Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12 Indische Studien, XVI, 210. INTRODUCTION. xix 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 Nigaz¢has 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 ahd 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, Mah4vira, Sarvag#a, 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 1 Indische Altcrthumskunde, IV, p. 765 seq. b2 xX GAINA SOTRAS.
2All these words occur more or less frequently in the writings of both sects; but there is this difference, that with the exception 1 Indische Altcrthumskunde, IV, p. 765 seq. b2 xX GAINA SOTRAS. of Gina, and perhaps Sramaza, 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 INTRODUCTION. Xx their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versa.
3The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed INTRODUCTION. Xx 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 vers. 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. Xxii 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.
12 Indische Studien, XVI, 210. INTRODUCTION. xix 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 Nigaz¢has 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 ahd 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, Mah4vira, Sarvag#a, 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 1 Indische Altcrthumskunde, IV, p. 765 seq. b2 xX GAINA SOTRAS.
2All these words occur more or less frequently in the writings of both sects; but there is this difference, that with the exception 1 Indische Altcrthumskunde, IV, p. 765 seq. b2 xX GAINA SOTRAS. of Gina, and perhaps Sramaza, 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 INTRODUCTION. Xx their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versa.
3The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed INTRODUCTION. Xx 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 vers. 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. Xxii 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.