Chapter V

Age of MahÄvÏra

The age of Mahävïra can be regarded as one of the most creative epochs in Indian history. This age is marked by outstanding achievements in different spheres – religion, politics, society, economy, art & literature. It saw the beginning of the political unification of India under the hegemony of Magadha and the propagation of Buddhism, Jainism and other heterodox religious sects. A social code for the observance of the people was prescribed. Because of the flourishing of trade and commerce during this period, there was all-round prosperity. There was a revival of urban life. The script was probably discoursed, and the use of coinage started.

1.  Mahävïra's Religious Contemporaries and Contemporary Sects

The age of Tïrthankara Mahävïra (6th century B.C.) was of far-reaching religious reformist activities not only in India but also throughout the ancient world. It was an age of enlightenment for the human race. The materialistic interpretation of history would attribute this change in human consciousness to a change in social milieu. The idealist historiography would see here an unfoldment of the spirit or the progress of thought through its autonomous dialectic. Suddenly and almost simultaneously and almost certainly independently, there started religious movements at separate centres of civilization. Zoroaster gave a new creed to Iran; Confucius and Loa-tse taught in China; the Jews in ther Bablyonian captivity developed their tenacious faith in Jehova, and the Sophists in Greece began tackling the problems of life.

Even in India, this was an age of freedom of thought which gave rise to new religious movements and brought about radical changes for the better in the old ones.  The Sämaññaphala Sutta and the Brahmajäla Sutta in the Digha Nikäya of the Buddhists mention about sixty-three different philosophical schools — probably all of them non-Brähmaîa existing at the time of Buddha. In the Sütrakôitäõga, Bhagavati, etc., of the Jainas, we find a far larger number of such heretical schools. These statements about the number of sects may have been influenced by the tendency to exaggerate which was widespread in ancient India. We should not assume that they were independent religious sects or schools because these are distinguished only by very subtle and minor differences in matters of doctrine and practice. It is not possible today to prove once for all that all these sects originated at the same time. Some of them may have owed their origin to a time far more remote than that of Mahävira.  

Origin of These Sects

There are divergent views among the scholars about the origin of these ascetic intellectual movements. According to T.W. Rhys Davids¹, the growth of the wandering bodies of religieux, the Paribbäjakas, was the result of an intellectual movement before the rise of Buddhism which was, in a large measure, a lay-movement, not a priestly movement. However, it is difficult to understand this movement as a lay-movement. It was in fact neither priestly nor lay. It originated neither in Brahmanical reform nor in Kshatriya revolt; nor was it a middle class effort. It was a classless and casteless movement, and it had no special affinity with the attitude and interest of any particular social classes.

MaxMuller,² G. Buhler,³ H. Kern,⁴ and H. Jacobi⁵ — all contend that the Brahmanical 'ascetic' was the model of the Buddhist, the Jaina, and the other heretical sects of this age. It has also been suggested that these arose out of the antiritualistic tendency gaining ground within the religion of the Brähmaîas. G.C. Pandey⁶ has tried to show that the antiritualistic tendency within the Vedic fold is itself due to the impact of an asceticism which antedates the Vedas. Some of the sects, such as Jainism and the Äjivikïsm, may represent a continuation of this pre-Vedic stream.

There was not one but several factors which have rise to these religious movements. It was an age of frequent and bloody wars, which made people long for peace. The great economic prosperity also filled some of them with despair of material life. There was considerable social distress because of the rigid caste system. The clash of rival schools and sects also led the people to spiritual quest.

Áramaîa and Brahmanical Sects

The sects of this age were divided into many classes, but the main division was between the two Áramaîa or Non-Brahmanical sects and Brahmanical sects. The main differences between the two were as follows :

1. The attitude of the Brahmanical sects towards secular life was not so uncompromising, for they emphasized renunciation only after the proper fulfilment of social duties. On the other hand, in the Áramaîa Sects, their followers practised a detached life with a view to liberating themselves from all worldly attachments. They could take to a life of renunciation (pravrajyä) any time after ceasing to be under age.

2. In Brahmanical sects, only a Brähmaîa or Dvïja could become a Parivräjaka, while in the Áramaîa sects all members of the community, irrespective of their social rank and religious career (Varîa and Äárama), could be admitted to their church.

3. The difference in scriptures and in the attitude towards them was another dividing line between the two sects. The Áramaîas challenged the authority of the Vedas.

4. The orthodox sects did not permit renunciation for women, who however, could and did join some of the heterodox ascetic Orders.

5. The Brahmanical sects emphasised the rituals, while the followers of the Áramaîa Sects observed a set of ethical principles.

Some of Mahävira's chief contemporary religious teachers belonging to the Áramaîa sects were : Püraîa Kassapa, Pakudha Kachchäyana, Makkhali Goáäla, Ajita Keáakambalin, Sañjaya Belaûûhiputta, and Buddha. The following account of their views based on the Jaina and Buddhist texts is both breif and lop-sided and, therefore, it may not give us a correct picture.

Püraîa Kassapa

From the Jaina⁷ and Budhhist⁸ records, it is clear that Püraîa Kassapa (Pürîa Käáyapa) was an old, experienced, and respectable teacher. Though his date is not definite, it is presumed that he might have lived in the sixth century B.C. as is evident from references to him as a contemporary of king Ajätaáatru of Magadha. He was the head of a religious order and the founder of a school (tittha-kara). He was followed by a large body of disciples and honoured throughout the country. It seems from his name that he was born in a Brähmaîa family. The name Püraîa (Püraîa) indicates that he was believed to have been fully enlightened and perfect in wisdom.

No-Action Theory (Akriyäväda)

Püraîa Kassapa is known to be the exponent of the 'no-action' theory (Akriyäväda). It is said that Ajätaáatru once visited Püraîa Kassapa, who expounded his views thus :"To him who acts or causes another to act, mutilates or causes another to mutilate, punishes, or causes another to punish, causes grief or torment, trembles or causes another to tremble, kills other creatures, takes what is not given, breaks into houses, commits dacoity or robbery or tells lies, to him, thus acting, there is no guilt…… no increase of guilt would ensure… In giving alms, in offering sacrifices, in self mastery, in control of senses, and in speaking truth, there is neither merit nor increase of merit."⁹ This is called an exposition of the 'no-action' theory (Akriyäväda). According to it, man is an irresponsible agent, because his action brings neither any merit nor any demerit. In other words, this doctrine was amoral because one might do whatever one wanted to do without becoming sinful or virtuous.

The Sütrakôitäõga¹⁰ furnishes a parallel passage where the doctrine is expressly called Akriyäväda. Áïläõka calls it Akärakaväda and implicitly identifies it with the  Säõkhya view. The identity between the view of Püraîa Kassapa and the Akärakaväda is probable, not certain.

The Doctrine of the Passivity of the Soul

Most probably, Kassapa was, as B.M. Barua¹¹ states, an advocate of the theory that the Soul was passive (nishkriya), that no action could affect it, and that it was beyond good and bad, a vew which many previous Vedic thinkers had enunciated. When we act or cause others to act, it is not the soul that acts or causes others to act. Whether we do good or bad, the result does not affect the soul in the least.

No-Cause Theory (Ahetuväda)

Kassapa is said to be an upholder of the 'No-cause theory' (Ahetuväda). It is reported in the words of the Buddha that no hetu (cause) and no pachchaya (condition) are accepted by Püraîa Kassapa as instrumental in either defiling a person or purifying him.¹² Abhaya says that Kassapa accepts no cause for näîa (knowledge) and dassana (insight).¹³ B.M. Barua¹⁴ tries to bring his view under Adhichcha-samuppäda (fortuitous in origin) referred to in the Brahmajäla Sutta, i.e. Ahetuväda. G.C. Pandey¹⁵ does not subscribe to the view that Püraîa Kassapa held to the doctrine of Adhichcha-samuppäda. Events may "have  nothing to do with the soul," and yet may not be fortuitous in origin.

Theory of Introspective Knowledge

In the passage of the Aõguttara Nikäya,¹⁶ two Lokäyatika Brähmaîas are said to have stated that according to Püraîa Kassapa's theory only an infinite mind can comprehend the finite world, whereas according to Nigaîûha Nätaputta's theory the finite world can only be a context of finite knowledge. Püraîa Kassapa has been described as one always in possession of ñäîadassana (introspective knowledge), while walking or staying etc., and that he perceived the finite world through infinite knowledge.¹⁷ In another passage, Buddha is said to have represented Kassapa, along with other heretical teachers, as possessing the power of divining where a particular dead person was reborn.¹⁸

The Doctrine of the six Classes of Beings (Chhaläbhijätiro)

In a pasage of the Aõguttara-nikäya,¹⁹ Änaîda expounds to Püraîa Kassapa Makkhali Goáäla's doctrine of the six classes of human beings (Chhaläbhijätiyo), such as Kaiîhäbhijäti (black class of being), nïläbhijäti (blue class of being) etc. A.L.Basham²⁰ has tried to prove that Püräîa, a heretical leader of long standing who maintained a fatalistic doctrine with tendencies to antinomianism, came in contact with Makkhali Goáäla, a younger teacher with doctrines much the same as his own, but with a more successful appeal to the public. Recognizing his eclipse, he admitted the superiority of the new teacher, and accepted the sixfold classification of men, which placed Makkhali Goáala and his forerunners, Nanda Vachcha, and Kisa Saõkichcha, in the hgihest category.

Pakudha Kachchäyana (Kakuda Kätyäyana)

Pakudha Kachchäyana was an elder contemporary of the Buddha. He was a leader of some religious body and was held in great esteem by the people of the time. Buddhaghosha says that Pakudha is his personal name and Kachchäyana his family (gotra) name. The term 'Pakudha' has been traditionally interpreted as prakrudha, furious. Its alternative form is Kakudha or Kakuddha which means the same thing. Assuming 'Kakuda' to be original and correct form meaning 'a man having a hump on his back,  B. M. Barua connects this Kätyäyana with Kabandhï Kätyäyana, one of the pupils of the sage Pippaläda of the Praána Upanishad.²¹ The suggestion, though ingenious, lacks a convincing proof.

As Pakudha Kachchäyana has left us no records of his own, we have to depend for a knowledge of his doctrine on the praánopanishad, the Sämañña-phala-sutta, and the Sütrakôitäõga. In the Praánopanishad, in answer to Kätyäyana's question to Pippaläda as to the roots of things, he was told that the roots were Matter (Rayi) and Spirit (Präîa). Buddhaghosha records that Kachchävana never used to touch cold water.²² He never even crossed a river or a marshy pathway, lest he should transgress his vow.

The Doctrine of Seven Categories

In the Buddhist Sämañña-phala-sutta,²² Kachchäyana's philosophy is described as the doctrine of seven categories (Satta-käya-väda). He has been represented as saying : "The following seven things are neither made nor commanded to be made, neither created nor caused to be created; they are barren (so that nothing is produced out of them), steadfast as a mountain peak, as a pillar firmly fixed. They move not, neither do they vary; they trench not one upon another, not avail aught as to ease (pleasure) or pain or both. And what are the seven ? The four elements — earth, water, fire and air —, and ease (pleasure) and pain, and the soul as a seventh. So there is neither slayer  nor causer of slaying, hearer or speaker, knower or explainer, when one with sharp sword cleaves a head in twain, no one therby deprives any one of life, a sword has only penetrated into the interval between seven elementary substances."²³ Kächchäyana accepted seven elementary substances as permanent and eternal, neither created nor caused to be created. This Sattakäyaväda furnishes an instance of what the Buddhists called Sassataväda. Its plurality of substances recalls Vaiáeshika; its denial of interaction between soul and matter as well as the aloofness of the soul from Sukha and Dukha recalls Säõkhya.

The Doctrine of SOul as a Sixth Category (Ätma-Shashûhaväda)

The Sütrakôitäõga²⁴ presents the system of six categories omitting pleasure and pain, adding ether or space in their place. Áïläõka named it 'the doctrine of soul as a sixth category (ätma-shashûha-väda) which somehow resembles the doctrines of Pakudha. It is also somewhat different because the existence of Äkäáa (ether or space) is distinctly recognised, and it omits sukha and dukha. Áiläõka identifies the doctrine of soul as a sixth category with the doctrine of the Bhagavad Gïta, as well as with the Säõkhya and some of the Áaiva systems. There is no doubt about some sort of historial relationship existing between them.

Views about Action and the Soul

Like Kassapa, Kachchäyana denied not the appearance, but the reality of action and also asserted that the soul was really untouched by change and was therefore superior to good and evil. It is perhaps not too much to imagine that this doctrine was formulated in opposition to the doctrine of Saãsära according to which the soul suffered and was itself responsible for its sufferings. Goáäla accepted the process of Saãsära but gave of it a new explanation. Being apparently Brähmaîas, Kassapa and Kachchäyana were probably acquainted with the Upanishadic speculation and were still more radical in their denial of the real existence of the problem itself.

Theories of Eternalism and Non-Action

The fragment of the Sütra-kôitäõga clearly shows that Kachchäyana adopted the Gotamaka or Eleatic postulate of being that nothing comes out of nothing.²⁶ It appears from the fragments of both the Sütrakôitäõga and the Sämañña-phala-sutta that the term Eternalism²⁷ was strictly applied by Mahävïra and Buddha to the doctrine of Kachchäyana. It also comes under the definition of what Mahävïra calls Pluralism (Aîikka väda).²⁸

Mahävïra and Buddha considered Kachchäyana's doctrine to be a doctrine of non-action (akriyä-väda). If the elements are eternally existent and unchangeable by their very nature, if they mechanically unite or separate by Pleasure and Pain inherent in each of them, if there is no volitional activity of consciousness, there is no ground for the conception of or distiction between good and bad, between knowledge and ignorance, and so forth. From this it follows that in reality, there is no act of killing or hearing or instructing. The act of killing, if it is possible at all in the world, means nothing but the act of separating from one another the elements of being in their organic unity.

Kachchäyana and Empedocles Compared

B.M. Barua²⁹ compares Kachchäyana and Empedocles, looking upon the former as the Empedocles of India. Both of them maintained that the elements of being are so distinct qualitatively from one another that there is no transition from the one to the other. Just as Empedocles is called, justly or unjustly, an Eleatic, so is Kachchäyana called an Eternalist, an Eternalist being but an Indian Eleatic. In the view of both becoming is impossible. Both conceive being as a plurality of unchangeable elements. According to both, the four roots of all things are the four elements, which are in their nature permanent, that is, they know no qualitative change. Just as Empedocles conceives some ground or cause of change, similarly Kachchäyana regards Pleasure and Pain (Sukha, dukha) as the two principles of change. Finally, they resemble each other in admitting that there are pores (vivara) in organic bodies, and they also deny the void. The only point of difference between the two thinkers is that while in the case of Empedocles, it is not known whether he left any room for the conception of soul in his scheme of existence, in the case of Kachchäyana, it is positive that he did.

Ajita Keáakambalin

Ajita Keáakambalin is known to be the historical founder of Indian Materialism. He was held in great esteem by the people of his time. He was called Keáakambalin because he put on a blanket of human hair. The philosophical and religious ideas of Ajita Keáakambalin are known from the Sämaññaphala Sutta.³⁰ There are two aspects of his philosophy, negative and positive.

Negative and Positive Aspects

Ajita was antinomian in ethics. It is remarkable that his categorical assertions are all negative in form. According to him, there is no merit in sacrifice or offering, no resultant fruit from good and evil deeds. No one passes from this world to the next. No benefit results from the service rendered to mother and father. There is no afterlife. There are no ascetics or Brähmaîas who have attained perfection by following the right path, and who, as a result of knowledge, have experienced this world as well as the next and can proclaim the same.

There is no existence of individuality after death. The four elements of existence constitute a living body. When a man dies, earth returns to earth, water to water, heat to fire, air to air, and the sense faculties pass into space. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of existence after death, for all alike, the foolish and the wise are cut off, annihilated, and cease to be after death.³¹ Ajita in the negative aspect of his doctrine resembles Epicucurs, while on the positive side of his speculations he seems to be more a Stoic than an Epicurean, his fundamental point being that nothing but the corporeal is real.³²

Doctrine of Taã-Jiva-Taã-Sarïra-Väda

Ajita's doctrine was described by Mahävïra and Buddha as Taã-jiva-taã-sarïra-väda, in contradistinction to the doctrine of the soul being distinct from the body (Aññaã-jïva-aññaã-sarïra-väda). Ajita was not so much against the dogmas of the Brahmanic faith as against the doctrine of Kachchäyana and others who made a hard and fast distinction between the body and the soul, between matter and spirit, in short, who conceived the soul as an entity existing independently of anything corporeal or material. Thus 1in one sense like a Stoic, he identified the corporeal with the mental, and in another sense he did not. His intention was not to identify the body with the soul, judged as concepts, for what he sought to establish was that the real fact of experience is always a living whole, a whole which the apprehending mind can conceive in its various aspects.³³ Hence the distinction which Kachchäyana made between the elements of being is in the view of Ajita untenable, the distinction being only an act of our mind. No such distinction exists in the living concrete individual taken as a whole.

Ajita's view was followed by Päyäsi, and it was made more intelligible. The soul is not an entity distinct from the body. We cannot separate the soul from the body like him who draws a sword from the scabbard and says, “This is the sword and that the scabbard.³⁴ We cannot say this is the soul and that's the body. Ajita and Päyäsi viewed the corporeal from the point of view of the self on the ground that form cannot exist apart from matter.

The Moral Deductions of Ajita's theory of Self

According to Mahävïra, by denying future life, Ajita taught men to kill, burn, destroy³⁵ and enjoy all the pleasures of life. The truth seems to be quite the contrary. He taught us to believe rather in life than in death and to show proper regard to persons when they are alive rather than honour them when they are dead. In another Jaina passage, we are told that Ajita was an Akriyä-vädin, as he upheld the doctrine of non-Being. The study of the views of Áïlänka and Säyaîa Mädhava leads us to believe that the foundation of Ajita's doctrine was laid in a statement of Yäjñavalkya which is : the intelligible essence emerging from the five elements vanishes into them at death.³⁶

Sañjaya Belaûûhiputta

Sañjaya Belaûûhiputta was one of the religious teachers of the sixth century B.C. As is obvious from the Sämaññaphala Sutta, he was a wanderer and the founder of a religious Order as well as of a school of thought in Räjagôha. He is believed to be identical with Parivräjaka Sañjaya, teacher of Säriputta and Mogalläna described in the Vinaya Mahävagga, and the Dhammapada. Such as identification is possible, because Parivräjaka Sañjaya is known to be a sceptic. Still, we are not definite as the name Parivräjaka Sañjaya is not found along with Sañjaya Belaûûhiputta in the early Buddhist work named Sämaññaphala Sutta.

Sañjaya Belaûûhiputta was celebrated for an opinion which was a blend of scepticism on the one hand and a primitive stage of criticism of knowledge on the order, like that of the Sophists in Greek philosophy. From the point of view of their philosophical doctrine his disciples were known as Agnostics, Sceptics, or Eel-wrigglers, and from the point of view of their moral conduct, as friends or Good-natured ones.

Jaina Account

The Jainas mention the theory of Ajñanaväda or Agnosticism of which Sañjaya Belaûûiputta seems to be the chief advocate. Áïläñka says : “Literally, the ‘Agnostics’ as those in whom there is ‘ignorance’ or ‘who walk about in ignorance’. They think : even if we avowedly maintain a view — “That this is good” (Kuáala), we are conscious that we are not acquainted with truth, the matter is not familiar to our knowledge. Indeed, we have not as yet got beyond ‘perplexity’ — perplexity which is blindness and delusion of the mind.

“Some conceive the existence of an all-seeing soul, while others controvert it. Some speak of an all-pervading self; others contend that the body being such an entity, it cannot be all-pervading. Some estimate that soul is equal to a digit in size, while others say that it is equal to a grain of rice. Some posit a soul that has a material form while others maintain that it is formless. Some point out that the heart is the seat of soul, while others oppose them by saying that the forehead would be the right place …

“How can there be an agreement of views among these philosophers ? Many moral injuries may result from the issues of such antagonistic blunders. For us, ignorance is far better than these follies.”³⁷

Buddhist Account

According to the Sämaññaphala Sutra,³⁸ Sañjaya's doctrine was neither a doctrine of acceptance nor a doctrine of denial. He neither denied the existence of the next world nor accepted it. Whether the beings are produced by chance, or whether there is any fruit of good or bad action, or whether a man who won the truth continues after death – to all these questions he gave the same answer.

A follower of this sect has been described in the Brahmajäla Sutta³⁹ as Amarävikkhepika, who, when asked a question, would equivocate and wriggle out like an eel. B.M. Barua⁴⁰ thinks that the Aviruddhakas mentioned in the Aõguttara Nikäya were also followers of Sañjaya, that they were called Amarävikkhepikas for their philosophical doctrines and Aviruddhakas for their moral conduct.

Sañjaya's Place in the History of Indian Philosophy

The very fact that Sañjaya's opponents were compelled to put his views to the hardest test demonstrates that these could not be so easily dismissed. He had a large following, a fact which goes at once to prove that there was some truth in his teaching that could appeal to so many thoughtful men. He suspended his judgements only with regard to those great questions of which a decisive answer will ever remain a matter of speculation. He called away the attention of the philosopher from fruitless inquiries and directed it towards the Summum bonum, which is the attainment and preservation of mental equanimity.

Sañjaya may be considered to be a true precursor of Mahävïra who propounded a doctrine of antinomies (Syädväda) and of the Buddha who advocated a critical method of investigation (vibhäjyaväda). Both Mahävïra and the Buddha agree that there are some important questions of cosmology, ontology, theology and eschatology on which no finality is possible.

Maõkhali Goáäla

Mahävïra's contemporary leader of the Äjïvaka sect was Maõkhali Goáäla who seems to have been preceded by Nanda Vachchha and Kisa Saãkichchha.⁴¹ He was born at Saravaîa near Sävatthi. His father was Maõkhali and his mother's name was Bhaddä. His father was Maõkha, that is, a dealer in pictures. Goáäla himself followed his father's profession in the beginning and hence he was so named.⁴² As he is said to have been born in the cow-shed, he was called Goáäla. In the Buddhist records, the name is also spelt : ‘Makkhali’, which means one who stumbled in the mud. The true name seems to be Maskarin, the Jaina-prakrit form of which is Maõkhali, and the Pali form Makkhali. This name indicates a school of Wanderers or Sophists who were so named not because they carried a bamboo staff about them but because they denied the freedom of the Will.

Relationship of Goáäla and Mahävïra

When Goáäla grew up, he left home for some unknown reason and became a homeless wanderer, spending twentyfour years as an ascetic. After his meeting with Mahävïra at Paîiyabhümi, he spent six years with him. Probably because of this association we find some points of similarity in Jaina and Äjïvika doctrine and practice. From the account of the Bhagavati Sütra, it is known that Goáäla became a disciple of Mahävïra. Afterwards, Goáäla parted company with Mahävïra on account of doctrinal differences and went to Árävastï where he spent sixteen years as a religious leader of the Äjïvika sect. The two years intervening between these two periods were no doubt filled with a journey to Kumäragäma, six months' penance, and preliminary wanderings before making Árävastï his headquarters.

His Efforts for Propagation

It is not likely that Goáäla resided for sixteen years continually at Sävatthi; probably like his great rivals Mahävïra and the Buddha, he travelled from place to place among the towns and villages of the Gaõga valley, preaching and gathering converts. There is evidence that the Äjïvikas, both ascetics and laymen, existed in a fairly large number at this time. His mission consisted largely in knitting together local Äjïvika holymen and their followers, regularising their doctrines and gaining converts by the display of pseudo-supernatural powers. He obtained the strongest support for this sect at Sävatthi. The Koáalan king Pasenadi was more favourably disposed towards this sect than was his contemporary Bimbisära of Magadha.

Äjïvika Scriptures and the Death of Goáäla

When Goáäla made his headquarters at Sävatthi in the workshop of the potter woman Hälahalä, he was surrounded by many disciples. At this time, he was visited by six diáächaras, in consultation with whom he codified the Äjïvika scriptures. The scriptures of the Äjïvikas consisted of ten Puvvas, i.e., eight Mahäîimittas and two Maggas, like the fourteen Pürvas of the Jainas. The dialect adopted for their scriptures was closely allied to Ardha Mägadhi, a few stereotyped fragments of which have survived in the Jaina and Buddhist literatures.

Soon after the visit of the six diáächaras, Mahävïra exposed Goáäla openly with the result that the relations between the two sects became very hostile. Afterwards Goáäla suffered from delirium and died. His death took place sixteen years before that of Mahävïra.

The comparison of the Buddhist references with those found in Jaina sources enables us to form a tolerable picture of the doctrines of Goáäla. While discussing these doctrines, we must also keep in mind that both Goáäla and Mahävïra lived together for some time and that the scriptures of the Äjïvikas and the Jainas are said to have some common sources of origin.

Doctrine of Transformation (Pauûûaparih äraväda)

Goáäla was the propounder of a ‘doctrine of change through re-animation’ (pauûûaparihäraväda) or, better still, of a theory of natural transformation (pariîamaväda) which he came to formulate from the generalisation based on the periodical re-animations of plant life.⁴⁴ He came to the conclusion that just as the sesame seeds after having completely perished come to life from their inherent force or will-to-be, so are all living beings capable of re-animation.

Theory of Purification through Transmigration (Saãsära-Áuddhi)

The basic idea underlying the above doctrine implies a process of purification through transmigration.⁴⁵ In the Buddhist phraseology, purification is the equivalent of ‘the end of pain’ (dukkhassanta), and the word transmigration signifies the passing of soul from one state of experience to another. According to this theory of purification through transmigration, one will put an end to pain after wandering through various births for the allotted term. There are eighty-four hundred thousand periods during which both fools and wise, wandering in transmigration, shall at last make an end of pain. Neither the wise nor the fool can get rid of the Karma – there can be no increase or decrease thereof. Everything is predestined. Just as a ball of string when unrolled, spreads out as far as and no farther than it can unwind, so shall both fools and wise alike, wandering in transmigration exactly for the allotted term, make an end of pain.

Fate, Species and Nature (Niyati-Saõgati-Bhäva Pariîatä)

Goáäla offers for his theory of perfection through transformation no less than three explanations : Fate or Necessity, Class or Species, and Nature.⁴⁶

As a rigid determinist, Goáäla exalted fate (Niyati) to the status of the motive factor of the universe and the sole agent of all phenomenal change.⁴⁷ Man's destiny is pre-ordained, human effort could effect no change in it, and emancipation was to be obtained only through a long series of transmigrations. Pleasure and pain are not caused by the souls themselves nor by others, but by destiny. There is no such thing as exertion or labour or power or vigour or manly strength, but that all things are caused by destiny which is unalterably fixed. The Sämäññphala Sutta also gives an account of Goáäla's teachings from where we get the same denial of the usefulness of effort or manly vigour.

The attainment of a certain peculiar condition, and of a certain peculiar character on the part of all things, all lives, all beings, depends in part on the class or type to which they belong. It is partly according to their position this class or that that they possess certain special properties, that they have certain physical characteristics, that they inherit certain peculiar habits, develop certain faculties, and so on. Thus fire, for example, is hot, ice is cold, water is liquid, stone is hard, a thorn is sharp, a peacock is painted, the sandal tree possesses fragrance, the elephant's cub, if it does not find leafless and thorny creepers in the green wood, becomes thin; the crow avoids the ripe mango, etc.⁴⁸

Buddhaghosha explains Goáäla term ‘nature’ as ‘the peculiar nature of each being’.⁴⁹ The world originates and develops from its inherent force or immanent energy. It is also probable that he sought for an explanation of the diversity of appearances, characteristics, habits and behaviour of things in nature. He conceived Nature as a self-evolving activity. Nature has two modes of operation : by one made things come to pass and by the other they cease to be (pravôtti and nivôtti). More accurately, he seems to have understood by Nature the specific faculties or characteristics of a living substance other than those which it possesses in common with the race or species.⁵⁰

Views of Kamma

Goáäla's views on Kamma appear to have been peculiar. The classifications found in Sämaññaphala passages are obscure, and Buddhaghosha sheds little light. From this it appears that once earned, the inheritance of Kamma was held to be independent of individual will and supposed to work its way out along its own logic. From the statement just made, it appears that Kamma was considered to be in some way casually connected with Sukha-dukha. How, then, was it supposed to be related to the triad of Niyatisaõgatibhäva ? Since individual initiative is denied, Niyati probably, was considered to be the cause of Kamma prior to the attainment of liberation. Goáäla, in short, considered man bound to the cycle of rebirth by a force – Kamma or Niyati over which he had no voluntary control.

Sixfold Classification of Humanity

Goáäla's classification of human beings into six abhijätis⁵¹ (groups) according to their psychic colour is as follows : black (Kaîha) includes all who live by slaughter and cruelty, such as hunters, thieves, fishermen and others; blue (nila) contains ‘monks who live as thieves’; red (lohita) probably applies to all monks of Jaina type; (4) green (halidda) seems to refer toÄjïvika laymen; (5) white (sukka) is related so Äjïvika ascetics of both sexes; and (6) Supremely white (Parama-sukka) contains only three names, that is, those of Nandi Vachcha, Kisa Sankichcha, and Makkhali Goáäla. The Abhijätis have much is common with the Jaina leáyäs, and it is possible that both Goáäla and Mahävïra might have derived from some common source. By urging this doctrine, Goáäla wants to emphasize that the supreme spiritual effort of man consists in restoring the mind to its original purity, i.e., rendering it colourless or supremely white by purging it of all impurities that have stained it.

Theory of Eight Stages of Development (Aûûhapurisa-Bhümiyo)

Goáäla advocated that there are eight stages of development through which every man must pass for the attainment of perfection in order to become a Jina.⁵² The first stage is babyhood which begins with the birth of a person. Babyhood is followed by the play-time, and that again by the third stage when the child attempts to walk. This period of trial is duly succeeded by the period when the child is able to walk. When he becomes older, he is sent to learn under a teacher. In course of time, he renounces the world and equips himself, sooner or later, with all that his teacher knows. Then comes a time when he realizes that what his teacher taught him was not all, that in fact it was nothing. The Äárama theory of the Dharmaáästras was based on the notion of the gradual development of the self but it was formulated as a biological principle of evalution in its application to education.

Penances

We also know about the penances of the Äjïvikas. The Bhagavati Sütra says that they abstained from eating umbara (ficus glomerata), vaûa (ficus indica), bora (jujube), satara (?) and pilaõkhu (ficus infectoria), all fruits, and also from eating roots, etc. The Sthänäõga Sütra⁵³ says that the Äjïvikas practised four kinds of austerities, viz., severe austerities, fierce austerities, abstention from ghee and other delicacies, and indifference to pleasant and unpleasant food. They observed the fourfold brahmacharya consisting of (1) tapassitä, asceticism; (2) lükhachariyä, austerity; (3) jeguchchita, comfort-loathing; and (4) pavivittatä, solitude. The Aupapätika Sütra⁵⁴ describes the system of collecting alms as adopted by the Äjivika ascetics. Some of them begged in every second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth or even in every seventh house; there were seven who accepted lotus stalks only as alms under certain conditions; some begged in every house, but did not accept alms if there was a flash of lightening. There were some ascetics who practised penances by entering into big earthen vessels.

Ethics

Both the Buddhists and the Jainas regarded the Äjïvikas as amoralists and proceeded to condemn them as immortal in practice. On the evidence of Jaina scriptures, A.F.R. Hoernle⁵⁵ accuses Goáäla of hypocrisy and incontinence.

B.M. Barua⁵⁶ on the other hand considers these strictures merely sectarian. According to him, Goáäla's theory of Pariîämaväda seeks to establish even with the help of its fatalistic creed a moral government of law in the universe where nothing is dead, where nothing happens by chance, and where all that is and all that happens and is experienced are unalterably fixed as it were by a pre-determined law of nature.

It teachers that as man is pre-destined in certain ways and as he stands highest in the gradations of existence, his freedom, to be worth the name, must be one within the operation of law, and that the duty of man as the highest of beings is to conduct himself according to law, and to act and behave in a manner that does not induce him to trespass upon the rights of others, to make the fullest use of one's liberties, to be considerate and discreet, to be pure in life, to abstain from killing living beings, to be free from earthly possessions, to reduce the necessaries of life to a minimum, and to strive for the best and highest, i.e. Jinahood, which is within human powers.

This fatalistic creed, which is a logical outcome of Pariîämaväda, confirms popular Indian belief that action has its reward and retribution and that heaven and hell are the inevitable consequences hereafter of merits and demerits of this life.⁵⁷

ÄjÏvika Doctrine Vis-a-Vis the Niganthas

Apart from those relating to practice, the chief differences between the Äjïvikas and the Niganthas concerned the nature of will and of the soul. As to the latter, Buddhaghosha informs us that while Goáäla held the soul to be Rüpï, Mahävïra considered it Arüpï. Among the striking similarities between the two doctrines : one may mention the common expression Sabbe Sattä päîä… bhuta… Jivä, the division of animals into Ekendriya, Dvindriya, etc. Belief in the omniscience of the released was also common. Goáäla and Mahävïra both enjoined the practice of nudity for saints.

The Buddha

Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, was the junior contemporary of Mahävïra. We possess no authentic accounts of his life and teachings. Two poems in the Sutta Nipäta and a few early Suttas supply us with some data but for details, we have to depend upon comparatively later works, which appear to have preserved older traditions.

Early Life

Gautama alias Siddhärtha was born in 563 B.C. at Lumbinivana, now identified with Rumminidei on the border of Nepal. His father Suddhodana of the Säkya clan was the ruler of Kapilavastu. His mother Mäyä died seven days after his birth, and he was brought up by his mother's sister Mahäprajäpati Gotamï. When he grew up, he married Yaáodharä, and had a son, Rähula.

The idea of renunciation, according to the later text, came into his mind from seeing four persons in four different stages – an old man, a cripple, an ascetic, and a corpse. In the early texts like the Sutta Nipäta, it is simply stated that looking at the miseries of the world, he embraced the life of a wandering hermit at the age of twentynine.

Passing through a number of villages, Gautama at last reached Vaiáälï where he stayed at a hermitage of the teacher Äräâa Käläma. There he became his disciple and learnt the Säõkhya doctrine from him. Since evidently he was not satisfied, he left the hermitage of Äräâa to become a disciple of another teacher Rudraka Rämaputra, who was then living in the outskirts of Räjagôha. Not satisfied with Rudraka either, he left him and began to observe severe penances along with five other Brähmaîa ascetics. He was deserted by the Brähmana companions when they noticed slackness on his part in observing penances, and he decided to take food just sufficient to sustain his body.

After leaving Rudraka's hermitage, Gautama went to Uruvilva where he took his seat under a pïpal tree. After spending seven weeks in meditation under this tree, he finally realized the Truth. He thus became the Buddha (the Enlightened One). With his attainment of both insight and knowledge, he became emancipated from birth and rebirth. He then turned his attention to his five Brähmaîa companions who were then residing at Ôishipattana (Särnäth) near Banaras. He proceeded there and delivered before them his first sermon, which is metaphorically represented in Buddhist literature as “turning the wheel of the Law”.

Missionary Life

Along with these five Brähmaîa companions, Buddha went to Banaras where he converted Yaáa, a rich Seûûhi's son and other followers. From Banaras, he proceeded to Räjagôiha where he spent the second, third, and fourth Vassäs (retreats). In Magadha, at this time, there were many Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical teachers and wandering monks. The Buddha spent much of his time and energy in refuting their doctrines and convincing them of the excellence of his teaching. He succeeded in making a large number of converts, the most notable among them being Säriputra and Maudgalyäyana, who were formerly disciples of Saõjaya Belaûûhiputta, the Brahmanical ascetics, the Jaûilas, Upäli Grahapati, and Abhayaräjakumära, all staunch followers of Nigaîûha Nätaputta; Anäthapiîâika a merchant possessing fabulous wealth; kings Bimbisära and Ajätaáatru, and later, king Muîâa. Besides Räjagôiha, Buddha visited Gayä, Uruvilva, Nälandä, and Päûaliputra.

Buddhism gained a footing even at Koáalä (Sävatthi) where the Buddha spent the last twentyone vassäs. His favourite resort was the famous Jetavaîa monastery, which was purchased for him by Anäthapiîâika at a fabulous price. King Prasenajit (Pasenadi) became interested in his discourses while his queen Mallikä and his two sisters, Somä and Sakulä, became lay-devotees. Another influential supporter was Visäkha, who built the Pubbäräma monastery for him.

The Buddha visited Kapilvastu and converted the members of his family including his son Rähula and foster-mother Mahäprajäpati Gomatï. Buddha also spent the fifth Vassä at Vaiáälï, where Ambapälï, the famous courtesan became his devotee and offered her mango grove to the Saãgha. The Buddha passed the ninth Vassä at Kauáämbï where queen Sämavatï of Udayana became his follower. He visited a distant place Verañjä (near Mathurä) to spend his twelfth Vassä there and deputed his disciple Mahäkachchäyana of the propagation of Buddhism in Avanti. He converted king Pradyota and others to Buddhism. He made his last journey to Malla's capital Kusinärä where he gave up his body after a fatal illness and attained parinirväîa at the age of eighty.

Teachings

The earliest available source of our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings is the Päli Piûaka which consists of the five Nikäyas, viz., Dïgha, Majjhima, Saãyutta, Aõguttara and Khuddaka. As many alterations and additions were made in it from time to time by the succeeding generations, it cannot be called homogeneous, nor is it possible to state definitely what actually were the original teachings of the Buddha.

Buddhism, like Jainism, was originally a moral code rather than a metaphysical or religious system. The Buddha instructed his followers to pursue practical methods in order to arrive at the Truth. For the removal of ignorance, thirst, attachment, etc., for instance, he advocated the four Äryasatyas (Noble Truths), viz., (1) that worldly existence is full of misery (dukkha); (2) that thirst, attachment, etc., are the causes of wordly existence (samudaya); (3) that worldly existence can be ended (nirodha) by the destruction of thirst, etc. The Path is the well-known Eightfold Way, viz., right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right exertion, right mindedness, right meditation, right resolution, and right point of view. The first three practices lead to physical control (Áïla), the second three to mental control (chitta), and the last two to intellectual development (prajñä).

The exposition of the Eightfold Path is said to be the Buddha's first discourse. It is also widely known as the Middle Path (madhyama pratipat) as it keeps clear of the two extreme ways of life, one being that of ease and luxury and the other of rigorous ascerticism. This path allowed a monk to live a life of moderate comfort, with the bare requirements of food, clothing and residence, but with the wind intent on achieving the goal.

The second discourse, which is said to have been delivered by the Buddha, strikes the keynote of his teachings, viz., that the five constituents which make a being are without a self (anätma), impermanent (anitya), and are not desirable (dukkha). He who realizes the absence of soul or substance in the constituents knows that he does not exist as an individual and as such there can be no relationship between himself and the objects around him. There is nothing in this world to make him happy or sad and so he is free (vimukta), he is an arhat – perfect.

Ascetics of the Brahmanical Sects

The Brahmanical ascetics were probably divided into two classes, i.e., the one retiring to the forests Vänaprasthins and then passing to the stage of Sannyäsa, and the other consisting of the Tävasa, the Geruya or Parivräjaka etc. The Jätakas most probably depict the life of the Vänaprasthins and the Sannyäsins, but there is no line of demarcation drawn between the two. It is only in the Dharmasütra literature of a later period that a clear distinction is made between the two stages of life. Now the question is : how far does the account of the Jätakas correspond with that of the Dharmasütra. According to the Baudhäyana-Dharmasütra, to cite one example, one could renounce the world after the student life, or after being a householder, or from the forest.⁵⁸ Äpastamba and Vasishûha allow one to have the option of becoming an ascetic after the completion of the Brahmcharya stage or after becoming a householder.⁵⁹ Thus we find the Brahmanical sources supporting the Buddhist account.

Tävasas

The Tävasas lived in forest where they occupied themselves with meditation, sacrificial rites, self-torture, and in reading the scriptures. They gathered fruits and roots for their sustenance and visited the villages for alms. On one of the journeys he made during his ascetic life, Mahävïra put up in a hermitage (äsamapada) in Sannivesa.⁶⁰ He came across another hermitage named Kanakakhala in Uttaravächäla where five hundred hermits were staying;⁶¹ still another hermitage is referred to in Poyaîapura where Vakkalachïri was born.⁶²

The Oväiya Sütra⁶³ mentions the following classes of Vänapattha Tävasas residing on the bank of the Gaõga. It is possible that some of the classes might have belonged to the later period than that of Mahävïra but we are not in a position to distinguish them positively.

Hottiya : They offered sacrifices.

Kottiya : They slept on the bare ground.

Pottiya : They put on a special kind of clothes.

Jaîîaï : They performed sacrifices.

Saââhai : They belonged to the devotional class of ascetics.

Thälaï : They carried all their belongings with them.

Humbauûûtha : They carried a water vessel with them.

Dantukkhaliva : They lived on fruits and used their teeth as mortar.

Ummajjaka : They bathed taking only a dip.

Sammajjaka : They bathed without taking a dip in water.

Nimajjaka : They remained in water only for a short time.

Sampakkhäla : They rubbed and cleansed their limbs with mud.

Dakkhiîakülaga : They dwelt on the south bank of the Ganga.

Uttarakülaga : They dwelt on the north bank of the Ganga.

Saãkhadhamaga : They blew a conch-shell to keep people away.

Küladhamaga : They blew a conch-shell on the river bank to keep people away while they took their meal.

Miyaluddhaya : They killed animals.

Hatthitävasa : They used to kill an elephant every year with arrows and lived many months on its flesh. The motive was to spare the lives of other animals for as long as the flesh of the elephant would last.They claimed that they committed but one sin in a year, the killing of the elephant, which was counterbalanced by the merit earned by not killing other lives during this time.⁶⁴

Uââaîâaya : They moved about raising their staff and are referred to along with Boâiya and Sasarakkha mendicants who went about naked and used the hollow of their hands as alms-bowl.⁶⁵

Disäpokkhi : They sanctified all sides by sprinkling water and then collected flowers and fruits. The Bhagavati⁶⁶ refers to the royal sage Áiva of Hattinäpura, who joined the order of the Disäpokkhiyas on the bank of the Ganga. He practised chaûûhama (a fast, broken at sixth meal), and on the day on which he broke his fast, he sprinkled the eastern quarter, propitiated Soma, the lord of the east, and collected bulbous roots, leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds and green vegetables. Then he returned to his hut, cleaned the sacrificial altar (Vedikä) and went to bathe in the Ganga. He made another altar with grass and sand, kindled a fire by the friction of pieces of wood, and keeping ritualistic paraphernalia by his side, offered honey, ghee, and rice to the fire. Then he prepared Charu (oblation), worshipped Vaissadeva and the guests, and then took his meal. Then Áiva observed the Chaûûhama fast again and proceeded to the south to propitiate Yama, then to the west to propitiate Varuîa, and finally to the north to propitiate Vesamaîa. Somila was another hermit of Väränasï who belonged to the same order and was a worshipper of the four diáäs.⁶⁷ King Pasannachand also belonged to the same order which he joined along with his queen and the nurse.⁶⁸

Vakaväsï : They put on a dress of bark.

Ambuväsï : They lived in water.

Bilaväsï : They lived in caves.

Jalaväsï : They remained submerged in water.

Velaväsï : They lived on the sea-coast.

Rukkhamülia : They lived under trees.

Ambubhakkhi : They lived by drinking water only.

Väubhakkhi⁶⁹ : They lived by inhaling air only.

Sevälabhakkhi⁷⁰ : They lived by eating moss.

The Tävasas followed the rules of the Vänaprastha Äárama. Like other ascetics, they also moved in a body. We hear of three hermits, Koâinna, Dinna and Sevälï, who were followed by a body of five hundred disciples each. They lived on roots, bulbs, decayed leaves, and moss; they set out to pay a visit to Aûûhävaya.⁷¹

The Parivräjaka or Geruya Samanas

Though they formed a distinct and separate group, the Parivräjakas belonged to the class of ascetics. According to T.W. Rhys Davids,⁷² “the Paribbäjakas or the wandering mendicants were teachers or sophists who spent eight or nine months of every year wandering about, and they were often lodged in the public halls where conversational discussions were held on philosophical and religious questions. Besides, they lived on alms collected from door to door.” B.M. Barua⁷³ mentions that these Brähman wanderers were in a position to learn the languages, customs, and usages of the people living in different parts of the world in which they themselves lived. In those early ages of civilization, when there was neither any printing press nor any easy means of communication between one country and another, elements of knowledge could be gathered, disseminated or utilised for scientific purpose by no better means than such travelling.

The Parivräjakas or the wanderers were the great teachers of the Brahmanic lore and were highly respected. In the Vasishûha Dharmasütra, it is stated that a Parivräjaka should shave his head, clothe himself with one piece of cloth or skin, cover his body with grass pulled off by cows, and he should sleep on bare ground.⁷⁴ The Parivräjakas maintained their regular monasteries (Avasaha) and wandered from place to place in order to propagate their teachings. From the Oväiya, we know that they were versed in the four Vedas, Itihäsa, Nigghaîûu, six Vedäõgas, and six Upäõgas. They preached the doctrine of charity (Dänadhamma), purity (soadhamma), and that of bathing at holy places. According to them whatever was impure became pure by applying mud to it and by being washed with water. They believed that they were pure themselves and that by taking bath they would attain heaven. They never travelled in a cart or a litter, never entered a lake or a river for bathing, never rode a horse or an elephant, never visited the performance of a dancer or a bard, never trampled upon or rubbed green vegetables, never indulged in talks regarding women, food, country, king, and thieves, never kept any costly pots except a bottl