Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Sésaka is, I believe, the Pali for sisnaka. If this is right, the ahove words may be translated : ‘they cover the pudenda wearing (a cloth) about the forepart (of their body).’ INTRODUCTION. XXxXI note by A#élaka the followers of Makkhali Gés4la and his two predecessors Kisa Samkikka and Nanda Vakkha, and have preserved an account of their religious practices in the Magghima Nikfya 36. There Sakkaka, the son of a Nigaz¢ha, whom we are already acquainted with, explains the meaning of kayabh4van4, bodily purity, by referring to the conduct of the A#élakas. Some details of Sakkaka’s account are unintelligible in the absence of a commentary, but many are quite clear, and bear a close resemblance to well-known Gaina usages. Thus the Aéélakas, like the Gaina monks, may not accept an invitation for dinner; they are forbidden food that is abhiha¢a or uddissakafa, which terms are, in all likelihood, identical with adhyéhrita and auddésika of the Gainas (see p. 132, note); they are not allowed to eat meat or to drink liquor. ‘Some beg only in one house and accept but one morsel of food, some in more up to seven; some live upon one donation of food, some on more up to seven.’ Similar to these are some practices of Gaina monks described in the Kalpa Sftra, ‘Rules for Yatis,’ § 26, part i, p. 300, and below, p. 176f., verses 15 and 19. The following practice of the A#élakas is identically the same as that observed by the Gainas: ‘some eat but one meal every day, or every second day1, &c., up to every half month.’ All the rules of the A#élakas are either identical with those of the Gainas or extremely like them, and dictated, so to say, by the same spirit. And still Sagéaka does not quote the Niga¢has as a standard of ‘bodily purity,’ though he was the son of a Nigaz¢ha, and therefore must have known their religious practices. This curious fact may most easily be accounted for by our assuming that the original Nigas¢has, of whom the Buddhist records usually speak, were not the section of the church, which submitted to the more rigid rules of Mahavira, but those followers of P&rsva, who, 1 These fasts are called by the Gainas Aautthabhatta, khart¢habhatta, &c. (see e.g. Aupapatika Sfitra, ed. Leumann, § 301 A) ; and monks observing them, Zautthabhattiya, khatthabhattiya, &c. (see e.g. Kalpa Sitra, © Rules for Yatis,’ § 21 ff.) XXXii GAINA SOTRAS.
2(see e.g. Aupapatika Sfitra, ed. Leumann, § 301 A) ; and monks observing them, Zautthabhattiya, khatthabhattiya, &c. (see e.g. Kalpa Sitra, © Rules for Yatis,’ § 21 ff.) XXXii GAINA SOTRAS. without forming a hostile party, yet continued, I imagine, to retain within the united church some particular usages of the old one!. As those rigid rules formed no part of the ancient creed, and Mahavira, therefore, must have introduced them, it is probable that he borrowed them from the A#élakas or Agivikas, the followers of Gésdla, with whom he is said to have lived in close companionship for six years practising austerities. We may regard Mahavira’s adoption of some religious ideas and practices of the Agivikas as concessions made to them in order to win over Gésdla and his disciples. This plan seems to have succeeded for some time ; but at last the allied teachers quarrelled, it may be supposed, on the question who was to be the leader of the united sects. Mahavira’s position apparently was strengthened by his temporary association with Gésdla, but the latter seems to have lost by it, if we are to believe the account of the Gainas, and his tragic end must have been a severe blow to the prospects of his sect. Mahavira probably borrowed much more from other sects than we shall ever be able to prove. It must have been easy to add new doctrines to the Gaina creed, as it scarcely forms a system in the true sense of the word. Each sect, or fraction of a sect, which was united with the Gaina church by the successful policy of Mahavira ?, may have brought with it some of its favourite speculations, and most probably its favourite saints too, who were recognised as Kakravartins or Tirthakaras. This is, of course, a mere conjecture of mine; but it would account for the strange hagiology of the Gainas, and in the absence of any trace of direct evidence we are driven to rely upon guesses, and those deserve the preference which are the most ? As I have said above and in note 2, p. 119, this difference has probably given rise to the division of the church into Svétambaras and Digambaras, But these two branches have not directly grown out of the party of Parsva and that of Mahavira ; for both recognise Mahavira as a Tiithakara. * Mah4vfra must have been a great man in his way, and an eminent leader among his contemporaries; he owed the position of a Tirthakara probably not so much to the sanctity of his life, as to his success in propagating his creed, INTRODUCTION. XXXill
3* Mah4vfra must have been a great man in his way, and an eminent leader among his contemporaries; he owed the position of a Tirthakara probably not so much to the sanctity of his life, as to his success in propagating his creed, INTRODUCTION. XXXill plausible. For the rest, however, of the hypotheses which I have tried to establish in the preceding pages, I claim a higher degree of probability. For on the one hand I do no violence to the tradition of the Gainas, which in the absence of documents deserves most careful attention, and on the other, I assume but what under the given circumstances would have been most likely to happen. The cardinal feature in my construction of the early history of the Gaina church consists in my turning to account the alleged existence of followers of Parsva in the time of MahAvira, a tradition which seems to be almost unanimously accepted by modern scholars. If Gainism dates from an early period, and is older than Buddha and Mahavira, we may expect to find marks of its antiquity in the character of Gaina philosophy. Such a mark is the animistic belief that nearly everything is possessed of a soul; not only have plants their own souls, but particles of earth, cold water, fire, and wind also. Now ethnology teaches us that the animistic theory forms the basis of many beliefs that have been called the philosophy of savages; that it is more and more relinquished or changed into purer anthropomorphism as civilisation advances. If, therefore, Gaina ethics are for their greater part based on primitive animism, it must have extensively existed in large classes of Indian society when Gainism was first originated. This must have happened at a very early time, when higher forms of religious beliefs and cults had not yet, more generally, taken hold of the Indian mind. Another mark of antiquity Gainism has in common with the oldest Brahmanical philosophies, Védanta and Sankhya. For at this early epoch in the development of metaphysics, the Category of Quality is not yet clearly and distinctly conceived, but it is just evolving, as it were, out of the Category of Substance: things which we recognise as qualities are constantly mistaken for and mixed up with substances. Thus in the Védanta the highest Brahman is not possessed of pure existence, intellect, and joy as qualities of his nature, but Brahman is existence, intellect, and [45] c XXXIV 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.
1Sésaka is, I believe, the Pali for sisnaka. If this is right, the ahove words may be translated : ‘they cover the pudenda wearing (a cloth) about the forepart (of their body).’ INTRODUCTION. XXxXI note by A#élaka the followers of Makkhali Gés4la and his two predecessors Kisa Samkikka and Nanda Vakkha, and have preserved an account of their religious practices in the Magghima Nikfya 36. There Sakkaka, the son of a Nigaz¢ha, whom we are already acquainted with, explains the meaning of kayabh4van4, bodily purity, by referring to the conduct of the A#élakas. Some details of Sakkaka’s account are unintelligible in the absence of a commentary, but many are quite clear, and bear a close resemblance to well-known Gaina usages. Thus the Aéélakas, like the Gaina monks, may not accept an invitation for dinner; they are forbidden food that is abhiha¢a or uddissakafa, which terms are, in all likelihood, identical with adhyéhrita and auddésika of the Gainas (see p. 132, note); they are not allowed to eat meat or to drink liquor. ‘Some beg only in one house and accept but one morsel of food, some in more up to seven; some live upon one donation of food, some on more up to seven.’ Similar to these are some practices of Gaina monks described in the Kalpa Sftra, ‘Rules for Yatis,’ § 26, part i, p. 300, and below, p. 176f., verses 15 and 19. The following practice of the A#élakas is identically the same as that observed by the Gainas: ‘some eat but one meal every day, or every second day1, &c., up to every half month.’ All the rules of the A#élakas are either identical with those of the Gainas or extremely like them, and dictated, so to say, by the same spirit. And still Sagéaka does not quote the Niga¢has as a standard of ‘bodily purity,’ though he was the son of a Nigaz¢ha, and therefore must have known their religious practices. This curious fact may most easily be accounted for by our assuming that the original Nigas¢has, of whom the Buddhist records usually speak, were not the section of the church, which submitted to the more rigid rules of Mahavira, but those followers of P&rsva, who, 1 These fasts are called by the Gainas Aautthabhatta, khart¢habhatta, &c. (see e.g. Aupapatika Sfitra, ed. Leumann, § 301 A) ; and monks observing them, Zautthabhattiya, khatthabhattiya, &c. (see e.g. Kalpa Sitra, © Rules for Yatis,’ § 21 ff.) XXXii GAINA SOTRAS.
2(see e.g. Aupapatika Sfitra, ed. Leumann, § 301 A) ; and monks observing them, Zautthabhattiya, khatthabhattiya, &c. (see e.g. Kalpa Sitra, © Rules for Yatis,’ § 21 ff.) XXXii GAINA SOTRAS. without forming a hostile party, yet continued, I imagine, to retain within the united church some particular usages of the old one!. As those rigid rules formed no part of the ancient creed, and Mahavira, therefore, must have introduced them, it is probable that he borrowed them from the A#élakas or Agivikas, the followers of Gésdla, with whom he is said to have lived in close companionship for six years practising austerities. We may regard Mahavira’s adoption of some religious ideas and practices of the Agivikas as concessions made to them in order to win over Gésdla and his disciples. This plan seems to have succeeded for some time ; but at last the allied teachers quarrelled, it may be supposed, on the question who was to be the leader of the united sects. Mahavira’s position apparently was strengthened by his temporary association with Gésdla, but the latter seems to have lost by it, if we are to believe the account of the Gainas, and his tragic end must have been a severe blow to the prospects of his sect. Mahavira probably borrowed much more from other sects than we shall ever be able to prove. It must have been easy to add new doctrines to the Gaina creed, as it scarcely forms a system in the true sense of the word. Each sect, or fraction of a sect, which was united with the Gaina church by the successful policy of Mahavira ?, may have brought with it some of its favourite speculations, and most probably its favourite saints too, who were recognised as Kakravartins or Tirthakaras. This is, of course, a mere conjecture of mine; but it would account for the strange hagiology of the Gainas, and in the absence of any trace of direct evidence we are driven to rely upon guesses, and those deserve the preference which are the most ? As I have said above and in note 2, p. 119, this difference has probably given rise to the division of the church into Svétambaras and Digambaras, But these two branches have not directly grown out of the party of Parsva and that of Mahavira ; for both recognise Mahavira as a Tiithakara. * Mah4vfra must have been a great man in his way, and an eminent leader among his contemporaries; he owed the position of a Tirthakara probably not so much to the sanctity of his life, as to his success in propagating his creed, INTRODUCTION. XXXill
3* Mah4vfra must have been a great man in his way, and an eminent leader among his contemporaries; he owed the position of a Tirthakara probably not so much to the sanctity of his life, as to his success in propagating his creed, INTRODUCTION. XXXill plausible. For the rest, however, of the hypotheses which I have tried to establish in the preceding pages, I claim a higher degree of probability. For on the one hand I do no violence to the tradition of the Gainas, which in the absence of documents deserves most careful attention, and on the other, I assume but what under the given circumstances would have been most likely to happen. The cardinal feature in my construction of the early history of the Gaina church consists in my turning to account the alleged existence of followers of Parsva in the time of MahAvira, a tradition which seems to be almost unanimously accepted by modern scholars. If Gainism dates from an early period, and is older than Buddha and Mahavira, we may expect to find marks of its antiquity in the character of Gaina philosophy. Such a mark is the animistic belief that nearly everything is possessed of a soul; not only have plants their own souls, but particles of earth, cold water, fire, and wind also. Now ethnology teaches us that the animistic theory forms the basis of many beliefs that have been called the philosophy of savages; that it is more and more relinquished or changed into purer anthropomorphism as civilisation advances. If, therefore, Gaina ethics are for their greater part based on primitive animism, it must have extensively existed in large classes of Indian society when Gainism was first originated. This must have happened at a very early time, when higher forms of religious beliefs and cults had not yet, more generally, taken hold of the Indian mind. Another mark of antiquity Gainism has in common with the oldest Brahmanical philosophies, Védanta and Sankhya. For at this early epoch in the development of metaphysics, the Category of Quality is not yet clearly and distinctly conceived, but it is just evolving, as it were, out of the Category of Substance: things which we recognise as qualities are constantly mistaken for and mixed up with substances. Thus in the Védanta the highest Brahman is not possessed of pure existence, intellect, and joy as qualities of his nature, but Brahman is existence, intellect, and [45] c XXXIV 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.