school in India.

Historical Significance

1. Sectarian Evidence

   • Confirms the existence and royal patronage of the Sarvāstivāda sect in India during the early centuries CE.

   • Demonstrates that multiple Buddhist schools coexisted in Mathurā, including Mahāsāṃghikas, Sāṃmitīyas, and Dharmaguptakas.

2. Royal Patronage

   • The donors belonged to the family of the Śaka Great Satraps, Indo-Scythian rulers who controlled northwestern India.

   • This shows the active role of foreign dynasties in supporting Indian Buddhism.

3. Geographical Networks

   • The mention of Taxila suggests close religious and cultural links between northwestern India and Mathurā.

   • The use of Kharoṣṭhī script in central India supports the idea that the lion capital was originally from Taxila and later brought to Mathurā.

4. Monastic Life

   • The inscription records donations of monasteries, relics, caves, and ritual water, shedding light on monastic practices and lay-monastic interactions.

Conclusion

The Mathurā Lion Capital Inscription is one of the most important documents in early Buddhist history. It not only preserves the names of donors and rulers but also explicitly identifies the Sarvāstivāda sect, providing rare epigraphic proof of sectarian Buddhism in India.

By linking Mathurā and Taxila, the inscription highlights the interconnected nature of Buddhist communities across regions. Its references to kings, queens, monks, and sects illustrate the complex web of patronage and practice that sustained Buddhism during the early centuries of the Common Era.

About 200 years after the Buddha's time, Buddhism branched into 18 sects:

1. Theravāda (original),

2. Mahāsāṃghika,

3. Gokulika,

4. Ekavyohārika,

5. Paññattivāda,

6. Bahuśrutīya,

7. Jetavaniya,

8. Mahīśāsaka,

9. Vajjiputtaka,

10. Dharmottarika,

11. Bhadrayānīya,

12. Channāgārika,

13. Sāṃmitīya,

14. Sarvāstivāda (Sabbatthivāda),

15. Dharmottarika,

16. Kassapīya,

17. Saṅkantika, and

18. Suttavāda.

At Mathurā, archaeologists have discovered inscriptions related to four of these 18 Buddhist sects:

1. Mahāsāṃghika

2. Sāṃmitīya

3. Dharmaguptaka (also referred to as Dharmottarika)

4. Sarvāstivāda (also called Sabbatthivāda)

In 1869 CE (B.E. 2412), an Indian archaeologist named Pandit Bhagwan Lal Indraji discovered a lion sculpture in Sitala village, Mathurā. The lion was carved from red sandstone. Artistically, it may not be considered very refined.

What makes it remarkable is the inscription carved around it. The script used is Kharoṣṭhī, and the language is Prakrit mixed with Sanskrit. Kharoṣṭhī script was typically used in northern India, such as Taxila, the Swat Valley, and Bamiyan in Afghanistan. But Mathurā is located in central India, where this script was not commonly used. The presence of this script suggests that the lion sculpture may have been relocated from northern India.

The inscription encircles the lion figure, including even under the base—engraved extensively in Kharoṣṭhī using Prakrit-Sanskrit hybrid. Below is a translated excerpt of the key parts:

Translation of the Inscription (Summary):

The Great Queen of Mahākṣatrapa Rājava, Ayasia Kamuia, daughter of Yuvraj Kharaosta, together with her mother Nadha Diaka, and the grandmother Abuhola, and other relatives such as Pisapasi and Hayuara, along with her brother and daughter Hana, established this sacred site.

On this land, outside the Sanghārāma (monastery), they enshrined the relics of the Buddha Śākyamuni after performing homage to the famous Muki, along with horses, stupa, and monastery.

This dedication was made for the monastic community of the Sarvāstivādin sect who had come from the four directions. Prince Kharaosta Kamuia consecrated Prince Khalamasa and Prince Maja, the youngest sons, with the consent of the royal family.

They also offered a cave monastery and the water of liberation to monks Buddhadeva and Buddhila from the city, who belonged to the Sarvāstivāda sect, in honor of King Kusulapatika and King Mevagimiyika, under the trust of the Sarvāstivādin community.

This offering was made to honor all Buddhas, the Dhamma, the Sangha, and all kings. It also mentions Khardasa, Kronina of Taxila, and all the Kalasamusa.

The term "Sarvāstivādin" appears four times in the inscription. The monks mentioned as recipients of the offering are Buddhadeva and Buddhila, both from the Sarvāstivāda sect, residing in a cave monastery. The city of Taxila (Takkasilā) is explicitly named, which strongly suggests that the lion capital was originally from Taxila.

Today, the Lion Capital is displayed in the British Museum, London, United Kingdom.

The Method of Contemplating the Four Noble Truths and Nirodha-Saccca!

 Regarding Vedanākkhandha (Aggregate of Feeling):

The craving, attachment, and desire that arise taking feelings to be "I", "others", "man", or "woman" is lobha (greed), taṇhā (craving) - this is Samudaya-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering).

The arising and passing away of the aggregate of feeling is Dukkha-sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering).

Understanding and discerning this as Dukkha-sacca is Sammā-diṭṭhi, which is Magga-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path).

The cessation of Samudaya-sacca and the non-arising of future aggregates is Nirodha-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering).

Regarding Saññākkhandha (Aggregate of Perception):

The craving, attachment, and desire that arise taking perceptions to be "I", "others", "man", or "woman" is lobha (greed), taṇhā (craving) - this is Samudaya-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering).

The arising and passing away of the aggregate of perception is Dukkha-sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering).

Understanding and discerning this as Dukkha-sacca is Sammā-diṭṭhi, which is Magga-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path).

The cessation of Samudaya-sacca and the non-arising of future aggregates is Nirodha-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering).

Regarding Saṅkhārakkhandha (Aggregate of Mental Formations):

The craving, attachment, and desire that arise taking mental formations to be "I", "others", "man", or "woman" is lobha (greed), taṇhā (craving) - this is Samudaya-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering).

The arising and passing away of the aggregate of mental formations is Dukkha-sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering).

Understanding and discerning this as Dukkha-sacca is Sammā-diṭṭhi, which is Magga-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path).

The cessation of Samudaya-sacca and the non-arising of future aggregates is Nirodha-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering).

Regarding Viññāṇakkhandha (Aggregate of Consciousness):

The craving, attachment, and desire that arise taking consciousness to be "I", "others", "man", or "woman" is lobha (greed), taṇhā (craving) - this is Samudaya-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering).

The arising and passing away of the aggregate of consciousness is Dukkha-sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering).

Understanding and discerning this as Dukkha-sacca is Sammā-diṭṭhi, which is Magga-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path).

The cessation of Samudaya-sacca and the non-arising of future aggregates is Nirodha-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering).

Regarding Rūpakkhandha (Aggregate of Material Form):

The craving, attachment, and desire that arise taking physical form to be "I", "others", "man", or "woman" is lobha (greed), taṇhā (craving) - this is Samudaya-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering).

The arising and passing away of the aggregate of material form is Dukkha-sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering).

Understanding and discerning this as Dukkha-sacca is Sammā-diṭṭhi, which is Magga-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path).

The cessation of Samudaya-sacca and the non-arising of future aggregates is Nirodha-sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering).
Not knowing the Four Noble Truths (that's avijjā), not knowing the Five Aggregates (that's avijjā), wrongly perceiving the Five Aggregates as humans, devas, brahmas, or beings (that's avijjā). This wrong perception is avijjā. With wrong perception, what arises? (taṇhā/craving). Clinging with the thought "I must have it" (that's upādāna). When these three - avijjā, taṇhā, and upādāna - are combined, what Truth is it? (It's Samudaya-sacca).

Is Samudaya-sacca human? Is it deva? Is it brahma? Is it sons and daughters? How clear this is! Is it the self that knows Samudaya-sacca, or is it Magga-sacca? It's Magga-sacca that knows. Isn't this worth investigating? When there is Samudaya as cause, don't the resultant aggregates arise?

What appears - is it humans, devas, brahmas, or the Five Aggregates? How clear this is! Can anyone who has aggregates escape aging, sickness, and death? What Truth is this? (It's Dukkha-sacca). Isn't it taught as Samudaya and Dukkha? This is how Dukkha arises from Samudaya.

Don't we need to know Samudaya-sacca? Don't we need to know Dukkha-sacca? Don't we need to know Magga-sacca? Don't we need to know Nirodha-sacca? We can only abandon what we know. We need to know the aggregates, right? When we clearly and precisely understand the Five Aggregates, the wrong views of self as human, deva, or brahma fall away.

Continue observing these aggregates - whether it's Rūpakkhandha, Vedanākkhandha, Saññākkhandha, Saṅkhārakkhandha, or Viññāṇakkhandha - are they permanent or impermanent? When we truly know them as impermanent, does taṇhā still come? Does upādāna still come? Don't the āsavas of kāmāsava and bhavāsava cease? When understanding the Five Aggregates, don't diṭṭhāsava and avijjāsava cease? Don't all four āsavas end? When they end, doesn't Samudaya-sacca die? Doesn't the cycle of aggregates end? Isn't this taught as Nirodha-sacca?

The Buddha appears more as a reformer than a revolutionary

Whether the Buddha was a revolutionary or a reformer?

This question cannot be answered definitively. It needs to be analyzed section by section.

A revolutionary is someone who completely overturns an old system, old values, class positions, established power structures, and dominant religious-social systems to establish something entirely new. A reformer, on the other hand, maintains the foundations of the old system while making changes to methodologies, social relationships, and philosophical perspectives to make them more open, free, and progressive.

Using these definitions, it's difficult to categorically label the Buddha as either purely revolutionary or purely reformist. The Buddha was both a bearer of new ideas and someone who understood the value of existing traditions. He recognized both the merits of the old systems and saw what needed reform.

From a philosophical perspective, the Buddha could be considered revolutionary. However, "revolutionary" here means he provided critical analysis of all existing viewpoints rather than total rejection. During Buddha's time, there were various concepts of atta (self). There were different interpretations of what constituted the self. The self was considered permanent, stable, and the owner/controller/experiencer of the five aggregates.

The Buddha rejected all these definitions. When analyzing "everything," it can be reduced to the Five Aggregates, mind-and-matter, 12 sense bases, 18 elements, etc. In human experience, we only find these phenomena. When examining these phenomena, we find that they are all interdependent, conditioned, and constantly changing and decaying - processes that cannot be prevented. Therefore, the Buddha concluded these phenomena are "not-self" (anatta).

 On the Buddha's rejection of extreme views and teaching of Dependent Origination:
"Dvayaṃ nissito kho ayaṃ Kaccāna loko yebhuyyena atthitañceva natthitañca... 'Sabbam atthi'ti kho Kaccāna ayam eko anto, 'Sabbaṃ natthī'ti ayaṃ dutiyo anto. Ete te Kaccāna ubho ante anupagamma majjhena Tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti." (SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta)

The Buddha wasn't interested in the question of whether self exists or not. If there were a self, its characteristics would include permanence, stability, essence, and self-sovereignty. In the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, we don't find these characteristics of self - we only find the characteristic of non-self (anatta). Therefore, the Buddha confirmed these phenomena are not-self.

The Hindu Upanishads speak of the existence of atta (self). The Buddha didn't directly deny or confirm its existence. Instead, he asked for evidence - "Is there anyone who has seen or known it?" In one sutta, when asked about this, he mocked those who claimed self-existence by comparing them to a line of blind men, noting that none could trace it back even seven generations.

Therefore, the existence or non-existence of self isn't a definitive matter. The Buddha often stated he preferred not to discuss or answer this question. Humans tend to imagine self exists in some form. The Buddha explained this as twenty forms of personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi). For each of the five aggregates, people hold four wrong views:
1. The aggregate belongs to self
2. The aggregate is self
3. Self exists within the aggregate
4. The aggregate exists within self

When multiplied by the five aggregates, this creates twenty forms of wrong view about self. The Buddha rejected all these as unfounded doctrines.

On the twenty forms of personality belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi):
"Rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ..." (MN 44 Cūḷavedalla Sutta)

So when asked whether the Buddha's teaching of anatta means "there is no self" or "it is not-self," the primary meaning is "it is not-self." The aggregates, sense bases, and elements lack the characteristics of self and cannot be owned. Because they are not-self, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and uncontrollable. The Buddha taught that these not-self phenomena are worthy of dispassion and disgust, not attachment. This leads to the sequence: dispassion leads to non-attachment, non-attachment leads to liberation. This is the Buddha's analysis of suffering.

When portraying the Buddha as revolutionary, some present him as establishing anatta-vada (doctrine of no-self). Actually, there is no such doctrine, and the Buddha never called himself an anatta-vadin. Instead, he said he was free from all doctrinal positions. He used the terms atta/anatta as tools when needed. Anatta is simply a perception tool for meditation practice to counter self-attachment.

The Buddha's truly revolutionary view was his teaching of Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda). This principle aligns with concepts of anatta and suññata (emptiness) and serves as a tool to clear away all doctrinal thickets. The essence of Dependent Origination is that nothing exists independently. The aggregates, sense bases, and elements arise dependent on one another - one depending on many, many depending on one, or many depending on many. Because they are impermanent and without essence, they exist through mutual dependence and interconnection.The aggregates, sense bases, elements, and truths aren't separate entities but interconnected points within a single network. Only by seeing them this way can one begin to grasp the depth of Dependent Origination.

This interpretation critiques all contemporary belief systems. Some claimed the world was created by a creator god. Others said it arose from the combination of primordial matter and consciousness. Some believed everything was predetermined by past causes. Others maintained that things happened randomly without specific causes. The Buddha refuted all these views through the doctrine of Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda).

The Buddha based his analysis of suffering (dukkha) on Paṭiccasamuppāda. Suffering isn't caused by a creator, nor solely by past karma, nor does it arise without cause. He showed how craving leads to clinging, clinging leads to becoming, and becoming leads to suffering. He also explained how craving itself arises through Dependent Origination. He criticized various philosophical schools for being entangled in their views like thorny bushes because they didn't understand this principle. Some held eternalist views, some nihilistic views, some partial views, and some agnostic views - all because they didn't understand how Dependent Origination works. In this aspect, the Buddha indeed carried out a philosophical revolution.

On arūpa jhānas not being the final goal:
"Santā vā sā samāpatti, sāpi kho aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā" (MN 106 Āneñjasappāya Sutta)

However, regarding spiritual practice, the Buddha was more of a reformer than a revolutionary. He was a samana (ascetic) who followed the samana tradition. His disciples sometimes called him Mahāsamana (the Great Ascetic). The samana tradition existed long before the Buddha, since ancient times. Samanas opposed Vedic traditions, renounced household life, and sought truth in solitude outside society. The Khaggavisāṇa Sutta in the Suttanipāta describes ancient samanas as Paccekabuddhas (Silent Buddhas), depicting them as solitary seekers of liberation like rhinoceros horns. Contemporary movements like Jainism founded by Mahavira and the Ājīvaka sect established by Makkhali Gosāla were also part of the samana tradition. The Buddha himself adopted the samana lifestyle when he was still a Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be).

Although the Buddha-to-be followed the samana path, his first two teachers - Āḷāra and Uddaka - were actually Brahmin sages, not samanas. They taught the samatha-yānika path, focusing on arūpa jhānas (formless meditative absorptions) that progressively refined consciousness by removing mental characteristics until only pure awareness remained. These were methods from Sāṅkhya-yoga philosophy. The Buddha mastered these practices completely.

These meditation techniques genuinely provided peace and could establish the mind in the highest states of concentration. However, the Buddha realized these were not true liberation from suffering but only temporary cessations. His discovery was that even in the highest states of concentration, the mind still clung to the identity of "one who experiences jhānic bliss." He understood that as long as this identification remained, there was no escape from suffering. As long as there remained a duality between the experiencer and the experienced, true liberation (vimutti) was not achieved. So despite mastering these yogic practices, he abandoned them.

On the characteristic of non-self:
"Sabbe dhammā anattā'ti, yadā paññāya passati;
Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā." (Dhp 279)

Today, there's a misconception that these arūpa jhāna practices are forms of self-torture (attakilamatha). Actually, arūpa jhānas are sukha-paṭipadā (pleasant path) practices, involving peaceful dwelling in meditative bliss, not self-mortification. They are neither the true path to liberation nor self-torture - they're simply extraordinary states of mind. The danger with arūpa jhānas is that they so closely resemble liberation that they can be mistaken for the final goal.

In many suttas, the Buddha described arūpa jhānas as stages of mental development while also teaching about their impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, uncontrollability, and non-self nature, showing they are not true liberation. In the Pārāyana Vagga, sixteen brahmin youths who were disciples of Bāvarī were practitioners of arūpa jhānas. The Buddha taught them how to use these states as a foundation for liberation, showing that while arūpa jhānas themselves aren't vipassanā, they can become objects of insight meditation. We also find examples of arahant monks during the Buddha's time occasionally entering arūpa jhānas for purification, indicating that Buddhism neither rejected nor opposed these practices as self-mortification. While not considering them the path itself, the Pārāyana Vagga shows there are doors to liberation even from arūpa states. From this perspective, the Buddha appears more as a reformer than a revolutionary.