The Piprahwa gems were placed along with the Buddha’s bodily relics (śarīra) as an offering inside a stūpa (A Buddhist funerary structure that contains relics and acts as a place of pilgrimage). Such an offering is not only supposed to generate “merit” (puṇya) and hopefully a good rebirth for the devotee, but is also an act of devotion and gratitude to the Buddha.
In 1898, a British land owner, William Claxton Peppé, ordered the excavation of that same stūpa on his land in colonial India and discovered the reliquary. The bodily relics were sent to the Buddhist king of Thailand, many of the gems went to the former Imperial Museum in Calcutta and Peppé was permitted to keep the rest.
This latter portion was due to be put up for auction at Sotheby’s Hong Kong this month, just days before the Buddhist holy day of Vesak – and it has generated controversy. Not only has the sale been described as perpetuating colonial violence, but the Indian government demanded that auction house Sotheby’s halt the sale or it would seek legal action. Sotheby’s has complied, for now.
Peppé’s great-grandson, Chris Peppé, explained in an article for Sotheby’s: “From the time we received the Piprahwa gem relics, my cousins and I have sought to make them available for viewing by the public (ideally a Buddhist public) to see at no cost to the institution borrowing them.” This has resulted in the gems being displayed in museums around the world. The cousins also set up The Piprahwa Project website, which allows people to access all the research materials that they have gathered.
Chris Peppé has said that he hopes that the sale will help people see to see the gems and connect with those that left them and the Buddha himself. His great-grandfather, he says, ordered the excavation to provide work for his tenant farmers.
As a Buddhist and the grandson of an Anglo-Indian man myself, my past straddles this colonial divide more than most. Putting aside the ethical issues around excavating a sacred site in the first place, and the uncomfortable tie-in to other instances of colonial looting by the British in India, the truly extraordinary thing is that these gems were put up for sale at all.
If they really were mixed together with the bodily relics of the Buddha, then these gems were in physical contact with them and intended to be paired with them for posterity. That means that, in a Buddhist context, there is no essential difference between the gems and the actual remains of the Buddha.
The Sri Lankan historical chronicle The Mahāvaṃsa (written in the 5th or 6th-century AD) states that “if we behold the relics we behold the Conqueror”, aka Buddha. As art historians Conan Cheong and Ashley Thompson write in their recent journal paper on the topic: “At the very least, we can affirm that for many Buddhists, historically and today, these ‘gems’ are śarīra of the Buddha and as such are imbued with the Buddha’s living presence.”
Buddha in the west
Speaking to the Guardian after the auction was postponed Peppé said: “In light of the Indian government’s sudden interest in the gems, 25% of auction proceeds will be donated to the displaying of the main Kolkata collection of the Piprahwa gems for Buddhists and the larger public to enjoy. Another 25% will be donated to Buddhist institutions.” With regards to his and his two relatives’ right to sell the gems, he added: “Legally, the ownership is unchallenged.”
As an expert in Buddhist philosophy, I believe that to put a price on something that possesses such a sacred status for millions of people worldwide is both disrespectful and morally objectionable.
The sale is also not something I could ever imagine happening regarding objects linked with any other religious figure. If a piece of intact clothing, for example, was found to have been worn by Jesus, would this be put up for sale? Of course, it would be massively valuable, but any financial considerations would surely be outweighed by its religious importance for the world’s billions of Christians. Why should it be any different with Buddhist relics?
Another phenomenon inadvertently revealed by the fact of the sale is the ongoing commercialisation of Buddhism in the west. To many westerners, the Buddha and Buddhism are increasingly viewed as commodities to be bought and sold.
Cheaply made Buddha statues and Buddha-faced plant pots adorn the shelves of garden centres and are then used to decorate living rooms and gardens. Clothes, lamps, beach towels and even shoes embellished with images of the Buddha can be purchased easily. The Buddha is frequently regarded as an ornament or fashion item rather than a sacred figure in a manner that, again, is rarely done with any other religiously significant person.