Gaina Sûtras, Part I: The Âkârânga and Kalpa Sûtras — SBE Vol. 22 (trans. Hermann Jacobi, 1884)
English·1879–1910·trans. Hermann Jacobi·262 passages
The text · part 2 of 13
' Max Miller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343. ? Chapter x, 4. Biihler’s translation.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIil
We have seen that neither the Gaina legends about their last prophet, nor the ascetic life ordained for Gaina monks, nor any other religious practices adhered to by the faithful. warrant our assuming that the Gaina sect has developed, in one way or other, out of the Buddhistical church. It remains for me to show that the difference of both creeds as regards the principal tenets is such as not to admit a common origin. Whatever Buddha may have taught and thought about the state of Nirvaza, whether he went the length to identify it with absolute non-existence, or imagined it to be a sort of existence different from all we know or can conceive, it is beyond doubt, and a striking feature of Buddha’s philosophy, that he combated the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, as being the absolute and permanent soul, according to the pantheist as well as the monadic point of view. But the Gainas fully concur in the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, with only this difference, that they ascribe to the Atmans a limited space, while the Brahmans of - the Sankhya, Ny4ya, and Vaiseshika schools contend that the Atmans are co-extensive with the universe. On the other hand, the Buddhistical theory of the five Skandhas with their numerous subdivisions have no counterpart in the psychology of the Gainas. A characteristic dogma of the Gainas which pervades their whole philosophical system and code of morals, is the hylozoistic theory that not only animals and plants, but also the smallest particles of the elements, earth, fire, water, and wind, are endowed with souls (giva). No such dogma, on the other hand, is contained in the philosophy of the Buddhists. To Indian philosophers the various degrees of knowledge up to omniscience are matters of great moment. The Gainas have a theory of their own on this head, and a terminology which differs from that of the Brahmanic philosophers and of the Buddhists. Right knowledge, they say, is fivefold: (1) mati, right perception ; (2) sruta, clear knowledge based on mati; (3) avadhi, a sort of supernatural knowledge; (4) manahpary4ya, clear knowledge of the thoughts of others; (5) kevala, the highest degree of knowledge, consisting in omniscience. This psychological theory is a fundamental
C23] c
XXXIV GAINA SOTRAS,
This psychological theory is a fundamental
C23] c
XXXIV GAINA SOTRAS,
one of the Gainas, as it is always before the mind of the authors of the sacred books when describing the spiritual career of the saints. But we search in vain for something analogous in the Buddhist scriptures. We could multiply the instances of difference between the fundamental tenets of both sects, but we abstain from it, fearing to tire the reader’s patience with an enumeration of all such cases. Such tenets as the Gainas share with the Buddhists, both sects have in common with the Brahmanic philosophers, e. g. the belief in the regeneration of souls, the theory of the Karman, or merit and demerit resulting from former actions, which must take effect in this or another birth, the belief that by perfect knowledge and good conduct man can avoid the necessity of being born again and again, &c. Even the theory that from time immemorial prophets (Buddhas or Tirthakaras) have proclaimed the same dogmas and. renewed fhe sinking faith, has its Brahmanic counterpart in the Avatéras of Vishzu. Besides, such a theory is a necessary consequence both of the Buddhistical and Gaina creed. For what Buddha or Mahavira had revealed was, of course, regarded by the followers of either as truth and the only truth; this truth must have existed from the beginning of time, like the Veda of the Brahmans; but could the truth have remained unknown during the infinite space of time elapsed before the appearance of the prophet? No, would answer the pious believer in Buddhism or Gainism, that was impossible; but the true faith was revealed in different periods by numberless prophets, and so it will be in the time to come. The theory of former prophets seems, therefore, to be a natural consequence of both religions; besides, it was not wholly unfounded on facts, at least as regards the Gainas. For the Nirgranthas are never spoken of in the Buddhist writings as a newly risen sect, nor Nataputta as their founder. Accordingly the Nirgranthas were probably an old sect at the time of Buddha, and NAtaputta only the reformer of the Gaina church, which may have been founded by the twenty-third Tirthakara, Parsva. But what seems astonishing is the fact that the Gainas and Bauddhas have hit on nearly the
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
But what seems astonishing is the fact that the Gainas and Bauddhas have hit on nearly the
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
same number of prophets believed to have risen since the creation of the present order of things, the former worshipping twenty-four Tirthakaras, the latter twenty-five Buddhas. I do not deny that in developing this theory one sect was influenced by the other; but I firmly believe that it cannot be made out which of the two sects first invented, or borrowed from the Brahmans, this theory. For if the twenty-five Buddhas were worshipped by the Buddhists of the first centuries after the Nirv4#a, the belief in twenty-four Tirthakaras is equally old, as it is common to the Digambaras and Svetambaras, who separated probably in the second century after the Nirvaza. However the decision of the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas originally invented the theory of the succession of prophets, matters little; it cannot influence the result to which the previous discussion has led us, viz. (1) that Gainism had an origin independent from Buddhism, that it had a development of its own, and did not largely borrow from the rival sect; (2) that both Gainism and Buddhism owed to the Brahmans, especially the Sas#nyasins, the groundwork of their philosophy, ethics, and cosmogony.
Our discussion has as yet been conducted on the supposition that the tradition of the Gainas as contained in their sacred books may on the whole be credited. But the intrinsic value of this tradition has been called into question by a scholar of wide views and cautious judgment. Mr. Barth, in the Revue de I’Histoire des Religions, vol. iii, p. go, admits that an historical personage is hidden under Nataputta, but he doubts that valid inferences may be drawn from the sacred books of the Gainas which, avowedly, have been reduced to writing in the fifth century A.D., or nearly a thousand years after the foundation of the sect. For, in his opinion, ‘the self-conscient and continuous existence of the sect since that remote epoch, i.e. the direct tradition of peculiar doctrines and records, has not yet been demonstrated. During many centuries,’ he says, ‘the Gainas had not become distinct from the numerous groups of ascetics who could not boast of more than an obscure floating c2
XXXVi GAINA SUTRAS.
existence.’ The tradition of the Gainas appears to Mr. Barth to have been formed of vague recollections in imitation of the Buddhist tradition.
existence.’ The tradition of the Gainas appears to Mr. Barth to have been formed of vague recollections in imitation of the Buddhist tradition.
Mr. Barth seems to base his theory on the assumption that the Gainas must have been careless in handing down their sacred lore, since they formed, for many centuries, but a small and unimportant sect. I cannot see the force of this argument of Mr. Barth’s. Is it more likely that a sect of which the not very numerous followers are scattered over a large country, or a church which has to satisfy the reltgious wants of a great multitude, will better preserve its original tenets and traditions? It is impossible to decide this question on a priori grounds. The Jews and the Parsis may be adduced as instances in favour of the former view, the Roman Catholic church as one in favour of the latter. But we are not obliged to rely on such generalities in order to decide the question at issue with regard to the Gainas, for they were so far from having only dim notions of their own doctrines that they pronounced as founders of schisms those who differed from the great bulk of the faithful in comparatively unimportant details of belief. This fact is proved by the tradition about the seven sects of the Svetambaras made known by Dr. Leumann!. The Digambaras also, who separated from the Svetambaras probably in the second or third century after the Nirvaza, differ from their rivals but little with regard to philosophical tenets ; yet they were nevertheless stigmatised by the latter as heretics on account of their rules of conduct. All these facts show that the Gainas, even previous to the redaction of their sacred books, had not a confused and undefined creed, which would have been liable to become altered and defiled by doctrines adopted from widely different religions, but one in which even the minutest details of belief were fixed.
What has been said about the religious doctrines of the Gainas can also be proved of their historical traditions. For the detailed lists of teachers handed down in the several Gakkhas*, and those incorporated in their sacred
1 Sce Indische Studien, XVI. 2 See Dr. Klatt, Ind. Ant. XL
INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
For the detailed lists of teachers handed down in the several Gakkhas*, and those incorporated in their sacred
1 Sce Indische Studien, XVI. 2 See Dr. Klatt, Ind. Ant. XL
INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
books, show that the Gainas did possess an interest in the history of their church. I do not deny that a list of teachers may be invented, or an incomplete one filled up or made pakka, as the Hindus would say; the necessity of proving itself to be legitimately descended from a recognised authority may induce a sect to invent the names of a line of teachers. But what could have caused the Gainas to fabricate such a detailed list of teachers, Gavas, and SAkhds as that in the Kalpa Sftra? Of most of the details the Gainas of later times knew nothing beyond what they found in the Kalpa Sitra itself,—and that is unfortunately very little.—nor did they pretend to anything more. For all practical purposes the short list of Sthaviras, as it stands in the Kalpa Sftra, would have been sufficient ; the preservation of the detailed list, containing so many bare names, proves that they must have had an interest for the members of the early church, though the more accurate knowledge of the times and events chronicled in that list was lost after some centuries.
However, it is not enough to have proved that the Gainas, even before the redaction of their sacred books, possessed the qualities necessary for continuing their creed and tradition, and preserving them from corruptions caused by large borrowings from other religious systems; we must also show that they did do what they were qualified to do. This leads us to a discussion of the age of the extant Gaina literature. For if we succeed in proving that the Gaina literature or at least some of its oldest works were composed many centuries before they were reduced to writing, we shall have reduced, if not closed, the gap separating the prophet of the Gainas from their oldest records.
The redaction of the Gaina canon or the Siddhanta took place, according to the unanimous tradition, on the council of Valabhi, under the presidency of Devarddhi. The date of this event, 980 (or 993) A.V., corresponding to 454 (or 467) A.D., is incorporated in the Kalpa Stra (§ 148). Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddh4nta in
' It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (§27) A.D.; see Kalpa Sitra, introduction, p. 15.
XXXVIIL GAINA SOTRAS.
Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddh4nta in
' It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (§27) A.D.; see Kalpa Sitra, introduction, p. 15.
XXXVIIL GAINA SOTRAS.
danger of becoming extinct, caused it to be written in books. Before that time teachers made no use of written books when teaching the Siddh4nta to novices, but after that time they did use books. The latter part of this statement is evidently true. For in olden times books were not used, it being the custom of the Brahmans to rely rather on the memory than on the MSS., and in this they were, almost without doubt, followed by the Gainas and Buddhists. But now-a-days Yatis use MSS. when teaching the sacred lore to their novices. There is no reason why we should not credit the tradition that this change in the method of instruction was brought about by Devarddhi Gazin; for the event was of too great importance not to be remembered. To provide every teacher or at least every Upasraya with copies of the sacred books, Devarddhi Gavin must have issued a large edition of the Siddhanta. This is probably the meaning of the traditional record that Devarddhi caused the Siddhanta to be written in books, for it is hardly credible that the Gaina monks should never before have attempted to write down what they had to commit to memory; the Brahmans also have MSS. of their sacred books, though they do not use them in handing down the Veda. These MSS. were intended for private use, to aid the memory of the teacher. I make no doubt that the same practice was observed by the Gaina monks, the more so as they were not, like the Brahmans, influenced by any theory of their own not to trust to MSS., but were induced merely by the force of the prevalent custom to hand down their sacred lore by word of mouth. I do not maintain that the sacred books of the Gainas were originally written in books, for the same argument which has been brought forward to prove that the Buddhist monks could have had no MSS., as they are never mentioned in their sacred books, in which ‘every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to', the same argument, I say, holds good with regard to the Gainas as long as the
* Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days.
xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days.
Devarddhi’s position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instruction. Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhdnta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of the Siddhanta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhanta, did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved only by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS.
On this premise we now proceed to inquire into the date of the composition of the sacred books of the Gainas. Their own dogmatical theory that all sacred books were revealed by the first Tirthakara, shall only be noticed to be dismissed. We must try to discover better grounds for fixing the age when the chief works of the Siddhanta were composed. .
As single passages may have crept into the text at any time, we can draw no valid inferences from them, even if they be sanctioned by Devarddhi’s receiving them into his revised text. I attach therefore no great weight to the lists of barbarous or un-Aryan tribes!, nor to the mention of all seven schisms, the last of which occurred 584 A.V? Nothing is more common than that such details should be
1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237.
xl GAINA SUTRAS.
Nothing is more common than that such details should be
1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237.
xl GAINA SUTRAS.
added as a gloss, or be incorporated even in the text, by those who transmitted it either in writing or in instructing their pupils. But an argument of more weight is the fact that in the Siddhanta we find no traces of Greek astronomy. In fact the Gaina astronomy is a system of incredible absurdity, which would have been impossible, if its author had had the least knowledge of the Greek science. As the latter appears to have been introduced in India about the third or fourth century A.D., it follows that the sacred books of the Gainas were composed before that time. Another argument which offers itself for fixing the period of the composition of the sacred books, is the language in which they are written. But, unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether the sacred books have been handed down in that language in which they were composed, or in that in which they were pronounced, and transcribed in later generations, according to the then current idiom, till Devarddhi’s edition put an end to the modernising of the language of the sacred books. I am inclined to believe the latter view to be correct,and look upon the absence of a self-consistent orthography of the Gaina Prakrit as the effect of the gradual change of the vernacular language in which the sacred books were recited. In all MSS. of Gaina texts, the same word is not always spelt in the same way. The differences of spelling refer chiefly to the retention, omission, or attenuation of single consonants between vowels, and the retention of the vowels e,o, before two consonants, or their change ini, u. It is hardly possible that the different spellings of a word should all correctly represent the pronunciation of that word at any given time, e.g. bhdta, bhOya; udaga, udaya, uaya; lobha, loha', &c.; but probably we must regard these methods of spelling as historical spellings, that is to say, that all different spellings presented in the MSS. which formed the materials for Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhanta, were looked upon as authentical and were preserved in all later copies of the sacred texts. If this assumption is correct, we
1 Ido not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that nearly every word should have existed in two or three forms,
INTRODUCTION. xli
If this assumption is correct, we
1 Ido not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that nearly every word should have existed in two or three forms,
INTRODUCTION. xli
must regard the most archaic spellings as representing the pronunciation at or shortly after the epoch of the composition of the sacred books, and the most modern one as representing the pronunciation at or shortly before the redaction of the Siddh4nta'. Now on comparing the Gaina Prakrit especially in the oldest form attainable with the Pali on one side, and the Prakrit of Hala, Setubandha, &c. on the other, it will appear to approach more the P4li than the later Prakrit. We may therefore conclude that chronologically also the sacred books of the Gainas stand nearer those of the Southern Buddhists than the works of later Prakrit writers.
But we can fix the date of the Gaina literature between still narrower limits by means of the metres employed in the sacred books. I am of opinion that the first book of the Af4ranga Sdtra and that of the Sdtrakritanga Sitra may be reckoned among the most ancient parts of the Siddh4nta ; the style of both works appears to me to prove the correctness of this assumption. Now a whole lesson of the Satrakr#tanga Satra is written in the Vaitaliya metre. The same metre is used in the Dhammapadam and other sacred books of the Southern Buddhists. But the Pali verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitaliya than those in the Sdtrakritanga, as I shall prove ~ in a paper on the post-Vedic metres soon to be published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Compared with the common Vaitdaliya verses of Sanskrit literature, a small number of which occur already in the Lalita Vistara, the Vaitaliya of the Sdtrakrvztanga must be considered to represent an earlier form of the metre. Again, ancient Pali works seem to contain no verses in the Arya metre; at least there is none in the Dhammapadam, nor have I found one in other works. But both the A#4raaga and Satrakrstanga
! It might be objected that archaic spellings are due to the influence of the knowledge of Sanskrit ; but the Gainas must always have been so well acquainted with Prakrit that they needed not any help from the Sanskrit to understand their sacred books. On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS.
On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS.
contain each a whole lecture in Ary4 verses of a form which is decidedly older than, and probably the parent of the common Arya. The latter is found in the younger parts of the Siddhdnta, in the Brahmanical literature, both in Prakrit and in Sanskrit, and in the works of the Northern Buddhists, e.g. the Lalita Vistara, &c. The form of the Trishfubh metre in ancient Gaina works is younger than that in the PAli literature and older than that in the Lalita Vistara. Finally the great variety of artificial metres in which the greater number of the Gathas in the Lalita Vistara, &c., is composed and which are wanting in the Gaina Siddhanta, seems to prove that the literary taste of the Gainas was fixed before the composition of the latter works. From all these facts we must conclude that the chronological position of the oldest parts of the Gaina literature is intermediate between the Pali literature and the composition of the Lalita Vistara. Now the Pali Pifakas were written in books in the time of Vatfa Gamani, who began to reign88B.c. But they were in existence already some centuries before that time. Professor Max Miiller sums up his discussion on that point by saying: ‘We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see, at present with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.c.!’ Additions and alterations may have been made in the sacred texts after that time; but as our argument is not based on a single passage, or even a part of the Dhammapada, but on the metrical laws of a variety of metres in this and other Pali books, the admission of alterations and additions in these books will not materially influence our conclusion, viz. that the whole of the Gaina Siddhanta was composed after the fourth century B. C.
We have seen that the oldest works in the Gaina canon are older than the G4thds in the Lalita Vistara. As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii.
INTRODUCTION. xliii
As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii.
INTRODUCTION. xliii
the distance in time of the questionable date from either limit by the greater or less resemblance of the oldest Gaina works in verse with such of the Southern and Northern Buddhists as regards metrical or stylistic peculiarities, we should place the beginning of the Gaina literature nearer the time of the Pali literature, rather than that of the Northern Buddhists. This result agrees pretty well with a tradition of the Svetambaras. For they say! that after the twelve years’ famine, while Bhadrabahu was the head of the church, the Angas were brought together by the Sangha of PAéaliputra. Now Bhadrabahu’s death is placed 170 A.V. by the Svetambaras, and 162 A.V. by the Digambaras; he lived therefore, according to the former, under Kandragupta, who is said to have ascended the throne 155 A.V. Professor Max Miiller assigns to Kandragupta the dates 315-291 B.C.; Westergaard prefers 320 B.C. as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and so does Kern? However this difference matters little: the date of the collection or, perhaps more correctly, the composition of the Gaina canon would fall somewhere about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.c. It is worth noticing, that according to the above-cited tradition, the Sangha of Pasaliputra collected the eleven Angas without the assistance of Bhadrabahu. As the latter is claimed by the Digambaras for one of their teachers, and as the Svetambaras, though doing the same, still continue the list of Sthaviras from Sambhfatavigaya, Bhadrabahu’s fellow Sthavira, not from Bhadrabahu himself, it seems to follow that the Angas, brought together by the Sangha of Pa¢aliputra, formed the canon of the Svetambaras only, not that of the whole Gaina church. In that case we should not go wrong in placing the date of the canon somewhat later, under the patriarchate of Sthdlabhadra, i.e. in the first part of the third century B.C.
If the result of our preceding inquiry deserves credit— and I see no counter arguments entitling us to mistrust our conclusion—the origin of the extant Gaina literature cannot be placed earlier than about 300 B.C., or two centuries after
! Parisishta Parvan IX, §5 seqq. ? Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note.
xliv GAINA SUTRAS.
Parisishta Parvan IX, §5 seqq. ? Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note.
xliv GAINA SUTRAS.
the origin of the sect. But we are not from this fact obliged to assume that the Gainas in the time intermediate between their last prophet and the composition of their canon had to rely on nothing more solid than a religious and legendary tradition, never brought into a fixed form. In that case, Mr. Barth’s objections to the trustworthiness of the Gaina tradition would, it is true, not be without ground. However, we are told by the Svetambaras, as well as the Digambaras, that besides the Angas, there existed other and probably older works, called Parvas, of which there were originally fourteen. The knowledge of these Purvas was gradually lost, till at last it became totally extinct. The tradition of the Svetambaras about the fourteen Pirvas is this: the fourteen Pdrvas had been incorporated in the twelfth Anga, the Dréshtivada, which was lost before 1000 A.V. But a detailed table of contents of it, and consequently of the Pfrvas, has survived in the fourth Anga, the Samavay4nga, and in the Nandi Sfitra', Whether the Pirvas, contained in the Drishiivada, were the original ones, or, as I am inclined to believe, only abstracts of them, we cannot decide; at all events there has been a more detailed tradition about what they contained. ;
Now we should as a rule be careful in crediting any tradition about some lost book or books of great antiquity, because such a tradition is frequently invented by an author to furnish his doctrines with an authority from which they may be derived. But in our case, there are no grounds for suspecting the correctness of so general and old a tradition as that about the Parvas. For the Angas do not derive their authority from the Parvas, but are believed to be coeval with the creation of the world. As a fraud, the tradition about the Parvas would therefore be unintelligible ; but accepted as truth, it well falls in with our views about the development of the Gaina literature. The name itself testifies to the fact that the Parvas were superseded by a new canon, for pirva means former,
* See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 341 seqq.
INTRODUCTION. xiv
earlier); and it is assuredly not by accident that the knowledge of the Parvas is said to have commenced to fade away at the same time when the Angas were collected by the Sangha of P4zaliputra. For after Bhadrabahu, only ten out of the fourteen Parvas were known.
341 seqq.
INTRODUCTION. xiv
earlier); and it is assuredly not by accident that the knowledge of the Parvas is said to have commenced to fade away at the same time when the Angas were collected by the Sangha of P4zaliputra. For after Bhadrabahu, only ten out of the fourteen Parvas were known.
This then is the most natural interpretation we can place on the tradition about the fourteen Pirvas, that they were the oldest sacred books, which however were superseded by anew canon. But as regards the cause of the abolition of the old canon and the composition of a new one, we are left to conjecture, and only as such I shall give my opinion. We know that the Drésh¢ivada, which included the fourteen Parvas, dealt chiefly with the dvzshéis or philosophical opinions of the Gainas and other sects. It may be thence inferred that the Parvas related controversies held between Mahavira and rival teachers. The title prav4da, which is added to the name of each Parva, seems to affirm this view. Besides, if MahAvira was not the founder of a new sect, but as I have tried to prove, the reformer of an old one, it is very likely that he should vigorously have combated the opinions of his opponents, and defended those he had accepted or improved. The founder of a religion has to establish his own system, he is not so much in danger to become a mere controversialist as a reformer. Now if the discourses of MahAvira, remembered and handed down by his disciples, were chiefly controversies, they must have lost their interest when the opponents of Mahavira had died and the sects headed by them had become extinct. Could such contentions about philosophical questions which were no more of any practical importance, and bickerings of divines all but forgotten, though these things were of paramount interest to the contemporary world, serve as a canon for later generations who lived in thoroughly changed circumstances? The want of a canon suiting the condition of the
1 The Gainas explain the meaning of the word pirva in the following way. The Tirthakara himself taught the Pfrvas to his disciples, the Ganadharas. The Ganadharas then composed the Angas. There is evidently some truth in this tradition, as it does not agree with the dogma of the Afgas, being taught already by the first Tirthakara. See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 353.
xlvi GAINA SOTRAS.
community must have made itself felt, and it led, in my opinion, to the composition of a new canon and the neglect of the old one.
See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 353.
xlvi GAINA SOTRAS.
community must have made itself felt, and it led, in my opinion, to the composition of a new canon and the neglect of the old one.
Professor A. Weber! assigns as the probable cause of the Drishfivada being lost, that the development of the Svetambara sect had arrived at a point where the diversity of its tenets from those embodied in that book became too visible to be passed over. Therefore the Drishfivada, which contained the Parvas, fell into neglect. I cannot concur in Professor Weber's opinion, seeing that the Digambaras also have lost the Parvas, and the Angas to boot. It is not probable that the development of Gainism during the two first centuries after the Nirviza should have gone on at so rapid a pace that its two principal sects should have been brought to the necessity of discarding their old canon. For, as stated above, after the splitting of the church in these two sects the philosophical system of the Gainas remained stationary, since it is nearly the same with both sects. As regards ethics, both sects, it is true, differ more. But as the extant canon of the Svetambaras is not falling into neglect, though many practices enjoined in it have long since been abandoned, it is not more probable that they should have been more sensible on the same score at the time when the Pirvas formed their canon. Besides, some of the Pfrvas are said to have continued to be extant long after the time which we have assigned for the formation of the new canon. At last they disappeared, not by an intentional neglect, I presume, but because the new canon set into clearer light the Gaina doctrines, and put them forward more systematically than had been done in the controversial literature of the Parvas.
Our discussion, which we here close, has, I hope, proved that the development of the Gaina church has not been, at any time, violently interrupted by some very extraordinary events; that we can follow this development from its true beginning through its different stages, and that Gainism is as much independent from other sects, especially from
1 Indische Studien, XVI, p. 248.
INTRODUCTION. x] vii
Buddhism, as can be expected from any sect. We must leave to future researches to work out the details, but I hope to have removed the doubts, entertained by some scholars, about the independence of the Gaina religion and the value of its sacred books as trustworthy documents for the elucidation of its early history.
It remains for me to add a few remarks about the two works which have been translated in this book.
It remains for me to add a few remarks about the two works which have been translated in this book.
The Afaraaga Sftra, or, as it is sometimes called, the Samiayika’, is the first of the eleven Angas. It treats of the A44ra, or conduct, which falls under the last of the four heads, or anuyogas, into which the sacred lore is divided, viz. Dharmakatha, Gazita, Dravya, and Karazakarana. The Akaranga Satra contains two books, or Srutaskandhas, very different from each other in style and in the manner in which the subject is treated. The subdivisions of the second book being called A lds, or appendices, it follows that only the first book is really old. That it was considered so even in later times, is apparent from a remark of Silanka, who wrote the commentary, which is the oldest one extant®. For speaking of the mangala or auspicious sentence which, according to a current theory, must occur at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of each work, Silanka points out as such the first sentence of the first lesson of the first lecture, the first sentence of the fifth lesson of the fifth lecture, and the latter half of the 16th verse in the fourth lesson of the eighth lecture of the first book. It is evident that he regarded the A#ar4nga Stra as ending with the last-named passage, which is the last but one of the first book.
The first book, then, is the oldest part of the Afaranga Satra ; it is probably the old A#aranga Satra itself to which other treatises have been added. For it is complete in
1 See Professor Weber’s remarks on the possible bearing of this name in the treatise I had so often occasion to quote, p. 243 seqq-
? It was not, however, the first commentary, for Silaaka mentions one by Gandhahastin, .
xl viii GAINA SOTRAS.
For it is complete in
1 See Professor Weber’s remarks on the possible bearing of this name in the treatise I had so often occasion to quote, p. 243 seqq-
? It was not, however, the first commentary, for Silaaka mentions one by Gandhahastin, .
fore) being careful he should always exert himself. The commentator however does not separate the quotations from the glosses, but takes all these passages as parts of one sentence, which he interprets in the way that it has been rendered in the text of my translation, p. 37.
, xlix fore) being careful he should always exert himself. The commentator however does not separate the quotations from the glosses, but takes all these passages as parts of one sentence, which he interprets in the way that it has been rendered in the text of my translation, p. 37.
In this as in many other cases I have preferred to give in my translation the meaning which Silanka has given in his commentary. For it is sometimes extremely difficult to separate the quotations from the remaining text. I have never dared to do so when they could not be proved to be parts of verses. I had therefore to leave unnoticed all such passages which, as the one quoted above, might be taken as a Pada of a Sloka; for in every prose work such passages occur, though they never were meant for verse. They may, therefore, only accidentally resemble parts of a Sloka in our book too, though the great number of such passages is rather suspicious. The greatest difficulty however we should incur if we were to point out the prose quotations, though there are certainly such, e.g. I, 3, 1,1, sutta amuzi, muzizo satatam gagaranti. Such phrases differ in style from the rest of the prose part; but it would be impossible to draw the line between them and the work of the real author. From what has been said, it will appear how difficult it is to do justice to such a work as the first book of the A#araiga in the first attempt to translate it. In most cases I have contented myself with rendering the text according to the interpretation of the commentator. It must be left to future labours to come nearer the meaning of the author than it has been preserved by the tradition of the scholiasts.
Formerly the first book contained nine lectures instead of eight, one lecture, the Mah4parinn4, being now lost. It was, according to some authorities, Samavay4nga, Nandi, Avasyaka Niryukti, and Vidhiprabha}, the ninth lecture; but according to the Niryukti of the A&4ranga Satra, which contains a systematic exposition of the subjects treated in the single lectures and lessons of the A#4rAnga itself, and
1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 251 seq.
[22] d
] GAINA SOTRAS.
to Silanka and the other commentators, it was the eighth lecture. It contained seven lessons, and treated of some details of ascetic life?. The fact that the same subjects were treated in the second book probably occasioned the loss of the Mahaparinné, ‘because it was superfluous ®’
to Silanka and the other commentators, it was the eighth lecture. It contained seven lessons, and treated of some details of ascetic life?. The fact that the same subjects were treated in the second book probably occasioned the loss of the Mahaparinné, ‘because it was superfluous ®’
The second book consists of four parts (K 014) or appendices. There were originally five Adlds, but the fifth, the Nisihiyaggana, is now reckoned as a separate work. The first and second parts lay down rules for conduct. Their style is very different from that of the first book, being rather cumbrous, and not at all aphoristical. The greatest difficulty in translating these parts is caused by the numerous technical terms, some of which remain obscure, notwithstanding the explanation of the commentary; others again are simply transcribed into Sanskrit by the scholiast, and seem to require no definition to be understood by the modern Gainas. But it is* different with us, who are frequently reduced to guessing at the meaning of technicalities which a Yati could explain at once. It is therefore to be hoped that some scholars in India, who can avail themselves of the instruction of a Yati, will turn their attention to this subject, and get an authentic explanation of the many technical terms the meaning of which cannot be ascertained by a European scholar by the means of Gaina works only.
The third and fourth Aidl4s have, according to the Parisishéa Parvan IX, been revealed to the eldest sister of Sthalabhadra by Simandhara, a Gina living in Parvavideha, a mythical continent. This tradition is very remarkable, as it assigns what we should call the composition of the two last parts of the A#draiga Stra to the same time when the Kalpa Sitra, which treats of a similar subject, was composed.
The third part is of great interest, as it contains the materials from which the Life of Mah4vira in the Kalpa Stra has been worked out. In fact most of the prose paragraphs occur with but small alterations in the Kalpa
1 See Calcutta edition, I, p. 435 seq., vv. 251-268. 2 Siisayattanena, Weber, l.c.
INTRODUCTION. li
Sftra. The latter work adds little that is material from an historical point of view, but a great deal of descriptions which have become typical and are to be found in other Gaina works adapted to similar circumstances. The Afaranga Sfitra contains, besides the above-mentioned paragraphs, some verses which are wanting in the Kalpa Sftra. On comparing these verses with those in the eighth lecture of the first book, we become aware of the great difference which subsists between both portions of the A#drdaga Sdtra, for in both, kindred subjects are treated in Arya verses, yet the difference in style and in the treatment of | the metre is such as can only be explained by the assumption of a considerable distance of time.
The latter part of the third Ala, which treats of the five great vows, with their twenty-five clauses, calls for no further remark; nor is anything more to be said about the twelve verses which make up the fourth 414, but that they are probably old, and have been added here for want of a better place. ;
The translation of the A#4ranga Satra is based on my edition of the text in the Pali Text Society’, and the commentaries printed in the Calcutta edition of the Az4- _ ranga Sdtra. They are:
1. 7ika of Silanka, also called Tattvaditya, said to have been finished in the Saka year 798 or 876 A.D., with the help of Vahari Sadhu.
2. Dipika of Ginahamsa Sdri, a teacher of the Brzhat Kharatara Gakkha. The Dipika is almost verbally copied from the 7ika, which it pretends to reduce to a smaller compass. But the reduction consists almost entirely in the omission of Silanka’s comments on the Niryukti verses, which form his introduction to every lecture and lesson.
3. Parsvakandra’s Balavabodha or Gugerati Gloss. In some parts of the second book, which are not explained in the older commentaries, this gloss was the only help Ihad. It generally closely follows the explanation of the older commentaries, more especially that of the Dipika.
About the Kalpa Sitra I have spoken at some length in
1 The Ay4ramga Sutta of the Cvetimbara Jains, London, 1882. d2
“hi GAINA SOTRAS.
It generally closely follows the explanation of the older commentaries, more especially that of the Dipika.
About the Kalpa Sitra I have spoken at some length in
1 The Ay4ramga Sutta of the Cvetimbara Jains, London, 1882. d2
“hi GAINA SOTRAS.
the introduction to my edition of that work, to which I refer the reader for further particulars. Since that time Professor Weber has taken up the subject in his treatise on the Sacred Books of the Gainas and corrected some mistakes of mine. He ascertained that the whole Kalpa Sftra is incorporated as the eighth lecture in the Dasdsrutaskandha, the fourth KAeda Sfitra. Professor Weber concurs in my opinion that the ‘Rules for Yatis’ may be the work of Bhadrabdhu?, and that the ‘ List of Sthaviras’ probably has been added by Devarddhi, the editor of the Siddhanta. I do not think, however, that Devarddhi was the author of the Life of Mahavira also, as Professor Weber suggests. For if it were the work of so well known a man, tradition would certainly not have allowed such a fact to become forgotten. It was a different thing with the List of Sthaviras, which consists of four or five distinct treatises only put together and added to the Lives of the Ginas by the editor of the work. We cannot argue from the style of the Lives of the Ginas that that part must be younger than the Rules for Yatis; for the same difference of style occasioned by the diversity of the matter exists between the third Kala of the A#aranga Sdtra and the two preceding ones. Nor can the meagreness of the contents be adduced as an argument against the antiquity of the Lives of the Ginas, since they were probably not intended for biographical treatises, but served a liturgical purpose; for when the images of the Tirthakaras are worshipped in the temples they are addressed with hymns, one of which sums up the Kalydwzakas or auspicious moments®, It is
1 The Kalpa Sftra of Bhadrabahu, Leipzig, 1879. Abhandlungen fir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII, 1.
2 That the ‘ Rules for Yatis’ must have been composed at least six generations after Mahavira is evident from §§ 3-8, but probably the work is still younger. For in § 6 the Sthaviras, who come immediately after the disciples of the Ganadharas, are spoken of in some contrast to the ‘Sramanas Nirgranthas of the present time.’ Yet the work cannot be comparatively young, because it appears from §§ 28-30 that the Ginakalpa had not yet fallen into disuse, as it had done in later times.
3 The rites are described and the hymns given in a modern work called Katurvimsatitirthahkarén4m pga, a MS. of which belongs to the Deccan College.
INTRODUCTION, hit
3 The rites are described and the hymns given in a modern work called Katurvimsatitirthahkarén4m pga, a MS. of which belongs to the Deccan College.
INTRODUCTION, hit
with these Kalydvakas that the Lives of the Ginas are chiefly concerned, and this fact seems to prove that the custom of mentioning the Kalyazakas in the worship of the Tirthakaras is a very old one; for otherwise it would be impossible to conceive what could have induced an author to treat so largely of so barren a subject as has been done inthe Kalpa Sftra. But whatever may be the age of the several parts of the Kalpa Siatra, it is certain that this work has been held in high esteem by the Gainas for more than a thousand years. It therefore deserves a place in this collection of translations from the Sacred Books of the East. I could only have wished to make my translation more worthy of the place where it is to make its appearance; but if I have somewhat fallen short in my performance, I hope it will be accepted as an excuse that I had to translate into a language which is not my own, works of a literature which, notwithstanding all that has been done for it, still is all but virgin soil to us.
HERMANN JACOBI.
Munster, WESTPHALIA, June, 1884.
AKARANGA SOTRA.
AKARANGA SUTRA.
FIRST BOOK. FIRST LECTURE?
CALLED
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEAPON.
First Lesson,
O long-lived (Gambfsvamin‘)! I (Sudharman) have heard the following discourse from the venerable (Mah4vtra): (1)
Here many do not remember whether they have descended in an eastern direction (when they were born in this world), or in a southern, or in a western, or in a northern direction, or in the direction from above, or in the direction from below, or in a direction intermediate (between the cardinal points), or in a direction intermediate between these (and the
? Suyakkhamdha, srutaskandha.
? Aegghayana, adhyayana. The first lecture is called satthapariana (sastra-parig#4), ‘knowledge of the weapon.’ Weapons ate divided into material weapon and weapon consisting in a state (bh4va). The latter is explained to be non-control (asamyama) or the wrong use of mind, speech, and body. Knowledge (parig#ia) is twofold: comprehension and renunciation. The subject of the first lecture is, therefore, the comprehension and renunciation of everything that hurts other beings.
* Uddesaya, uddesaka.
* Gambfsvamin was the disciple of Sudharman, one of the eleven chief disciples (gazadhara) of Mahavira.
4 [22] B
p. 2
The subject of the first lecture is, therefore, the comprehension and renunciation of everything that hurts other beings.
* Uddesaya, uddesaka.
* Gambfsvamin was the disciple of Sudharman, one of the eleven chief disciples (gazadhara) of Mahavira.
4 [22] Bp. 2 cardinal points). (2) Similarly, some do not know whether their soul is born again and again or not; nor what they were formerly, nor what they will become after having died and left this world. (3) Now this is what one should know, either by one’s own knowledge or through the instruction of the highest (i.e. a Tirthakara), or having heard it from others: that he descended in an eastern direction, or in any other direction (particularised above). Similarly, some know that their soul is born again and again, that it arrives in this or that direction, whatever direction that may be. (4) He believes in soul !, believes in the world 2, believes in reward’, believes in action (acknowledged to be our own doing in such judgments as these): ‘I did it;’ ‘I shall cause another to do it;’ ‘I shall allow another to do it*.” In the world, these are all the causes of sin®, which must be comprehended and renounced. (5) A man that does not comprehend and renounce the causes of sin, descends in a cardinal or intermediate direction, wanders to all cardinal or intermediate directions, is born again and again in manifold births, experiences all painful feelings. (6) About this the Revered One has taught
1 Le. in a permanent soul, different from the body. This is said against the Karvakas.
2 T.e. the plurality of souls, not in one all-soul, as the Ved4ntins.
* Kamma (karma) is that which darkens our intellect, &c. Its result is the suffering condition of men, its cause is action (kiriy&, kriy4).
‘ The different tenses employed in these sentences imply, according to the commentators, the acknowledgment of the reality of time, as past, present, future.
5 Kamma-samframbha. Kamma has been explained above. Sam4rambha, a special action (kriya), is the engaging in something blamable (savady4nush/A4na).
BOOK I, LECTURE I, LESSON 2. 3
the truth (comprehension and renunciation). For the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, all these causes of sin are at work, which are to be comprehended and renounced in this world. He who, in the world, comprehends and renounces these causes of sin, is called a rewardknowing sage (mui). Thus I say}. (7)
SeconpD Lesson *.
The (living) world is afflicted, miserable, difficult to instruct, and without discrimination. In this world full of pain, suffering by their different acts, see the benighted ones cause great pain. (1) See! there are beings individually embodied (in earth; not one all-soul). See! there are men who
1 These words (tti bemi) stand at the end of every lesson. The commentators supply them also for the beginning of each lesson.
(1) See! there are beings individually embodied (in earth; not one all-soul). See! there are men who
1 These words (tti bemi) stand at the end of every lesson. The commentators supply them also for the beginning of each lesson.
® After the chief tenets of Gainism with regard to soul and actions have briefly been stated in the first lesson, the six remaining lessons of the first lecture treat of the actions which injure the six classes of lives or souls. The Gainas seem to have arrived at their concept of soul, not through the search after the Self, the selfexisting unchangeable principle in the ever-changing world of phenomena, but through the perception of life. For the most general Gaina term for soul is life (giva), which is identical with self (aya, dtman). There are numberless lives or souls, not only embodied in animals, men, gods, hell-beings (tasa, trasa), and plants (vaassaf, vanaspati), but also in the four elements—earth, water, fire, wind. Earth, &c., regarded as the abode of lives is called earth-body, &c. These bodies are only perceptible when an infinite number of them is united in one place. The earth-lives, &c., possess only one organ, that of feeling; they have undeveloped (avyakta)intellect and feelings (vedan&), but no limbs, &c. The doctrines about these elementary lives are laid down in Bhadrab4hu’s Niryukti of our Sfitra, and are commented upon in Stl4nka’s great commentary of it. They are very abstruse, and deal in the most minute distinctions, which baffle our comprehension.
B2
4 AgARANGA SOTRA.
The doctrines about these elementary lives are laid down in Bhadrab4hu’s Niryukti of our Sfitra, and are commented upon in Stl4nka’s great commentary of it. They are very abstruse, and deal in the most minute distinctions, which baffle our comprehension.
B2
4 AgARANGA SOTRA.
control themselves, (whilst others only) pretend to be houseless (i.e. monks, such as the Bauddhas, whose conduct differs not from that of householders), because one destroys this (earth-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of earth, through his doing acts relating to earth. (2) About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards earth, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood or heard, either from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. (3) There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this! a man is longing when he destroys this (earth-body) by bad, injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of earth, through his doing acts relating to earth, Thus I say. (4) As somebody may cut or strike a blind man (who cannot see the wound), as somebody may cut or strike the foot, the ankle, the knee, the thigh, the hip, the navel, the belly, the flank, the back, the bosom, the heart, the breast, the neck, the arm, the finger, the nail, the eye, the brow, the forehead, the head, as some kill (openly), as some extirpate
1 IA’ attham. The commentators think this to be a reference to the sentence, For the sake of the splendour, &c. It would be more natural to connect it with the foregoing sentence ; the meaning is, For bondage, &c., men commit violence, though they believe it to be for the happiness of this life.
BOOK I, LECTURE I, LESSON 3. 5
(secretly), (thus the earth-bodies are cut, struck, and killed though their feeling is not manifest). (5)
He who injures these (earth-bodies) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards earth, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to earth, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say. (6)