Jaina Sutras
Part I
The Akaranga Sutra
The Kalpa Sutra
Translated from Prakrit by Hermann Jacobi
Introduction
THE origin and development of the Gaina sect is a subject on which some scholars still think it safe to speak with a sceptical caution, though this seems little warranted by the present state of the whole question; for a large and ancient literature has been made accessible, and furnishes ample materials for the early history of the sect to all who are willing to collect them. Nor is the nature of these materials such as to make us distrust them. We know that the sacred books of the Gainas are old, avowedly older than the Sanskrit literature which we are accustomed to call classical. Regarding their antiquity, many of those books can vie with the oldest books of the northern Buddhists. As the latter works have successfully been used as materials for the history of Buddha and Buddhism, we can find no reason why we should distrust the sacred books of the Gainas as an authentic source of their history. If they were full of contradictory statements, or the dates contained in them would lead to contradictory conclusions, we should be justified in viewing all theories based on such materials with suspicion. But the character of the Gaina literature differs little in this respect also from the Buddhistical, at least from that of the northern Buddhists. How is it then that so many writers are inclined to accord a different age and origin to the Gaina sect from what can be deduced from their own literature? The obvious reason is the similarity, real or apparent, which European scholars have discovered between Gainism and Buddhism. Two sects which have so much in common could not, it was thought, have been independent from each other, but one sect must needs have grown out of, or branched off from the other. This a priori opinion has prejudiced the discernment of many critics, and still does so. In the following pages I shall try to destroy this prejudice, and to vindicate that authority and credit of the sacred books of the Gainas to which they are entitled. We begin our discussion with an inquiry about Mahavira, the founder or, at least, the last prophet of the Gaina church. It will be seen that enough is known of him to invalidate the suspicion that he is a sort of mystical person, invented or set up by a younger sect some centuries after the pretended age of their assumed founder.
The Gainas, both Svetambaras and Digambaras, state that Mahavira was the son of king Siddhartha of Kundapura or Kundagrama. They would have us believe that Kundagrama was a large town, and Siddhartha a powerful monarch. But they have misrepresented the matter in overrating the real state of things, just as the Buddhists did with regard to Kapilavastu and Suddhodana. For Kundagrama is called in the Akaranga Sutra a samnivesa, a term which the commentator interprets as denoting a halting-place of caravans or processions. It must therefore have been an insignificant place, of which tradition has only recorded that it lay in Videha (Akaranga Sutra II, 15, section 17). Yet by combining occasional hints in the Bauddha and Gaina scriptures we can, with sufficient accuracy, point out where the birthplace of Mahavira was situated; for in the Mahavagga of the Buddhists we read that Buddha, while sojourning at Kotiggama, was visited by the courtezan Ambapali and the Likkhavis of the neighbouring capital Vesali. From Kotiggama he went to where the Natikas (lived). There he lodged in the Natika Brick-hall, in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan Ambapali possessed a park, Ambapalivana, which she bequeathed on Buddha and the community. From there he went to Vesali, where he converted the general-in-chief (of the Likkhavis), a lay-disciple of the Nirgranthas (or Gaina monks). Now it is highly probable that the Kotiggama of the Buddhists is identical with the Kundaggama of the Gainas. Apart from the similarity of the names, the mentioning of the Natikas, apparently identical with the Gnatrika Kshatriyas to whose clan Mahavira belonged, and of Siha, the Gaina, point to the same direction. Kundagrama, therefore, was probably one of the suburbs of Vaisali, the capital of Videha. This conjecture is borne out by the name Vesalie, i.e. Vaisalika given to Mahavira in the Sutrakritanga I, 3 . The commentator explains the passage in question in two different ways, and at another place a third explanation is given. This inconsistency of opinion proves that there was no distinct tradition as to the real meaning of Vaisalika, and so we are justified in entirely ignoring the artificial explanations of the later Gainas. Vaisalika apparently means a native of Vaisali: and Mahavira could rightly be called that when Kundagrama was a suburb of Vaisali, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner. If then Kundagrama was scarcely more than an outlying village of Vaisali, it is evident that the sovereign of that village could at best have been only a petty chief. Indeed, though the Gainas fondly imagine Siddhartha to have been a powerful monarch and depict his royal state in glowing, but typical colours, yet their statements, if stripped of all rhetorical ornaments, bring out the fact that Siddhartha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya — his wife Trisala is, so far as I remember, never styled Devi, queen, but always Kshatriyani. Whenever the Gnatrika Kshatriyas are mentioned, they are never spoken of as Siddhartha’s Samantas or dependents, but are treated as his equals. From all this it appears that Siddhartha was no king, nor even the head of his clan, but in all probability only exercised the degree of authority which in the East usually falls to the share of landowners, especially of those belonging to the recognised aristocracy of the country. Still he may have enjoyed a greater influence than many of his fellow-chiefs; for he is recorded to have been highly connected by marriage. His wife Trisala was sister to Ketaka, king of Vaisali . She is called Vaidehi or Videhadatta , because she belonged to the reigning line of Videha.
Buddhist works do not mention, for aught I know, Ketaka, king of Vaisali; but they tell us that the government of Vesali was vested in a senate composed of the nobility and presided over by a king, who shared the power with a viceroy and a general-in-chief . In Gaina books we still have traces of this curious government of the Likkhavis; for in the Nirayavali Sutra it is related that king Ketaka, whom Kunika, al. Agatasatru, king of Kampa, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kasi and Kosala, the Likkhavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kunika’s demands or go to war with him. Again, on the death of Mahavira the eighteen confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival to be held in memory of that event , but no separate mention is made of Ketaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that Ketaka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the constitution of Vesali. So we are enabled to understand why the Buddhists took no notice of him, as his influence was not very great, and, besides, was used in the interest of their rivals. But the Gainas cherished the memory of the maternal uncle and patron of their prophet, to whose influence we must attribute the fact, that Vaisali used to be a stronghold of Gainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.
We have traced the connection of Mahavira’s family not out of mere curiosity, which indiscriminately collects all historical facts however insignificant in themselves, but for the reason that the knowledge of this connection enables us to understand how Mahavira came to obtain his success. By birth he as well as Buddha was a member of a feudal aristocracy similar to that of the Yadavas in the legends about Krishna, or that of the Rajpoots of the present day. In feudal societies family ties are very strong and long remembered . Now we know for certain that Buddha at least addressed himself chiefly to the members of the aristocracy, that the Gainas originally preferred the Kshatriyas to the Brahmans . It is evident that both Mahavira and Buddha have made use of the interest and support of their families to propagate their order. Their prevalence over other rivals was certainly due in some degree to their connection with the chief families of the country.
Through his mother Mahavira was related to the ruling dynasty in Magadha; for Ketaka’s daughter Kellana was married to Seniya Bimbhisara or Bimbisara, king of Magadha, and residing in Ragagriha. He is praised by the Gainas and Buddhists, as the friend and patron of both Mahavira and Buddha. But Kunika or, as the Buddhists call him, Agatasatru , his son by Kellana, the Videhan lady, showed no favour to the Buddhists in the earlier part of his reign; only eight years before Buddha’s death he became his patron. We should go wrong in believing him to have sincerely been converted. For a man who avowedly murdered his father , and waged war against his grandfather , is not likely to have cared much about theology. His real motive in changing his religious policy we may easily guess. He planned to add Videha to his dominions, just as his father had added Anga to his kingdom of Magadha; he therefore built the fort at Pataligrama , in order not to repel but subdue the Vaggians or Vrigis, a tribe of Videha, and at last fixed a quarrel on the king of Vaisali, his grandfather. As the latter was the maternal uncle of Mahavira, Agatasatru, by attacking this patron of the Gainas, lost in some degree their sympathy. Now he resolved on siding with their rivals, the Buddhists, whom he formerly had persecuted as friends of his father’s, whom, as has been said above, he finally put to death. We know that Agatasatru succeeded in conquering Vaisali, and that he laid the foundation of the empire of the Nandas and Mauryas. With the extension of the limits of the empire of Magadha a new field was opened to both religions, over which they spread with great rapidity. It was probably this auspicious political conjuncture to which Gainism and Buddhism chiefly owed their success, while many similar sects attained only a local and temporal importance.
I do not intend to write a full life of Mahavira, but to collect only such details which show him at once a distinct historical person, and as different from Buddha in the most important particulars. Vardhamana was, like his father, a Kasyapa. He seems to have lived in the house of his parents till they died, and his elder brother, Nandivardhana, succeeded to what principality they had. Then, at the age of twenty-eight, he, with the consent of those in power, entered the spiritual career, which in India, just as the church in Roman Catholic countries, seems to have offered a field for the ambition of younger sons. For twelve years he led a life of austerities, visiting even the wild tribes of the country called Radha. After the first year he went about naked . From the end of these twelve years of preparatory self-mortification dates Vardhamana’s Kevaliship. Since that time he was recognised as omniscient, as a prophet of the Gainas, or a Tirthakara, and had the titles Gina, Mahavira, &c., which were also given to Sakyamuni. The last thirty years of his life he passed in teaching his religious system and organising his order of ascetics, which, as we have seen above, was patronised or at least countenanced chiefly by those princes with whom he was related through his mother, viz. Ketaka, Srenika, and Kunika, the kings of Videha, Magadha, and Anga. In the towns which lay in these parts he spent almost all the rainy seasons during his spiritual career , though he extended his travels as far west and north as Sravasti and the foot of the Himalaya. The names of his chief disciples, the eleven Ganadharas or apostles of the Gainas, as detailed in the Kalpa Sutra (List of Sthaviras, section 1), are given without any variation by both divisions of the church, the Svetambaras and Digambaras. Of the details of Mahavira’s life, mentioned in the canonical books, his rivalry with, and victory over Gosala, the son of Makkhali, and lastly, the place of his death, the small town Papa, deserve to be noticed. Nor are we by any means forced to rely on the tradition of the Gainas only, since for some particulars we have the testimony of the Buddhists also, in whose writings Mahavira is mentioned under his well-known name Nataputta, as the head of the Niganthas or Gaina monks and a rival of Buddha. They only misstated his Gotra as that of Agnivaisyayana; in this particular they confounded him with his chief apostle Sudharman, the only one of all the apostles who survived him and took the lead in the church after his teacher’s death. Mahavira being a contemporary of Buddha, they both had the same contemporaries, viz. Bimbisara and his sons, Abhayakumara and Agatasatru, the Likkhavis and Mallas, Gosala Makkhaliputra, whom we accordingly meet with in the sacred books of either sect. From the Buddhist Pitakas it appears, as we have seen above, that Mahavira’s followers were very numerous in Vaisali, a fact that is in perfect accordance with what the Gainas relate about his birth in the vicinity of that town, and which at the same time well agrees with his connection with the chief magistrate of the place. In addition to this, some tenets of the Niganthas, e. g. the Kiriyavada and the belief that water is inhabited by souls, are mentioned in the sacred books of the Buddhists, in perfect accordance with the Gaina creed. Lastly, the Buddhists are correct in assuming the town Papa as the scene of Nataputta’s death.
Comparing this outline of Mahavira’s life with that of Buddha’s, we can detect little or nothing in the former which can be suspected as having been formed after the latter by tradition. The general resemblance between the lives of both is due to their being lives of ascetics, which from the nature of the things must present some uniformity, which certainly will appear greater to the mind of a European historian of our times than to that of an ancient Hindu. Some names of Mahavira’s relations are similar to those of Buddha’s: the former’s wife was Yasoda, the latter’s Yasodhara; the former’s elder brother was Nandivardhana, the latter’s step-brother Nanda; Buddha’s name as a prince was Siddhartha, which was the name of Mahavira’s father. But if the similarity of these names proves anything, it proves no more than that names of this description were much used then among the Kshatriyas, as surely they were at all times . Nor is it to be wondered at that two Kshatriyas should have founded sects in opposition, or at least in disregard to the authority of the Brahmans. For, as I shall try to prove in the sequel, the Kshatriyas were the most likely of all to become what the Brahmans would call ‘untrue ascetics.’
We shall now put side by side the principal events of Buddha’s and Mahavira’s lives, in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Mahavira in a village near Vaisali; Buddha’s mother died after his birth, Mahavira’s parents lived to see him a grown-up man; Buddha turned ascetic during the lifetime and against the will of his father, Mahavira did so after the death of his parents and with the consent of those in power; Buddha led a life of austerities for six years, Mahavira for twelve; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahavira was convinced of the necessity of his penances , and persevered in some of them even after becoming a Tirthakara. Amongst Buddha’s opponents Gosala Makkhaliputra is by no means so prominent as amongst Mahavira’s, nor among the former do we meet Gamali, who caused the first schism in the Gaina church. All the disciples of Buddha bear other names than those of Mahavira. To finish this enumeration of differences, Buddha died in Kusinagara, whereas Mahavira died in Papa, avowedly before the former.
I have dwelt so long on the subject of Mahavira’s life in order to make the reader acquainted with facts which must decide the question whether the origin of Gainism was independent of Buddhism or not. Though most scholars do not go the length of denying that Mahavira and Buddha were different persons, yet some will not admit that this decides the question at issue. Professor Weber, in his learned treatise on the literature of the Gainas , says that he still regards ‘the Gainas merely as one of the oldest sects of Buddhism. According to my opinion,’ he writes, ‘this is not precluded by the tradition about the origin of its founder having partly made use of another person than Buddha Sakyamuni; nay, even of one whose name is frequently mentioned in Buddhist legends as one of Buddha’s contemporary opponents. This rather suggests to me that the Gainas intentionally disowned Buddha, being driven to this extremity by the animosity of sect. The number and importance of coincidences in the tradition of either sect regarding their founders is, on the whole, overwhelming.’
Professor Weber’s last argument, the very one on which he seems to base his theory, has, according to my opinion, been fully refuted by our preceding inquiry. This theory, in itself, would require the strongest proof before we could admit it as even probable. Generally, heterodox sects claim to be the most authentic and correct interpreters of the words and tenets of their founders. If a sect begins to recognise another authority than that of the original founder of the main church, it either adopts another faith already in existence, or starts a new one. In the first case the previous existence of the Gaina faith in some form or other has to be admitted; in the second we must suppose that the malcontent Buddhists searched in their scriptures for an opponent of Buddha, on whom they might foist their heretical theories, a course in which they were not followed by any other of the many sects of Buddhism. Now, granted for argument’s sake, that they really did what they are charged with, they must have proceeded with the utmost dexterity, making use of, and slightly altering all occasional hints about the Niganthas and Nataputta which they were able to hunt up in their ancient scriptures, inventing new facts, and fabricating documents of their own, which to all, not in the secret, would seem just as trustworthy as those of their opponents. Indeed the Buddhistical and Gaina traditions about Mahavira, the circumstances in, and the people with whom he lived, so very well tally with, complete and correct each other that the most natural and plausible way to account for this fact, which our preceding inquiry has established, seems to be that both traditions are, in the main, independent of each other, and record what, at the time of their attaining a fixed form, was regarded as historical truth.
We shall now consider the resemblance between Buddhism and Gainism which has struck so many writers on this topic and greatly influenced their opinion regarding their mutual relation. Professor Lassen adduces four points of coincidence which, according to his opinion, prove that the Gainas have branched off from the Bauddhas. We shall discuss them one after the other.
Both sects give the same titles or epithets to their prophets: Gina, Arhat, Mahavira, Sarvagna, Sugata, Tathagata, Siddha, Buddha, Sambuddha, Parinivrita, Mukta, &c. All these words occur more or less frequently in the writings of both sects; but there is this difference, that with the exception of Gina, and perhaps Sramana, the preference is given to some set of titles by one sect, and to another set by the rival sect; e. g. Buddha, Tathagata, Sugata, and Sambuddha are common titles of Sakyamuni, and are only occasionally used as epithets of Mahavira. The case is exactly reverse with regard to Vira and Mahavira, the usual titles of Vardhamana. More marked still is the difference with regard to Tirthakara, meaning prophet with the Gainas, but founder of an heretical sect with the Bauddhas. What then may be safely inferred from the peculiar choice which either sect made from these epithets and titles? That the Gainas borrowed them from the older Buddhists? I think not. For if these words had once been fixed as titles, or gained some special meaning beyond the one warranted by etymology, they could only have been adopted or rejected. But it was not possible that a word which had acquired some special meaning should have been adopted, but used in the original sense by those who borrowed it from the Buddhists. The most natural construction we can put on the facts is, that there was and is at all times a number of honorific adjectives and substantives applicable to persons of exalted virtue. These words were used as epithets in their original meaning by all sects; but some were selected as titles for their prophets, a choice in which they were directed either by the fitness of the word itself, or by the fact that such or such a word was already appropriated by heterodox sects as a title for their highest authority. Thus the etymological meaning of Tirthakara is founder of a religion, prophet, and accordingly this title was adopted by the Gainas and other sects, whereas the Buddhists did not adopt it in this sense, but in that of an heterodox or heretical teacher, showing thereby their enmity towards those who used Tirthakara as an honorific title. Again, Buddha is commonly used in about the same sense as mukta, that is a liberated soul, and in this meaning it is still employed in Gaina writings, whilst with the Buddhists the word has become a title of their prophet. The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versa.
Lassen, as a second argument in favour of the priority of Buddhism, adduces the fact that both sects worship mortal men, their prophets, like gods, and erect statues of them in their temples. As Buddhism and Gainism excepted none of the many sects, the founders of which pretended, like Buddha or Mahavira, to omniscience and absolute perfection. have continued long enough to come within the reach of our knowledge — and all or many of them may, for aught we know, have given the same divine honours to their saints, as the Buddhists and Gainas did to their own prophets — it cannot be alleged that the practice of the Buddhists rather than of any other sect was imitated by the Gainas, or vice versa. On the contrary, there is nothing in the notion of Buddha that could have favoured the erecting of statues and temples for his followers to worship them, but rather much that is inconsistent with this kind of adoration. while the Gainas commit no inconsistency in worshipping Mahavira in his apotheosis. But I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or Gainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay community, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, and when the religious development of India found in the Bhakti the supreme means of salvation. Therefore instead of seeing in the Buddhists the originals, and in the Gainas the imitators, with regard to the erection of temples and worship of statues, we assume that both sects were, independently from each other, brought to adopt this practice by the perpetual and irresistible influence of the religious development of the people in India.
The third point of resemblance between both sects, the stress which is laid on the ahimsa or not killing of living beings, will be treated more fully in the sequel. For this reason I quickly pass over to Professor Lassen’s fourth argument, viz. that the Buddhists and Gainas measure the history of the world by those enormous periods of time which bewilder and awe even the most imaginative fancy.
It is true that regarding this the Gainas outdo the Buddhists, but they have the idea of such periods in common not only with the latter but also with the Brahmans. The main features of the chronological system of the Gainas equally differ from those of the Buddhists as from those of the Brahmans. For it is impossible to derive the Utsarpini and Avasarpini eras, with their six Aras, from the Buddhistical four great and eighty smaller Kalpas, which are as it were the acts and scenes in the drama of the successive creations and dissolutions of the universe, nor from the Yugas and Kalpas of the Brahmans. I am of opinion that the Buddhists have improved on the Brahmanic system of the Yugas, while the Gainas invented their Utsarpini and Avasarpini eras after the model of the day and night of Brahma.
We have postponed the discussion of Professor Lassen’s third argument, the ahimsa, because it will be better treated together with the other moral precepts of both sects. Professor Weber has pointed out the near relation existing between the five great vows of the Gainas and the five cardinal sins and virtues of the Buddhists; and Professor Windisch has compared the Gaina vows (mahavrata) with the ten obligations of the Buddhists (dasasil).
1. I take the vow not to destroy life.
2. I take the vow not to steal.
3. I take the vow to abstain from impurity.
4. I take the vow not to lie.
5. I take the vow to abstain from intoxicating drinks which hinder progress and virtue.
6. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times.
7. I take the vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays.
8. I take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
9. I take the vow not to use a high or broad bed.
10. I take the vow not to receive gold or silver.
1. One should not destroy life.
2. One should not take that which is not given.
3. One should not tell lies.
4. One should not become a drinker of intoxicating drinks.
5. One should refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse — an ignoble thing.
6. One should not eat unseasonable food at nights.
7. One should not wear garlands or use perfumes.
8. One should sleep on a mat spread on the ground.
The five Buddhist vows nearly agree with those of the Gaina ascetics, viz.:
1. Not to destroy life (ahimsa).
2. Not to lie (sunrita).
3. Not to take that which is not given (asteya).
4. To abstain from sexual intercourse (brahmakarya).
5. To renounce all interest in worldly things, especially to call nothing one’s own (aparigraha).
The fifth precept of the Gainas is much more comprehensive than the corresponding one of the Buddhists, but the other precepts are the same, in a different order, as Nos. 1-4 of the Buddhists. The agreement is indeed so striking that it would seem hard to avoid the conclusion that one sect borrowed their precepts from the other. Yet the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas were the borrowers, would still remain an open one. It can be shown, however, that neither the Buddhists nor the Gainas have in this regard any claim to originality, but that both have only adopted the five vows of the Brahmanic ascetics (samnyasin). The latter must keep the following five vows :
1. Abstention from injuring living beings.
2. Truthfulness.
3. Abstention from appropriating the property of others.
4. Continence.
5. Liberality.
And five minor vows:
6. Abstention from anger.
7. Obedience towards the Guru.
8. Avoidance of rashness.
9. Cleanliness.
10. Purity in eating.
The first four great vows of the Samnyasin agree with those of the Gaina Bhikshu, and are enumerated in the same order. It is therefore probable that the Gainas have borrowed their own vows from the Brahmans, not from the Buddhists, because the latter have changed the order of the vows, making truthfulness either the third or fourth cardinal virtue instead of giving it the second place. Besides it is highly improbable that they should have imitated the Buddhists, when they had in the Brahmanic ascetics much older and more respected models.
It is worth remarking that the fifth great vow or precept is peculiar to each of the three religious systems, probably because the Brahmanic fifth vow, viz. liberality, could not be enjoined on mendicants such as the monks of the Buddhists and Gainas were. The Gainas previous to Mahavira’s time had only four great vows, since the fourth was included in the fifth. But Mahavira brought the number of the vows again up to five, a number which seems to have been regarded as solemn, since the Buddhists have adopted it likewise in their moral code.
Our foregoing inquiry suggests where we have to look for the originals of the monastic orders of the Gainas and Buddhists. The Brahmanic ascetic was their model, from which they borrowed many important practices and institutions of ascetic life. This observation is not an entirely new one. Professor Max Muller has already, in his Hibbert Lectures (p. 351), started a similar opinion; likewise Professor Buhler, in his translation of the Baudhayana Sutra (passim); and Professor Kern, in his History of Buddhism in India. In order to show to what extent the life of Gaina monks is but an imitation of the life of the Brahmanic ascetics, I shall now compare the rules given to the latter in Gautama’s and Baudhayana’s law-books with the rules for Gaina monks. In most cases the Buddhists conform to the same rules; this will also be briefly noticed.
11. An ascetic shall not possess (any) store .’ The Gaina and Buddhist monks are also forbidden to have anything which they could call their own. See the fifth vow of the Gainas (aparigraha). Even those things which the Gaina monk always carries about himself, as clothes, alms-bowl, broom, &c., are not regarded as his property, but as things necessary for the exercise of religious duties (dharmopakarana).
12. (He must be) chaste.’ This is the fourth great vow of the Gainas and in Baudhayana, the fifth of the Buddhists.
15. ‘He shall beg late (after people have finished their meals), without returning twice .’ The Gaina monks collect food in the morning or at noon, probably to avoid meeting with their rivals. They generally but once in a day go out begging; but one who has fasted for more than one day may go a begging twice a day .
18. ‘He shall wear a cloth to cover his nakedness .’ The Gaina rules about dress are not so simple; for they allow a Gaina to go naked or to wear one, two, or three garments, but a young, strong monk should as a rule wear but one robe . Mahavira went about naked , and so did the Ginakalpikas, or those who tried to imitate him as much as possible. But they also were allowed to cover their nakedness .
19. ‘Some (declare that he shall wear) an old rag after having washed it.’ Baudhayana says: ‘He shall wear a dress dyed yellowish-red.’ This rule agrees more with the practice of the Buddhists than that of the Gainas. The latter are forbidden to wash or dye their clothes, but they must wear them in the same condition in which they are given . However, the Gainas have only carried into the extreme the original intention of the Brahmanic rule, viz. that the dress of ascetics should be as simple and mean as possible. For they seem to take a sort of pride in outdoing their Brahmanic rivals as regards rigorous conduct, mistaking nastiness and filthiness for the highest pitch of ascetic virtue , while on the other hand the Buddhists studied to bring their conduct in accordance with the dictates of humanity.
21. ‘Out of season he shall not dwell a second night in (the same) village.’ We have seen above that Mahavira carried out this precept whatever may have been the practice of the monks in general.
22. ‘He may either shave or wear a lock on the crown of the head.’ The Gainas have improved on this rule as they make baldness binding for all monks. According to Baudhayana a Brahman on becoming an ascetic had to cause ‘the hair of his head, his beard, the hair on his body, and his nails to be cut.’ The same practice, at least as regards the cutting of the hair, was observed by the Gainas on the same occasion. Hence the phrase: ‘becoming bald (or tearing out one’s hair) to leave the house and enter the state of houselessness .’
23. ‘He shall avoid the destruction of seeds.’ The reader will observe, in many passages of the second book of the Akaranga Sutra, how careful Gaina monks should be of avoiding to injure eggs, living beings, seeds, sprouts, &c. It seems therefore that the Gainas have only generalised the above rule in applying it to all small beings of the animal and vegetable world.
24. (He shall be) indifferent towards (all) creatures, whether they do him an injury or a kindness.’
25. ‘He shall not undertake (anything for his temporal or spiritual welfare).’
The last two rules could just as well be taken from a sacred book of the Gainas, for they are in full. accordance with the drift of their religion. Mahavira strictly carried them out. ‘More than four months many sorts of living beings gathered on his body, crawled about it, and caused there pain .’ ‘Always well guarded, he bore the pains (caused by) grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats; manifold pains .’ ‘He with equanimity bore, underwent, and suffered all pleasant or unpleasant occurrences, arising from divine powers, men, or animals .’ It is frequently said of the ascetic in the last stage of his spiritual career that ‘he does desire neither life nor death .’
There are some more precepts in Baudhayana which bear a close resemblance to such of the Gainas. ‘With the three means of punishment, (viz.) words, thoughts, and acts, he shall not injure created beings .’ This is only an amplification of the first great vow (see above). ‘Means of punishment’ is what the Gainas call weapon (sastra ).
‘He shall carry a cloth for straining water for the sake of purification.’ ‘He shall perform the necessary purifications with water which has been taken out (of a well or a tank) and has been strained .’ These rules are strictly observed by the Gaina monks. They also carry a cloth for straining water. The commentator Govinda explains pavitra, a cloth for straining water,’ by ‘a bunch of Kusa grass for removing insects from the road : If Govinda be right, and had the authority of a really old tradition, which I do not doubt, we have here the Brahmanic counterpart of the broom (ragoharana or padapronkhana) with which the Gaina monks sweep the road and the place where they walk or sit down, for removing insects.
The outfit of a Brahmanic ascetic consists in sticks, a rope, a cloth for straining water, a water vessel, and an almsbowl: The Gaina monks also carry sticks, at least now-a-days, though I remember no passage in the Pitakas expressly allowing the use of a stick. They have also a rope belonging to the alms-bowl , an alms-bowl, and a water vessel . Of the cloth for straining water, and the broom, we have already spoken. The filter for the mouth (mukhavastrika) remains as the only article exclusively used by the Gainas. On the whole, therefore, the Gainas were outfitted very much like their Brahmanic models, the Samnyasins or Bhikshus.
‘Let him eat food, given without asking, regarding which nothing has been settled beforehand, and which has reached him accidentally, so much only as is sufficient to sustain life .’ The reader will find on perusing the Gaina ‘rules for begging ’ that only that food is considered pure and acceptable’ which has been obtained under exactly the same circumstances as have been laid down in the above rule of Baudhayana for Brahmanic ascetics. The Buddhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invitations for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them.
From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Samnyasin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Samnyasin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Gainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Ginas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former.
There remains another possibility, but a still more improbable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more improbable, because, firstly, the Samnyasin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Asramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Samnyasins; thirdly, Gautama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism. For Professor Buhler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Apastamba Sara must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.C. Baudhayana is older than Apastamba; according to Buhler , the distance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudhayana . Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhayana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brahmanic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Buhler should be wrong in his estimation of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries. Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brahmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brahmans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Brahmana as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brahmans.
It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brahmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg . For Buddha, in his first sermon at Benares, speaks of his religion as that yass’ atthaya kulaputta sammad eva agarasma anagariyam pabbaganti: for the sake of which sons of noble families leave the house and enter the state of houselessness . That the Gainas too gave the Kshatriyas the preference over the Brahmans is proved by that curious legend about the transfer of the embryo of Mahavira from the womb of the Brahmani Devananda to that of the Kshatriyani Trisala, it being alleged that a Brahmani or another woman of low family was not worthy to give birth to a Tirthakara .
On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and as a proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Buhler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sudra through one of the four Asramas .
From all this it becomes probable that the non-Brahmanic ascetics even in early times were regarded as an order separate and distinguished from the Brahmanic ascetics. We can understand that this position of non-Brahmanic ascetics led to the formation of sects inclining to dissent. That the untrue ascetics had such an origin, may be collected from a remark of Vasishtha. It is known that the performance of religious ceremonies was discontinued by the ascetics, but some went beyond this and discontinued the recitation of the Veda. Against transgressors of this kind Vasishtha has the following quotation: ‘Let him discontinue the performance of all religious ceremonies, but let him never discontinue the recitation of the Veda. By neglecting the Veda he becomes a Sudra; therefore he shall not neglect it.’ An inhibition pronounced so emphatically presupposes the real occurrence of the practices forbidden. If therefore some ascetics already had ceased to recite the Veda, we may conclude that others began to disregard it as revelation and the highest authority. That those who were regarded as a sort of inferior ascetics, the non-Brahmanic ascetics, were most likely to make this step, is easy to imagine. We see thus that the germs of dissenting sects like those of the Buddhists and the Gainas were contained in the institute of the fourth Asrama, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects; therefore Buddhism and Gainism must be regarded as religions developed out of Brahmanism not by a sudden reformation, but prepared by a religious movement going on for a long time.
