Page:Report of a Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli in 1872-73.djvu/146

122 assume that the cave as we see it now is as Buddha used it, then we must be prepared to grant an indefinite extension of time to the introduction of the art of stone-cutting in India; for as existing records do not make any mention of the cave having been especially prepared for Buddha, the chisel-cut cave must have been in existence before, and must have been simply appropriated by Buddha, so that it may have been cut in the time of the first of the 24 Buddhas, for all that we can prove to the contrary. But, independently of this consideration, if the cave existed ready cut in Buddha's time, it must have had an owner, and could not have been going a begging for the first beggar that chose to squat in it. If it had an owner, Buddha could not have taken possession of it without the owner giving it to him; and as we have detailed records of various gifts, even trifling ones, that Buddha received, we should expect to find a record of the gift of this cave. No such record has yet been found, and so far then we are justified in considering, not that Buddha appropriated a ready-cut cave, but that the cave which he appropriated was a natural cavern which no one cared to own.

So far I have kept quite clear of the argument derivable from my proposed identification of the Sattapanni cave; with its aid the argument is even more strongly in my favor. The Sattapanni is the one cave which of all others would have been artificially smoothed if the art of stone-cutting were known in Buddha's period, but we find no trace of stone-cutting in or about it; it is highly improbable that the less important cave should have been cut and smoothed, while the one in which the synod was held was left in its natural ugliness.

That the art of stone-cutting was known in Asoka's time I have no desire to dispute; but it does not necessarily follow, because we see the art carried to great perfection then, that therefore the Indians must have been practising it for a long time. There are two modes by which they may have attained to the high state of improvement: (1) by a slow and gradual process of improvement, (2) by learning the art from artists of another nation, who had already attained excellence in it (by whatever means does not now concern us). If they learnt it by the first mode, we should expect to see the remains of a period when the art was in its rude infancy, and we should expect that the energy which brought the art so high would advance it further. I need not add that we have not a single authentic example of Indian stone-cutting