Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t18: Ajivaka

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t18

Language
English

Ajivaka

v1.c7.s7.t18.1

Ajivaka or Ajivika, aka the “School of Wrong Livelihood” or the “Non-Buddhist School of Wrong Livelihood”, is a religious and philosophical school in ancient India. Originated roughly between 5^th and 6^th century BCE and initially comprised of a few prominent Samana thinkers active shortly before or after the birth of Buddhism, the school underwent some important transformations afterwards. Popular in India for over 2,000 years, it spread into China in the wake of Buddhism.

v1.c7.s7.t18.2

No literature or written records directly attributable to the school survived. The existing records describing the activities and thoughts of the school are of Buddhist or Jainist origin. Such religious scriptures as the Chinese Agama Sutra, the Pali Samannaphala Sutta, and the Jainist “blessing sutra” contain some inconsistent information about the school. Certain thoughts of the school were even contradictorily, classified in these scriptures.

v1.c7.s7.t18.3

Some of the “Six Samana Masters” were the early members of the Ajivaka school. According to relevant Buddhist and Jainist records, the thoughts of three of the “Six Samana Masters”, ie Makkhali Gosala, Purana Kassapa, and Pakudha Kaccayana, formed the theoretical foundation of the school. And among the three thinkers, Makkhali Gosala was the most influential, therefore he was also widely considered the founder of the school. Still other historical records, such as the Pali “Majjhima Nikaya” and the Chinese translation of “Madhyam Agama”, also mentioned some of the early representatives of the school, such as Nanda Vaccha. However, most of the information contained in existing records involving the school was on the thoughts of the three “Samana Masters” mentioned above.

v1.c7.s7.t18.4

Makkhali Gosala didn’t believe in such theories as good/evil karma and reincarnation. In his opinion, good deeds, such as sacrifice-giving or almsgiving, have no effect whatsoever. There is no “this life”, nor an “after life”. People’s living conditions won’t be affected in any way by the karma of their acts or behaviours.

v1.c7.s7.t18.5

Purana Kassapa was not a believer in good/evil karma. He claimed that such evil deeds as killing, stealing, sexual misconduct or false speech wouldn’t bring about any bad karma, just like such good deeds or virtues as almsgivings, self-control or truth-telling wouldn’t bring about any good karma. The reason why he rejected the theory of poetic justice or karma may be attributed to his denial of the law of cause and effect. He believed that the presence of creatures or emotions is only natural and spontaneous, without any underlying “cause” giving rise to them. Samyuktagama-sutra Volume Three contained one of his trenchant observations, which goes “people are dirty for no reason, just as people are clean for no reason”. Meant at the time to subvert the dominant Brahmanism, this thought also ran counter to Buddhist theories.

v1.c7.s7.t18.6

Pakudha Kaccayana was also a major thinker of the school. He espoused a “seven elements” theory, claiming that all things and creatures in this world are composed of seven elements, ie earth, water, fire, wind, hardship, happiness and life. These elements are all ever-present (non-working, non-working for those need to be done, non-converting, non-converting for those need to be converted, non-killing, non-moving, non-transforming and non-changing) and eternally changeless. Things like the human body are essentially made up of them. Pakudha Kaccayana held that because of the changelessness and constancy of these basic elements, a human body composed of them cannot actually be harmed even if you cut it with a knife, because the basic elements cannot be destroyed. The element is the smallest unit of matter that constitutes such things as the emotional human body. Therefore, it cannot be divided and destroyed, it is changeless. This kind of element-based theory was once very influential in ancient India. It differs from such central Brahmanist concepts as the Atman or Brahman, and is also distinct from mainstream

v1.c7.s7.t18.7

*Ekottaragama-sutra*

v1.c7.s7.t18.8

thought of the “emptiness” concept in the Buddhist philosophy. Like the other two Samana masters, Pakudha Kaccayana also repudiated the theory of poetic justice or karma, believing in the spontaneity of birth and change of things or lives. Because he claimed that there was nothing one can do, he was considered somewhat fatalist. His thoughts bear a striking resemblance to those of Makkhali Gosala, so much so that the two were often confused in Buddhist scriptures. Normally the theories of Makkhali Gosala were deemed the orthodox of the school, while those of Pakudha Kaccayana were held to be heretic.

v1.c7.s7.t18.9

Generally, the theories of these early thinkers of the Ajivaka school are distinctly different from the mainstream philosophy then. For instance, the dominant Brahmanism and Buddhism both believe in reincarnation and karma, while the Ajivaka school rejected such beliefs. The mainstream Brahmanist thoughts popular at the time held that there is a Brahman or God, a being the Ajivaka thinkers claimed doesn’t exist. Buddhism espouses the concept of “emptiness”, claiming that things are “empty” and impermanent, while some Ajivaka thinkers upheld pluralistic realism of element-based theory. Still other schools of thought in ancient India advocated specific moral and ethical ideas, what they claimed were also linked to the theory of reincarnation or karma, while the Ajivaka school generally repudiated such ideas or thoughts.

v1.c7.s7.t18.10

During such periods as the Maurya Dynasty, the Gupta Dynasty and the Vardhana Dynasty, Ajivaka was moderately active but never dominant, exerting only a limited influence on society.

v1.c7.s7.t18.11

The thoughts of the Ajivaka school were also spread to China, mainly through Buddhism. As it happens, large portions of Buddhist scripture were dedicated to criticising or refuting heretical ideas, the various thoughts and different concepts before or after the creation of Buddhism by Śākyamuni are the major contents of schools other than dominant in ancient India. There are a lot of differences between the thoughts of Ajivaka and the theory of Buddhism. Many Buddhist records containing information about such philosophical “conflicts” or “clashes” had been translated into Chinese, allowing the Chinese people have a rare glimpse into the school.

v1.c7.s7.t18.12

Madhyama Agama

v1.c7.s7.t18.13

In modern and contemporary China, historical records concerning the Ajivaka school often interested Chinese scholars who study the history of Buddhism and the intellectual history of ancient India. Some Chinese scholars who focus on heretical thoughts also published research papers on the school in Chinese Academic Journals. In some Chinese books about the Indian religious philosophies, there are also chapters or parts dedicated to the Ajivaka school. In addition, the school is also mentioned in the oriental philosophy courses offered in some Chinese universities.

v1.c7.s7.t18.14

(*Yao Weiqun*)

Cites (5)