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 bottle gourd, wooden, or an earthen pot, never put on garments of various colours except one pair dyed with red-clay, never wore any ornaments except one copper ring, never wore any garland except a pair of flower earings, never besmeared their body with any fragrant substance except the clay of the Ganga, and they took only one Magadha prastha (a measure used in Magadha) filtered (Paripüya) water for drinking purposes.

From the Bhagavatïsütra,⁷⁵ we know about one wandering mendicant, Ajjakhanda of Kachchäyana gotra, a disciple of Gaddabhäli, who was putting up in Sävatthi. Once he took his ritualistic objects, viz., triple staves, water pot (Kuîâi), rosary (Kañchaîiyä), earthen bowl (Karoâiyä), seat (bhisiyä), sweeping duster (Kesariyä), teapoy (chaîîäliyä), hook (ankusaya), ring (pavittaya), and the forearm ornament (kalächikä), and taking an umbrella and wearing shoes and dyed robes, proceeded to pay a visit to Mahävïra. He was well-versed in Vedic literature.

In the early Buddhist records,⁷⁶ we have frequent mention of a number of such Parivräjakas (wanderers), all of whom were the contemporaries of the Buddha, e.g. Poûûhapäda, Dïgha-nakha, Sakula Udäyi, Anna-bhara, Varadhara, Potäliya or Poûali-putta, Uggahamäna, Vekhanassa Kachchäna, Mägaîâiya, Sandaka, Uttiya, three Vachchhagottas, Sabhiya, and Pilotika Vachchhäyana. Besides these wanderers, we have to take into account many celebrated Brähmaîa teachers of the Buddha's time, such as Pokkharasäti (Pushkarasädi), Sonadaîâa (Áaunadanta or Áaunaka), Kuûadanta, Lohichcha, Kaõki (Chaõki), Tarukkha (Tärukshya), Jänussoni (Jataáruti), Todeyyas, Todeyya-putta or Subha, Käpaûhika Bhäradväja, Aggika Bhäradväja, Piîâola Bhäradväja, Käsi Bhäradväja, Väseûûha, Assaläyana, Moggalläna, Päräsariya, Vassakära, and others.⁷⁷

Most of these religious teachers belonged to Magadha, and Räjagôiha was the centre of their activities. The famous Parivräjaka Sañjaya lived at this place with two hundred and fifty disciples among whom Säriputta and Moggalläna were the foremost. Säriputta was the first to resolve to embrace the faith and was followed by Moggalläna.⁷⁸ These two friends tried to persuade their teacher, Sañjaya, to see the Buddha, but failing to convince him, abandoned him and went over to the Buddha, followed by all the disciples of Sañjaya.⁷⁹ Sakula-Udai was also residing at Räjagôiha. Poûaliputta and Dighanakha also established their headquarters at his place. Moliyasïvaka and Sabhiya are said to have met the Buddha here. The Niguttara Nikäya⁸⁰ refers to Annabhära Sarabha and others as staying in the Parivräjakäräma on the bank of the Sappiniya river. Anugära and Varadhara are mentioned as staying at Moraniväpa Parivräjakäräma in Räjagôiha which had several delightful spots like Veluvana, Ghijjhaküûa mountain, Moraniväpa, the Parivräjakäräma on the bank of the Sappiniya river, Tapodäräma, Jïvaka's Ämravana, Sïtavana, Maddakuchchi, and so on which were resorted to by a large number of Parivräjakas. These had made Rajagôiha famous as a halting place for the wandering monks.

There was another pleasant and delightful Äárama at Uruvela on the bank of the river Nerañjara. Pavärika's mango grove at Nälandä, Ghaggara Pokkharaîï at Champä, Mahävana near Vaiáäli, Mallikäräma in Árävastï, and others were important places meant for the Parivräjakas during this period. Vachchhagotta stayed at Vaiáälï in the Puîâarïka Parivräjakärma. Jambukhädaka is known to have met Säriputta at Nälakagäma (in Magadha) and Ukkavela (in Vajji). Ugghamäîa had seven hundred Parivräjakas under him.⁸¹ The leaders of the Brähmaîa ascetics were known as the Gaîasatthäs.⁸²

Besides these, other parivräjakas too have been mentioned.⁸³

Charaka : It is said that they begged alms while moving in company and kept on moving even while eating. They accepted cleansed alms and put on a lion-cloth. It is said that these mendicants were the direct descendants of Kapilamuni.⁸⁴

Chirika : They picked up rags from the road side.⁸⁵

Chammakhaîâia : They either wore a dress of hide or else their religious requisites were made of hide.

Bhikkahuîâa : They would eat nothing except what had been obtained by alms and would not take cow-milk etc. They are considered identical with Buddhist monks.

Paîâuraõga or Paîâaraga : There were Áaiva mendicants who besmeared their body with ashes. According to the Nïáitha chürîi, however, the disciples of Goáala were called Paîâarabhikkhu. The Anuyogadvärachürîi identifies them with the Sasarakkha (Sarajaska) Bhikkhus.

Then there were other Parivväyagas.

Saõkha : They followed the Säãkhya system.

Joi : They followed the Yoga system.

Kavila : They followed the atheistic Säãkhya system and regarded Kapila as their master.

Bhiuchcha : They were the disciples of Bhôigu.

Haãsa : They lived in mountain caves, roads, hermitages, shrines, and gardens and entered a village only to beg.

Paramahaãsa : They lived on river banks, the confluence of streams and discarded clothes before they died.

Bahüdaga : They lived one night in a village and five nights in a town.

Kuâivvaya : They lived in their own house and considered getting victory over greed, illusion, and egotism as their goal.

Kaîhaparivväyaga : They woshipped the Näräyaîa.

Jaûilas

Some Brahmanical hermits were called the Jaûilas on account of their matted hairs.⁸⁶ These ascetics lived in large groups in forests, had group leaders, engaged in austerities, tended fire, and performed sacrifices. They were also called Aggika Jaûilkä.

Uruvelä, the place of the Buddha's Sambodhi, was then a great centre of Vedic religion. There were three settlements or colonies of the Jaûilas on the banks of the river Nerañjara under three Kassapa brothers, Uruvela Kassapa, Nädi Kassapa, and Gaya Kassapa, each at the head of 500, 300 and 200 Jaûilas respectively.⁸⁷ They were born in a Brähmaîa family on Magadha and were highly respected by the inhabitants of Aõga and Magadha.⁸⁸ Most probably they were Naishûhika Brahmachärins. It is said that Uruvela Kassapa used to perform annually a great sacrifice which was attended by the neighbouring people with abundant food.⁸⁹ On the occasion of the Ashûakas, in the snowy-cold winter nights, they are described as plunging into the river Nerañjara and emerging out of it repeatedly on account of their belief in purification by bathing.⁹⁰

That these three brothers had gathered quite a large number of followers and had made three colonies of them, shows that they had developed a congregational life. In the opinion of B.M. Barua, there was no corporate life, and among the Jaûilas forming three distinct groups, the tie in each group was rather domestic than congregational.⁹¹ To convert these Brähmaîa ascetics who performed Vedic rites and enjoyed the respect of their people, was the principle aim of the Buddha, for that would, he thought, produce a magical effect on popular monks. According to Mahävagga, he was successful in changing the heart of 1000 Jaûilas along with their leaders who entered the Order.⁹²

Lokäyatas

There is a reference to the Lokäyatas in the Dighanikäya. A Brahmaîa well-versed in the Lokäyata doctrine asking the Buddha a series of questions has been mentioned.⁹³ A Jätaka passage refers to Lokäyatika doctrine.⁹⁴ The teachers and the student of this doctrine were both known as Lokäyatika. The name of this school was identical with the theory of elements as the prime cause (Bhütaväda and Uchchhedaväda).

Other Schools and Sects

The Four Great Schools

The Sütrakôitäõga⁹⁵ describes the four heretical creeds of the time of Mahävïra, creeds called Kriyäväda, Akriyäväda, Ajñänaväda, and Vinayaväda. These four great schools comprise three hundred and sixty-three schools : Kriyäväda consists of one hundred and eighty schools; Akriyäväda of eighty-four schools, Ajñänaväda of sixty-seven schools, and Vinayaväda of thirty-two schools.

Kriyäväda

Kriyä denotes the existence of the soul (jiva), and those who believe in the existence of the soul are called Kriyävädins. It is stated that one who knows the tortures of beings below in hell, one who knows the influx of sin and its stoppage one who knows misery and its annihilation, is entitled to expound Kriyäväda.

Akriyäväda

The Akriyävädins deny the existence of the soul, etc., for according to them everything is of a momentary existence, and a state comes to an end the moment it comes into existence, and, therefore, it cannot have any kriyä. Without continuity of existence, no kriyä is possible; the existence itself is the cause and effect of it. They are identified with the Buddhists, who hold the doctrine of Kshaîikaväda. Akriyävädins were also called Viruddhas, since they held to doctrines opposed to those of other heretics.

Ajñänaväda

The Ajñänvädins deny the necessity or importance of knowledge to attain salvation, since there is assertion of contradictory statements in it.

Vinayaväda

The Vinayavädins or Vainayikas are mentioned as Aviruddhakas in the Aõguttara.⁹⁶ They do not accept signs, external rules of ceremony, and the scriptures, but uphold the supremacy of reverence as the cardinal virtue leading to perfection. The upholders of this faith paid equal reverence to eight classes of beings, viz. god and master, ascetics, men, aged persons, inferiors, mother and father, and they maintained that to each of these eight classes of persons reverence may be shown in four ways, i.e., physically, mentally, verbally and with gifts. Vasäyaîa was a Vinayavädi ascetic who was practising päîämä pavajjä with his arms uplifted when Mahävïra and Goáala arrived in Kummagäma.⁹⁷

Besides these, the names of some other sects too have been mentioned in Jaina literature.

Attukkosiya : They belonged to the class of ascetics who were proud of themselves.

Bhüikammiya : They administered ashes to the people suffering from fever, etc.

Bhujjo bhujjo Kouyakäraka : They administered auspicious baths for procuring good luck. They are also known as Äbhiogias.

Chaîâidevaga : They had hangers (sikkaka) as their ritualistic paraphernalia.

Dagasoyariya : An adherent of the Dagasoyariyas, also known as Suivädi, who took bath after cleaning his body sixty-four times if touched by anybody, has also been mentioned. A Dagasoyariya ascetic, it is said, was putting up in the Näräyaîa Koûûha in Mathura. After breaking his three-day fast he pretended to have taken cow-dung; he never uttered the word itthi (woman) and observed silence. People were so much attracted by his practice that they offered him robes, food, and drink. According to Malayagiri, however, these ascetics were the followers of the Säãkhya religion.

Dhammachintaka : They studied religious books, and contemplated on the Dharmasaãhitäs composed by Yäjñavalkya and other sages, and acted accordingly.

Giyarai : They devoted themselves to songs and pleasures of love.

Goama : They earned their living by painting and decorating a young bull with cowries in his neck and performing tricks of touching feet etc., and created amusement for the people. These ascetics lived on rice.

Govvaia : They behaved like a cow, and in order to support their bovine character, followed a cow wherever it went grazed, drank water, returned home, and slept. They lived only on grass and leaves.

Kammärabhikhu : They led a procession with idols.

Kuchchiya : They grew beard and moustaches.

Parapariväiya : They spoke ill of other ascetics.

Piîâolaga : They remained very dirty, and their body which was an abode of lice emitted a foul smell. A Piîâolaga is said to have crushed himself under a rock on the mountain Vebhära.

Sasarakkha : They were adepts in casting spells, etc., and stored dust for the rainy season. They moved about naked, and used the hollow of their hands as alms bowl.

Vaîimago : They were greedy of food and begged alms by exhibiting themselves to the devotees of Áäkya, etc. They put themselves in a pitiable state, and in order to divert the attention of the donors spoke pleasing words.

Väribhadraka : They lived on water or moss and engaged themselves in bathing and washing their feet.

Värikhala : They washed their pot with mud twelve times.

Contemporary Schools of Philosophical Thought (From Buddhist Sources)

The Brahmajäla Sutta in the Digha Nikäya classifies the contemporary philosophical thought into sixty-two schools which were in existence in the sixth century B.C. The four schools of Eternalists or Sassatavädas held that the soul and the world are both eternal. The first three schools held this view as a result of their having perceived through a recollection of the memories of past lives that the soul and the body have always been in existence, and the fourth school held this view not as a result of memory but on logical grounds.

The four schools of Semi-Eternalists or Ekachcha-Sassatikas were also well-known. The first school believed that while Brahmä was eternal, individual souls were not. The second school believed that debauched souls are not eternal but that undebauched souls are. The third school believed exactly the same thing as the second school except that in the case of the former the debauchery of the gods is mental unlike the debauchery of the gods of the latter school which is physical. The fourth school held that the soul was eternal but not the body.

The first of the four schools of Extentionists or Antänantikas held that the world was finite, the second that it was infinite, the third that it was infinite sidewise but finite upward and downward, and the fourth that it was neither finite nor infinite.

The four schools of Eel-wrigglers or Amarävikkhepikas did not give categorical replies to any question but avoided them by ambiguous and equivocating replies, and different only in respect of the motive for giving such replies.

The two schools of Fortuitous-Originists or Adhichchasamuppannikas held that the soul and the world came into being without a cause. The first came to this conclusion as a result of the remembrance of past lives and the second as a result of logical reasoning.

The thirty-two schools of consciousness-maintainers or Uddhamäghatanikas believed that the soul after death passed into various states of existence, viz., conscious or unconscious, subject to decay or not subject to decay, neither conscious nor unconscious, and all in respect of the form, finitude, different modes of consciousness, and happiness of the soul.

The seven schools of Annihilationists or Uchchedavädis maintained that the soul is annihilated after death and identified it with the body, essence of the body, mind, infinite space, infinite consciousness, or with the boundless and with that which is beyond ideas.

The five schools of Nirväîists or Diûûhadhammanibbänavädas believed that a soul was capable of obtaining complete emancipation in this visible world through full enjoyment of the pleasures of the senses or through each of the four stages of dhyäna.

Vedic Pantheon and Religious Practices

People had not forgotten the Vedic pantheon and religious practices because of the rise of different religious sects and schools during the time of Mahävïra. The Vedic rituals were scrupulously performed by a large section of people. Though their number grew smaller and smaller, they never died out altogether.

The Jaina and Buddhist literary sources throw some light on Brahmanical religion and practices. The Sotthiyas and the Brahmana Mahäsälas of the age were custodians of the Vedic religion which was mostly sacrificial. The Brähmaîa Mahäsälas sometimes performed sacrifices for themselves, and sometimes officiated as priests in the Yajñas performed for kings. Descriptions of the preparations for the Mahäyajñas of the Brähmaîa Küûadanta of Magadha⁹⁸, of the Brähmaîa Uggatasarïra of Sävatthi⁹⁹ and of king Pasenadi of Koáala¹⁰⁰ throw considerable light on the method of performing these Yajñas. Animals sacrificed included cows, bulls, steers, goats, sheep, etc. The number of animals used for sacrificial purposes sometimes rose to 500 or 700.

There are references to the performance of the Assamedha, the Parisamedha, the Sammapasa and the Väjapeya sacrifies.¹⁰¹ Yajñas were performed with pomp and grandeur, and people flocked from neighbouring places to witness it. They were attended by big feasts, offerings, gifts of cows, beds, garments, women, chariots, carpets, and even places filled with corn. The picture of the Yajñäs thus revealed by the Buddhist sources is similar to the painted by the Brahmanical sources leaving aside a few exaggerations.

The Brähmaîas appear as teachers representing various Vedic schools, such as the Addhariyas (Aitareyas), Tittiriyas (Taittiriyas), Chhandokas (Chhändogyas), Chhandävas, and so on.¹⁰² They worshipped Indra, Soma, Varuîa, Ïáäna, Prajäpati, Brahmä, Mahiddhi, Yama, etc. They invoked them and offered prayer.¹⁰³

Popular Deities

Because of the new notions regarding religion current during the time of Lord Mahävïra, the functions of the old gods underwent modification and alteration, and new gods were created. Contact with indigenous cults at this time was responsible not only for the importation of new objects of worship, but also for the incorporation of new mythologies of the older cult. Not only from Brahmanical literature, but from Buddhist and Jaina literature also, we know about the popular deities worshipped during the sixth century B.C.

Indra

Indra, the chief of all other gods, is the Vedic god of great antiquity, and it appears that he was one of the most popular deities. In the Kalpasütra,¹⁰⁴ Indra has been described as enjoying divine pleasure in heaven in the company of various gods, eight chief queens, three assemblies, seven armies, seven commanders-in-chief, and body-guards. Indramaha was most prominent among all other mahas in ancient days. The festival of Indra was celebrated with great pomp and show. In Buddhist literature, he is mentioned by various names such as Sakka, Väsava, Maghavä, and so on. He is also described as descending to this world for helping the virtuous punishing the evil-doers.¹⁰⁵ He resides in the place known as Sudhammä, Vejayanta, and Missakasära in the beautiful Tävatinsa heaven.¹⁰⁶

Brahmä

During the period of the Brähmaîas, Prajäpati occupied the supreme position and was looked upon as the creator. In the sixth century B.C., he was called Brahmä. In the Buddhist Nikäyas, it is this personal Brahmä of the popular religion that is pictured, attacked, and ridiculed. In fact, his unity is not recognized, and many Brahmäs with different appellations such as Sanatkumära, Sahaãpati, and so on were conceived for worshipping.¹⁰⁷

Agni

Agni (Fire-god) occupied an important place in Brahmanism on account of the importance of Agnihotra. The Gôihyasütras and the Dharmasütras prescribe a number of domestic sacrifices for which Agni is needed. Agni was given a high position due to his use in yajña. The Buddhist writers¹⁰⁸ ridicule Agni-worship probably due to the association of fire with yajña which involves slaughter of living beings.

Sürya

In the Vedic period, the Sun occupied an important position but the moon was insignificant. From Buddhist literature, it appears that both were popular deities as they were worshipped by a fairly large number of people.¹⁰⁹

Female Deities

Siri and Sirimä the goddesses of Fortune and Luck, were the popular deities of this period. They are referred to also in the Kalpasütra.¹¹⁰ In Buddhist literature, Siri has been regarded as the daughter of Áakra while Sirimä as the daughter of Dhôitaräshûra.¹¹¹ Of the abstract deities that were worshipped,¹¹² some were Vedic and others new additions. Saddhä (Áraddhä) is a Vedic deity, but Äsä and Hiri are non-Vedic.

Ajjä and Koûûakiriyä were two different forms of the goddess Durgä who is also called Chaîâiyä. The Ächäräõga refers to the worship of Chaîâiyä with the sacrifice of goats, buffaloes, and human beings to please an inferior type of god.¹¹³ The peaceful goddess Durgä is called Ajjä, and when she rides on a buffalo she is called Koûûakiriyä.

Lokapälas

There are four Lokapälas (Chätumahärajika Devas)¹¹⁴ in the four quarters. Dhataraûûha Mahäräja, Virulhaka Mahäräja, Virupakkha Mahäräja, and Vessavaîa Mahäräja are the lords of the East, the South, the West and the North respectively.¹¹⁵

Yaksha Worship

From the Brahmanical, the Jaina, and the Buddhist sources, it appears that Yakshas were objects of worship. In Vedic literature, the word ‘Yaksha’ signifies a supernatural being, or a ghost-like appearance. In the sixth century B.C., the worship of the Yakshas or Jakkhas became very popular, and so every important city had its own shrine dedicated to the Yaksha. The Yakshas sometimes granted worldly desires, especially progeny and wealth while some of the Yakshas have been associated with cosmological functions, others are looked upon as malevolent beings who take possession of men's persons inducing in them symptoms of frenzy.

Yaksha Gaîâitinduga of Väräîasï guarded the great sage Mätaõga in the Tinduga garden.¹¹⁶ Bihelaga was another Yaksha who paid reverence to Lord Mahävïra when the latter was engrossed in meditation.¹¹⁷ Gaîgadatta,¹¹⁸ Subhadda,¹¹⁹ and Bhaddä¹²⁰ were blessed with a child by the worship of the Yakshas. The Yakshas are also said to have cured diseases, Pürîabhadra and Maîibhadra, both Yakshas, seem to be more popular, for to them offerings of food were made.¹²¹ Some of the Yakshas caused trouble to the people and often were satisfied only after killing them. We hear of Sülapäîi Jakkha who used to kill persons who happened to stay in his shrine.¹²² Another strange belief regarding the Jakkhas was that they enjoyed sexual intercourse with human maidens. The Gaîâitindurga Jakkha is said to have had sexual intercourse with the princess Bhaddä.¹²³

Like Yakshas, the Väîamantarïs or the Jakkhiîïs also played an important part in ancient Indian life. The Väîamantrï Salejjä is said to have paid reverence to Mahävïra¹²⁴ whereas Kaûapütranä gave him trouble.¹²⁵ Various feasts and festivals were celebrated in honour of the Jakkhas. Bhaîâïravaîa, the abode of Bhaîâïra Jakkha, a popular deity of Mathurä,¹²⁶ drew a large number of pilgrims.

The abode of a Yaksha is often referred to as cheiya, a term which was applied to the whole sacred enclosure containing a garden grove or park and shrine. Mahävïra, the Buddha, and many other religious ascetics are represented as halting or resting in these shrines. From the Uväsaga-dasäo, we learn that Mahävïra visited the shrine of Pürîabhadra at Champä, the shrine called Dvipaläsa of Vaîijagräma, the Koshûhaka shrine of Väräîasï, the garden called Saõkhavana of Älabhï, the garden called Sahasrämravana of Kampilyapura, Sahasrämravana of Poläsapura and the shrines called Gunasila and Kushûhaka of Räjagôiha.

Buddhist literature refers to the cities and haunts of the yakkhas. Their cities were known as Yakkhanagaras, which were usually situated in islands, deep forests, and deserts. A Jätaka story mentions a Yakkhanagara called Sirisavatthu in Tambapaîîidïpa¹²⁷ and another in a forest.¹²⁸ But some had individual haunts.¹²⁹ More than thirty individual Yakshas are known by name.¹³⁰ Yakkha Süchiloma had his haunt near Gayä.¹³¹ The Saãyutta-Nikäya and the Sutta-Nipäta describe him as discoursing with the Buddha.¹³² Yakkha Indraküûa made the Indraküûa hill at Räjagôiha his abode.¹³³ For yakkha Maîimäla, there was the Maîimäla chetiya.¹³⁴ Ajakaläpaka resided at Päûaliputra in the Ajakaläpaka chetiya.¹³⁵

Naga Worship

Naga worship seems to have a non-Aryan origin. Its emergence as a cult may be traced to the time of the civilization of Mohenjodäro as it is clear from the two seals where it appears in an attitude of devotion to a figure in Yogic posture. It appears that this cult was adopted by the Aryans partly as a consequence of the absorption of non-Aryan deities into the Brahmanical fold, and partly as a protection against snake-bites.

References to Näga-worship, like those to the worship of Yakshas, are abundant in the Jaina¹³⁶ and the Buddhist¹³⁷ sources. Jainism and Buddhism had to admit the serpent in a subordinate capacity in their own religious systems. Pärávanätha has a serpent as his special symbol. It is said that the Buddha received the homage of Muchilinda and Eläpattra. The Buddha advised the Bhikshus to honour the royal families of the Nägas, so that they could be protected from snake-bites, and the regions which were covered with dense forests may have given impetus to snake worship. As Magadha was originally a non-Aryan land, it remained a centre of Näga worship from the earliest times. The Mahäbharata refers to the images and temples of the Nägas at Räjagôiha. The Buddhist sources tell us that the Nägas were worshipped by the offerings of milk, rice, fish, meat, strong drink, and the like.¹³⁸ According to the Gôihya-sütras, they were offered fried grain, flour of fried barley, and flour over which ghee had been poured.¹³⁹

Tree Worship

That the tree was a non-Aryan object of worship is clear from some of the seals of the Indus-Valley Civilization. These seals show that the Pippal tree was worshipped by the people in two forms, i.e., in its natural form and in the form of the spirit of the tree which was shown emerging from the tree. Because of the absorption of the non-Aryan tribes in the Aryan fold, many non-Aryan objects of worship were also gradually incorporated in Brahmanism.

During the time of Mahävira, tree-worship seems to havebeen well known. Trees were considered to be the residences of some divine spirits who were worshipped by people for the fulfilment of their desires for sons, daughters, honour, wealth, and so on. Sometimes they were regarded as abodes of evil spirits like Pretas, and people worshipped them out of fear so that these malignant spirits may not harm them. The tree cult became further popular when the custom of using trees as symbols of saints and worshipping them as such became fashionable. The Bodhi tree, for instance, was one such tree for the Buddhists.

Miscellaneous Deities

Besides the celestial gods worshipped by their devotees, people seem to have worshipped various animals and birds too, such as elephants, horses, bulls, cows, dogs, and crows.¹⁴⁰ The Buddhist sources¹⁴¹ speak of the honour shown to the bull, sometimes in normal course and sometimes on occasions like his death. The custom of showing reverence to the bull was probably on account of his indispensability to agriculture.

Rivers and sacred streams began to be venerated, and tirthas or sacred spots on their banks came into existence and began to be thronged with worshipful pilgrims. People made pilgrimages to these holy places because facilities for travel were available.

The dread of demons must have driven people to take recourse to rites in order to keep them in good humour. Magical formulae and incantations must have been largely used to placate the invisible spirits and to control their vagaries. There are numerous allusions to persons versed in demonology (bhüyaväiya). There were dealers in antidotes as well as charmers who knew the science of spirits, and by means of various ceremonies, enchantments, and preservatives cured those possessed.¹⁴² The Bôihatkalpabhäshya referes to a shop called Kuttiyävaîa¹⁴³ where everything living or non-living was available. It is said that there were nine such shops in Ujjeît during the reign of Chaîâapajjoya.

From about the sixth century B.C., the old Vedic religion and practices gradually underwent transformation, and formed some sort of a new religion. Although the final form of this new religion is not clearly perceptible, its beginnings were marked in this age by the adoption of theistic Vaishîavism and Áaivism within the fold of the Brahmanical religion. These two theistic religions centred round two deities, Vishîu and Áiva, and they both emphasized devotion.

The first step in the evolution of Vaishîavism was the identification of Väsudeva-Kôishîa with the Vedic deity Vishîu, standing originally for the ‘Sun’. This reference in the Chhändogya Upanishad seems to point to a date in the seventh or sixth century B.C. Next, that Väsudeva-Kôishîa-Vishîu was identified with a sage Näräyaîa, is clear from the Baudhäyana Dharmasütra. This Bhägavata or Vaishîava religion seems to have originated first with the Yädava-Sätvata-Vôishîi people of the Mathura area.

The cult of Áiva probably goes back to a very early period. That it was current among the non-Aryans of the pre-Vedic period is obvious from the fact that some scholars have identified the figures on seals with Áiva who is also identified with the Vedic god Rudra. In the Ávetäávatara Upanishad, Áiva figures as the Great God (Mahädeva) superior to the Vedic pantheon.

Belief in heaven and hell was widespread at this date and it was said that those who perform various noble acts attain heaven, while those who indulge in evil acts go to hell.

2.  Political Conditions and Institutions

Since at the time of Lord Mahävïra, there was no paramount power in North India, the region was divided into many independent states. The period, however, was politically very important in ancient Indian history and marked the end of the tribal stage of society, while it also gave rise for the first time to those organized states which were known as sixteen great countries Solasamahäjanapada. These states formed some definite territorial units and included both monarchies and republics. A trial of strength was taking place amongst the monarchies, and, what is more, between the monarchical and the non-monarchical forms of government. It led to the decline of the republics, the rise of absolutism, and the growing success of Magadhan imperialism.

The Jaina, Buddhist, and Puräîic texts furnish catalogues of these states. In spite of the striking resemblances between one list and another, there are also important differences, a fact which leads to the assumption that the lists were originally drawn up at different times, and they reflect the difference in their author's knowledge of or interest in or even his intimacy with the different parts of the country.

The Jaina Bhagavati Sütra,¹⁴⁴ (otherwise called Vyäkhyä-Prajñapati), provides a list of sixteen Mahäjanapadas at the time of Lord Mahävïra as follows :

(1) Aõga, (2) Baõga (Vaõga), (3) Magaha (Magadha), (4) Malaya, (5) Mälava (ka), (6) Achchha, (7) Vachchha (Vatsa), (8) Kochchha (Kachchha), (9) Päâha (Päîâya or Pauîâra) (10) Läâha (Läûa or Räâha), (11) Bajji (Vajji), (12) Molï (Malla), (13) Käsi (Käáï), (14) Kosala, (15) Aväha and (16) Sambhuttara (Suãhottara).

The Buddhist texts,¹⁴⁵ which testify to their existence in the sixth century B.C., only incidentally refer to them. Among them, the Aõguttaras Nikäya is the most important as it is the earliest. The sixteen states enlisted in it are as follows :

(1) Käsi (Käái), (2) Kosala (Koáala), (3) Aõga, (4) Magadha, (5) Vajji (Vôiji), (6) Malla, (7) Chetiya (Chedi), (8) Vaãsa (Vatsa), (9) Kuru, (10) Pañchäla, (11) Machchha (Matsya), (12) Sürasena, (13) Assaka (Aámaka), (14) Avanti, (15) Gandhära and (16) Kamboja.

The Janavasabha Suttanta (Dïgha Nikäya, II) refers to some of them in pairs, viz., Käsï-Kosala, Vôiji (Vajji)-Malla, Chedi-Vaãsa, Kuru-Pañchäla, and Matsya-Áürasena. The Chullaniddosa adds Kaliõga to the list and substitutes Yona for Gandhära. The Mahävastu list agrees with that in the Aõguttara Nikäya save that it omits Gandhära and Kamboja and mentions Áivi and Daáärîa instead.

Aõga, Magadha, Vatsa, Vajji, Käsi, and Kosala are common to both the Bhagavatisütra and the Aõguttara Nikäya lists. Mälava of the Bhagavatï is probably identical with Avanti of the Aõguttara. Molï is probably a corruption of Malla. The other states mentioned in the Bhagavati are new, and indicate a knowledge of the far east and the far south of India. E. J. Thomas¹⁴⁶ suggests that the author of this work lived in South India, and that the more extended horizon clearly proves that its list belongs to a later period than the one given in the Buddhist Aõguttara. Along with the monarchies, both the Jaina and Buddhist texts mention the existence of republics which formed the distinctive feature of Indian politics in the sixth century B.C. Päîini, in his Ashûädhyäyï (500 B.C.), mentions both classes of states, viz., the Republics, to which he applies the term Saãgha or Gaîa, and the kingdoms called Janapadas. Baudhäyana in his Dharmasütra mentions states like Suräshtra Avanti, Magadha, Aõga, Puîâra, and Vaõga.

Aõga

The Jaina Prajñäpaîä ranks Aõga and Vaõga in the first group of Aryan peoples. Aõga seems to have comprised the districts of Bhagalpur and Monghyr. Dadhivähana is known to Jaina tradition¹⁴⁷ as having ruled over this region in the time of Lord Mahävïra. His daughter Chandanä or Chandrabälä was the first female who embraced Jainism shortly after Mahävïra had attained the Kevaliship. There is another tradition¹⁴⁸ that when Áreîika (Bimbisära) conquered Aõga, he posted his son Küîika (Ajätaáatru) as its Governor.

The capital of Aõga was Champä which stood at the confluence of the river of the same name. A. Cunningham¹⁴⁹ points out that there still exist near Bhägalpur two villages Champänagara and Champäpura, which most probably represent the actual site of the ancient capital. At the time of Mahävïra, the capital was a beautiful and prosperous city, a detailed description of which is given in the Oväiya.¹⁵⁰ It was one of the ten important capitals, a big centre of trade, from where merchants travelled as far as Mithilä, Ahichchhaträ, Pihuîâa, and other places with their merchandise.

The Dïgha Nikäya also refers to Champä as one of the six principal cities of India. It was noted for its wealth and commerce, and traders sailed from it to Suvarîa-bhümi in the Trans–Gangetic region for trading purposes.¹⁵¹ Other important cities in Aõga were Assapura (Aávapura) and Bhaddiya (Bhadrika).¹⁵²

Käáï

The Käáï was more powerful than most of the contemporary Janapadas, including Kosala, is clear from the combined testimony of many Jätakas and the Mahävagga. The kingdom of Käáï, whose extent is given in the Jätakas as three hundred leagues, was wealthy and prosperous. The twenty-third Jaina Tïrthaõkara Pärávanätha, who attained Nirvana 250 years before Mahävïra, i.e. in or about 777 B.C., was the son of King Aávasena of Banaras. Käáï was conquered by Kosala some time before Mahävïra. Käáï and Kosala were known for their eighteen confederate kings (Gaîaräjä), who fought against Küîiya on the side of Cheûaka. Several Jätakas bear witness to the superiority of its capital Banaras over the other cities. It was also a commercial centre of repute.

Kosala

Kosala was one of the most important kingdoms in Northern India during the life-time of Lord Mahävïra. It exactly corresponds to modern Oudh. It was probably bounded by the Sadänïra (Gandak) river on the east, Pañchäla on the west, the Sarpikä or Syandikä (Sai) river on the south, and the Nepal hills on the north. Kosala contained three great cities, namely Ayodhyä, Säketa, and Sävatthi or Árävastï, besides a number of minor towns like Setavyä and Ukkaûûhä.

The only kings or princes in the Puräîic list, who are known from the Vedic and early Buddhist texts to have reigned in Kosala or over some outlying part of it, are Hiraîyanäbha, Prasenajit, and Áuddhodana. Though the Puräîic chroniclers make Hiraîyanäbha an ancestor of Prasenajit, they are not sure of his position in the dynastic list.¹⁵²

Prasenajit of Kosala, a contemporary of Mahävïra, figures as one of the most important rulers of the time. Under him, Kosala became a powerful kingdom. First of all, he annexed Käsï to his kingdom. That he soon extended his supremacy over the Säkyas of Kapilavastu, probably also over the Kälämas of Kesaputta, and other neighbouring states, is clear from the evidence of the Aggañña Suttanta¹⁵³ and the introductory portion of the Bhaddasäla Jätaka.¹⁵⁴ His relations with Áreîika (Bimbisära) of Magadha were cordial. He married Áreîika's sister and gave him the dowry of a village in Käsï with a revenue of 100,000. But after the death of Áreîika, he carried on a protracted struggle with Küîika (Ajätaáatru). The Jaina texts present Ajätaáatru as the conqueror of the powerful political confederacy which included the Gaîa-Räjyas of Käáï and Kosala.¹⁵⁵ Viâuâabha, who succeeded him, seems to be the last ruler. The rivalry with Magadha ended in the absorption of the kingdom into the Magadhan empire.

Vôiji

The Vôijji (Vajji) territory lay north of the Ganges and extended as far as the Nepal hills. At the time of Lord Mahävïra, it was ruled by the Vajjian republic, about the constituent clans of which we are in the dark. On the basis of the name of a Judicial committee of the Republic — Aûûhakulaka (Ashûakulakä) some scholars¹⁵⁶ assumed that the confederacy consisted of eight Kulas (clans). Of these, the old Videhas, the Lichchhavïs, the Jñätrikas, and the Vôijis were the most important. The remaining seem to be the Ugras, the Bhogas, the Aikshväkavas, and the Kauravas because these are associated with the Jñätôis and the Lichchhavïs as subjects of the same ruler and members of the same Assembly.¹⁵⁷ The Aõguttara Nikäya¹⁵⁸ too refers to the close connection of the Ugras with Vaiáäli, the capital of the Vôijian confederation.

There is no reason to believe that the eight members of the judicial court represented the eight clans of the republic. Yogendra Mishra¹⁵⁹ has tried to prove that Videhas of Mithilä did not form part of the Vajjian Republic. Vôiji was only the name of the confederacy but not of the constituent clan. Only the six clans may be treated as inhabiting the Vajjian territory. The Lichchhavï capital was definitely at Vaiáälï, which is represented by modern Besarh (to the east of the Gaîâak) in the Muzaffarpur district of Bihar. The Jñätôikas were the clan of Siddhärtha and his son Mahävïra, the Jina. They had their seats at Kuîâapura or Kuîâagräma and Kolläga, suburbs of Vaiáäli. Though dwelling in suburban areas, Mahävïra and his fellow clansmen were known as Vesälie, i.e. inhabitants of Vaiáälï.¹⁶⁰ The remaining people of the confederacy, viz., the Ugras, Bhogas, Kauravas, and Aikshväkavas, resided in the suburbs, and in villages or towns like Hatthigäma and Bhoganagara.¹⁶¹

The Lichchhavïs were on friendly terms with king Prasenajit of Kosala. Their relation with the neighbouring Mallas was on the whole friendly. The Jaina Kalpasütra¹⁶² referes to the nine Lichchhavïs as having formed a league with the nine Mallakïs and eighteen clan-lords of Käáï-Kosala. We learn from the Nirayävali Sütra that an important leader of this alliance was Cheûaka whose sister Triáalä or Videha-dattä was the mother of Mahävïra, and whose daughter Chellanä or Vaideh was, according to Jaina writers, the mother of Küîika-Ajätaáatru. The great rival of Vaiáälï was Magadha. According to tradition, the Vaiáälians sent at army to attack Magadha at the time of Bimbisära.¹⁶³ The matrimoninl alliance was, according to D.R. Bhandarkar, the result of the peace concluded after the war between Bimbisära and the Lichchhavïs. In the reign of Ajätaáatru, this great confederacy Vôiji was utterly destroyed.

Malla

Originally, the Mallas had a monarchical form of Government, but at the time of Mahävïra, they were a Saãgha or corporation, of which the members were called Räjäs. The Jaina Kalpasütra¹⁶⁴ refers to the nine clans of the Mallas, and each of them ruled over a separate territory. Among these, two were prominent : one with its headquarters at Kuáïnärä and the other with Pävä as its chief town. The river Kakutsthä (Kakutthä) formed the boundary between the two territories. Kuáïnärä is identified with Käsiä on the smaller Gandak about 56 km. to the east of Gorakhpur, and Pävä with Padaraona 19 km. to the north-east of Kasiä.¹⁶⁵ In the Saõgïti Suttanta, we have a reference to the Mote Hall of the Pävä Mallas named Ubbhaûaka.¹⁶⁶ There were some other Malla towns, namely, Bhoganagara lying between Jambugräma and Pävä, Anupiyä between Kuáïnärä and the river Anomä and Uruvelakappa.

The relations between the Mallas and the Lichchhavïs were sometimes hostile and sometimes friendly. They became allies for self-defence at the time of Küîika-Ajätaáatru's invasion, though the Bhadasäla Jätaka¹⁶⁷ offers us an account of a conflict between them.

Jainism and Buddhism found many followers among the Mallas. From the Jaina Kalpasütra, we learn that the nine Mallakis or Malla Chiefs were among those that instituted an illumination of the day of the new moon, saying, “Since the light of intelligence is gone, let us make an illumination of material matter.”¹⁶⁸ At the time of the Buddha's death, we find both the main sections of the Mallas claiming a share of his bodily remains. This also proves that these two main clans retained their distinctive independence.

Soon after the Buddha's death, the Mallas appear to have lost their independence with their dominions annexed to the Magadhan empire.¹⁶⁹

Chedi (Cheti)

The Chedis were one of the most ancient tribes of India. They had two distinct settlements, of which one was in the mountains of Nepal and the other in Bundelkhand. D. R. Bhandarkar¹⁷⁰ maintains that Cheta or Chetiya corresponds roughly to modern Bundelkhand. Sotthivatïnagara, probably identical with Áukti or Áuktimatï of the Mahäbhärata, was its capital. Other important towns of the Chedis were Sahajäti and Tripuri. Sahajäti lay on the trade route along the river Ganga.¹⁷¹ We learn from the Vedabbha Jataka¹⁷² that the road from Käsï to Chedi was unsafe on account of its being infested with roving bands of marauders.

The Mahäbhärata and some of the Jatakas mention the names of the early kings of Chedi, but their accounts are legendary and cannot be relied upon for genuine historical purposes.

Vatsa

Vatsa or Vaãáa was the country south of the Ganga of which Kauáämbï, modern Kosam, on the Yamuna, near Allahabad, was the capital. The king of Vatsa in the time of Mahävïra was Udayana.

According to the Puräîic evidence, Udayana was a scion of the Bhärata Kula. There is no unanimity in regard to the names of even the immediate predecessors of Udayana. His father's name is said to be Áatänïka II.¹⁷³ He married a princess of Videha on account of which his son is called Vaidehïputra.¹⁷⁴ He is said to have attacked Champä, the capital of Aõga, during the reign of Dadhivähana.¹⁷⁵

There are legendary traditions about Udayana Vatsaräja of Kauáämbï and his contemporary Pradyota of Avanti. A critical examination of these legends will yield a number of historical facts of considerable importance. Udayana and Pradyota, both rulers of two adjoining kingdoms, appear to have been connected by marriage and to have engaged in war. It seems that later on cordial relations were established between them. According to the Priyadaráikä he conquered Kaliõga and restored his father-in-law, Dôiâhavarman, to the throne of Aõga. The latter is probably the same as Dadhivähana who, according to another legend, was defeated by Udayana's father.

Udayana had a son named Bodhi, but we do not know anything definite about Vatsa after Udayana, not even whether Bodhi ever succeeded his father to the throne.

Magadha

In the time of Tïrthaõkara Mahävïra, Magadha corresponded roughly to the present Patna and Gaya districts of South Bihar. The boundaries were probably the Ganga to the north, the Son to the West, a dense forest reaching to the plateau of Chotä Nagpur to the south, and Aõga to the East. The river Champä formed a boundary between Magadha and Aõga : but in Mahävïra's time Aõga was subject to Magadha. Its earliest capital was Girivraja or Räjgôiha.

Mahävïra's contemporary rulers of Magadha were Bimbisära and Ajätaáatru. In their reign, Magadha was the first among the states of the sixth century B.C. to make a successful bid for the establishment of its supremacy over them. By his conquests and matrimonial alliances, Bimbisära enlarged his influence and power. Afterwards, his son crushed the great republic of the Lichchhavïs after sixteen years of struggle, vanquished Kosala, and annexed Käáï. The kingdom of Bimbisära is stated to have been 300 leagues in extent, to which an addition of 200 leagues was made by Ajätasatru's conquests.

Jaina writers mention two early kings of Räjagôiha, Samudravijaya and his son Gaya.¹⁷⁶ Bimbisära, who belonged to the Haryaõka-Kula, occupied the throne of Magadha immediately after the fall of Bôihadratha dynasty in the sixth century B.C. According to the Mahävaãáa, he was fifteen years old when he was enthroned by his father. This would show that he was not the founder of the royal family. D.R. Bhandarkar has inferred that Bimbisära, who was originally a Senäpati probably of the Vajjis, made himself the king.

Bimbisära was helped in his political career by his matrimonial alliances. His first wife was a sister of Prasenajit, the king of Kosala, who gave him the dowry of a village of Käáï with a revenue of 100,000. His second wife was Chellanä, daughter of the Lichchhavï Chief, Cheûaka. His third wife was Vaidehï Väsavï. His fourth wife was Khemä, daughter of the king of Madra (Central Punjab).

Not content with these matrimonial alliances, Bimbisära embarked upon his career of conquest and aggrandisement. His father was defeated by Brahmadatta, king of Aõga. It was probably to avenge this defeat that Bimbisära led a campaign against Aõga. He was completely successful and enlarged Magadha by conquering and annexing this powerful and prosperous kingdom. He appointed his son Küîika as the Governor at Champä. According to Jaina legend, Pradyota of Avanti set out to attack Räjagôiha even during the lifetime of Bimbisära but he was foiled in his attempt by the cunning art of Prince Abhaya.¹⁷⁷ Bimbisära is known to have friendly relations with Pradyota and with Pushkarasärin, king of Gandhära. When the king of Avanti was suffering from jaundice, he sent his own physician Jïvaka.

According to Buddhist traditions, Bimbisära lost his life at the hands of his Ajätaáatru who was incited to the crime by Devadatta. But Jaina tradition is more charitable to Ajätaáatru. It does not represent him as a parricide. It relates that in his eagerness for the throne, he put his father in prison, but Bimbisära took poison and killed himself.

Ajätaáatru added largely to the extent of the kingdom by his conquests. He started with a war against Kosala because Prasenajit revoked his gift of the Käáï village after the death of the Kosalan princess. Ajätaáatru was defeated and had to surrender himself to Prasenjit along with his army. In the end, peace was concluded between the two by Prasenjit restoring to Ajätaáatru his liberty, army, and the disputed village of Käáï and even giving his daughter Vajïrä in marriage to him.

The Jaina texts present Ajätaáatru as the conqueror of the powerful political confederacy which dominated Eastern India at that time and comprised thirtysix republican states – nine Mallakï, nine Lichchhavïs, and eighteen Gaîaräjyas of Käáï and Kosala.¹⁷⁸ The overthrow of this confederacy resulted from Ajätaáatru's conquest of its most powerful member, the Lichchhavï republic, although the cause of the conflict between the two is differently stated in different texts.

(1) According to the Buddhists, a jewel mine was discovered at the foot of a hill at a port in the Gaõgä and it was agreed that Ajätaáatru and the Lichchhavïs would have an equal share of the gems. The Lichchhavïs violated this agreement and so brought on the conflict.

(2) According to the Jaina version,¹⁷⁹ the bone of contention was the Magadha state elephant Áreyanäka and a huge necklace of eighteen strings of pearls which were given by Bimbisära to his sons Halla and Vehalla. They carried off the elephant and the necklace to Vaiáälï and sought the protection of their grandfather, king Cheûaka, against Ajätaáatru. Having failed to obtain them peacefully, Küîika-Ajätaáatru declared war on Cheûaka.¹⁸⁰

(3) It is also stated that Pamävatï incited her husband Ajätaáatru to this conflict.

It was not easy to conquer the Lichchhavïs who were then at the zenith of their power as the head of a vast confederacy. Their leader Cheûaka actually mustered up the confederate powers, including the Gaîa-räjäs (republican chiefs) of Käáï and Kosala and inspired them to fight.¹⁸¹ They all maintained their high traditions and were ready to stake everything for the success of the republic. Ajätaáatru proved equal to his difficult task and took recourse to three means for the subjugation of the hostile state – machination, military strength, and strategy. He deputed his minister Vassakära on the mission of sowing seeds of disunion among the Lichchavïs at Vaiáälï. Infected with jealousies and quarrels between the different classes, between the rich and the poor and the strong and the weak, the Lichchhavïs became a changed people, lacking the social unity of former days.

But Ajätaáatru had to plan his military preparations for the conquest on a large scale. Räjagôiha was too far inland to serve as a base of operations against the distant Lichchhavïs on the other side of the Ganga. Therefore he selected a convenient site directly on the Ganga for the construction of a fort and laid the foundation of Päûaliputra, his new capital. He also made secret weapons of war which may be compared to modern tanks.

The construction of the fort was followed by his expedition against Vaiáälï. The war between Ajätaáatru on the one hand and these various republics under the leadership of Cheûana of Vaiáälï on the other was a long-drawn-out and arduous affair. It must have lasted for at least sixteen years. Ajätaáatru came out successful on account of his manifold and well-designed preparations.

These conquests of Ajätaáatru by which he became the paramount power of Eastern India provoked feelings of hostility in his equally ambitious rival king Chaîâa Pradyota of Avanti. He was planning an attack upon his capital at Räjagôiha. Ajätaáatru applied himself to the task of strengthening its fortifications. But the king of Avanti could do nothing against him. He thus extended the boundaries of his kingdom and laid the foundations of the Magadhan empire on solid grounds.

Kuru

Kuru is identified with modern Kurukshetra or Thaneshwar. As is apparent from the Mahä-sutasoma Jataka,¹⁸² it was three hundred leagues in extent. The capital of the Kurus was Indraprastha near modern Delhi, which extended over seven leagues. Another important town was Hastinäpura. Besides other small towns and villages known to us, were Thullakoûûhita, Kammässadamma, Kaîâi, and Väraîävata.

The Jatakas¹⁸³ mention the names of some Kuru kings and princes such as Dhanañjaya, Koravya, and Sutasoma, but we are not sure of their historicity in the absence of further evidence. The Jaina Uttarädhyayana Sütra mentions a king named Ishukära ruling at a town, Ishukära, in the Kuru country.¹⁸⁴ It seems that the Kuru realm was divided into small states of which Indraprastha and Ishukära were apparently the most important. “Kings” are mentioned as late as the time of the Buddha when one of them paid a visit to Raûûhapäla, son of a Kuru magnate, who had become a disciple of the Áäkya Sage.

Pañchäla

Pañchäla roughly corresponds to the modern Badaun, Farrukhabad, and the adjoining districts of the Uttar Pradesh. In very early times, this country was divided into northern or Uttara-Pañchäla and southern or Dakashiîa-Pañchäla. The Northern Pañchäla had its capital at Ahichchhatra (identified with modern Rämnagar in the Bareilly district) while Southern Pañchäla had its capital at Kämpilya, i.e. Kampil in the Farrukhäbad District.

The history of Pañchäla from the death of Pravähaîa Jaivali to the time of Bimbisära of Magadha is obscure. A great Pañchäla king named Chulani Brahmadatta is mentioned in the Mahä-Ummagga Jataka,¹⁸⁵ the Uttarädhyayana Sütra,¹⁸⁶ the Svapnaväsavadatta,¹⁸⁷ and the Ramäyaîa.¹⁸⁸ In the Uttarädhyayanasütra, Brahmadatta is styled a universal monarch. The story of the king is, however, essentially legendary, and little reliance can therefore be placed on it.

The Uttarädhyayana Sütra mentions a king of Kämpilya named Sañjaya who gave up his kingly power and adopted the faith of the Jinas.¹⁸⁹ It is difficult to assign any definite date to this ruler. It seems that in the sixth century B.C., the Pañchälas like others established a Saãgha form of Government of the Räja-áabd-opajïvin type and its leaders assumed the title of Räjäs. One of these Räjäs was apparently the maternal grandfather of Viáäkha Pañchälïputra, a disciple of the Buddha.¹⁹⁰

Matsya

The Matsya or Machchha country corresponds to the modern territories of Jaipur and Alwar. Its capital was Viräûanagara (modern Bairäû) named after his founder king Viräûa. Upaplavya was another city of Matsya kingdom where the Päîâavas transferred themselves from Viräûa on the completion of the period of their exile. The Mahäbhäratä¹⁹¹ refers to a king named Sahaja who reigned over the Chedis as well as Matsyas. The Matsyas had no political importance of their own during the time of Mahävïra. In Päli literature, the Matsyas as a people are usually associated with the Áürasenas.

Áürasena

Mathurä was the capital of Áürasena which is identified with the region round Mathurä. In the Mahäbhärata and the Puräîas, the ruling family of Mathurä is labelled as the Yadu or Yädava family. The Yädavas were divided into various branches, namely, the Vïtihotras, Sätvatas, etc.

At the time of Lord Mahävïra, Avantiputra was the ruling chief of Áürasena country. It may be inferred from the epithet ‘Avantiputra’ that Avanti and Áürasena were bound to each other by a matrimonial alliance. Avantiputra, king of the Áürasenas, was the first among the chief disciples of the Buddha through whose help Buddhism gained ground in the Mathurä region. Mathurä was also a centre of considerable importance for the Jainas. It is said to have been visited by Mahävïra, Ajja Maõgu, and Ajja Rakkhiya.

Sindhu Sauvïra

Sindhu Sauvïra is the Lower Indus Valley, Sindhu being the name of ‘the inland portion lying to the west of the Indus’ while Sauvïra includes the littoral as well as the inland portion lying to the east of the Indus as far as Multan. Vïtabhaya was the capital of this province.¹⁹² Udayana was a very powerful monarch of Sindhu Sauvïra. He was converted after he heard Mahävïra's sermon at Vïtabhaya. In course of time, he anointed Keáïkumära, his sister's son, king over Sindhu Sauvïra and joined the order under Mahävïra.¹⁹³ On the other hand, according to the Buddhists, Udräyaîa, king of Roruka, accepted Buddhism and was ordained by the Buddha.

Aávaka

The early Buddhist texts refer to Aávaka as Mahäjanapada the capital of which was Potana or Potali corresponding to Paudanya of the Mahäbhärata. This Aávaka of Buddhist literature was a south Indian country and it was located either on the Godävarï or comprised the region of Mahäräshûra.

The Kingdom of Aávaka is believed to have been founded by Ikshväku chiefs. The Mahägovinda Suttanta mentions Brahmadatta, king of the Assakas, as a contemporary of Sattabhu, king of Kaliõga, Vessabhu, king of Avanti, Bharata, king of Sauvïra, Renu, king of Videha, Dhataraûûha, king of Aõga, and Dhataraûûha, king of Käáï.¹⁹⁴ The Chulla Käliõga Jataka mentions Aruîa, a king of Assaka, and his Minister Nandisena, and refers to a victory which they won over the king of Kalinga. We are not definite about the historicity of these early rulers. In the sixth century B.C. at the time of Lord Mahävïra, the ruler of Assaka was a king whose son was prince Sujäta.

Avanti

The kingdom of Avanti seems to have comprised roughly modern Malwa, Nimar, and the adjoining parts of Madhya Pradesh. It was named after Avantis, one of the branches of Haihayas. It seems that when the Vïtihotras and Avantis passed away, the country of Avanti was divided into two kingdoms, one placed in the Dakshiîäpatha having Mähishmatï for its capital, and the other, i.e. the northern kingdom, having its capital at Ujjayinï. The southern kingdom, with its capital Mähishmatï, was ruled by Viávabhü, one of the seven contemporary kings of the line of Bharata.¹⁹⁵ At Ujjain, a Minister named Pulika (Puîika) is said to have killed his master and appointed his own son, Pradyota, the ruler in the very sight of the Kshatriyas.¹⁹⁶ Pradyota was thus Punika's son, and with him commenced the Pradyota dynasty.

Pradyota was one of the most powerful monarchs of North India in the days of Lord Mahävïra, and during that period Avanti rose to a high position. It was no less than Magadha in strength and position. According to the Buddhist text Mahävagga,¹⁹⁷ Pradyota was a great soldier; and, according to the Puräîas, he reduced many of his contemporary rulers to subjection. The Puräîas do not give us a detailed list, but those subjugated may have been among the rulers of Shoâaáa-Mahäjanapadas.

The relations of Pradyota with Bimbisära of Magadha were cordial. Bimbisära sent his famous physician Jïvaka to cure Pradyota when he fell ill. On the other hand, the Jain legends mention that Pradyota went forth to attack Räjagôiha, even during the lifetime of Bimbisära, but the attempt was foiled by the cunning prince Abhaya.¹⁹⁸ It is however definite that Pradyota's relations with Bimbisära's son. Ajätaáatru became strained. Ajätaáatru adopted an aggressive policy of attacking and conquering Vaiáälï. Being an ambitious ruler himself, Pradyota could not tolerate the aggression launched upon him by Ajätaáatru. Both of them wanted to establish their supremacy in northern India. Pradyota was planning an attack upon his rival's capital at Räjagôiha.¹⁹⁹ Apprehending this invasion by Pradyota, Ajätaáatru fortified his capital.

Pradyota wanted to consolidate and extend his kingdom. In his neighbourhood, there was the powerful kingdom of Kauáämbï ruled by his rival Udayana Vatsaräja of the celebrated Bharata family. Pradyota seems to have engaged in war with Udayana²⁰⁰ but later on amity between them was restored. Pradyota gave his daughter Väsavadattä in marriage to Udayana.

Pradyota engaged in hostilities with Pushkarasärin of Taxila but he was unsuccessful in his war.²⁰¹ Pradyota seems to have established close relations with the Áürasenas of Mathura. The king at this time was known as Avantiputra, a name signifying the existence of some relationship between Pradyota and the ruler of Áürasenas. The Lalitavistara²⁰² gives the personal name of the king of Mathura as Subähu.

Pradyota is said to have ruled for twenty-three years. That he was cruel is evident from the sobriquet Chaîâa and from the fact that he hardly ever followed a good policy. His younger brother, Kumärasena, was killed when he tried to put a stop to the practice of selling human flesh in the Mahäkäla temple.²⁰³

Gandhära

Gandhära comprised the region of the modern districts of Peshawar and Rawalpindi. Its capital was Takshaásilä. It was an ancient seat of learning where people from different provinces came for learning. It was also a great centre of trade and its distance from Banaras was 2,000 leagues.²⁰⁴

The Puräîas represent the Gandhära princes as descendants of Druhyu.²⁰⁵ Jaina writers inform us that one of the early kings, Nagnajit, who is reported to have been a contemporary of Nimi, king of Videha, and other rulers, adopted the faith of the Jainas.²⁰⁶ As Päráva (777 B.C.) was probably the first historical Jain, Nagnajit, if he really became a convert to his doctrines, must be placed between 777 B.C. and 544 B.C., the date of Pushkarasärin, the Gandharian contemporary of Bimbisära.

In the time of Lord Mahävïra, the throne of Gandhära was occupied by Pushkarasärin. He is said to have sent an embassy and a letter to king Bimbisära of Maghadha, and waged war on Pradyota of Avanti who was defeated.²⁰⁷ He is also said to have been threatened in his own kingdom by the Päîâavas who occupied a part of the Punjab. In the latter half of the sixth century B.C., Gandhära was conquered by the king of Persia. In the Bahistan inscription of Darius, Cir. 520-518 B.C., the Gandhärians (Gadara) appear among the subject people of the Achamenidan or Achaemenian Empire.

KÄmboja

Kämboja, which is included in the Uttaräpatha is generally associated with Gandhära in ancient literature. The Kämbojas occupied roughly the province surrounding Rajaori or ancient Räjapura, including the Hazara district of the North-West Frontier Province and probably extending as far as Kafiristan. Dvärakä, mentioned by T.W. Rhys davids as the capital in the early Buddhist period, was not really situated in this country, though it was connected with it by a road.²⁰⁸ Their capital seems to have been Räjapura, while Nandi Magura was another important city.

Though the Vedic texts do not mention any king of Kämboja, they do refer to a teacher named Aupamanyava who was probably connected with this territory.²⁰⁹ The Mahäbhärata²¹⁰ mentions their kings Chandravarman and Sudakshina, but we are not definite about them. In latter times, the monarchy gave place to the Saãgha form of government.

Small Republics in the age of Lord Mahävïra

Besides these sixteen big states in the time of Lord Mahävïra, there were also small republics ruled by autonomous or semi-independent clans such as the Áäkyas of Kapilavastu, the Koliyas of Devadaha and Rämagäma, the Bhaggas (Bhargas) of Suãsumära Hill, the Bulis of Allakappa, the Kälamas of Kesaputta and the Moriyas of Pipphalivana.

The Áäkya state was bounded on the north by the Himalayas, on the east by the river Robiîi, and on the west and on the south by the Räpti. Their capital was Kapilavastu, represented most probably by the ruins of Tilaura Koû near Lumbinïvana now identified with Rummindei in Nepal Tarai. Another town was Devadaha which they appear to have shared with their eastern neighbours, the Koliyas. They acknowledged the suzerainty of the king of Koáala.

The Koliyas of Rämagräma were the eastern neighbours of the Säkyas on the side of the river Rohiîi which helped to irrigate the fields of both the clans. A. Cunningham places the Koliya country between the Kohäna and Aumi (Anomä) rivers. The Anomä seems to have formed the dividing line between the Koliyas on the one hand and the Mallas and Moriyas on the other.

The Bhaggas (Bhargas) are known to the Aitareya Brähmaîa²¹¹ and the Ashûädhyäyï of Päîini.²¹² In the latter half of the sixth century B.C., the Bhagga state was dependent on the Vatsa kingdom – a fact evident from the preface to the Dhonasäkha Jätaka in which we are told that prince Bodhi, the son of Udayana, king of the Vatsas, dwelt in Suãsumäragiri of Bhagga State and built a palace called Kokanada.

About the Bulis and the Kälämas, we possess little information. The Dhammapada commentary refers to the Buli territory as the kingdom of Allakappa and says that it was only ten leagues in extent. Allakappa was perhaps not far away from Veûhadïpa, the home of a famous Brähmaîa in the early days of Buddhism who set up a cairn over the remains of the Buddha in his native land.

The Kälämas were the clan of the philosopher Älära, a teacher of Gautama, before he attained Sambodhi. They seem to have acknowledged the suzerainty of the king of Koáala because their town, Kesaputta, was annexed by this state in the sixth century B.C.

The Moriyas (Mauryas) were the same clan which gave Magadha its greatest dynasty. They are sometimes spoken of as Áäkyan in origin, but the evidence is late. The name is derived, according to one tradition, from Mora (Mayüra) or peacock. Pippahalivana, the Moriya capital is identical with the Nyagrodhavana or Banyan Grove mentioned by Hiuen Tsang.

Political Institutions

The age of Lord Mahävïra witnessed a number of important changes in the political sphere. The tribal stage of society gradually disappeared, giving place to organized states. Magadha, Vatsa, Koáala and Avanti became very powerful. The position and fucntions of the king gained in importance. The Samiti of the Vedic period was replaced by the Council of Ministers. The income of the states considerably increased on account of the induction of new resources. The government machinery became complicated and new officers were appointed to meet the new requirements.

We may divide the states of this period into two groups, monarchical and non-monarchical. We shall first discuss the government machinery of the monarchical states.

Monarchical Government

King and Kingship

In ancient India, a king was absolutely necessary and was considered an essential factor for the well-being of the people. He was regarded as the head of men.²¹³ Generally, the rulers of these monarchial states belonged to the Kshatriya caste. Though an absolute despot, the king was to follow the ten prescribed traditional duties of the king (dasaräjadhamme) : giving alms, a moral course of life, sacrifice, truthfulness, mildness, self-denial, forgiveness, not to cause any pain to anybody, patience, and a yielding disposition.²¹⁴ These are but prescriptions of the general Buddhistic morality applicable to all lay disciples.

According to the Ovaiyä, king Küîika-Ajätaáatru had all the qualifications of the royalty; he was honoured by the people, he belonged to a pure Kshatriya family, was duly consecrated on the throne, and was compassionate. He was a warden of the marchers, an upholder of peace, and a protector of the janapada. He was the master of palaces, bedrooms, seats, carriages and vehicles in large quantity. His treasury was full of gold and silver, and his people had ample food. He was the master of the slaves of both sexes, of cows, buffaloes, oxen and sheep. His treasury, granaries, and armouries were brimming to the full.²¹⁵

Very often we see in kings an unrestrained tyrant guided by his own whims and caprices, who oppresses and puts down his subjects by punishments, taxes, torture, and robbery. He suffers from many vices such as drunkenness, cruelty,²¹⁶ corruptibility,²¹⁷ untruthfulness, and unrighteousness.²¹⁸

There are instances of tyrannical rulers being removed from the throne or killed by the people. In the Padakusalamäîava Jätaka,²¹⁹ there is probably a trace of authentic history; in spite of its legendary garb, it may have preserved the memory of actual facts. It is narrated how a young Brähmaîa, after discovering by magic the treasures stolen and concealed by the king and his purohita, calls the king a thief in the presence of the assembled people who resolve to kill the bad king so that he may not plunder them any more. Another example of such a violent removal of the unrighteous king is found in the Sachchaãkira Jätaka.²²⁰ Here also the king is driven out of the town by the enraged Khattiyas, Brähmaîas, and other citizens, and in his place, a Brähmaîa is installed king.

Pälaka, the ruler of Avanti, was reputed to have been a tyrant. The populace headed by the President of the guild merchants of the capital deposed him, and, having brought out Gopäla from the prison, put him on the throne.²²¹

Those were the times when wars and quarrels among these states were very frequent as were internal rebellions too. Under such circumstances, the first and foremost duty of the king was the protection of the subjects against internal and external enemies. The people on their part bore the cost of administration of the state, the army, and the court by paying taxes. Gradually, with the growth of civilization, there came other interests as well into the foreground like the king's own cares : the land was made fertile, cities were built, and trade and commerce were encouraged.

According to the Jätakas, kingship was generally hereditary and when there were several sons, it was the eldest who succeeded his father to the throne, while the second son became the viceroy (Uparäjan). As a rule, only the sons of the eldest queen (aggamahisi) who must be of the same caste as the king himself and thus a Khattiya, were deemed legitimate. If the king was without a male heir and if he had a daughter, his son-in-law became heir to the throne. If there was neither a male heir nor a kinsman who could succeed to the throne, the successor was chosen by the ministers. The Jaina texts mention two types of kings, viz., Sävekkha and niravekkha. The former established the crown-prince on the throne within his life-time thus avoiding civil wars and other calamities. In the latter type, however, the crown-prince succeeded after the death of the king.²²² The question of succession to the throne was sometimes complicated by the ambitions and jealousies of the princes. The prince Küîiya-Ajätaáatru of Räjagôiha succeeded to the throne after putting his father Áreîika-Bimbisära into prison.

The ceremony, which accompanied the accession to the throne was, according to the Jatakas, the same as that which we know from the Vedas and the epics. The priest or the Purohita consecrated the king and sprinkled water upon him. Originally its significance may have been only a religious one, as symbolizing an act by which the blessings of the gods were showered or, more correctly expressed, invoked by magic, upon the king. It signified a certain dependence of the king upon the priest consecrating him.

The king lived with his court in a fortified town. The Paõchaguru Jätaka²²³ describes the royal entry of a prince how he went to the spacious hall of the palace and took his seat in godly pomp upon a throne studded with precious stones, over which a white umbrella was spread; surrounding him, there stood, bejewelled with all their ornaments, the ministers, the Bähamanas, the Gahapatis etc., and the princesses, while sixteen thousand dancing girls skilled in dancing, singing, and music, sang and played.

The Jaina canons²²⁴ give exaggerated account of the royal palaces. They are described as seven-storeyed, adorned with towers and pinnacles and supported by many columns. They are described as lofty, touching the sky and decorated with flags, banners, umbrellas, and garlands. They had domes and their floors were richly studded with various gems and jewels. The harem, (anteura), which was a part of the royal pomp,²²⁵ played an important role in the inner and outer politics of the country. The kings were fond of enriching their harem with beautiful women and girls without any distinction of caste. The harem was a great source of danger to the king and was, therefore, carefully guarded by eunuchs and old men. Besides, the Jaina texts mention the type of guards who should keep watch over the inmates of harem.

Other Members of the Royal Family

The handing over the Viceroyalty (Uparäja) to the king's eldest son generally took place after the completion of his studies.²²⁶ If he was still minor, the eldest among the younger brothers of the king would go to Uparäja.²²⁷ On ceremonial occasions, the Uparäja sat behind the king on the back of an elephant,²²⁸ a seat which was otherwise occupied by the Purohita. In the evening, the Viceroy would do the king's work. We read repeatedly of the king's fears that the Uparäjan might one day become very powerful and dominate him and of disciplinary measures taken by him to guard against such an eventuality. When Áreîika annexed Aõga to his kingdom of Magadha, he posted his son Küîika as Viceroy. The heir apparent thus got an opportunity of having considerable administrative experience before succeeding to the throne.

In addition to the Uparäjan (Viceroy) there was the Senäpati, a kinsman of the king. From the Devadhamma Jätaka, we learn that the king gave his younger brother the office of Uparäja and his step-brother that of Senäpati.²²⁹

Ministry

The Council of the Ratnins disappeared and its place was taken by the council of Ministers variously described as Mantrins, Sachivas and Amätyas. The number of Ministers usually depended upon the size of the state but the Ministry usually consisted of five members only. Among the Ministers of the king, Rajjugähaka amächha (Surveyor) occupied an important position. The Atthadhammänusäsaka amächchha guided the king in worldly and spiritual matters. The Senäpati was the Minister of War. The vinichchäyamchchha (Minister of Justice) not only gave judicial decisions but also advised on matters of law and morality.

The influence of Ministers upon the course of internal and external politics depended upon the ability of the ruler. When there was a weak ruler, these Ministers had a dominating voice. The decision regarding the successor was often left to the Ministers. Indeed, allusions to the actual exercise of sovereign powers by the Ministers are also found. In the Ghaûa Jätaka, for instance, the king sick of worldly life hands over the reins of government to his Ministers.²³⁰

When there was a powerful and self-willed ruler like Bimbisära upon the throne of Magadha, some Ministers were dismissed for giving bad advice, others were degraded for inefficiency, while a few were promoted for the wise counsel they gave.²³¹ Vassakära and Sunïdha were the Ministers of Ajätaáatru;²³² his contemporary in Koáala, king Prasenajit, relied upon the advice of his Ministers, Môigadhara and Árïvôidha, in carrying out important schemes.²³³

Officers of the Central Government

The Secretariat might have gradually evolved in the post-Vedic period. The art of writing was coming into more extensive use; kingdoms were developing into empires, and functions of government were becoming more numerous. It may safely be presumed that some kind of Central Secretariat must have existed in the courts of historical emperors like Bimbisära and Ajätaáatru.

The important officials at headquarters were called Mahämätras and were divided into three classes, viz., (1) the Executive (Sabbätthaka), administering all affairs and interests; (2) the Judicial (Vohärika); and (3) the Military (Senänäyaka). In addition to these, there were other officers too as is evident from the Jätakas.

Purohita : The family priest of the king, the Purohita, occupied an extremely peculiar position in the court. For the performance of sacrifices and magical chantings, the king needed a Purohita. The sacrifice was meant to protect the king from imminent misfortune and to help him in acquiring a city which was difficult to conquer. He not only guarded the king's treasures – this was part of his duties but also acted as a judicial officer.

There were officers who increased the wealth of the king. Rajjugähaka²³⁴ was the officer of survey. Doîamäpaka²³⁵ was one who measured with a dry measure. Balipaûiggähakas, Niggähakas, and Balisädhakas were the tax-collectors who sometimes plundered and oppressed the people by levying heavy taxes.²³⁶ Räjabhoggas²³⁷ were Royal officers appointed and paid by the king whose orders they had all to obey.

Särathi²³⁸ was the king's charioteer. The Keeper of the king's purse was known as Heraññika²³⁹ and the superintendent of the king's storehouse as Bhaîâägärika.²⁴⁰ Dovärika²⁴¹ had for his duty the closing of the gate of the city at night, while Nagaraguttika²⁴² was charged with the duty of arresting and executing the robbers of the city. Choraghäûaka²⁴³ occupied the public office of the executioner of thieves.

Provincial and Village Administration

In provincial administration, a considerable degree of autonomy was allowed. We hear not only of a sub-king at Champä, but of Maîâalika räjäs²⁴⁴ corresponding perhaps to the Earls and Counts of medieval European polity. In the small towns and villages, the king's power must have been represented by his officers.

The superintendent of the village, the Gämabhojaka,²⁴⁵ held a position of power and honour. He collected the taxes of the village and exercised judicial powers in the village, insofar as he settled quarrels and made the guilty to pay a fine. He issued prohibitory orders against the slaughter of animals and against the sale of intoxicating liquors.

While according to the Jätakas the villages transacted their business themselves²⁴⁶ evidence corroborating the existence of any regular Council or Standing Committee is not found in these works. Initiative was usually left with the headman, but if he acted unreasonably or against the established customs of the locality or realm, the village elders could set the matter right by pointing out his mistake.²⁴⁷

With the growth of the royal power, self-government was increasingly and proportionately reduced. In the Magadha kingdom, the Gämabhojaka (village Superintendent) remained under the personal supervision of the king, as it is clear from a passage of the Vinaya Piûaka.²⁴⁸ To the king Bimbisära, the overlordship of 80,000 villages was apportioned; he collected together the chiefs (Gämikas) of these villages and gave them instructions in worldly things.

Judicial Administration

In times of peace, the principal work of the king was to attend to the administration of justice. In the Räjoväda Jätaka, it is said of the king that he gave decisions in law-suits. The final decision in law-courts as well as the final word regarding the punishment for breaking the law remained with him.²⁴⁹ The legal life of the smaller towns and villages passed very much out of the direct sphere of action of the king and remained a matter for his representatives as long as no appeal was made against the judgements of these to the king as a higher authority.

The Ministers, especially the Vinichchayämachcha, and also the Purohita and the Senäpati, both took part in the administration of justice, advised the king and, in some cases, had some influence upon his judgements. Vinichchayämachcha was the Minister of justice. His judgement was final in the case of aquittal; in other cases, the matter was referred to the Vohärikas.²⁵⁰ He not only gave judicial decisions, but also advised on matters of law and morality. The Grämabhojaka also exercised judicial powers in the village. The penal code in the reign of Bimbisära included as punishments imprisonment in jails (Kärä), mutilation of limbs, and the like.²⁵¹

Military Organization

As wars and frontier troubles were very common in those days, the state had necessarily to keep and maintain a well-equipped and organized military force always at its command. The army consisted of four branches, namely, chariots (raha), elephants (gaya), cavalry (haya), and infantry (päyatta).

A chariot was a very important means of conveyance in olden days. Excellent horses were yoked to it and it was provided with an accomplished charioteer. The king's chariots bore special names. For instance, the chariot of Pajjoya (Pradyota) was called Aggibhiru (fire proof) and was considered to be one of the four jewels.²⁵²

The elephant played an important part in the army as well as on certain royal occasions. The kings were very fond of elephants, and the state-elephants bore special names. We hear of the elephant Sechanäga over which a great battle was fought between Küîika-Ajätaáatru and Halla and Vehalla.²⁵³ The Bhagavati²⁵⁴ refers to two other elephants of Küîika, viz., Udäyin and Bhütänanda. Nalagiri, another elephant which belonged to Pajjoya, was considered one of his four precious possessions.²⁵⁵ Bhadravatï belonged to Udayana who successfully carried off Väsavadattä on its back from Ujjayinï to Koáämbï.²⁵⁶ King Udayana was an adept in the art of winning over elephants by music.²⁵⁷

While the third constituent of the army was the cavalry, the foot-soldier formed its main portion. The whole army was under the control of the Senäpati whose duty was to enforce discipline among the soldiers.

Realizing the terrible loss of both men and money, people tried to avoid wars in general. They first tried the four diplomatic means, viz., Säma, däna, daîda, and bheda, failing which they had to declare war. Before the two parties actually entered into war, a Düta or a courtier, who conveyed the royal proclamation to the opposite party, was deputed with the message. We learn that before entering into war with Cheâaga, Küîiya sent his Düta to his opponent thrice, finally giving him orders to place his left foot on the foot-stool of the enemy (in a spirit of defiance) and deliver him the letter keeping it on the edge of the spear.²⁵⁸

The art of warfare together with its various tactics, stratagems, and practices, was well known in those days. Jaina texts give some interesting details of the military operations of the Magadhan forces. The sagaâavüha (waggon array) and garuâavüha (eagle array) are mentioned in Niryävaliyäo.²⁵⁹ The army of Cheâaga formed the former while that of Küîika the latter. Küîika for the first time made use of two secret weapons of war. The first, the Mahäáiläkaîûaka, was a kind of catapult hurling heavy pieces of stone. The other was the Rathamussala, a chariot which created havoc by wheeling about and hurling destruction by its attached rods.²⁶⁰

Siege-warfare, which was the usual mode of fighting, sometimes continued for a considerable time. Küîika is said to have besieged the city of Vaiáälï for a long period.²⁶¹ It was for this reason that the cities of those days were strongly fortified. Since Räjagôiha was too far inland and remote to serve as an efficient base of operations, Küîika had to construct a new base, a fort at a convenient site on the river Gaõgä, and thus was laid the foundation of the new capital, Päûaliputra. It was constructed under the supervision of his chief ministers, Sunïdha and Vassakära.

Strategy and diplomacy played an important part in this type of warfare. Manoeuvres and novel tactics were adopted to compel the other party to surrender. We are told as to how Abhayakumära, by a clever subterfuge which consisted in burying counterfeit coins in the enemy's camp, created suspicion in the mind of Pajjoya about the fidelity of his soldiers and thus foiled his attack on Räyagiha.²⁶² A regular system of espionage was another feature of siege-warfare. Spies were regularly employed to watch, over the activities of the enemy. Küîika deputed his Minister Vassakära on the nefarious mission of sowing seeds of disunion among the Lichchhavïs at Vaiáälï.

Taxation

About the system of taxation during this period, we possess little information. Jätakas may be presumed to give us a glimpse of this age, but the information they give is meagre. They tell us how good kings levied only legal taxes and how the bad ones so oppressed the subjects by illegal impositions that they would often flee to forests to escape from tax-collectors.²⁶³

Besides the taxes, there were certain privileges of the king which he could use for filling up his treasury. The unclaimed property belonged to the king.²⁶⁴ If anybody died without heirs, his succession would devolve upon the king. Sometimes the entire wordly possession of a person who renounced the world went to the ruling chief.²⁶⁵

Constitution and Administrative Machinery of the Republics

Along with the monarchical states, there existed some republican states too in the time of Lord Mahävïra. The terms Gaîa and Saãgha have been used for these republican states as distinguished from the monarchical ones. A Jaina work warns a monk that he should avoid visiting a country which has no king, or has a crown prince as its ruler or two kings fighting with each other or is governed by the Gaîa form of government.²⁶⁶ This passage denotes a definite form of government in which the power was vested not in one person but in a Gaîa or group of people. These ancient republican states do not satisfy the modern definition of ‘republic’ in which the power is vested in the whole body of citizens. There were republican states like Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Medieval Venice where sovereignty was not vested in one individual, but sometimes either in a small number of persons or in a fairly numerous class.

There is paucity of evidence regarding the constitution and administrative machinery of these ancient Indian republics. The early authentic literary works make only general statements about these republics, while the detailed information given by the Jätakas is also undependable unless confirmed by some other evidence. These ancient Indian republics possessed certain common features, though they reveal at the same time certain significant differences which were due to their needs and temperaments.

Directive Principles of State Policy

When Varshäkära, the chancellor of the king of Magadha, wanted to know the opinion of the Buddha on behalf of his master, as to the advisability of invading the Vajjis – the Lichchhavïs and the Videhas – the Buddha indicated to Änanda their seven points of excellence. These may be regarded as the directive principles of state policy. It is not improbable that similar directive principles might have been followed by other contemporary republic states. These principles are as follows :²⁶⁷

             1.      The Vajjians hold full and frequent public Assemblies;

             2.      They meet together in concord and rise in concord and carry out Vajjian business in concord;

             3.      They enact nothing not already established, abrogate nothing that has been already enacted, and act in accordance with ancient institutions of the Vajjians as established in former days;

             4.      They honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian elders, and regard it as a point of duty to hearken to their words;

             5.      No women or girls belonging to their clans were detained among them by force or abduction;

             6.      They honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian shrines (chaityas) in town or country, and do not allow the proper offerings and rites, as formerly given and performed, to fall into desuetude; and

             7.      Rightful protection, defence, and support is fully provided for the Arhants among them, so that they may enter the realm from distant lands, and may live therein at ease.

Citizenship

It seems that the right of citizenship was not granted to the whole population but was confined to the aristocratic Kshatriyas who had a voice in the administration of their respective countries. The artisans, farmers, servants and serfs had no such privileged position. When a quarrel arose between the farmers and servants of the Koliyas and the Áäkyas about the distribution of the water of Rohiîï, they reported it to the officer of their own state, who in turn apprised, their Räjäs of it. It is the latter who decided to go on war with the enemy state. This incident therefore shows that the commoners did not have much influence on the momentous decisions taken by the central government on important topics, such as peace and war, that affected the whole population.

Although there was a privileged system of citizenship, outsiders were eligible to it if they settled in the realm permanently. Khaîâa, who was a refugee of Videha country, settled in Vaiáälï and rose to the post of Senäpati and Gaîapramukha.²⁶⁸ Thus, once a person acquired citizenship, he was offered all opportunities to show his abilities in the political life of the country.

The General Assembly

There were separate Supreme Assemblies in each republic state. The Assembly of the Áäkyas seems to have been composed of 500 members. A few details of the Supreme Assembly of the Lichchhavïs of Vaiáälï are preserved in the Jätaka stories. The Ekapanna Jätaka²⁶⁹ speaks about the number of members of this Assembly. The Chullakäliõga Jätaka²⁷⁰ informs us that these members were given the right of argument and disputation. Further, the Bhadasäla Jataka²⁷¹ refers to the tank in the Vaiáälï city from where the families of the kings drew water for ceremonial sprinkling.

K. P. Jayaswal²⁷² interprets the passage of Ekapanna Jätaka in this way : “The rule vested in the inhabitants, 7707 in number, all of whom were entitled to rule. They became Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Commanders-in-Chief and Chancellors of Exchequer.” What the Jätaka means to say is that 7707 of the inhabitants, probably the foundation families, were the ruling class, that it is they who became the executive office holders. The natural meaning and interpretation of the Jataka text would make it mean that 7707 Räjans lived at Vaiáälï and that the number of Uparäjans, Senäpatis, and Bhaîâägärikas was the same in each case. As regards K. P. Jayaswal's view that the Räjan, the Uparäjan, the Senäpati and the Bhaîâägärika constituted the Cabinet of the executive authority, it seems to be a mere hypothesis unsupported by facts. So far as the monarchical state is concerned, the Jätaka evidence conclusively proves that the Räjan, the Uparäjan, etc. formed successive grades in the official hierarchy instead of forming a co-ordinate body.

R. C. Majumdar²⁷³ thinks that while the number 7707 may be dismissed as a purely conventional one, it may be accepted that the Supreme Assembly of the state consisted of a pretty number of members and must as such be held to be a popular one. Again, he says that the reference to the like number of Viceroys, Generals, and Treasurers would imply that each member of the Supreme Assembly possessed a full suite of officers requisite for the administration of a state. In other words, the whole state consisted of a number of administrative units, each of which was a state in miniature by itself and possessed a complete administrative machinery. The business of the state as a whole was carried on by an Assembly consisting of the heads of these states who were in their turn attended by their principal officers. R. C. Majumdar concludes with the observation that those who are familiar with the Cleisthenian Constitution of the city state of Athens cannot fail to find its prototype in the city of Vaiáälï.

D. R. Bhandarkar²⁷⁴ makes the Lichchhavi state a federation of small principalities. He writes, “The number of the kings constituting the Lichchhavï Gaîa was pretty large. It again seems that each Lichchhavi king had his separate principality where he exercised supreme power in certain respects. Nevertheless, the Gaîa as a whole had power to kill, burn or exile a man from their kingdom which meant to aggregate of principalities of the different kings.” Again he says, “The Lichchhavi Gaîa was a Federation of the chiefs of the different clans of a tribe who were also each the ruler of a small principality. Each confederate principality maintained its separate autonomy in regard to certain matters and allowed the Saãgha to exercise supreme and independant control in respect of others affecting the kingdom.” D. R. Bhandarkar concludes by suggesting some points of resemblance between the constitution of the Lichchhavï Saãgha and the confederation of the German States called the German empire.

A. S. Altekar²⁷⁵ has tried to justify the famous Jataka statement that there were 7707 kings and an equal number of Uparäjäs, Senäpatis and Bhaîâägärikas in the Vaiáälï State. When the Aryans came and occupied this territory, it seems to have been divided into about 7707 Kshatriya families, who were something like so many Zamindär families of the state. They were all Kshatriyas and were known as Räjans. The heads of these families lived in the capital while their managers stayed in the countryside and were known as their treasures. If the Kshatriya householders were known as Räjans, their sons were naturally called Uparäjans or Yuvaräjas. When they were unable to lead their army themselves, they used to nominate a Senäpati or General to act for them.

U. N. Ghoshal²⁷⁶ points out that the statements in the Jataka text belong to a late chronological stratum, while all references in order and more authentic canonical tradition describe the Lichchhavi constitution in very general terms simply as Saãgha or Gaîa. There are therefore grave reasons for doubting the genuineness of the later account.

The number of Vaiáälï nobles exercising sovereign power is 7707, not a round number. It means that there were nobles enjoying privileges who lived outside Vaiáälï. There is no mention of priests, traders and farmers. How, then, could they form a popular body ?

The reference to as many Räjans, Uparäjans, etc. is not corroborated by any other text. To base a definite conclusion on the authority of a single belated and uncorroborated text seems to be opposed to all canons of history. It is, however, hard to understand how a cumbrous constitution of the kind sought to be found in the Jätaka text which puts a premium upon disruptive tendencies, could work in actual practice.

The analogy of the Cleisthenian constitution seems to be hardly convincing. The ten Cleisthenian tribes consisting of the inhabitants of different demes were groups of citizens scattered over the whole of Attica, and their function was to elect five hundred members. On the other hand, according to the interpretation suggested above, the Lichchhavi Räjans with their staff of Uparäjans, etc. would also be resident at the capital, each forming a state in miniature.

Equally unwarranted is the analogy of the constitution of the late German empire. In this constitution, the emperor was the head of the army and controlled a considerable portion of the imperial finance. Among the Lichchhavis on the other hand, the constituent provinces had their separate armies and treasuries while there was no single ruler in charge of the federal army and finance. Again, the German princes, unlike the Lichchhavi princes, ruled their states from their respective capitals.

R. C. Majumdar²⁷⁷ has published an article in support of his earlier views and has thrown some new light on the constitution of the Lichchhavis. His observations are as follows :

The analogy of the Lichchhavi Constitution with the Cleisthenian constitution of Athens is not unfounded. The main object of the Cleisthenian constitution was the substitution of the deme for the clan. The transition from the principle of kinship to that of locality was also achieved by Athens.

The recently discovered Vinaya text of the Mülasarvästivädas sheds some interesting light on the constitution of the Lichchhavis which we do not find in Pali texts. According to it, Vaiáäli was divided at this time into three quarters inhabited by the high, the middle, and the low classes. The Vinaya text does not favour the view that the Supreme Assembly of the state consisted merely of the Lichchhavi nobles. For we find even new comers to Vaiáälï not only admitted into the assembly but also elected to the highest post. It also demonstrates the popular character of the Assembly. It contains strong sentiments against hereditary privileges and enunciates the principle of free election by the Gaîa to all important posts, including that of the Commander-in-chief which seems to have been the highest in the state.

Membership of the Assemblies depended upon whether the aspirant belonged to the privileged order or he did not. There was no electoral roll giving a list of qualified voters; nor were there any periodical elections. Had any such existed, they would have been referred to in the literature bearing upon the science of polity.

The place where the General Assembly met was called Santhägära. In the Assembly, there were different groups known as vargya, gôihya, and pakshya who clashed from time to time for power, a phenomenon so common that it has been referred to even by the grammarians. The term dvandva was used to denote the rival parties and the term Vyutkramaîa to their rivalry.

The rules of procedure and debates in these Assemblies seem to be the same as those of the Buddhist Saãghas which were modelled on Saãgha or Gaîa states. Transaction of the Assembly business strictly required a quorum without which it was considered to be invalid.²⁷⁸ Päîini referes to gaîa-titha as the person whose attendance completed the quorum in a Gaîa and the Saãgha-titha as one who completed the quorum of the Saãgha. The person who acted as a ‘whip’ to secure the quorum was known as Gaîapüraka.²⁷⁹ There was an officer known as Äsanapaññäpaka (seat regulator) who was in charge of the allotment of seats. Probably the executive officers had their seats on a dais and other members were grouped partywise in their front. A person who acted as a Polling Officer in the Assembly who known as Áaläkägrahäpaka,²⁸⁰ or he who collected votes. The technical term for vote was Chhanda, which meant free choice. The Saãghamukhya or the President of the state presided over the Assembly and regulated its debates. He was expected to observe strict impartiality; if he failed, he was furiously criticised.

Definite rules were laid down regarding the method of moving resolutions in the Assembly. Generally a proposal was repeated thrice, and if no objections to it were raised, it was taken as passed. In case of objection, it was determined by votes of the majority. When the ultimatum was received by the Áäkyas from the Koáala king, who was besieging their capital, their Assembly sat to deliberate whether they should open the gates or not. Some favoured the proposal, others opposed it. Eventually, therefore, votes were taken to ascertain the majority view, which, it was discovered, favoured capitulation.²⁸¹ Accordingly action was taken. This practice must have been followed by other assemblies also.

Voting was sometimes done by the secret method (gäthaka), sometimes by whispering method (Sakarîajapakam), and sometimes by the open method (vivatakam).²⁸² Generally, complicated questions were referred for settlement to different Committees.²⁸³ It seems that there were clerks in the Assembly who kept records of its proceedings. Matters, when once properly and finally decided, were not allowed to be reopened.²⁸⁴

The evidence of Buddhist literature shows that the General Assemblies of the republics controlled foreign affairs, entertained ambassadors and foreign princes, considered their proposals and decided the momentous issues of war and peace.²⁸⁵ Generally, this Assembly controlled the Executive. Though there is no specific evidence, it is almost certain that the appointments to the state services were made by this Assembly. That must have been one of the reasons for the keen contest for power that was often witnessed in that body.

The Assembly Hall also served that the purpose of a social club, where social and religious topics were discussed at times. The Mallas of Kusinagara discussed the problems of the funeral of the Buddha and the disposal of his ashes in their Assembly Hall. They, as well as the Lichchhavïs, are known to have requested the Blessed One to perform the opening ceremonies of their new Assembly Halls by first using them for delivering a sermon to a congregation assembled therein. The matters concerning commerce and agriculture were also deliberated there.

Executive

The membership of the Executive varied with the size and traditions of each state. The Malla state, which was small, had an Executive of four members only, all of whom are known to have taken a prominent part in the funeral of the Buddha. The Jaina Kalpasütra refers to a passage Navagaîa Räyäîo,²⁸⁶ the exact sense of which is uncertain. It may stand for the nine kings or Executive officers of the Lichchhavï Gaîa. The confederation of the Lichchhavïs and the Videhas had an Executive of eighteen members.²⁸⁷ It appears that normally speaking the Executive of a Republic consisted of four to twenty members. The General Assembly must have elected the members of the Executive Council, because it is inconceivable that the affairs of a state could have been managed by it.

The President (Räjä), the Vice-President (Upa-Räjä), General (Senäpati), and Bêaîâägärika seem to be the designations of the four Executive members. The President of the Executive was probably the President of the Assembly also, a person whose main function was the general supervision of the administration. Besides, he was to ensure internal harmony by promoting concord and preventing quarrels. The general looked after the army. The treasury was in charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There must have been also the portfolios of foreign affairs and of justice. In the course of time, the posts of Executive Members became more or less hereditary, and they assumed the title of Räjä.

The members of the Executives of the Republic States must have been normally capable captains and dauntless leaders, competent to guide the State on occasions of emergency. In addition, they were men of tact and experience, energetic in action, firm in resolution and well grounded in the laws, customs, and traditions of the country. Cheûaka, the Head of the Lichchhavï republic, was an influential leader of eighteen confederate kings (Gaîaräjä) of Käáï and Koáala who were his vassals.²⁸⁸ His sister, Tisalä, was, as pointed out earlier, the mother of Mahävira, the son of Siddhärtha, a petty chief of Kuîâiyapura near Vaiáälï. Khaîâa and his son Siãha, who were competent enough, were elected to be Generals (Senäpati) in succession.²⁸⁹ The President of the Áäkya republic bore the title of Räjä which in this connection does not mean king, but rather something akin to the Roman Consul or the Greek Archon. At one time, Bhaddiya, a young cousin of the Buddha, was Räja, at another the Buddha's father Áuddhodana, held that rank.²⁹⁰

Federation

The Lichchhavïs, according to Buddhist documents, formed a league with the Videhas and were together called the Vajjis. We also know from a Jaina Sütra that the Lichchhavïs had once formed a federation with their neighbour, the Mallas^.291 The Federal Council was composed of eighteen members, nine Lichchhavïs and nine Mallakïs.²⁹² The members of the Federal Council are designated Gaîa Rajäs. The composition of the Federal Council shows that the Federal states had equal votes and that the federation was based on terms of equality. Though the Mallas were not so great a political power as the Lichchhavïs, yet in Federal Council, both had an equal number of members, i.e., equal voice. Leagues were naturally formed to oppose the great powers amidst whom they were situated, namely, Magadha and Koáala.

Judiciary

It seems that the Judicial administration of the republic states was remarkable, and the liberty of the citizens was efficiently guarded. A person was not declared guilty unless his crimes were proved by all the courts.

The Aûûhakathä²⁹³ throws light espically on the judiciary of the Lichchhavïs of Vaiáälï. A criminal was at first sent for trial to the officer called Vinichchya Mahämattä. If he found the accused innocent, he acquitted him but if in his opinion, he was guilty he could not punish him but had to send him to the next higher tribunal viz., that of the Suttädhara. If he considered him guilty, there were three other tribunals with similar functions viz., those of Aûûhakulaka, Senäpati, and Uparäjä, each of which could acquit the accused, if innocent, but had to send him to the next higher tribunal if found guilty. The last tribunal, viz., that of the Räjä, had alone the right to convict the accused, and in awarding the punishment, the Räjä was to be guided by the book of precedents. Thus a person could be punished only if seven successive tribunals had unanimously found him guilty, and he was quite safe if but one of them found him innocent.

U.N. Ghoshal²⁹⁴ expresses doubt in the Judicial system of the Lichchhavïs described above. The first difficulty in accepting the above interpretation lies in the lateness of the Sinhales tradition which has come down to us only as prescribed by Buddhaghosha who flourished some eight centuries after the fall of the Vajji republic. Again, the very elaborate procedure described above for which there seems to be no parallel elsewhere, is enough to raise suspicion about the genuineness of the whole account. But to suppose that no one in the Vajji state could be convicted unless unanimously found guilty by seven successive courts is to imply that the supreme authority in the state had little or no confidence in the judicial capacity or honesty of its own officers. In any case, a cumbrous procedure of the kind suggested above providing ample loopholes for the escape of criminals from the hands of justice would be attended with grave risk of abuse of liberty by the subjects.

 

3. Social Conditions

The age of Lord Mahävïra is remarkable for many social changes. The religious reformers of this period opposed the caste system based on birth and even challenged the superiority of the Brähmaîas. The Sannyäsa Äárama became quite distinct from Vänaprastha during this period because of the influence of Jainism and Buddhism. Marriage was made gradually compulsory both for men and women. While society was based upon the joint-family system, the idea of proprietary rights had also begun to grow. The Gotra and Pravara came into existence. The old system of Niyoga gradually disappeared because of the growth of ascetic ideas in the society. Women enjoyed a high position. Because of the propagation of the doctrine of Ahiãsä, people began to prefer a vegetarian diet.

Social Organization

The four Varîas, Brähmaîas, Kshatriyas, Vaiáyas and Áüdras, which were formed more or less on birth during the later Vedic period, became gradually rigid and fixed. The influence of the Brähmaîas greatly diminished both in the intellectual and political field and their place was taken by the Kshatriyas who began to consider themselves superior to other classes on account of the great importance they attached to their purity of blood. Consequently, they occupied the first position in the caste hierarchy. This period also witnessed the deterioration in the position of the Áüdras, with the result that a number of religious leaders raised their voice for their uplift. Mixed castes resulted from organizations like guilds of people following different arts and crafts. Inter-caste marriages also led to the origin of such castes.

The feeling of caste superiority was intense during this period. Both the Kshatriyas and the Brähmaîas considered themselves to be superior to other castes. This feeling of superiority was widespread even in certain groups of the same caste because they considered themselves higher than others. The Udichchha Brähmaîas who were proud of their origin, regarded themselves as higher than other Brähmaîas. The Áäkya Kshatriyas regarded themselves as higher than other Kshatriya clans.

Both Mahävïra and the Buddha opposed the idea of a hereditary caste system, emphasising all the time that one's caste should be determined by what one did rather than by the caste of the family to which one belonged. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that case distinctions were abolished once for all during this period. No doubt, both succeeded in removing caste distinctions in their monastic order, but they failed in their attempts to abolish it permanently from society.

Kshatriyas

During the time of Tïrthankara Mahävïra, the Kshatriyas of the Eastern countries consisted of kings, nobles, ministers, military commanders, and other officers. In Jaina Suttas and Buddhist Pali texts, they are mentioned as occupying the foremost position in the caste order. It is believed that no Tïrthankara was born in a family other than that of a Kshatriya. A legend tells us that before his birth, Mahävïra was removed from the womb of Brähmaîï Devänandä to that of Kshatriyäîï Triáalä.

 The Kshatriyas took keen interest in the intellectual activity of the time. It is clear from the Jatakas that they used to devote considerable time to the study of the Vedas and other branches of knowledge. Several princes used to go to Taxila at the age of sixteen for higher studies. Even in the spiritual field, the Kshatriyas of this time were not behind any caste. The doctrine of salvation was advocated by Mahävïra and the Buddha, who were Kshatriyas. The superiority of the Kshatriyas is clear from the legend in which the Buddha decided to be reborn as a Kshatriya and not as a Brähmaîa. In one of the Buddha's discourses, there is between the Buddha and Ambaûûha, in which the latter recognised the Buddha's superiority.

There were certain factors which led to the feeling of superiority among the Kshatriyas. They enjoyed the highest privilege, the right to rule, that is, which could not be claimed by others. It is natural that the ruling class should enjoy power, prestige, and dignity. The head of the state was known to be the best among men. In was in the Kshatriya caste that the leaders of the two new schools of thought, Buddhism and Jainism, were born. It was but natural that the members of the caste from which emerged Mahävïra and the Buddha should have developed a sense of superiority. As both the Kshatriyas and the Brähmaîas received similar education under the same teacher, there was no valid reason for feeling inferior among the Kshatôiyas in the intellectual sphere.

Certain Buddhist texts also show that instead of following their own professions strictly, the Kshatriyas worked as potters, basket-makers, reed-workers, and cooks.²⁹⁵ We find Kshatriyas of the Áäkya and Koliya clans cultivating their fields.

Brähmaîas

The Brähmaîas of this period may be divided into two broad categories : (1) true Brähmaîas and (2) wordly Brähmaîas. The true Brähmaîas included ascetics, Vedic teachers, and priests. In fact, the true Brähmaîa was one who attached value only to virtuous conduct. In a dispute between two youths as to whether a person is a Brähmaîa by birth or by his action, the Buddha is said to have given his decision in favour of the latter alternative. Mahävïra himself was styled ‘Mähaîa’²⁹⁶ or ‘Mahämähaîa.’²⁹⁷

The general duties of the true Brähmaîas were the study of the Vedas, teaching, performance of sacrifice for themselves as well as for others, making and accepting gifts, etc. From the Jätakas we know of the Brähmaîas as renouncing the world and going to the forest either at an early stage²⁹⁸ or after passing through the successive stages of Brahmacharya and Gärhasthya.²⁹⁹ Brähmaîas have been described as well-grounded in the Vedas and versed in the different branches of learning such as Nighaîûu, Vyäkaraîa, and Lokäyata.³⁰⁰ Brähmaîas like Suîetta,³⁰¹ Sela,³⁰² and others³⁰³ possessed vast knowledge and imparted education to a large number of students, some of whom came to be known as the teachers of world-wide repute.

The practice of offerings sacrifices was very common among the Brähmaîas. During his tour, Mahävïra is stated to have spent the rainy season in a sacrificial house of a Brähmaîa of Champä.³⁰⁴ The Brähmaîas made sacrifices and assumed that the gods were willing to accept their offerings. On the occasion of these sacrifices, they used to receive däna. In the Somadatta Jätaka, it is narrated that the king gave a Brähmaîa 16 cows, ornaments and a village. With the spread of Jaina and Buddhist doctrines, the cult of sacrifice gradually declined. It is said that while Vijayaghosha was engaged in performing Brahmanical sacrifice Jayaghosha, a monk approached him for alms and converted him to his faith after telling him what true sacrifice really meant.³⁰⁵

The second category of the Brähmaîas, known as worldly Brähmaîas could not stick to their hereditary professions of teaching and priesthood but followed other professions under the pressure of social and economic necessities. According to Äpastamba and Gautama, trade and agriculture were to be taken up by them in times of distress. From the Buddhist sources, it is gathered that the Brähmaîas in the ordinary walk of life appeared as farmers, craftsmen, businessmen, soldiers, administrators, and so on. The Daáa-Brähmaîa-Jätaka³⁰⁶ states how Brähmaîas in those days pursued ten occupations against rules. They acted as : (1) physicians, carrying sacks filled with medicinal roots and herbs; (2) servants and wagon-drivers; (3) tax-collectors who would not leave a household without collecting alms; (4) diggers of the soil in the garb of ascetics with their long hairs and nails, and covered with dust and dirt; (5) traders selling fruits, sweets, and the like; (6) farmers; (7) priests interpreting omens; (8) policemen with arms to guard caravans and shops, like Gopas and Nishädas; (9) hunters in the garb of hermits killing hares, cats, fish, tortoises, etc.; and (10) menials of kings who helped them in their baths in the garb of Yäjñikas. This may appear as over-exaggerated but in other Jatakas too, there are references to Brähmaîas practising as physicians,³⁰⁷ ploughing the land,³⁰⁸ trading³⁰⁹ and hawking goods,³¹⁰ working as carpenters,³¹¹ as shepherds,³¹² as archers³¹³ and as hunters.³¹⁴

There were others who expounded dreams³¹⁵ and went about telling fortune (Lakkaîa-Päûhaka),³¹⁶ reading the past, future, and the character of an individual from the signs on his body (Aõga-Vijjä-Päûhaka),³¹⁷ and reading the luck of swords (Asikkhaîa Päthaka).³¹⁸ Some of them worshipped demons and practised magic. They possessed Mantras like the Vedabbhamanta,³¹⁹ the Paûhavjayamanta³²⁰ and Chintämaîivijjä.³²¹ The art of exorcism was also practised by a few.³²² It appears from these references and from the account of the Brahmajäla Sutta that the Brähmaîas could be found in all walks of life, and that some of them took up objectionable practices such as hunting, carpentary, and chariot-driving.

The picture of the Brähmaîas in Jätaka literature is quite different from the one given in Brähamnical literature. It is gloomy, especially in Jätaka literature. The Brähmaîas are pictured as greedy, shameless, and immortal. While the shamelessness of the Brähmaîas is clear from Junha Jätaka,³²³ the Sigäla Jätaka³²⁴ shows that they were greedy. That their moral standards were not quite high is clear from the Saãbhava Jätaka.³²⁵

Brahmanical literature on the other hand makes it abundantly clear that the Brähmaîas enjoyed certain special privileges. For certain offences, for instance, they received milder punishment than those belonging to other classes. They were exempt from taxes. In the matter of treasure-troves, they were more favourably treated than the members of other classes. As a matter of fact, these privileges were granted only to learned Brähmaîas, not to all of them. Moreover the Brähmaîas did not occupy a privileged position in the eye of law. A criminal, whosoever he was, was executed, as is evident from a number of passages in the Jatakas, one of which also speaks of the execution of a Brähmaîa.

Vaiáyas

The Vaiáyas were not homogeneous in their occupation but followed different professions. They were known as Gahapati or Gähävai, Kuûumbika and Seûhïs. Gahapati or Gähävais means, literally, a householder, but it seems to have constituted the high and rich middle-class families owning land and cattle. Jaina texts mention a number of Gähävai who were adherents of the Jaina faith. One such Gähävai was Änanda, a rich land-owner of Väîiyagäma, who possessed a large number of cattle, ploughs, and carts.³²⁶ Päräsara was another Gähävai, prosperous in agriculture (kisi) and hence known as Kisipäräsara; he had six hundred ploughs.³²⁷ Kuiyaîîa is described as another Gähävai who is said to have owned a pretty large number of cows.³²⁸

The expression Kuûumbika is used to denote the head of a family,³²⁹ but during this period, he belonged exclusively to the Vaiáya community. We find him both in cities and in villages; in the former mostly as a businessman, dealing in corn,³³⁰ practising trade³³¹ and money-lending³³² and in the latter as a well-to-do cultivator.³³³ Some of the Kuûumbikas figure as very rich citizens.³³⁴

The Seûhïs were the richest aristocratic section of the Vaiáya caste. They are represented as respectable tradesmen, enjoying a high position of honour among the members of their caste. They rendered various services to the kings and tradesmen. It appears from the Jatakas that some of them occupied an official position in the royal court. Nanda is mentioned as an influential Seûhï of Räjagôiha.³³⁵ Anäthapiîâika had spent considerable wealth for providing residence for Buddhist Bhikshus. They were usually charitable, and spent a good portion of their wealth in charities. Their sons received education along with the Kshatriyas and the Brähmaîa youths, and offered the teacher a handsome honorarium.³³⁶

The Áüdras

The word ‘Áüdra’ denotes a number of castes. In the contemporary Jaina and Buddhist literatures, we do not find a specific mention of a caste called ‘Áüdra’. But the occupation and status of a class of people living in those days make it clear that they were none other than the Áüdras. Both Mahävïra and the Buddha tried their best to improve the general condition of these down-trodden people.

The artisans were developing into different castes all engaged in their hereditary professions. The potters (Kumbhakära),³³⁷ smiths (Kammära),³³⁸ ivory-workers (Dantakära),³³⁹ carpenters (Vaââaki),³⁴⁰ etc. belonged to hereditary families and had their own settlements.

There were a number of unorganised, unsettled, and wandering castes, who earned their livelihood by entertaining the people. There were the dancers and singers (Näûa),³⁴¹ acrobats (Laõghanaûaka),³⁴² tumblers,³⁴³ jugglers (Mäyäkära),³⁴⁴ snake-charmers (Ähituîâika),³⁴⁵ mongoosetamers (Koîâadamaka),³⁴⁶ musicians (Gandhabba),³⁴⁷ drummers (Bheri Vädaka),³⁴⁸ conchblowers (Saõkhadhamaka)³⁴⁹ and so on. Expressions such as Bherivädakakula,³⁵⁰ Saõkhavädakakula,³⁵¹ Naûakakula,³⁵² Gandhabbakula,³⁵³ and the like suggest that they formed separate castes of their own.

Similar in status to these people but leading a more settled life were the cowherds (Gopälaka), cattlemen (Paáupälaka), grass-cutters (Tiîîahäraka), stick-gatherers (Kaûûahäraka), and foresters (Vanakammika) as they are described in the Majjhima-Nikäya³⁵⁴ and Kuîäla Jatakas.³⁵⁵ They probably lived an exclusive life, collecting together into villages of their own, away from the towns and cities which they visited for selling their produce to earn their livelihood.

The Despised Castes

There were certain castes which were looked down upon by the higher sections of society either due to their ethnic origin or on account of their following low professions. The Chaîâälas, the Veîas, the Nïshädas, the Rathakäras, and the Pukkusas appear as low castes.

Among the despised castes, the Chaîâälas were the most unfortunate. ‘Contemptible like a Chaîâäla’ became a proverbial expression. He was the lowest and the meanest on the earth,³⁵⁶ and the Sigäla Jataka compares a jackal, low and wretched among animals, with a Chaîâäla.³⁵⁷ The Chaîâälas were not only untouchable but also unseable. The daughter of the Seûhï and wealthy merchant washed her eyes when she saw the Chaîâäla at the city gate. Food was polluted at the sight of a Chaîâäla. Sixteen thousand Brähmaîas were once ostracized because they committed the sin of eating the food served by a Chaîâäla. One Brähmaîa was starved to death because of the same sin. The wind, that had touched the body of a Chaîâäla, was considered impure. The Chaîâälas lived outside the city gates. Their dialect was different and showed their ethnic difference. They were often engaged as carriers of corpses and as slaughterers of criminals condemned to death by the king.

However, we also come across some Chaîâälas who were respected in the society. Harikeshabala, born in the family of Chaîâälas, became a monk possessing some of the highest virtues. He subdued his senses and observed the rules of walking, begging, speaking etc. He controlled himself and was always attentive to his duty. He protected his thoughts, speech and body from sins.³⁵⁸

Along with the Chaîâälas, there were Nishädas, Pukkusas, and others. The Nishädas were generally hunters and foresters. The Pukkusas used to pluck flowers and lived generally by hunting and only occasionally by dirty work like cleaning temples and palaces. There were carpenters, basket-makers, flute-makers, weavers, and barbers whose professions were considered to be low.

Mixed Castes

There must have been a steady increase in the mixed castes during this period, and these are found mentioned in the Dharmasütras. These mixed castes arose not only as a result of the permitted anuloma marriages (a member of a higher caste marrying a woman or women of lower castes), but also as a result of the prohibited pratiloma marriages (where the husband's caste was lower than that of the wife). Difference in occupation must have resulted sooner or later in an increase in the number of such mixed castes.

From the four Varîas, there came into existence several castes and sub-castes, such as Ambaÿûha, Äyogava, Süta, and Karîa. A passage in the Sütrakôitäõga³⁵⁹ names the following classes in this order – Ugras, Bhogas, Aïkshväkavas, Jñätrïs, Kauravas, warriors, Brähmanas, Lichchhavïs, commanders, and generals. Other passages of the Jaina scriptures add princes, artists,³⁶⁰ and Kshatriyas.³⁶¹ The Nägas, too, formed a part of the country's population.³⁶² Many cities were named after castes or professions, e.g., Uttara-Kshatriya-Kuîâapura (after Kshatriyas), Dakshiîa-Brähmaîa-Kuîâapura (after Brähmaîas), Nätika (after Jñätis or Jñätrikas), Bhoganagara (after the Bhogas), and Väîijyagräma (the village of commerce.)

Slavery

During this period, slavery was quite common in the society, and both male and female slaves (däsas and däsis) were employed for doing all sorts of household work. Not only kings and wealthy people, but even ordinary families could keep slaves. The practice was confined not only to cities but was in vogue also in the villages. It was not restricted to a particular Varîa, but even Kshatriyas, Brähmaîas, and men belonging to the upper strata of society were reduced to slavery.³⁶³ It is said that Püraîa Kassapa and Ajita Keáakambalï had been slaves in their previous lives.³⁶⁴

There were different categories of slaves. Slaves born of slave mothers were known. That slaves were bought and sold is mentioned in the Jaina, Buddhist and Dharmaáätra literatures. According to Nanda Jataka,³⁶⁵ seven hundred paîas were enough for the purchase of a slave. The Sattubhakta Jataka³⁶⁶ reveals that one hundred Kärshäpaîas were more than sufficient for having nine slaves.

The physical fitness of a male slave and the beauty of a female one might have been responsible for a higher price. Slaves were also given in gift. The Digha and Aïguttara Nikäyas say that the Buddha had prohibited the Bhikshus from accepting the gifts of slaves, either male or female.³⁶⁷ According to a Jataka, a Brähmaîa demanded a hundred slave girls from a king along with other requisites as his gift, and his demands were fulfilled.³⁶⁸

War-captives, who were reduced to complete subjection, might have been either sold or given in gifts to others by their masters. Chandanä, the first female disciple of Mahävïra, was a slave of this type.³⁶⁹ Some people became slaves for paying off their debts. A widow who purchased two palis of oil from a grocer on credit, had, when unable to pay off the debt, to serve him as a slave girl.³⁷⁰ Slaves were made during famine for want of food.³⁷¹ The Vidhura-pandita-Jataka refers to those men who were driven to slavery mainly on account of fear.³⁷² Some were condemned to slavery as a punishment for their crimes.³⁷³

The nature of the work of a slave depended upon his own ability as well as the social and financial status of the master. In the case of rich masters, the qualified slaves could be kept as treasurers, store-keepers, and even private secretaries.³⁷⁴ Thus, from the Nanda-Jataka,³⁷⁵ it is known that the master showed his full faith in his slave by giving the latter all sorts of information relating to his treasure. In the Nänachchhanda Jataka,³⁷⁶ the Brähmaîa master is found taking the advice of Pannä, a slave girl, about the boon he would ask of the king.

In spite of all the commendable jobs given to slaves, there is no doubt that most of them were employed to perform ordinary household duties. U. N. Ghoshal rightly observes, “A slave was ordinarily engaged in cooking, fetching water, pounding and drying rice,  carrying food to and watching the field, giving alms, ministering to the master when he retired, or handling the plates and dishes, bringing the spitoon and fetching the fans during meals, sweeping the yards and stables and other such duties.”³⁷⁷

As regards the regards treatment meted out to the slaves, it depended upon the temperament of the master. There are conflicting statements on this subject. Generally masters harassed their slaves but in a few cases, they showed kindness towards them. Slaves were punished for their acts of commission and omission. Sometimes they were ill-treated by their masters when the latter chose, in a wanton mood, to do so. The Aõguttara-Nikäya³⁷⁸ states that the slaves toiled with tearful faces for fear of the rod. One Jataka³⁷⁹ informs that the wanton daughter of a high treasurer used to revile and beat her slaves and servants. According to the Nämasiddhi Jataka,³⁸⁰ the master of the slave girl Dhanapälï used to beat her. She was also sent on hire to work for others. Slaves were given thrashing and kept in fetters by their masters.

No serious attempt was made to improve the lot of slaves. Even a great reformer like Mahätmä Buddha did not have courage enough to admit any slave into his Order. The Lichchhavïs were not prepared to recognize the sons born of their female slaves as free men. Väsavakhattiyä was not recognised by them as a member of the Áäkya family only because she was the daughter of Prince Mahänäma's slave girl Nägamuîâä.³⁸¹

There are some instances to prove that some slaves received good treatment from their masters. They were given opportunities to learn reading, writing, and handicrafts along with their masters' sons. Kaûähaka grew up in the company of his master's son, got his education along with him, learnt two or three handicrafts, and was appointed as the store-keeper of his master.³⁸² Sometimes, the daughters of the masters fell in love with their slaves. In the Kaûähaka³⁸³ and Kalaîâuka Jatakas,³⁸⁴ girls of some reputed families are found marrying their slaves and eloping with them.

Certain methods of liberating the slaves prevailed in the society. War-captives made slaves could get emancipation if the vanquished party subsequently regained its strength and conquered the enemy. Slaves could also be liberated either by accepting Sannyäsa (monkhood) or by the will of the masters or by paying them a ransom for their emancipation.

Orders or Stages of Life

Even before the time of Mahävïra and the Buddha, the existence of the three well-known Aáramas (stages), namely, Brahmacharya, Gôihasta, and Tapas, is a fact evident from the Chhändogya Upanishad and the Bôihadäraîyaka Upanishad. As a matter of fact, the number of Äáramas is four, not there, though there are slight differences in their nomenclature and in their sequence. All the four were known by their specific names to the Jabälopanishad. From the time of the early Dharmasütras, these four Äáramas with their successive stages became well known. The Äpastamba Dharmasütra³⁸⁵ says, “There are four Äáramas, viz., the stage of a householder, that of one staying in the teacher's house, the stage of being a Muni, and the stage of being a forest-dweller. Äpastamba places the householder first among the Äáramas probably on account of the importance of that stage to all other Äáramas. To Gautama³⁸⁶ the four Äáramas were Brahmachäri, Gôihastha, Bhikshu and Vaikhänasa. Vasishûha Dharmasütra³⁸⁷ names the four Äáramas as Brahmachäri, Gôihastha, Vänaprastha and Parivräjaka. The Buddhist literature³⁸⁸ knew all the four stages into which the life of the three upper classes was divided.

The first part of man's life is Brahmacharya in which he studies in his teacher's house; in the second part he marries and becomes a householder, pays off his debts to his ancestors by begetting sons and to the gods by performing Yajñas. When he sees that his hair is growing grey and that there are wrinkles on his body, he resorts to the forest, i.e., becomes a Vänaprastha. After spending the third part of his life in the forest for some time, he spends the rest part of his life as a Sannyäsin.

It is believed that the scheme of the Äárama was so devised that the individual may attain the four goals of existence, namely, Dharma, Artha, Käma, and Moksha. In the Brahmacharya stage, through the discipline of his will and emotion, he attains dharma. In the Gôihastha Äárama, he marries, becomes a householder, tastes the pleasures of the world, enjoys life, has sons, discharges his duties to his children, to his friends, relatives and neighbours and becomes a worthy citizen, the founder of a family. He is supposed to attain Artha and Käma during this period. In Vänaprastha, he is called upon to resort to a forest life for pondering over the great problems of the life hereafter and to accustom himself to self-abnegation, austerities, and a harmless life. In Sannyäsa, he may succeed in realizing the supreme goal of Moksha in this very life or he may have to continue to rise in spiritual height until after several births and deaths the goal is in view.

This Äárama system was related to the theory of the three debts – Rishiôiîa, Pitôiôiîa, and Devaôiîa – and through this tripartite system, an attempt was made to pay them off. The debt to the Ôishis was paid off by studying their works at the stage of Brahmacharya, the debt to parents by procreating sons and educating them at the stage of Gôihasta, and the debt to gods by performing sacrifices at the stage of Vänaprastha.

It is difficult to accept the theory propounded by Rhys Davids³⁸⁹ to the effect that the four orders of life were of Post-Buddhistic origin and that the Brahmanical class unable to cope with the progress of new ideas formulated the theory of Äáramas according to which no one could become either a hermit or a wanderer without having first many years as a student in the Brahmanical school. The theory of Äárama was formulated long before the advent of Buddhism. It is possible that the separation of the last two orders, and particularly the development of the last one, may be due to the development of ascetic ideas stemming from the rise of Jainism and Buddhism.

No attempt was ever made to make the four stages obligatory except the first stage. It was not compulsory for an individual to enter into other stages. This system was never imposed arbitrarily with state legislation, ex-communication, perpetual banishment, or execution. The hold of the Äárama dharma on the life of the people was rather loose. Had it been strictly imposed on the whole population, the consequences would have been disastrous. It seems that it was confined only to the superior communities like the Brähmaîas without any binding obligation.

Family Life

Throughout this period the system most in vogue was the joint-family system, and it included father, wife, children, mother, minor brothers, and sisters. The relationship between the different members of the family was mostly cordial and affectionate. The father was the head of the family, and he was respected by all the members. His wife was the mistress who performed her household duties, looked after the members of the family, and was obedient to the master. The mother was highly respected by one and all. We hear of king Püsanandi who was greatly devoted to his mother.³⁹⁰ The mother on her part had great love for her children. When prince Meghakumära decided to embrace the life of an ascetic, his mother became unconscious and fell to the ground like a log of wood. She was sprinkled over with water, fanned with a palm-leaf, and was consoled by her friends. Her eyes were filled with tears, and using some of the most pathetic words, she persuaded her son not to give up worldly pleasures.³⁹¹

There are also instances which reveal that amity did not exist between one member of the family and the other. Daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law often sought refuge in nunneries to escape from the tyranny of one another. One daughter-in-law even conspired to kill her mother-in-law. In one case, four daughters-in-law drove their father-in-law out of the house. We have the case of a son who refused to marry on the ground that wives generally showed scant respect to their parents-in-law and even domineered over them.³⁹²

The conception of proprietary rights came into existence in the family circle. The reason was that trade and commerce prospered highly, and the number of professions increased. The members of the family began to earn their living independently. Some of the Dharmasütra writers began to give due recognition to the self-acquired property of the son. Gautama says, “Among the brothers one who is Vaidya, need not give his own earning to those who are not Vaidyas.” Vishîu clarifies the point a little further, saying that if the Vaidya had acquired his knowledge with the help of the family property, he must share the property with others.

Formerly, the father had extraordinary powers. There was a time when the gift or a sale of a son was not regarded as beyond the power of the father. These practices came to be disallowed during this period, no matter whether this was due to a Áästric prohibition in the proper sense of the term or to an alteration in the conception about the extent of the father's right over the son. With the beginning of the Vänaprastha system, the joint-family system began to crumble. Before becoming a Vänaprasthi, the father had to divide his property among his sons. Sometimes he had to divide his property among his sons against his will. The son started demanding his legitimate share in the property even against the wishes of the father. Some of the Dharmasütras declared that a son, who would force a partition upon his father should not be invited to perform the latter's Sräddha. This shows that such a procedure was disapproved by the society, but the son had legal rights and could get them enforced through the court of law. Gautama says that sons have rights by birth. Äpastamba opines that the connection of the son with inheritance cannot be broken.

Marriage

In the sixth century B.C., marriage was generally regarded as necessary and desirable for all. There are also exceptional cases where both males and females thought of leading an unmarried life by renouncing the world under the influence of religion. Sometimes such persons were unable to live up to their high ideals, and their lapses were furiously commented upon by the public. Hence it was the married who enjoyed real respect in society and felt elevated and dignified.

Forms of Marriages

From the Jaina and Buddhist sources, it appears that Brähma, Präjäpatya, Äsura, Gändharva, and Räkshasa marriages were common during this period. Marriages referred to in the Dharmasütras are of eight forms, viz., Brähma, Daiva, Ärsha, Präjäpatya, Äsura, Gändharva, Räkshasa and Paiáächa. Brähma and Präjäpatya marriages were the most popular. In these two forms, marriage was settled by parents. Auspicious days were fixed for the marriage ceremony³⁹³ and the bridegroom's party reached the house of the bride on a fixed day. The bride was carried in a car to the bridegroom's place escorted by a number of people.³⁹⁴

The Äsura form of marriage, in which a wife was procured by paying a substantial amount to her father, was also prevalent. The minister Teyaliputta wanted to marry the daughter of a goldsmith.³⁹⁵ A merchant, after leaving his negligent wife, married another girl by paying a large sum.³⁹⁶ A robber, who had plenty of money, paid the desired amount, and married a girl.³⁹⁷ From Buddhist literature we know that the father of Isidasi had received a bride as price for her in her marriage.³⁹⁸

The Gändharva or love marriage was also popular among the nobles of the time. In this form of marriage, both the bride and bridegroom made their own choice by falling in love with each other without the knowledge of their guardians, and were married without rites or ceremonies. The marriage of Udayana with Väsavadattä is well known. We hear of King Sïharaha of Puîâavaddhaîa who married a girl in the Gändharva way.³⁹⁹ Some Jataka stories⁴⁰⁰ also refer to this type of marriage. The Baudhäyana Dharmasütra⁴⁰¹ refers with approval to the view of some thinkers that love-unions ought to be commended as they presuppose reciprocal attachment.

People sometimes resorted to the Räkshasa form of marriage. The forcible carrying of the girl to be married was the essential feature of this kind of marriage. There are many instances of elopement and abduction. Suvarîäõgulikä, a maid servant of Udayana, was abducted by king Pajjoya, Ruppiîi by Kaîha, Kamalämelä by Sägarachanda,⁴⁰² and Chellaîä by king Seîiya. The Jaina texts⁴⁰³ also refer to the abduction of Dovaï by king Paumanäva of Amarakaõka. This type of marriage figures frequently in the Jätakas,⁴⁰⁴ and it remained quite popular among the warrior class from very early times.

The Jaina and Buddhist texts of this period do not refer to the Paiáächa, Ärsha, and Daiva marriages which are known from certain Brahmanical sources. In the Paiáächa marriage, the bride is either duped very often by making her overdrunk or physically overpowered by the bridegroom in order to make her yield to passion. Jainas and Buddhists do not regard it as marriage at all. When a daughter was offered in marriage to an officiating priest by the sacrificer, the marriage was designated as a Daiva one. This marriage was not practised among the Jainas and the Buddhists, who might have included it in the category of Brähma and Präjäpatya forms of marriage. In Ärsha marriage, the bride's father received a bull and a cow at the time of his daughter's marriage. Since it was thought to be a variety of Äsura marriage, it was probably not mentioned.

The most interesting type of marriage known as Svayaãvara (self-choice) was confined originally to the Kshatriya class, wherein a princess selected her husband of her own free will, from among the assembled suitors, or as a result of a tournament or contest in the use of warlike weapons. There are several instances of this type of marriage. The Näyädhammakahä refers to the Svayaãvara of Dovai which was attended by various prominent kings and princes.⁴⁰⁵ The Uttarädhyayana commentary refers to another Svayaãvara marriage of the princes Nivvui.⁴⁰⁶

Caste and Gotra Consideration

During this period, caste and family (jäti and kula) became important factors in determining marriages in order to preserve the purity of blood. Brähmaîas, Seûhïs, clansmen, treasurers, and others are mentioned as solemnising marriages with the members of their respective castes of equal family status. The Jaina and Buddhist accounts are supported by the Dharmaáästras which prescribe that the bride should be of the same caste. Generally, endogamy was in practice, and restrictions were imposed on the intermixture of castes.

During the Vedic period, Gotra denoted a cow-pen, but it came to be used in the sense of lineage or ancestry at this time. When king Prasenajit asked the Gotra of Aõgulimäla's parents, the latter replied that his father was of the Gärgya Gotra, and his mother of the Maiträyaîi.⁴⁰⁷ Opinions are divided about the consideration of Gotra in settling marriages. Some of the law-givers (e.g., Gautama and Baudhäyana) are silent on this point, but some of them prohibit Sagotra marriages. A verse in the Kachchhapa Jätaka suggests that generally, parties united in wedlock belonged to different Gotras.⁴⁰⁸

There are during this period a few examples of brothers marrying their own sisters. Buddhist literature speaks of the Áäkyas marrying their sisters for the sake of continuing their family line.⁴⁰⁹ Incestuous marriages were also prevalent among the Lichchhavïs.⁴¹⁰ Marriage with one's own cousin was also in vogue. Bambhadatta married his maternal uncle's daughter.⁴¹¹ The Jätaka stories refer to the marriages of Käáï and Áivi princes with their maternal uncle's daughters.⁴¹² The sister of the Koáala king Prasenajit was married to Bimbisära, and his daughter Väjirä was wedded to Ajätaáatru, the son of Bimbisära.⁴¹³ The marriage of Jyeshûhä to Nandivardhana, the elder brother of Mahävïra, also belongs to this category. Such marriages were not confined to the royal families, but were prevalent also among the common folk as is evident from several popular stories. Some Dharmasütras refer to the custom of marrying one's maternal uncle's daughter, but this practice was confined to the South.⁴¹⁴

Marriage was guided by two special laws among the Lichchhavïs of Vaiáälï. One of them probibited the marriage of a Lichchhavï lady with any outsider.⁴¹⁵ This law was so strictly followed that the secret marriage of Siãha's daughter⁴¹⁶ with the romantic king Bimbisära of Magadha brought on the dreadful fight between the Lichchhavïs and the Magadha people, resulting in the discomfiture of the former and their resolve to make “a requital of enmity (Vairaniryätana) even to the sons of the king.” They were so particular about it that this resolution was got recorded and kept in a box duly sealed.⁴¹⁷

The second law was in connection with Strïratna ‘the jewel of women’ (the most excellent woman).⁴¹⁸ According to this law, the Strïratna was not allowed to be married for herself, but was to adorn and entertain the society in which she was brought up, for which she was called Nagaraáobhini. She was thought to be one of the greatest treasures of the nation, a treasure which was not to be under the possession of an individual, however great he might be in position or in wealth. She was to belong to the whole Gaîa. At this time Ambapälï, for example, was the most excellent girl, and was therefore made Nagaraáobhinï.

Inter-Caste Marriage

The system of inter-caste marriages was not a common practice. Only the people of higher classes practised it, but not quite often. The marriage of a bridegroom belonging to a higher caste with a bride of a lower caste was known as Anuloma marriage, and the marriage of a high-caste girl with a low-caste boy was named Pratiloma marriage. We find in a Jataka that a king saw a beautiful girl named Sujätä, daughter of a greengrocer selling jujubes, fell in love with her and made her his queen consort.⁴¹⁹ A Jätaka describes Senäpati Ahipäraka as marrying Ummadantï, a merchant's daughter.⁴²⁰

Marriageable Age

There seems to be no doubt that the usual age of the bride at the time of her wedding was sixteen. The bridegroom used to be older than his partner and it can well be presumed that he used to be at least eighteen or twenty. The Therigäthä states that Isidäsï in her former birth was married at the age of sixteen.⁴²¹ Nuns like Viáäkhä and Kuîâalakeáa were sixteen years old at the time of their entry into the nunnery when their marriages were being contemplated. The commentary on the Dhammapada describes the girls of sixteen years as eagerly pining for being united with husbands.⁴²² The Jätakas clearly state that girls of this age were regarded as ripe for marriage and were possessed of rare beauty and grace.⁴²³

The Gôihyasütras composed during this period lay down that the consummation of the marriage (Chaturthikarma) should take place on the fourth day after marriage. Some Gôihyasütras also provide for the contingency of the bride being in her monthly course during the marriage ceremony. All this proves that the girl was married at an advanced age.

Remarriage and Divorce

As far as the husband was concerned, he was allowed to remarry after the death of his wife. With regard to widow-remarriages, evidence is conflicting. There are cases of permission as well as prohibition. Some Brahmanical sources of this period taking an idealistic view disapprove of widow remarriage. Their rules were followed by the priestly class and the higher section of society, but the ordinary people generally followed local customs. It appears that only a few among the higher section of society took recourse to widow-remarriage. Widows having no issue might have found it easier to remarry than those who had the burden of looking after their sons and daughters. The term Punarbhu was used to denote a widow who remarried.⁴²⁴ The Brahmanical authors are of opinion that generally the remarriage of the widow should be confined to a member of the family of her deceased husband. The reason was the popularity of Niyoga from the earlier period.

It appears from the Buddhist sources that there was no such restriction. Probably liberal rules were followed by people of the eastern part of the country where widows had more freedom in the selection of their new husbands than those of Madhyadeáa. According to the Nanda Jataka,⁴²⁵ a squire who had a young wife was apprehensive of her marrying after his death and transferring the movable family property to her new husband. The Susima Jataka⁴²⁶ describes a king's priest marrying the widowed queen. In the Aõguttara Nikäya,⁴²⁷ we find a lady assuring her husband on his death-bed that she would never remarry, but would look after her household and her children.

Besides widowhood, a lady had to face the problem of remarriage when her husband either became a recluse or went abroad and did not return. Because of the rise of the new religious ascetic orders like Jainism and Buddhism, a large number of young men renounced the world in their youthful age abandoning their young wives. We know from the Jätakas that some of them followed their husbands while others, whose desires and cravings for their youthful pleasures were still unsatisfied, remarried and restarted their conjugal lives. In some of the Jätakas, husbands are represented as expressing their views to the effect that their wives would take new husbands after they had renounced the world.⁴²⁸ Some Brahmanical sources tell us that in case a husband became an ascetic or went abroad and did not return, the wife was free to marry within a limited time.⁴²⁹

Marriage after divorcing the husband or wife on certain grounds was also prevalent in society. According to Vasishûha, one can seek a new husband if the first proves to be impotent or mean or insane. The Buddhist Jätakas also refer to such cases. It appears that marriage by divorce was common in the lower section of society, but in the higher classes, it was resorted to only in a few cases. The Piyajätika Sutta of the Majjhima-Nikäya states that the relatives of a woman, who did not like her husband, intended to separate her from him and to unite her with another person.⁴³⁰ A Jätakas relates the story of princess Phusati of Madra, who wanted to get rid of her ugly husband Kansa (the Bodhisativa) of Kuáävatï and to marry another prince who was handsome, according to her wishes.⁴³¹

Family and local traditions also played an important part in controlling this custom. A Jätakas story shows that in spite of the absence of any deep-rooted lover for the husband the wife did not exercise her right of divorcing him, but preferred to remain in her uncomfortable condition.⁴³² It is said that a Brähmaîa who was asked, whether he would keep or abandon his wife found guilty of adultery, expressed his view against deserting her and remarrying.⁴³³

Polygamy and Monogamy

Generally monogamy was followed by the vast majority of the people, but polygamy was fashion among the rich and ruling sections of the society. The kings and princes considered it a privilege to have a crowded harem. In the Jätakas, most of the princes have been described as polygamous.⁴³⁴ Kings like Bimbisära, Prasenajit, Udayana, and Ajätaáatru were all polygamous. The rich house-holder of Räjagôiha, Mahäsayaga, had thirteen wives.⁴³⁵ The examples of Salïbhadra, Dhanya Kumar, Jambu Kumar are well known in Jaina literature. The Raûûhapäla-Sutta describes Raûûhapäla, the son of a Brähmaîa, Gôihapati, as having several wives.⁴³⁶ In the Aõguttara-Nikäya, a wealthy and happy householder is described as being waited upon by four wives with all their charms.⁴³⁷ The Therïgäthä tells us that Isidäsï in her former birth was married to a merchant's son who had already another wife.⁴³⁸ The Päraskara Gôihyasütra states that a Brähmaîa should have three wives, a Kshatriya two and a Vaiáya one, besides on Áüdra wife to all.⁴³⁹

The Courtesans

Courtesans became a special feature of city life during this age, especially in cities like Räjagôiha. Champä, Vaiáälï, Mithilä, Säketa and Árävastï. People had become wealthy and begun to entertain themselves in different ways. As the courtesans were custodians of such fine arts as singing, dancing, and music, they occupied a respectable position in the society of the period. They were beautiful, graceful and pleasant. As their presence in a royal city was material to its citizens, they were especially installed with honour. They appeared even in royal palaces on festive occasions to give the finest exhibition of their artistic talent.

Sälavatï of Räjagriha and Ambapälï of Vaiáälï were two of the most well-known courtesans of this time. When Ambapälï was installed as a courtesans of Vaiáälï, her example was followed by installing Sälavatï as a courtesan of Räjagriha.⁴⁴⁰ Both were not only superbly charming but also well versed in singing, dancing and music. The fact that the Buddha accepted an invitation extended to him by Ambapälï and went to her residence with the Bhikshu Saãgha⁴⁴¹ and that she dedicated the Ambapälï grove to the Saãgha,⁴⁴² shows that a courtesan occupied no mean position. The way in which Ambapälï proceeded to see the Buddha at Koûigäma with a number of magnificent vehicles⁴⁴³ shows that her equipage was almost royal. She was supposed to be “the pride of the city” (Nagaraáobhinï). King Bimbisära of Magadha was so much intoxicated by her beauty that he risked even his life to pay a visit to her at a time when a severe fighting was going on between Magadha and Vaiáälï. He is said to have stayed with her for some time. And it was Ambapälï who is said to have given birth to prince Abhaya, son of Bimbisära. That the great physician Jïvaka was born of Sälavatï,⁴⁴⁴ the courtesan of Räjagôiha,⁴⁴⁵ shows that some of the sons of the courtesans could rise to eminence and occupy position that had a prestige value in society.

The Jätakas inform us about Sämä,⁴⁴⁶ Sulasä,⁴⁴⁷ Kälï⁴⁴⁸ and other courtesans.⁴⁴⁹ Kälï is described in the Takkäriya Jätaka as one possessed of the qualities of social decency and self-respect. The Sulasä Jätaka represents Sulasä as a woman of rare wisdom and courage. About the income of these courtesans, the Jätaka stories give exaggerated accounts which are not reliable. On the other hand, the information given by the Vinaya Piûaka appears to be authentic and we may accept fifty to one hundred silver punch-marked coins as their daily income. Ambapälï is described as earning 50 Kahäpaîas per night, whereas Sälavatï is said to have been charging 100 Kahäpaîas.⁴⁵⁰

The character of the courtesans has also its seamy side. Generally, they sold their flesh for money for which they were looked down upon by men and women alike. Their profession is described as a vile trade (nichakamma).⁴⁵¹ Expression like ‘a house of ill fame’ (nichch-ghara or gaîikäghara)⁴⁵² and ‘a low woman,⁴⁵³ (duratthi kumbhadäsï) indicate that the profession of the prostitute was not considered respectable.

Food and Drink

Both literary and archeological sources reveal that rice, wheat, and pulses were the main cereals which people consumed. Rice, no doubt, was known in the preceding age too, but wheat and pulses were added to the dietary system of this period. Rice was very popular. The chief varieties⁴⁵⁴ of rice were Säli, Taîâula, Häyana, Shashûika, and Nivära which seem to have been cultivated in this region. Rice of superior quality was taken by the rich sections of society, whereas the inferior variety was the food of the people belonging to the lower strata.⁴⁵⁵

Cooked rice was called Bhatta or Bhakta⁴⁵⁶, and by Päîini Odana.⁴⁵⁷ It was ordinarily eaten with süpa (pulses) and vegetables.⁴⁵⁸ Päîini tells us that meat, süpa, vegetables, guâa, ghee, etc. were added to Bhäta.⁴⁵⁹ Rice-milk was highly praised by Buddha, and he recommended it for the Bhikshus as a morning breakfast.⁴⁶⁰ Honey was also mixed with it. Yavägü (rice-barley gruel) was a common liquid food.

There were a few special preparations known to us. Sattu⁴⁶¹ was also eaten during this period. Kummäsa or Kulmäsha was a coarse food of the poor.⁴⁶² Sweet cake now known as Puvä was a favourite dish. According to the Illisa Jätaka, it was prepared from rice, milk, sugar, ghee, and honey. Piûûêakhajjaka (Khäja) was another sweetmeat liked by all. Säriputta was fond of it but took a vow not to eat it, for it tended to make him greedy.⁴⁶³ Palala (modern tila-kuûa) was a delicious sweetmeat mentioned by Päîini.⁴⁶⁴ It was made of powdered Tila and sugar or Guâa. Pishûaka, now known as Pithä, was prepared from the ground paste of rice.⁴⁶⁵

Milk and milk-products like curd, butter, and ghee were largely eaten.⁴⁶⁶ Vegetables like pumpkins, gourds, and cucumbers and fruits like mango and jamboo were included in the diet of the people.⁴⁶⁷

That during this period a large number of people were non-vegetarian is proved by the discovery of bones at different archaeological sites. It seems that the custom of meat-eating was so common that the Buddha prohibited it for the Bhikshus.

This practice of meat-eating during this period might have produced a natural reaction in the mind of Tïrthankara Mahävïra which led to the propagation of the doctrine of non-injury to living beings. For the protection of animal life, he instructed both monks and laymen to abstain from meat-eating.

Drinking was fairly common during this period. There are references to Surä and Meraya (Maireya) as intoxicating drinks.⁴⁶⁸ The kings, princes, nobles, warriors, and rich people called Seûhïs drank liquor. The religious people and the Brahmachärins of all castes were to abstain from drinking. The Jaina sütras probibit the Jaina monks from visiting festival gatherings in which people drank.⁴⁶⁹ According to the rules of the Vinaya, the novices were not to drink strong drinks and intoxicating liquors,⁴⁷⁰ and the same rule applied to the elders. We learn from the Dharmasütras of Äpastamba,⁴⁷¹ Gautama,⁴⁷² and Vishîu⁴⁷³ that the Brähmaîas were not allowed to indulge in drinking.

The Jaina and Buddhist sources inform us that the festive occasions were marked by feasting, drinking, and merry-making.⁴⁷⁴ There used to be a festival known as Sürä-Nakkhala (drinking festival) which was marked by unrestricted drinking, feasting and dancing,⁴⁷⁵ leading finally to brawls in which people broke their heads, feet, and hands.⁴⁷⁶

Liquor was manufactured or consumed on a large scale. Taverns (Päîägära : Kappasälä) where various kinds of wine were sold were common. From the Jätakas stories, we know that there were crowded taverns, where liquor was kept filled in jars and sold.⁴⁷⁷ The owners of the taverns kept apprentices who helped them is their business.⁴⁷⁸ Generally, these taverns were managed by the Seûhïs who were the aristocratic Vaiáyas owning considerable property. Some people used to go to these taverns for drinking with their wives.⁴⁷⁹

Dress and Ornaments

Besides the usual vastra and vasana denoting clothing in older literature, chïra, chela, and chïvara began to be used during this period. There were different fabrics used for preparing clothes. The Ächäräõga⁴⁸⁰ mentions some of them as wool (jaõgiya or jäõghika), bhaõga (bhag tree), hemp (säîiva), palm leaves (pottaga), linen (khomiya), and tüla (tülakada). It is started that a monk or a nun could beg for the garments mentioned above.⁴⁸¹ Although cotton (kärpäsa) was the material generally used, cloths made of silk (kauáeya); linen (kshauma), and wool (aurîa) were also in demand.

The dress of the people consisted of antaraväsaka (under garment), uttaräsaõga (upper garment), and Ushaîisha (turban or headgear). The Vinaya texts⁴⁸² refer to the variety of ways in which dhotis (undergarments) were arranged – hastiáauîâika (forming the trunk of an elephant), tälavôintaka (in the shape of a fan), matsyavälaka (like a fish-tail), chatushkarîaka (having four angles), and Áatavallika (having a hundred folds). The same texts refer to a complete weaving outfit. The cloth was fastened at the waist by a Käyabandha (girdle), and a variety of girdles are mentioned in the Vinaya Texts,⁴⁸³ such as Kaläbuha (those made of many strings plaited together), deââubhaka (those made like the head of a water-snake), muraja (those with tambourines or beads on them), or maddavïna (those with ornaments hanging from them). Both men and women wore Kañchuka, a robe probably like the modern shirt.⁴⁸⁴ Women wore särïs known as saûïa-säûûaka.⁴⁸⁵ Ladies of the upper strata of society wore coloured garments, while widows were dressed in white.

A Jaina monk was allowed to wear three robes, two linen (Kshaumika), undergarments (omachela) and one woollen (aurîika) uppergarment.⁴⁸⁶ The Buddha also allowed three robes : a double waist cloth (saãghäta), an upper robe (uttaräsaõga), and a single undergarment (antaraväsaka).⁴⁸⁷

Both from the Jaina⁴⁸⁸ and Buddhist