Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. XV (Nirgranthas), now better known under the name of Gainas or Arhatas, already existed as an important sect at the time when the Buddhist church was being founded. But it is still open to doubt whether the religion of the early Nirgranthas was essentially the same as that taught in the canonical and other books of the present Gainas, or underwent a great change up to the time of the composition of the Siddh4nta. In order to come nearer the solution of this question, it may be desirable to collect from the published Buddhist works, as the oldest witnesses we can summon, all available information about the Nigazéhas, their doctrines and religious practices. In the Anguttara Nikaya, III, 74, a learned prince of the Likkhavis of Vaisali, Abhaya', gives the following account of some Nigaztha doctrines: ‘The Nigaztha NA&taputta, sir, who knows and sees all things, who claims perfect knowledge and faith (in the following terms): “walking and standing, sleeping or waking, I am always possessed of perfect knowledge and faith ;” teaches the annihilation by austerities of the old Karman, and the prevention by inactivity of new Karman. When Karman ceases, misery ceases; when misery ceases, perception ceases; when perception ceases, every misery will come to anend. In this way a man is saved by pure annihilation of sin (niggara) which is really effective.’ The Gaina counterpart to these tenets can be collected from the Uttaradhyayana XXIX. ‘By austerities he cuts off Karman,’ § 27. ‘By renouncing activity he obtains inactivity; by ceasing to act he acquires no new Karman, and destroys the Karman he had acquired before,’ § 37. The last stages in this process are fully described in §§ 71, 1 There are apparently two persons of this name. The other Abhaya, a son of king Srézika, was a patron of the Gainas, and is frequently mentioned in their legends and in the canonical books. In the Magghima Nikaya 58 (Abhayakuméra Sutta) it is related that the Nigaz/ka Nataputta made him engage in a disputation with Buddha. The question was so adroitly framed that whether the answer was Yes or No, it involved Buddha in self-contradiction. But the plan did not succeed, and Abhaya was converted by Buddha. There is nothing in this account to elucidate the doctrines of Nataputta. Xvi GAINA SOTRAS. 72. And again, in XXXII, v. 7, we read: ‘ Karman is the root of birth and death, and birth and death they call misery.’ The nearly identical verses 34, 47, 60, 73, 86, 99 may be thus condensed: ‘But a man who is indifferent to the object of the senses, and to the feelings of the mind [this comes nearest to the Buddhist védan 4. perception], is free from sorrows; though still in the Saszsdra, he is not afflicted by that long succession of pains. just as the leaf of the Lotus (is not moistened) by water.’
2perception], is free from sorrows; though still in the Saszsdra, he is not afflicted by that long succession of pains. just as the leaf of the Lotus (is not moistened) by water.’ The above assertion that Nataputta claimed the possession of perfect knowledge and faith, requires no further proof; for it is one of the fundamental dogmas of the Gainas. Another piece of information about Nigaz¢ka doctrines may be gathered from the Mahdvagga VI, 31 (S. B. E., vol. xvii, p. 108 ff.) There a story is told of Siha 1, the general of the Li#ksavis, who was a lay disciple of Nataputta. He wanted to pay the Buddha a visit, but Nataputta tried to dissuade him from it, because the Nigan¢has held the Kriy4vada, while the Buddha taught the Akriyavada. Siha, however, setting his master’s prohibition at nought, went to the Buddha on his own account, and was, of course, converted by him. Now the statement that the Nigaztias embraced the Kriyavada is borne out by our texts ; for in the Strakritanga I, 12, 21, below, p. 319, it is said that a perfect ascetic ‘is entitled to expound the Kriydvada ;’ and this doctrine is thus expressed in the Afaranga Stra I, 1, 1, 4 (part i, p. 2): ‘He believes in soul, believes in the world, believes in reward, believes in action (believed to be our own doing in such judgments as these): “I did it;” “I shall cause another to do it ;” “T shall allow another to do it.’ Another lay disciple of Mahavira, converted by the Buddha, was Upéli. As narrated in the Magghima Nikaya 56, he ventured upon a dispute with him whether the sins of the mind are heaviest, as the Buddha teaches, or the ' The name Stha occurs in the Bhayavatf (Calcutta edition, p. 1267, see Hoernle, Uvasaga Dasfo Appendix, p. 10) as that of a disciple of Mahavira; but as he was a monk, he cannot be identified with his namesake in the Mahavagga. INTRODUCTION. xvii sins of the body, as the Nigaz¢ka Nataputta contends. In the beginning of the discourse Upali states that his master uses the term dazda, punishment, for what is commonly called kamma, deed, act. This is true, though not quite to the letter; for the word kamma occurs also in the Gaina Sitras in that sense. The term dada, however, is at least as frequently used. Thus, in the Sdtrakyzt4nga II, 2, p. 357 ff., the thirteen kinds of ‘committing sins’ are treated of, and in the first five cases the word which I have translated ‘committing sins’ is in the original daz dasamad4ze, and in the remaining cases kiriyA4¢h4ne, i.e. kriyAsth4na. The Nigawtha Up4li goes on to explain that there are three dazdas, the dazda of body, that of speech, and that of mind. This agrees with the Gaina doctrine expressed in nearly the same words in the Sthan4nga Sdtra, 3rd uddésaka (see Indian Antiquary, IX, p. 159).
3kriyAsth4na. The Nigawtha Up4li goes on to explain that there are three dazdas, the dazda of body, that of speech, and that of mind. This agrees with the Gaina doctrine expressed in nearly the same words in the Sthan4nga Sdtra, 3rd uddésaka (see Indian Antiquary, IX, p. 159). The second statement of UpAli, that the Nigaz¢kas consider sins of the body more important than sins of the mind, is in perfect harmony with Gaina views. For in the Satrakritanga II, 4, p. 398 ff., the question is discussed whether sins may be committed unconsciously, and it is boldly answered in the affirmative (compare note 6, p. 399) ; and in the Sixth Lecture of the same book (p. 414) the Buddhists are severely ridiculed for maintaining that it depends on the intention of the man whether a deed of his be a sin or not. In the Anguttara Nikaya III, 70, 3, some practices of Nigaztha laymen are discussed. I translate the passage thus: ‘O Visékha, there is a class of Samavzas who are called Nigazthas. They exhort a SAvaka thus: “ Well, sir, you must desist from doing injury to beings in the East beyond a yégana from here, or to those in the West, North, South, always beyond a yégana from here.” In this way they enjoin tenderness by making him spare some living beings ; in this way they enjoin cruelty by making him not spare other living beings.’ It is not difficult to recognise under these words the Digvirati vow of the Gainas, which (45) b ” Xviii GAINA SUTRAS. consists in laying down the limits beyond which one shall not travel nor do business in the different directions. A man who keeps this vow cannot, of course, do any harm to beings beyond the limits within which he is obliged to keep. This is so distorted by the hostile sect as to lay the rule under discussion open to blame. We cannot expect one sect to give a fair and honest exposition of the tenets of their opponents; it is but natural that they should put them in such a form as to make the objections to be raised against them all the better applicable. The Gainas were not a whit better in this respect than the Bauddhas, and they have retorted upon them in the same way; witness their misrepresentation of the Buddhist idea that a deed becomes a sin only through the sinful intention of the doer, in a passage in the present volume, p. 414, v. 26 ff., where the sound principle of the Buddhists is ridiculed by applying it to a fictitious and almost absurd case.
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.
1INTRODUCTION. XV (Nirgranthas), now better known under the name of Gainas or Arhatas, already existed as an important sect at the time when the Buddhist church was being founded. But it is still open to doubt whether the religion of the early Nirgranthas was essentially the same as that taught in the canonical and other books of the present Gainas, or underwent a great change up to the time of the composition of the Siddh4nta. In order to come nearer the solution of this question, it may be desirable to collect from the published Buddhist works, as the oldest witnesses we can summon, all available information about the Nigazéhas, their doctrines and religious practices. In the Anguttara Nikaya, III, 74, a learned prince of the Likkhavis of Vaisali, Abhaya', gives the following account of some Nigaztha doctrines: ‘The Nigaztha NA&taputta, sir, who knows and sees all things, who claims perfect knowledge and faith (in the following terms): “walking and standing, sleeping or waking, I am always possessed of perfect knowledge and faith ;” teaches the annihilation by austerities of the old Karman, and the prevention by inactivity of new Karman. When Karman ceases, misery ceases; when misery ceases, perception ceases; when perception ceases, every misery will come to anend. In this way a man is saved by pure annihilation of sin (niggara) which is really effective.’ The Gaina counterpart to these tenets can be collected from the Uttaradhyayana XXIX. ‘By austerities he cuts off Karman,’ § 27. ‘By renouncing activity he obtains inactivity; by ceasing to act he acquires no new Karman, and destroys the Karman he had acquired before,’ § 37. The last stages in this process are fully described in §§ 71, 1 There are apparently two persons of this name. The other Abhaya, a son of king Srézika, was a patron of the Gainas, and is frequently mentioned in their legends and in the canonical books. In the Magghima Nikaya 58 (Abhayakuméra Sutta) it is related that the Nigaz/ka Nataputta made him engage in a disputation with Buddha. The question was so adroitly framed that whether the answer was Yes or No, it involved Buddha in self-contradiction. But the plan did not succeed, and Abhaya was converted by Buddha. There is nothing in this account to elucidate the doctrines of Nataputta. Xvi GAINA SOTRAS. 72. And again, in XXXII, v. 7, we read: ‘ Karman is the root of birth and death, and birth and death they call misery.’ The nearly identical verses 34, 47, 60, 73, 86, 99 may be thus condensed: ‘But a man who is indifferent to the object of the senses, and to the feelings of the mind [this comes nearest to the Buddhist védan 4. perception], is free from sorrows; though still in the Saszsdra, he is not afflicted by that long succession of pains. just as the leaf of the Lotus (is not moistened) by water.’
2perception], is free from sorrows; though still in the Saszsdra, he is not afflicted by that long succession of pains. just as the leaf of the Lotus (is not moistened) by water.’ The above assertion that Nataputta claimed the possession of perfect knowledge and faith, requires no further proof; for it is one of the fundamental dogmas of the Gainas. Another piece of information about Nigaz¢ka doctrines may be gathered from the Mahdvagga VI, 31 (S. B. E., vol. xvii, p. 108 ff.) There a story is told of Siha 1, the general of the Li#ksavis, who was a lay disciple of Nataputta. He wanted to pay the Buddha a visit, but Nataputta tried to dissuade him from it, because the Nigan¢has held the Kriy4vada, while the Buddha taught the Akriyavada. Siha, however, setting his master’s prohibition at nought, went to the Buddha on his own account, and was, of course, converted by him. Now the statement that the Nigaztias embraced the Kriyavada is borne out by our texts ; for in the Strakritanga I, 12, 21, below, p. 319, it is said that a perfect ascetic ‘is entitled to expound the Kriydvada ;’ and this doctrine is thus expressed in the Afaranga Stra I, 1, 1, 4 (part i, p. 2): ‘He believes in soul, believes in the world, believes in reward, believes in action (believed to be our own doing in such judgments as these): “I did it;” “I shall cause another to do it ;” “T shall allow another to do it.’ Another lay disciple of Mahavira, converted by the Buddha, was Upéli. As narrated in the Magghima Nikaya 56, he ventured upon a dispute with him whether the sins of the mind are heaviest, as the Buddha teaches, or the ' The name Stha occurs in the Bhayavatf (Calcutta edition, p. 1267, see Hoernle, Uvasaga Dasfo Appendix, p. 10) as that of a disciple of Mahavira; but as he was a monk, he cannot be identified with his namesake in the Mahavagga. INTRODUCTION. xvii sins of the body, as the Nigaz¢ka Nataputta contends. In the beginning of the discourse Upali states that his master uses the term dazda, punishment, for what is commonly called kamma, deed, act. This is true, though not quite to the letter; for the word kamma occurs also in the Gaina Sitras in that sense. The term dada, however, is at least as frequently used. Thus, in the Sdtrakyzt4nga II, 2, p. 357 ff., the thirteen kinds of ‘committing sins’ are treated of, and in the first five cases the word which I have translated ‘committing sins’ is in the original daz dasamad4ze, and in the remaining cases kiriyA4¢h4ne, i.e. kriyAsth4na. The Nigawtha Up4li goes on to explain that there are three dazdas, the dazda of body, that of speech, and that of mind. This agrees with the Gaina doctrine expressed in nearly the same words in the Sthan4nga Sdtra, 3rd uddésaka (see Indian Antiquary, IX, p. 159).
3kriyAsth4na. The Nigawtha Up4li goes on to explain that there are three dazdas, the dazda of body, that of speech, and that of mind. This agrees with the Gaina doctrine expressed in nearly the same words in the Sthan4nga Sdtra, 3rd uddésaka (see Indian Antiquary, IX, p. 159). The second statement of UpAli, that the Nigaz¢kas consider sins of the body more important than sins of the mind, is in perfect harmony with Gaina views. For in the Satrakritanga II, 4, p. 398 ff., the question is discussed whether sins may be committed unconsciously, and it is boldly answered in the affirmative (compare note 6, p. 399) ; and in the Sixth Lecture of the same book (p. 414) the Buddhists are severely ridiculed for maintaining that it depends on the intention of the man whether a deed of his be a sin or not. In the Anguttara Nikaya III, 70, 3, some practices of Nigaztha laymen are discussed. I translate the passage thus: ‘O Visékha, there is a class of Samavzas who are called Nigazthas. They exhort a SAvaka thus: “ Well, sir, you must desist from doing injury to beings in the East beyond a yégana from here, or to those in the West, North, South, always beyond a yégana from here.” In this way they enjoin tenderness by making him spare some living beings ; in this way they enjoin cruelty by making him not spare other living beings.’ It is not difficult to recognise under these words the Digvirati vow of the Gainas, which (45) b ” Xviii GAINA SUTRAS. consists in laying down the limits beyond which one shall not travel nor do business in the different directions. A man who keeps this vow cannot, of course, do any harm to beings beyond the limits within which he is obliged to keep. This is so distorted by the hostile sect as to lay the rule under discussion open to blame. We cannot expect one sect to give a fair and honest exposition of the tenets of their opponents; it is but natural that they should put them in such a form as to make the objections to be raised against them all the better applicable. The Gainas were not a whit better in this respect than the Bauddhas, and they have retorted upon them in the same way; witness their misrepresentation of the Buddhist idea that a deed becomes a sin only through the sinful intention of the doer, in a passage in the present volume, p. 414, v. 26 ff., where the sound principle of the Buddhists is ridiculed by applying it to a fictitious and almost absurd case.
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.