Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But 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.
2existence.’ 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
3For 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But 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.
2existence.’ 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
3For 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.