However, Cunningham again visited Rajagriha in 1872 and this time identified the Son Bhandar cave as the Sattapanni Cave, where the first Buddhist Council was held after Buddha’s death. This however, was later refuted by others, when another cave on another face of the Vaibhargiri was identified as the Saptaparni or Sattapanni by Beglar. Cunningham mentioned that Mr. Beal had opposed the identification of the Son Bhandar with the Sattapani, since Fa-Hian had described the cave as being on the northern shade of the mountain, whereas Son Bhandar was on the southern face. Cunningham in support of his arguments mentioned that the Baibhar mountain did not lie east and west like Mount Vipula, but as nearly as possible north-east and south-west in orientation; and thus the north-east half of it could be called either the “north end” or the “east end”. Cunningham argued that in his survey, the Son Bhandar cave was actually situated in the northern half, or end, of the mountain, and therefore it truly described the position given by the Chinese pilgrims. But to make this identification certain, he made efforts to trace the second cave or “Pippala Cave”, as mentioned in the accounts of Fa-Hian and Hieun Thsang.

The account of Fa-Hian as at No. 3 above has been important for the identification of theb caves. Hwen Thsang’s account agrees substantially with the description of Fa-Hian, but he adds some particulars which give most valuable assistance in identifying the first cave. His words are “To the west of the hot springs stands the stone house of Pi-po-lo, in which Buddha formerly lived. The deep cave which opens behind its wall was the palace of the Asuras. Numbers of Bhikshus, who gave themselves to meditation, formerly dwelt in this house.”

To be continued...