Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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 Uttaradhyayana, Lecture XXIII, how the union of the old and the new church was effected, is of much interest in this respect. Kési and Gautama, .the representatives and leaders of the two branches of the Gaina church, both at the head of their pupils, meet in a park near Sravastt; the differences in their creed concerning the number of great vows, and the use or disuse of clothes are explained away without further discussion, and full harmony with regard to the fundamental ethical ideas is satisfactorily established by the readiness with which allegorical expressions of the one speaker are understood and explained by the other. There seems to have been some estrangement, but no hostility between the two branches of the church; and though the members of the older branch invariably are made to adopt the Law of Mahavira, ‘ which enjoins five vows,’ it may be imagined that they continued in some of their old practices, especially with regard to the use of clothes, which Mahavira had abandoned. On this assumption we can account for the division of the church in Svétambaras and Digambaras, about the origin of which both sects have contradictory legends!. There was apparently no sudden rupture ; but an original diversity (such as e.g. subsists now between the several Gahkhas of the Svétambaras) ripened into division, and in the end brought about the great schism. The records in the Buddhist Canon are not repugnant to eur views about the existence of the Nigaz¢has before Nataputta; for the Nigaz¢kas must have been an important sect at the time when Buddhism took its rise. This may be inferred from the fact that they are so frequently mentioned in the Pitakas as opponents or converts of Buddha and his disciples ; and as it is nowhere said or even merely implied that the Nigazthas were a newly-founded sect, we may conclude that they had already existed a considerable time before the advent of the Buddha. This conclusion is supported by another fact. Makkhali Gés4la, a contemporary 1 See my paper on the origin of the Svétambara and Digambara sects in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxviii, p.1 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXili
2This conclusion is supported by another fact. Makkhali Gés4la, a contemporary 1 See my paper on the origin of the Svétambara and Digambara sects in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxviii, p.1 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXili of Buddha and Mahavira, divided mankind into six classes}. Of these, according to Buddhaghésa *, the third class contains the Nigazthas. Gésala probably would not have ranked them as a separate, i.e. fundamental subdivision of mankind, if they had only recently come into existence. He must have looked upon them as a very important, and at the same time, an old sect, in the same way in which, in my opinion, the early Buddhists looked upon them. As a last argument in favour of my theory I may mention that in the Magghima Nik4ya 35, a disputation between the Buddha and Sakaka, the son of a Nigavf¢ha, is narrated. Sakkaka is not a Nigantha himself, as he boasts of having vanquished NAataputta in disputation’, and, moreover, the tenets he defends are not those of the Gainas. Now when a famous controversialist, whose father was a Nigaztha, was a contemporary of the Buddha, the Nigaz¢has can scarcely have been a sect founded during Buddha’s life. Let us now confront the records of the Gainas about the philosophical doctrines of heretics, which they had to combat, with such as the Buddhists describe. In the Sitrakvztanga Ii, 1, 15 (p. 339 f.) and 21 f. (p. 343) two materialistic theories which have much in common are spoken of. The first passage treats of the opinion of those who contend that the body and the soul are one and the same thing ; the second passage is concerned with the doctrine that the five elements are eternal and constitute everything. The adherents of either philosophy maintain that it is no sin to kill living beings. Similar opinions are, in the Sama#faphala Sutta, ascribed to Pirava Kassapa and Agita Késakambali. The former denies that there is such a thing as sin or merit. Agita Késakambali holds that nothing real 1 SAmafAaphala Sutta, Digha Nikaya IT, 20. 2 Sumangala Vildsint, p. 162. Buddhaghdsa expressly states that Gésdla reckoned the Niga¢has lower than his own lay disciples, who form the fourth class—As Buddhaghésa does not take umbrage at Gésfila’s reckoning the Bhikkhus still lower, it is clear that he did not identify the Bhikkhus with the Buddhist monks. > See p. 250 of the Pali Text Society edition. XxiV GAINA SOTRAS.
3> See p. 250 of the Pali Text Society edition. XxiV GAINA SOTRAS. corresponds to the current transcendental ideas. He moreover maintains: ‘Man (purisé) consists of the four elements; when he dies, earth returns to earth, water to water, fire to fire, wind to wind, and the organs of sense merge into air (or space)’. Four bearers with the hearse carry the corpse to the place of cremation (or, while it is burned) they make lamentations ; the dove-coloured bones remain, the offerings are reduced to ashes.’ The last passage recurs with few alterations in the Sdtrakritanga, p- 340: ‘Other men carry the corpse away to burn it. When it has been consumed by fire, only dove-coloured bones remain, and the four bearers return with the hearse to their village*.’ In connection with the second materialistic system (p. 343, § 22, and p. 237f., vv. 15, 16) a variety of it is mentioned, which adds the permanent Atman or soul as a sixth to the five permanent elements. This seems to have been a primitive or a popular form of the philosophy which we now know under the name of Vaiséshika. To this school of philosophy we must perhaps assign Pakudha Kaksayana of Buddhist record. He maintained * that there are seven eternal, unchangeable, mutually independent things: the four elements, pleasure, pain, and the soul. As they have no influence upon one another, it is impossible to do any real harm to anybody. I confess that to maintain the eternal existence of pleasure and pain (sukha and dukkha) and to deny their influence on the soul, seems to me absurd ; but the Buddhists have perhaps misstated the original tenets. At any rate,theviews of Pakudha Kakdayana 1 Akasa; it is not reckoned as a fifth element in the Buddhist account, but it is so in that of the Gainas, see below, p. 343, and p. 237, verse 15. This is a verbal, rather than a material difference. 3 put here the original texts side by side so that their likeness may be more obvious : Asandipatkam& purisd matam 4dahanie paréhi niggai, aganigadfya gakkhanti yava A/dhand ghamité sarire kavétavanndim padani paf#apenti, k&apdtakani asthini Asandipa#zama purisa atthini bhavanti, bhassantaxhutiy6. g&amam pakkgakkhanti. 3 Loe. cit., p. 56. INTRODUCTION. XXV
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 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 Uttaradhyayana, Lecture XXIII, how the union of the old and the new church was effected, is of much interest in this respect. Kési and Gautama, .the representatives and leaders of the two branches of the Gaina church, both at the head of their pupils, meet in a park near Sravastt; the differences in their creed concerning the number of great vows, and the use or disuse of clothes are explained away without further discussion, and full harmony with regard to the fundamental ethical ideas is satisfactorily established by the readiness with which allegorical expressions of the one speaker are understood and explained by the other. There seems to have been some estrangement, but no hostility between the two branches of the church; and though the members of the older branch invariably are made to adopt the Law of Mahavira, ‘ which enjoins five vows,’ it may be imagined that they continued in some of their old practices, especially with regard to the use of clothes, which Mahavira had abandoned. On this assumption we can account for the division of the church in Svétambaras and Digambaras, about the origin of which both sects have contradictory legends!. There was apparently no sudden rupture ; but an original diversity (such as e.g. subsists now between the several Gahkhas of the Svétambaras) ripened into division, and in the end brought about the great schism. The records in the Buddhist Canon are not repugnant to eur views about the existence of the Nigaz¢has before Nataputta; for the Nigaz¢kas must have been an important sect at the time when Buddhism took its rise. This may be inferred from the fact that they are so frequently mentioned in the Pitakas as opponents or converts of Buddha and his disciples ; and as it is nowhere said or even merely implied that the Nigazthas were a newly-founded sect, we may conclude that they had already existed a considerable time before the advent of the Buddha. This conclusion is supported by another fact. Makkhali Gés4la, a contemporary 1 See my paper on the origin of the Svétambara and Digambara sects in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxviii, p.1 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXili
2This conclusion is supported by another fact. Makkhali Gés4la, a contemporary 1 See my paper on the origin of the Svétambara and Digambara sects in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxviii, p.1 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXili of Buddha and Mahavira, divided mankind into six classes}. Of these, according to Buddhaghésa *, the third class contains the Nigazthas. Gésala probably would not have ranked them as a separate, i.e. fundamental subdivision of mankind, if they had only recently come into existence. He must have looked upon them as a very important, and at the same time, an old sect, in the same way in which, in my opinion, the early Buddhists looked upon them. As a last argument in favour of my theory I may mention that in the Magghima Nik4ya 35, a disputation between the Buddha and Sakaka, the son of a Nigavf¢ha, is narrated. Sakkaka is not a Nigantha himself, as he boasts of having vanquished NAataputta in disputation’, and, moreover, the tenets he defends are not those of the Gainas. Now when a famous controversialist, whose father was a Nigaztha, was a contemporary of the Buddha, the Nigaz¢has can scarcely have been a sect founded during Buddha’s life. Let us now confront the records of the Gainas about the philosophical doctrines of heretics, which they had to combat, with such as the Buddhists describe. In the Sitrakvztanga Ii, 1, 15 (p. 339 f.) and 21 f. (p. 343) two materialistic theories which have much in common are spoken of. The first passage treats of the opinion of those who contend that the body and the soul are one and the same thing ; the second passage is concerned with the doctrine that the five elements are eternal and constitute everything. The adherents of either philosophy maintain that it is no sin to kill living beings. Similar opinions are, in the Sama#faphala Sutta, ascribed to Pirava Kassapa and Agita Késakambali. The former denies that there is such a thing as sin or merit. Agita Késakambali holds that nothing real 1 SAmafAaphala Sutta, Digha Nikaya IT, 20. 2 Sumangala Vildsint, p. 162. Buddhaghdsa expressly states that Gésdla reckoned the Niga¢has lower than his own lay disciples, who form the fourth class—As Buddhaghésa does not take umbrage at Gésfila’s reckoning the Bhikkhus still lower, it is clear that he did not identify the Bhikkhus with the Buddhist monks. > See p. 250 of the Pali Text Society edition. XxiV GAINA SOTRAS.
3> See p. 250 of the Pali Text Society edition. XxiV GAINA SOTRAS. corresponds to the current transcendental ideas. He moreover maintains: ‘Man (purisé) consists of the four elements; when he dies, earth returns to earth, water to water, fire to fire, wind to wind, and the organs of sense merge into air (or space)’. Four bearers with the hearse carry the corpse to the place of cremation (or, while it is burned) they make lamentations ; the dove-coloured bones remain, the offerings are reduced to ashes.’ The last passage recurs with few alterations in the Sdtrakritanga, p- 340: ‘Other men carry the corpse away to burn it. When it has been consumed by fire, only dove-coloured bones remain, and the four bearers return with the hearse to their village*.’ In connection with the second materialistic system (p. 343, § 22, and p. 237f., vv. 15, 16) a variety of it is mentioned, which adds the permanent Atman or soul as a sixth to the five permanent elements. This seems to have been a primitive or a popular form of the philosophy which we now know under the name of Vaiséshika. To this school of philosophy we must perhaps assign Pakudha Kaksayana of Buddhist record. He maintained * that there are seven eternal, unchangeable, mutually independent things: the four elements, pleasure, pain, and the soul. As they have no influence upon one another, it is impossible to do any real harm to anybody. I confess that to maintain the eternal existence of pleasure and pain (sukha and dukkha) and to deny their influence on the soul, seems to me absurd ; but the Buddhists have perhaps misstated the original tenets. At any rate,theviews of Pakudha Kakdayana 1 Akasa; it is not reckoned as a fifth element in the Buddhist account, but it is so in that of the Gainas, see below, p. 343, and p. 237, verse 15. This is a verbal, rather than a material difference. 3 put here the original texts side by side so that their likeness may be more obvious : Asandipatkam& purisd matam 4dahanie paréhi niggai, aganigadfya gakkhanti yava A/dhand ghamité sarire kavétavanndim padani paf#apenti, k&apdtakani asthini Asandipa#zama purisa atthini bhavanti, bhassantaxhutiy6. g&amam pakkgakkhanti. 3 Loe. cit., p. 56. INTRODUCTION. XXV
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.