Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The Buddhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invitations for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them. From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Samnydsin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Samny4sin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Gainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Ginas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former. There remains another possibility, but a still more improbable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more improbable, because, firstly, the Saszny4sin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Asramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were 1 Baudhayana II, 10, 18, 13. 9 Arfrdaga Sitra II, 1. XXX GAINA SUTRAS.
29 Arfrdaga Sitra II, 1. XXX GAINA SUTRAS. confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Samny4sins; thirdly, Gautama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism. For Professor Biihler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Apastamba Sftra must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.c.! Baudhayana is older than Apastamba; according to Biihler?, the distance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudh4yana*, Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhayana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brahmanic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Biihler should be wrong in his estimation of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries, Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brahmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brahmans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Brahmaza as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brahmans. It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brahmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg*. For 1 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, part i, introduction, p. xliii. 2 Lic. p. xxii, 5 Lc. p. xlix. * Buddha, sein Leben, &c., p. 157 seq. INTRODUCTION. XXX1 Buddha, in his first sermon at Benares, speaks of his religion as that yass’ atthaya kulaputta sammad eva agadrasma anagariyam pabbaganti: for the sake of which sons of noble families leave the house and enter the state of houselessness!. That the Gainas too gave the Kshatriyas the preference over the Brahmans is proved by that curious legend about the transfer of the embryo of Mahavira from the womb of the Brahmazi Devananda to that of the Kshatriyami Trisala, it being alleged that a Brahmami or another woman of low family was not worthy to give birth to a Tirthakara?. On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and asa
3On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and asa 1 Mahavagga I, 6, 12. 3 This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the Svetambaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Afaratga, the Kalpa Sftra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. Iassume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahmanf Devananda, the real mother of Mahfvira, and the Kshatriyaaf Trisala; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, because its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not toa Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that Rishabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devananda with another husband. Now Siddhartha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisal4. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahavira was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisal&, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahdvira’s parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Purasic story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tirthakara, Arishfanemi, who was a famous Y4dava, XXX GAINA SOTRAS. proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Bihler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sddra through one of the four Asramas}.
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 Buddhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invitations for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them. From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Samnydsin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Samny4sin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Gainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Ginas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former. There remains another possibility, but a still more improbable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more improbable, because, firstly, the Saszny4sin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Asramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were 1 Baudhayana II, 10, 18, 13. 9 Arfrdaga Sitra II, 1. XXX GAINA SUTRAS.
29 Arfrdaga Sitra II, 1. XXX GAINA SUTRAS. confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Samny4sins; thirdly, Gautama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism. For Professor Biihler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Apastamba Sftra must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.c.! Baudhayana is older than Apastamba; according to Biihler?, the distance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudh4yana*, Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhayana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brahmanic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Biihler should be wrong in his estimation of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries, Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brahmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brahmans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Brahmaza as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brahmans. It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brahmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg*. For 1 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, part i, introduction, p. xliii. 2 Lic. p. xxii, 5 Lc. p. xlix. * Buddha, sein Leben, &c., p. 157 seq. INTRODUCTION. XXX1 Buddha, in his first sermon at Benares, speaks of his religion as that yass’ atthaya kulaputta sammad eva agadrasma anagariyam pabbaganti: for the sake of which sons of noble families leave the house and enter the state of houselessness!. That the Gainas too gave the Kshatriyas the preference over the Brahmans is proved by that curious legend about the transfer of the embryo of Mahavira from the womb of the Brahmazi Devananda to that of the Kshatriyami Trisala, it being alleged that a Brahmami or another woman of low family was not worthy to give birth to a Tirthakara?. On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and asa
3On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and asa 1 Mahavagga I, 6, 12. 3 This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the Svetambaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Afaratga, the Kalpa Sftra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. Iassume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahmanf Devananda, the real mother of Mahfvira, and the Kshatriyaaf Trisala; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, because its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not toa Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that Rishabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devananda with another husband. Now Siddhartha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisal4. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahavira was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisal&, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahdvira’s parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Purasic story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tirthakara, Arishfanemi, who was a famous Y4dava, XXX GAINA SOTRAS. proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Bihler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sddra through one of the four Asramas}.
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.