Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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 x GAINA SOTRAS. 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 Kumdagrama. - 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 Kusdagrama is called in the Afaranga Sfttra 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 (Ad4ranga Sdtra II, 15,§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 Kofsiggdma, was visited by the courtezan Ambapdli and the Likkdavis of the neighbouring capital Veséli. From Koéigg4ma he went to where the WAtikas? (lived). There he lodged in the WAtika Brickhall’, in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan * See Oldenberg’s edition, pp. 231, 232; the translation, p. 104 seq., of the second part, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii. * The passages in which the WAtikas occur seem to have been misunderstood by the commentator and the modem translators. Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mah4parinibbana-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says ina note, p.24: ‘At first Nadika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number ; but then, INTRODUCTION. X1
2Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mah4parinibbana-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says ina note, p.24: ‘At first Nadika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number ; but then, INTRODUCTION. X1 Ambap4li possessed a park, Ambapdlivana, 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 Ko/iggama of the Buddhists is identical with the Kuzdaggdma of the Gainas. Apart from the similarity of the names, the mentioning of the WAtikas, apparently identical with the Giatrika Kshatriyas to whose clan Mah4vira belonged, and of Siha, the Gaina, point to the same direction. Kuzdagrama, therefore, was probably one of the suburbs of VaisAli, the capital of Videha. This conjecture is borne out by the name Vesilie, i.e. Vaisdlika given to Mahavira in the Sftrakritanga I, 31. 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 Vaisdlika, and so we are justified in entirely ignoring the artificial explanations of the later Gainas. Vaisdlika apparently means a native of Vaisalf: and Mahavira could rightly be called that when Kuzdagrama was a suburb of Vaisali, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner. If then Kua#dagrima 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 thirdly, in the last clause, in the singular. Buddhaghosa explains this by saying that there were two villages of the same name on the shore of the same piece of water.’ The plural Watika denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Gi#gakavasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahdparinibbana-Sutta and in the Mah4vagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nadika is used in the singular. I think the form Nadika is wrong, and Natika, the spelling of the Mahavagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation : ‘ Nadika, near Patna.’ It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahavagga that the place in question, as well as Kotigga4ma, was near Vesili. ' See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262. xii GAINA SOTRAS.
3Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation : ‘ Nadika, near Patna.’ It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahavagga that the place in question, as well as Kotigga4ma, was near Vesili. ' See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262. xii GAINA SOTRAS. that Siddhartha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya —his wife Trisal4 is, so far as I remember, never styled Devi, queen, but always Kshatriyazi. Whenever the Gi&trika 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 Trisalé was sister to Kefaka, king of Vaisali. She is called Vaidehi or Videhadatt4?, 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 Satra‘ it is related that king Kedaka, whom K dnika, al: AgAtasatru, king of Kamp4, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kasi and. Kosala, the Likkfavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kanika’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 Xeéaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that Kefaka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the 1 See Kalpa Stra, my edition, p. 113. Ketaka is called the maternal uncle of Mahavira. 3 See Kalpa Sitra, Lives of the Ginas, § 110; Ak&rfaga Satra II, 15, § 15. * Turnour in the Journal of the Royal As. Soc. of Bengal, VII, p. 992. * Ed. Warren, p. 27. 5 See Kalpa Sftra, Lives of the Ginas. INTRODUCTION. Xili 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 Vaisdlt used to be a stronghold of Gainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.
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.
1The 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 x GAINA SOTRAS. 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 Kumdagrama. - 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 Kusdagrama is called in the Afaranga Sfttra 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 (Ad4ranga Sdtra II, 15,§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 Kofsiggdma, was visited by the courtezan Ambapdli and the Likkdavis of the neighbouring capital Veséli. From Koéigg4ma he went to where the WAtikas? (lived). There he lodged in the WAtika Brickhall’, in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan * See Oldenberg’s edition, pp. 231, 232; the translation, p. 104 seq., of the second part, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii. * The passages in which the WAtikas occur seem to have been misunderstood by the commentator and the modem translators. Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mah4parinibbana-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says ina note, p.24: ‘At first Nadika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number ; but then, INTRODUCTION. X1
2Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mah4parinibbana-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says ina note, p.24: ‘At first Nadika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number ; but then, INTRODUCTION. X1 Ambap4li possessed a park, Ambapdlivana, 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 Ko/iggama of the Buddhists is identical with the Kuzdaggdma of the Gainas. Apart from the similarity of the names, the mentioning of the WAtikas, apparently identical with the Giatrika Kshatriyas to whose clan Mah4vira belonged, and of Siha, the Gaina, point to the same direction. Kuzdagrama, therefore, was probably one of the suburbs of VaisAli, the capital of Videha. This conjecture is borne out by the name Vesilie, i.e. Vaisdlika given to Mahavira in the Sftrakritanga I, 31. 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 Vaisdlika, and so we are justified in entirely ignoring the artificial explanations of the later Gainas. Vaisdlika apparently means a native of Vaisalf: and Mahavira could rightly be called that when Kuzdagrama was a suburb of Vaisali, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner. If then Kua#dagrima 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 thirdly, in the last clause, in the singular. Buddhaghosa explains this by saying that there were two villages of the same name on the shore of the same piece of water.’ The plural Watika denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Gi#gakavasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahdparinibbana-Sutta and in the Mah4vagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nadika is used in the singular. I think the form Nadika is wrong, and Natika, the spelling of the Mahavagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation : ‘ Nadika, near Patna.’ It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahavagga that the place in question, as well as Kotigga4ma, was near Vesili. ' See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262. xii GAINA SOTRAS.
3Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation : ‘ Nadika, near Patna.’ It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahavagga that the place in question, as well as Kotigga4ma, was near Vesili. ' See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262. xii GAINA SOTRAS. that Siddhartha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya —his wife Trisal4 is, so far as I remember, never styled Devi, queen, but always Kshatriyazi. Whenever the Gi&trika 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 Trisalé was sister to Kefaka, king of Vaisali. She is called Vaidehi or Videhadatt4?, 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 Satra‘ it is related that king Kedaka, whom K dnika, al: AgAtasatru, king of Kamp4, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kasi and. Kosala, the Likkfavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kanika’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 Xeéaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that Kefaka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the 1 See Kalpa Stra, my edition, p. 113. Ketaka is called the maternal uncle of Mahavira. 3 See Kalpa Sitra, Lives of the Ginas, § 110; Ak&rfaga Satra II, 15, § 15. * Turnour in the Journal of the Royal As. Soc. of Bengal, VII, p. 992. * Ed. Warren, p. 27. 5 See Kalpa Sftra, Lives of the Ginas. INTRODUCTION. Xili 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 Vaisdlt used to be a stronghold of Gainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.
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.