From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Sa^nyasin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Njfc- grantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself .was but a 'copy of theSawnyasin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the 6ainas would proba- bly have conformed rather to it than to the less respecte4 and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the inas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former.
There remains another possibility, but a still more im- probable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or aina monk. I say still more im- probable, because, firstly, the Sa#my&sin makes part of the system of the four stages, or A^ramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism ; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were
1 Baudhdyana II, 10, 18, 13. a AHranga Stitra II, i.
XXX GAINA SUTRAS.
confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church,
to a small patt of the country, and therefore could not
have been imitated by all the Sa#my&sins ; thirdly, Gau-
tama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of
Buddhism. For Professor Biihler thinks that the lower
limit for the_^mjo^t^ j?^ tra O 1118 *
be placed in thefburth or fifth century B.C. 1 Baudhiyana is older than Apastamba ; according to^Biihler 2 , the dis- tance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudhciyana 3 . Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhd- yana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brah- manic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Biihler should be wrong in his estima- tion of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise 6f Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries. Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brihrnans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would cef tainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Br&h- mans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the ainas and Buddhists use the word Br&hmaa as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Br&hmans.
It may be remarked that the monastical order of the
7ainas and Buddhists though copied from the BrAhmans
i rere chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha
c .ddressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men,
as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg 4 . For
1 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, part i, introduction, p. xliii. 9 L. c. p. xxii. 8 L. c. p. xlix.
* Buddha, sein Leben. &c., p.. 157 seq.
Introduction. Xxxi
Buddha, in his first sermon at Benares, speaks of his reli- gion as that yass' atth&ya kulaputtS, sammad eva agcirasma anagciriyaw pabba^anti: for the sake of which sons of noble families leave the house and enter the state of houselessness 1 . That the (Gainas too gave the Kshatriyas the preference over the Br&hmans is proved by that curious legend about the transfer of the embryo of MaMvira from the womb of the Brihma^i Devinandcl to* that of the Kshatriyam Truala, it being alleged that a Brcthma;zi or another woman of low family was not worthy to give birth to a Tirthakara 2 .
On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics
did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their
equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves.
For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brdh-
mans were entitled to enter the fourth A^rama, and as a
1 Mahavagga I, 6, 12.
a This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the tfvetambaras staunchly upKold its truth. As it Is foimd""uTthe~XHranga, the Kalpa Siitra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point, I assume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahma/if Devnandi, the real mother of Mah^vira, and the Kshatriy&i! Trisali ; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. .Rt'shabhadatta, cannot be very old, be- cause its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not to a Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that .Rtshabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devananda with another husband. Now Siddhartha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisald. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that MahivJra was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisala, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahavfra's parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Puric story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devakt to that of Rohi/it. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed ; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tfrthakara, Arish/a- nemi, who was a famous Ydava.
XXXii GAINA SUTRAS.
proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Biihler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sftdra through one of the four A^ramas 1 .
From all this it becomes probable that the non-Brahma- nic ascetics even in early times were regarded as an order separate and distinguished from the Brahmanic ascetics. We can understand that this position of non-Brahmanic ascetics led to the formation of sects inclining to dissent. That the untrue ascetics had such an origin, may be col- lected from a remark of Vasish/^a. It is known that the performance of religious ceremonies was discontinued by the ascetics, but some went beyond this and discontinued the recitation of the Veda. Against transgressors of this kind Vasish/V&a 2 has the following quotation : ' Let him dis- continue the performance of all religious ceremonies, but let him never discontinue the recitation of the Veda. By neglecting the Veda he becomes a .Stidra; therefore he shall not neglect it/ An inhibition pronounced so em- phatically presupposes the real occurrence of the practices forbidden. If therefore some ascetics already had ceased to recite the Veda, we may conclude that others began to disregard it as revelation and the highest authority. That those who were regarded as a sort of inferior ascetics, the non-Brahmanic ascetics, were most likely to make this step, is easy to imagine. We see thus that the germs of dissent- ing sects like those of the Buddhists and the 6ainas were contained in the institute of the fourth A^rama, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects ; therefore Buddhism and gainism must be regarded as religionsjie- veloped nuf c)f Rr4^mariisin notj>y a sudden reformation, but prepare T 4 by religious movement goinp^cmfor a long time.
1 Max Mtiller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343. 9 Chapter x, 4. Buhler's translation.
Introduction. Xxxiu
XXXIV 0AINA SUTRAS.
one of the Gainas, as it is always before the mind of the authors of the sacred books when describing the spiritual career of the saints. But we search in vain for something analogous in the Buddhist scriptures. We could multiply the instances of difference between the fundamental tenets of both sects, but we abstain from it, fearing to tire the reader's patience with an enumeration^of all such cases. Such tenets as the Gainas share with the Buddhists, both sects have in common with the Brahmanic philosophers, e. g. the belief in the regeneration of souls, the theory of the Karman, or merit and demerit resulting from former actions, which must take effect in this or another birth, the belief that by perfect knowledge and good conduct man can avoid the necessity of being born again and again, &c. Even the theory that from time immemorial prophets (Buddhas or Tlrthakaras) have proclaimed the same dogmas and re- newed the sinking faith, has its Brahmanic counterpart in the Avatiras of Vishnu. Besides, such a theory is a necessary consequence both of the Buddhistical and Gaina creed. For what Buddha or Mah^vira had revealed was, of course, regarded by the followers of either as truth and the only truth; this truth must have existed from the beginning of time, like the Veda of the Brcihmans ; but could the truth have remained unknown during the infinite space of time elapsed before the appearance of the prophet ? No, would answer the pious believer in Buddhism or Gainism, that was impossible ; but the true faith was re- vealed in different periods by numberless prophets, and so it will be in the time to come. The theory of former prophets seems, therefore, to be a natural consequence of both religions; besides, it was not wholly unfounded on* facts, at least as regards the Gainas. For the Nirgranthas are never spoken of in the Buddhist writings as a newly risen sect, nor N&taputta as their founder. Accordingly the Nirg^aathas wste probably an old sect_jat_the time of Bu^ha^jaad^NAtaputta only the reformer of the Gaina church, which may have been founded by the twenty-third Ttrthakara, Pdrnra. But what seems astonishing is the fact that the Gainas and Bauddhas have hit on nearly the
Introduction. Xxxv
Our discussion has as yet been conducted on the supposi- tion that the tradition of the <7ainas as contained in their sacred books may on the whole be credited. But the intrin- sic value of this tradition has been called into question by a scholar of wide views and cautious judgment. Mr. Barth, in the Revue de THistoire des Religions, vol. iii, p. 90, admits that an historical personage is hidden under Nitaputta, but he doubts that valid inferences may be drawn from the sacred books of the G^inas which, avowedly, have been reduced to writing in the fifth century A. D., or nearly * thousand years after the foundation of the sect. For," in his opinion, * the self-conscient and continuous existence of the sect since that remote epoch, i. e. the direct tradition of peculiar doctrines and records, has not yet been demon- strated. During many centuries/ he says, 4 the Gainas had not become distinct from the numerous groups of ascetics who could not boast of more than an obscure floating
XXXVI GAINA SIJTRAS.
existence/ The tradition of the Gainas appears to Mr. Earth to have been formed of vague recollections in imitation of the Buddhist tradition.
