Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1414, v. 26 ff., where the sound principle of the Buddhists is ridiculed by applying it to a fictitious and almost absurd case. The passage in the Anguttara Nikaéya, which we have just discussed, goes on as follows: ‘On the Upésatha day they exhort a Savaka thus: “ Well, sir, take off all your clothes and declare: I belong to nobody, and nobody belongs to.me.” Now his parents know him to be their son, and he knows them to be his parents. His son or wife know him to be their father or husband, and he knows them to be his son or wife. His slaves and servants know him to be their master, and he knows them to be his slaves and servants. Therefore (the Nigaz¢has) make him use lying speech at the time when he makes the above declarations. On this account I charge him with lying speech. After the lapse of that night he enjoys pleasures (by means of things) that were not freely given. On this account I charge him with taking of what is not freely given.’ According to this statement, the duties of a Niganztha layman became, during the Upésatha days, equal to those of a monk ; it was on common days only that the difference between layman and monk was realised. This description, however, does not quite agree with the Pésaha rules of the Gainas. Bhandarkar gives the following definition of Pésaha INTRODUCTION. xix according to the Tattv4rthasdradipika, which agrees with what we know about it from other sources: ‘ Pésaha, i.e. to observe a fast or eat once only or one dish only on the two holy days (the eighth and the fourteenth of each fortnight), after having given up bathing, unguents, ornaments, company of women, odours, incense, lights, &c., and assumed renunciation as an ornament.’ Though the Pésaha observances of the present Gainas are apparently more severe than those of the Buddhists, still they fall short of the above description of the Nigawtka rules; for a Gaina layman does not, to my knowledge, take off his clothes during the Pésaha days, though he discards all ornaments and every kind of luxury; nor must he pronounce any formula of renunciation similar to that which the monks utter on entering the order. Therefore, unless the Buddhist account contains some mistake or a gross misstatement, it would appear that the Gainas have abated somewhat in their rigidity with regard to the duties of laymen. Buddhaghésa, in his commentary on the Brahmagdala Sutta, Digha Nikdya I, 2, 381, mentions the Nigaz¢has as holding the opinion, discussed in the text, that the soul has no colour, in contradistinction to the Agivikas, who divide mankind into six classes according to the colour of the Atman; both Nigazthas and Agivikas, however, agree in maintaining that the soul continues to exist after death and is free from ailments (ar6g6). Whatever may be the exact meaning of the last expression, it is clear that the above description squares with the opinions of the Gainas about the nature of the soul, as described below, p. 172 f.
2Whatever may be the exact meaning of the last expression, it is clear that the above description squares with the opinions of the Gainas about the nature of the soul, as described below, p. 172 f. - In another passage (I.c. p. 168) Buddhaghésa says that Nigantha Nataputta considers cold water to be possessed of life (so kira sit6daké sattasa##i héti), for which reason he does not use it. This doctrine of the Gainas is so generally known that I need not bring forward any quotation from the Sdtras in support of its genuineness. This is nearly all the information on the doctrines of the 1 Sumaagala Vilasinf, p. 119 of the Pali Text Society edition. be xXx GAINA SOTRAS. ancient Nigaz¢has which I have been able to gather from the Pali texts. Though it is less than we desire, its value is not to be underrated. For with one exception all the doctrines and usages of the ancient Nigazthas mentioned agree with those of the present Gainas, and they comprise some of the fundamental ideas of Gainism. It is therefore not probable that the doctrines of the Gainas have undergone a great change in the interval between the quoted Buddhist records and the composition of the Gaina canon. I have purposely deferred the discussion of the classical passage on the doctrines of Nigaz¢za Nataputta, because it leads us to a new line of inquiry. The passage in question occurs in the SAma##aphala Sutta of the Digha Nikéya1. I translate it in accordance with Buddhaghdésa’s comment in the Sumangala Vildsini. ‘Here, great king, a Nigaztha is protected by restraint in four directions (#4t uyamasamvarasamvut6). How,great king, is a Nigantha protected by restraint in four directions? Here, great king, a Nigaz¢ka abstains from all (cold) water, he abstains from all bad deeds, by abstinence from all bad deeds he is free from sins, he realises abstinence from all bad deeds. In this way, great king, a Nigaz¢ha is protected by restraint in four directions. And, great king, because he is thus protected, the Nigam‘a NAtaputta’s soul is exalted, is restrained, is well settled ?.’—This is, certainly, not an accurate nor an exhaustive description of the Gaina creed, though it contains nothing alien from it, and successfully imitates the language of the Gaina Sftras. As I have already explained elsewhere’, I think the term #4tuy4masamvarasamvut6 has been misunderstood not only by the commentator, but also by the author of the text. For 1 Page 57 of the edition in the Pali Text Society. * The translations of Gogerly and of Burnouf in Grimblot, Sept Suttas Palis, were made without the help of a commentary, and may, therefore, be passed by. It is, however, open to doubt whether Buddhaghésa has drawn his information from genuine tradition, or had to rely on conjectures of his own. 5 See my paper, ‘On Mahfvfra and his Predecessors,’ in the Indian Antiquary, IX, 158 ff., where some of the above problems have been treated. INTRODUCTION. Xxi
35 See my paper, ‘On Mahfvfra and his Predecessors,’ in the Indian Antiquary, IX, 158 ff., where some of the above problems have been treated. INTRODUCTION. Xxi the Pali ZAtuy4ma is equivalent to the Prakrit katuggama, a well-known Gaina term which denotes the four vows of PArsva in contradistinction to the five vows (pa#ka mahavvaya) of Mahavira. Here, then, the Buddhists, I suppose, have made a mistake in ascribing to Nataputta Mahdvira a doctrine which properly belonged to his predecessor Parsva. This is a significant mistake; for the Buddhists could not have used the above term as descriptive of the Nigaz¢ka creed unless they had heard it from followers of PArsva, and they would not have used it if the reforms of Mah4vira had already been generally adopted by the Nigazthas at the time of the Buddha. _I, therefore, look on this blunder of the Buddhists as a proof for the correctness of the Gaina tradition, that followers of Parsva actually existed at the time of Mahavira. Before following up this line of inquiry, I have to call attention to another significant blunder of the Buddhists: they call Nataputta an Aggivésana, i.e. Agnivaisy4yana ; according to the Gainas, however, he was a Kasyapa, and we may credit them in such particulars about their own Tirthakara. But Sudharman, his chief disciple, who in the SOtras is made the expounder of his creed, was an Agnivaisy4yana, and as he played a prominent part in the propagation of the Gaina religion, the disciple may often have been confounded by outsiders with the master, so that the Gétra of the former was erroneously assigned to the latter. Thus by a double blunder the Buddhists attest the existence of Mahavira’s predecessor Parsva and of his chief disciple Sudharman. That P4rsva was a historical person, is now admitted by all as very probable ; indeed, his followers, especially Kési?, who seems to have been the leader of the sect at the time of Mahavira, are frequently mentioned in Gaina Sdtras in such a matter-of-fact way, as to give us no reason for doubting the authenticity of those records. The legend in ' In the Ragaprasnt Parsva has a discussion with king Paési and converts him, see Actes du VI Congrés International des Orientalistes, vol. iii, P- 490 ff. 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.
1414, v. 26 ff., where the sound principle of the Buddhists is ridiculed by applying it to a fictitious and almost absurd case. The passage in the Anguttara Nikaéya, which we have just discussed, goes on as follows: ‘On the Upésatha day they exhort a Savaka thus: “ Well, sir, take off all your clothes and declare: I belong to nobody, and nobody belongs to.me.” Now his parents know him to be their son, and he knows them to be his parents. His son or wife know him to be their father or husband, and he knows them to be his son or wife. His slaves and servants know him to be their master, and he knows them to be his slaves and servants. Therefore (the Nigaz¢has) make him use lying speech at the time when he makes the above declarations. On this account I charge him with lying speech. After the lapse of that night he enjoys pleasures (by means of things) that were not freely given. On this account I charge him with taking of what is not freely given.’ According to this statement, the duties of a Niganztha layman became, during the Upésatha days, equal to those of a monk ; it was on common days only that the difference between layman and monk was realised. This description, however, does not quite agree with the Pésaha rules of the Gainas. Bhandarkar gives the following definition of Pésaha INTRODUCTION. xix according to the Tattv4rthasdradipika, which agrees with what we know about it from other sources: ‘ Pésaha, i.e. to observe a fast or eat once only or one dish only on the two holy days (the eighth and the fourteenth of each fortnight), after having given up bathing, unguents, ornaments, company of women, odours, incense, lights, &c., and assumed renunciation as an ornament.’ Though the Pésaha observances of the present Gainas are apparently more severe than those of the Buddhists, still they fall short of the above description of the Nigawtka rules; for a Gaina layman does not, to my knowledge, take off his clothes during the Pésaha days, though he discards all ornaments and every kind of luxury; nor must he pronounce any formula of renunciation similar to that which the monks utter on entering the order. Therefore, unless the Buddhist account contains some mistake or a gross misstatement, it would appear that the Gainas have abated somewhat in their rigidity with regard to the duties of laymen. Buddhaghésa, in his commentary on the Brahmagdala Sutta, Digha Nikdya I, 2, 381, mentions the Nigaz¢has as holding the opinion, discussed in the text, that the soul has no colour, in contradistinction to the Agivikas, who divide mankind into six classes according to the colour of the Atman; both Nigazthas and Agivikas, however, agree in maintaining that the soul continues to exist after death and is free from ailments (ar6g6). Whatever may be the exact meaning of the last expression, it is clear that the above description squares with the opinions of the Gainas about the nature of the soul, as described below, p. 172 f.
2Whatever may be the exact meaning of the last expression, it is clear that the above description squares with the opinions of the Gainas about the nature of the soul, as described below, p. 172 f. - In another passage (I.c. p. 168) Buddhaghésa says that Nigantha Nataputta considers cold water to be possessed of life (so kira sit6daké sattasa##i héti), for which reason he does not use it. This doctrine of the Gainas is so generally known that I need not bring forward any quotation from the Sdtras in support of its genuineness. This is nearly all the information on the doctrines of the 1 Sumaagala Vilasinf, p. 119 of the Pali Text Society edition. be xXx GAINA SOTRAS. ancient Nigaz¢has which I have been able to gather from the Pali texts. Though it is less than we desire, its value is not to be underrated. For with one exception all the doctrines and usages of the ancient Nigazthas mentioned agree with those of the present Gainas, and they comprise some of the fundamental ideas of Gainism. It is therefore not probable that the doctrines of the Gainas have undergone a great change in the interval between the quoted Buddhist records and the composition of the Gaina canon. I have purposely deferred the discussion of the classical passage on the doctrines of Nigaz¢za Nataputta, because it leads us to a new line of inquiry. The passage in question occurs in the SAma##aphala Sutta of the Digha Nikéya1. I translate it in accordance with Buddhaghdésa’s comment in the Sumangala Vildsini. ‘Here, great king, a Nigaztha is protected by restraint in four directions (#4t uyamasamvarasamvut6). How,great king, is a Nigantha protected by restraint in four directions? Here, great king, a Nigaz¢ka abstains from all (cold) water, he abstains from all bad deeds, by abstinence from all bad deeds he is free from sins, he realises abstinence from all bad deeds. In this way, great king, a Nigaz¢ha is protected by restraint in four directions. And, great king, because he is thus protected, the Nigam‘a NAtaputta’s soul is exalted, is restrained, is well settled ?.’—This is, certainly, not an accurate nor an exhaustive description of the Gaina creed, though it contains nothing alien from it, and successfully imitates the language of the Gaina Sftras. As I have already explained elsewhere’, I think the term #4tuy4masamvarasamvut6 has been misunderstood not only by the commentator, but also by the author of the text. For 1 Page 57 of the edition in the Pali Text Society. * The translations of Gogerly and of Burnouf in Grimblot, Sept Suttas Palis, were made without the help of a commentary, and may, therefore, be passed by. It is, however, open to doubt whether Buddhaghésa has drawn his information from genuine tradition, or had to rely on conjectures of his own. 5 See my paper, ‘On Mahfvfra and his Predecessors,’ in the Indian Antiquary, IX, 158 ff., where some of the above problems have been treated. INTRODUCTION. Xxi
35 See my paper, ‘On Mahfvfra and his Predecessors,’ in the Indian Antiquary, IX, 158 ff., where some of the above problems have been treated. INTRODUCTION. Xxi the Pali ZAtuy4ma is equivalent to the Prakrit katuggama, a well-known Gaina term which denotes the four vows of PArsva in contradistinction to the five vows (pa#ka mahavvaya) of Mahavira. Here, then, the Buddhists, I suppose, have made a mistake in ascribing to Nataputta Mahdvira a doctrine which properly belonged to his predecessor Parsva. This is a significant mistake; for the Buddhists could not have used the above term as descriptive of the Nigaz¢ka creed unless they had heard it from followers of PArsva, and they would not have used it if the reforms of Mah4vira had already been generally adopted by the Nigazthas at the time of the Buddha. _I, therefore, look on this blunder of the Buddhists as a proof for the correctness of the Gaina tradition, that followers of Parsva actually existed at the time of Mahavira. Before following up this line of inquiry, I have to call attention to another significant blunder of the Buddhists: they call Nataputta an Aggivésana, i.e. Agnivaisy4yana ; according to the Gainas, however, he was a Kasyapa, and we may credit them in such particulars about their own Tirthakara. But Sudharman, his chief disciple, who in the SOtras is made the expounder of his creed, was an Agnivaisy4yana, and as he played a prominent part in the propagation of the Gaina religion, the disciple may often have been confounded by outsiders with the master, so that the Gétra of the former was erroneously assigned to the latter. Thus by a double blunder the Buddhists attest the existence of Mahavira’s predecessor Parsva and of his chief disciple Sudharman. That P4rsva was a historical person, is now admitted by all as very probable ; indeed, his followers, especially Kési?, who seems to have been the leader of the sect at the time of Mahavira, are frequently mentioned in Gaina Sdtras in such a matter-of-fact way, as to give us no reason for doubting the authenticity of those records. The legend in ' In the Ragaprasnt Parsva has a discussion with king Paési and converts him, see Actes du VI Congrés International des Orientalistes, vol. iii, P- 490 ff. 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.