We shall now put side by side the principal events of Buddha's and Mahavira's lives, in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, MahA- vira in a village near VaLrali ; Buddha's mother died after his birth, Mahctvira's parents lived to see him a grown-up man ; Buddha turned ascetic during the lifetime and against the will of his father, Mahavira did so after the death of his parents and with the consent of those in power ; Buddha led a life of austerities for six years, Mahclvira for twelve ; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahavira was convinced of the necessity of his
1 See Petersburg Dictionary, ss.w. [22] b
XV111 G?AINA SOTRAS.
penances 1 , and persevered in some of them even after
becoming a Tirthakara. Amongst Buddha's opponents
Go^clla Makkhaliputra is by no means so prominent as
amongst Mahclvira's, nor among the former do we meet
G"am<ili, j^ho^ca^sed-J^ the gaina church.
All the disciples of Buddha bear other names than those
of Mahclvira. To finish this enumeration of differences,
Buddha died in Kusinagara, whereas Mahavira died in
P4p&, avowedly before the former.
I have dwelt so long on the subject of Mahcivira's life ?n order to make the reader acquainted with facts which must decide the question whether the origin of Gainism was independent of Buddhism or not. Though most scholars do not go the length of denying that Mah&vira and Buddha were different persons, yet some will not admit that this decides the question at issue. Professor Weber, in his learned treatise on the literature of the G^ainas 2 , says that he still regards 'the (Jamas merely as one of the oldest sects of Buddhism. According to my opinion,' he writes, 'this is not precluded by the tradition about the origin of its founder having partly made use of another person than Buddha *S4kyamuni; nay, even of one whose name is fre- quently mentioned in Buddhist legends as one of Buddha's contemporary opponents. This rather suggests to me that the ainas intentionally disowned Buddha, being driven to this extremity by the animosity of sect. The number and importance of coincidences in the tradition of either sect regarding their founders is, on the whole, overwhelming. 5
Professor Weber's last argument, the very one on which he seems to base his theory, has, according to my opinion, been fully refuted by our preceding inquiry. This theory, in itself, would require the strongest proof before we could admit it as even probable. Generally, heterodox sects claim to be the most authentic and correct interpreters of the words and
1 These twelve years of penance were indeed always thought essential for obtaining perfection, and every ascetic who endeavours to quit this life with the best claims to enter one of the highest heavens, or even Nirv&na, has to undergo a similar course of preparatory penance, which lasts twelve years.
Indische Studien, XVI, aio.
Introduction. Xix
tenets of their founders. If a sect begins to recognise another authority than that of the original founder of the main church, it either adopts another faith already in exist- ence, or starts a new one. In the first case the previous existence of the Gaina faith in some form or other has to be admitted ; in the second we must suppose that the malcontent Buddhists searched in their scriptures for an opponent of Buddha, on whom they might foist their heretical theories, a course in which they were not followed by any other of the many sects of Buddhism. Now, granted for argument's sake, that they really did what they are charged with, they must have proceeded with the utmost dexterity, making use of, and slightly altering all occasional hints about the Niga//*as and Nsttaputta which they were able to hunt up in their ancient scriptures, inventing new facts, and fabricating docu- ments of their own, which to all, not in the secret, would seem just as trustworthy as those of their opponents. Indeed the Buddhistical and Gaina traditions about Mah&vira, the circumstances in, and the people with whom he lived, so very well tally with, complete and correct each other that the most natural and plausible way to account for this fact, which our preceding inquiry has established, seems to be that both traditions are, in the main, independent of each other, and record what, at the time of their attaining a fixed form, was regarded as historical truth.
We shall now consider the resemblance between Buddhism and Gainism which has struck so many writers on this topic and greatly influenced their opinion regarding their mutual relation. Professor Lassen 1 adduces four points of coinci- dence which, according to his opinion, prove that the Gainas have branched off from the Bauddhas. We shall discuss them one after the other.
Both sects give the same titles or epithets to their prophets: G*ina, Arhat, Mahavira, Sawajgroa, Sugata, TatMgata, Siddha, Buddha, Sambuddha, Parinivrzta, Mukta, &c. All these words occur more or less frequently in the wntings of both sects ; but there is this difference, that with the exception
Indkdic Altcrthiitt.*kndc^ IV, p. 763 seq.
XX GAINA SUTRAS.
of Gina, and perhaps Sramawa, the preference is given to some set of titles by one sect, and to another set by the rival sect; e.g. Buddha, Tathdgata, Sugata, and Sam- buddha are common titles of .Sakyamuni, and are only occasionally used as epithets of Mahdvira. The case is exactly reverse with regard to Vira and Mahavira, the usual titles of Vardhamina. More marked still is the difference with regard to Tirthakara, meaning prophet with the Gainas, but founder of an heretical sect with the Bauddhas. What then may be safely inferred from the peculiar choice which either sect made from these epithets and titles? That the Gainas borrowed them from the older Buddhists ? I think not. For if these words had once been fixed as titles, or gained some special meaning beyond the one warranted by etymology, they could only have been adopted or rejected. But it was not possible that a word which had acquired some special meaning should have been adopted, but used in the original sense by those who borrowed it from the Buddhists. The most natural construction we can put on the facts is, that there was and is at all times a number of honorific adjectives and substantives applicable to persons of exalted virtue. These words were used as epithets in their original meaning by all sects; but some were selected as titles for their prophets, a choice in which they were directed either by the fitness of the word itself, or by the fact that such or such a word was already appro- priated by heterodox sects as a title for their highest authority. Thus the etymological meaning of Tirthakara is founder of a religion, prophet, and accordingly this title was adopted by the Gainas and other sects, whereas the Buddhists did not adopt it in this sense, but in that of an heterodox or heretical teacher", showing thereby their enmity towards those who used Tirthakara as an honorific title. Again, Buddha is commonly used in about the same sense as mukta, that is a liberated soul, and in this meaning it is still employed in Gaina writings, whilst with the Buddhists the word has become a title of their prophet. The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versA.
Lassen, as a second argument in favour of the priority of Buddhism, adduces the fact that both sects worship mortal men, their prophets, like gods, and erect statues of them in their temples. As Buddhism and Gainism excepted none of the many sects, the founders of which pretended, like Buddha or Mahavira, to omniscience and absolute perfection, have continued long enough to come within the reach of our knowledge and all or many of them may, for aught we know, have given the same divine honours to their saints, as the Buddhists and Gainas did to their own prophets it cannot be alleged that the practice of the Buddhists rather than of any other sect was imitated by the Gainas, or vice versa. On the contrary, there is nothing in the notion of Buddha that could have favoured the erecting of statues and temples for his followers to worship them, but rather much that is inconsistent with this kind of adoration, while the Gaums commit no inconsistency 1n worshipping Mahvira in his apotheosis. But I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or <7ainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay com- munity, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, and when the religious development of India found in the Bhakti the supreme means of salvation. Therefore instead of seeing in the Buddhists the originals, and in the Gainas the imitators, with regard to the erection of temples and worship of sta- tues, we assume that both sects were, independently from each other, brought to adopt this practice by the perpetual and irresistible influence of the religious development of the people in India.
The third point of resemblance between both sects, the stress which is laid on the ahi;;/sa or not killing of living beings, will be treated more fully in the sequel. For this reason I quickly pass over to Professor Lassen's fourth argument, viz. that the Buddhists and Gainas measure the history of the World by those enormous periods of time which bewilder and awe even the most imaginative fancy.
XXll CAINA SUTRAS.
It is true that regarding this the Gainas outdo the Bud- dhists, but they have the idea of such. periods in common not only with the latter but also with the Brhmans. The main features of the chronological system of the Gainas equally differ from those of the Buddhists as from those of the Br^hmans. For it is impossible to derive the Ut- sarpiwl and Avasarpiwi eras, with their six Aras, from the Buddhistical four great and eighty smaller Kalpas, which are as it were the acts and scenes in the drama of the suc- cessive creations and dissolutions of the universe, ;nor from the Yugas and Kalpas of the Brdhmans. I am of opinion that the Buddhists have improved on . the Brahmanic system of the Yugas, while the Gainas invented their Utsarpiwl and Avasarpiwi eras after the model of the day and night of Brahmi.
We have postponed the discussion of Professor Lassen's third argument, the ah\ms, because it will be better treated together with the other moral precepts of both sects. Professor Weber 1 has pointed out the near relation existing between the five great vows of the Gainas and the five cardinal sins and virtues of the Buddhists ; and Pro- fessor Windisch 2 has compared the Caina vows (mahavrata) with the ten obligations of the Buddhists (dasasil).
The Ten Precepts for the Buddhist ascetics are the following 3 :
i. I take the vow not to destroy life, a. I take the vow not to steal.
3. I take the vow to abstain from impurity.
4. I take the vow not to lie.
5. I take the vow to abstain from intoxicating drinks which hinder progress and virtue.
6. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times.
7. I take the vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays.
8. I take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
1 Fragment der Bhagavati, II, pp. 175, 187.
9 Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, XXVIII, p. 222, note. * Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p. 1 60.
INTRODUCTION. XXlll
9. I take the vow not to use a high or broad bed.
10. I take the vow not to receive gold or silver.
The Buddhists have also Eight Precepts (a////angasila),
of which the first five (pa^asila) are binding on every
Buddhist, while the rest are only recommended to pious
laymen 1 :
1. One should not destroy life.
2. One should not take that which is not given.
3. One should not tell lies.
4. One should not become a drinker of intoxicating drinks.
5. One should refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse an ignoble thing.
6. One should not eat unseasonable food at nights,
7. One should not wear garlands or use perfumes.
8. One should sleep on a mat spread on the ground. The five Buddhist vows nearly agree with those of the
Gaina ascetics, viz. :
1. Not to destroy life (ahi?tfsi).
2. Not to lie (sflnrzta).
3. Not to take that which is not given (asteya).
4. To abstain from sexual intercourse (brahma/arya).
5. To renounce all interest in worldly things, especially to call nothing one's own (aparigraha).
