Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c6.s4: Chapter VII. Religion and Philosophy

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c6.s4

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Religion and Philosophy

c6.s4.2

WITH much hesitation we enter into that mystic and all-pervading world, the world of religious beliefs and superstitions, which has always baffled the most acute mind in grasping and analysing its true character. The material at hand is indeed vast in its scope and weighty in substance. On the theoretical side, the *Jātakas* present before us more or less the same Buddhistic religious thought which we find in other recognised Buddhist canonical works, specially the *Nikāyas*. So that it would be simply tiresome, and not at all necessary, to go into minute details in this connection. Our main interest lies on the other side, *viz.*, the practical one. And, in so far as the stories give us a realistic picture of the religious ideas and beliefs, manners and customs prevalent among the folk, of the pre-Buddhistic days, the information would, we hope, be useful and welcome. Therefore, in the course of our discussion on this, religious, aspect of Ancient Indian life, we shall have to try to leave aside, as best we can, the purely academic and philosophical discussions, hair-splitting debates as the Buddhists themselves would say, which abound in the *gāthās* of this collection, and to get a glimpse of the popular mind and practices of the time, retaining, at the same time, the harmonious connection that may have existed between the two. Just as the beliefs and ideas recorded in the *RgVeda* do not, for the most part, represent the popular or the folk mind,¹ but an advance on, or reform of, the ideas and beliefs commonly held, so also these stories do not, when they speak in didactic strain, represent the mass-mind : they do so only when they mingle with the masses for the time being, and not among their adversaries only. And it is here that our work lies. Here we find ample evidence which unfolds to us the minds of the people at large, their conception of the universe, its regulative forces, the chief sources of detriment to man, and the ways and means of averting the evil influences which now and then assail mankind.

c6.s4.3

¹ For this see Kirste in the *Vienna Oriental Journal*, 1902, pp. 63 ff; for the Great Epic, see Hopkins, J. A. O. S., 1899, pp. 315, 365; also *Religions of India*, chap. XIV; Hewitt, J. R. A. S., 1888, p. 325.

c6.s4.4

As a rule, Religion is or has been the behaviour of man with respect to the Natural forces and influences of this universe which he regards, quite believingly, as the expression and manifestation of some supernatural being. He tried to explain and reconcile the diverse phenomena that he constantly witnessed by imagining the existence of ever-present agencies which, he thought, controlled the universal system. These agents may be classified into two categories : *viz.*, (*a*) the beneficent elements, and (*b*) the malevolent agents. To the former category belonged the various gods, the *devas*, which were supposed to be the controllers of the cosmic system, and the ancestral spirits looking to the welfare of mankind.

c6.s4.5

The gods were many, and the most prominent among them was Sakka, the later transformation of the great god of the Veda, *Indra*.¹ Sakka is called Sujampati among the gods and Maghavā by men.² He is at the head of the Thirty-three *devas* dwelling in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven which is the topmost of the three other heavens viz., the Yāma, the Tusita and the Parinimmitā.³ This heaven of the Thirty-three was the happiest place imaginable, abounding in rich palaces and gardens,⁴ where the Devadhītās and the Accharās sported.⁵ Sakka had Mātali as the charioteer and Pañcasikha as his musician.⁶ His palaces were Masakkasāra⁷ and Vejayanta, and Sudhammā was the assembly hall of the gods.⁸

c6.s4.6

¹ See *Buddhist India*, p. 234.

c6.s4.7

² J., IV, pp. 9-G. 12; 403-G. 55; also III, p. 146. G. 183.

c6.s4.8

³ J., I, p. 202; II, pp. 89, 312; VI, p. 279-G. 1221.

c6.s4.9

⁴ J., VI, pp. 132, 278-G. 1216: Pharusaka, Cittalatā, Missaka and Nandana.

c6.s4.10

⁵ J., I, p. 240: II, pp. 57, 256-G.(?) IV, p. 90; Barhut Jātaka label: Cunningham, *The Stūpa of Barhut*, pls. xiv, 2; liv, 32. See Barua and Sinha, *Barhut Inscriptions*, pp. 48 *ff*.

c6.s4.11

⁶ J., III, p. 222; V, p. 383: the *gandhabbas* at VI, p. 265-G. 1146.

c6.s4.12

⁷ J., VI, p. 289-G. 1255: *Masakkasāram iva Vāsavassa*.

c6.s4.13

⁸ J., V, p. 386: VI, p. 278-G. 1216: 127-G. 567-9: See Barhut label, Cunningham, *op. cit.*, pls. XVI, LIV.

c6.s4.14

The belief was common that when Sakka’s life draws towards its end, or when his merit is exhausted and worked out, or when some mighty being prays or through the efficacy of virtue in priests or Brāhmaṇas full of potency (*mahiddhiya-Samaṇa-Brāhmaṇānam*), his palace and the yellow marble throne (*paṇḍukambalasilāsanam*) grow hot and shaken.⁹ His character as the rain-god (*Pajjunna*) was still retained.¹⁰

c6.s4.15

⁹ J., II, p. 188; III, pp. 53, 129; IV, p. 8-9.

c6.s4.16

¹⁰ J., I, pp. 331, 332-G. 74; IV, p. 253-G. 113.

c6.s4.17

Among other Vedic gods who still survived, though slowly fading away, were the Moon and the Sun (*Canda Suriya*).¹¹ The worship of the Fire (*Aggi*) and Water (*Apa*) is laughed at in scorn, and its worthlessness and foolishness explained beautifully to the Common Folk:¹²

c6.s4.18

¹¹ J., I, p. 474-G. 131; VI, pp. 1, 263-G. 1142

c6.s4.19

¹² J., I, p. 494: The Lord of the Fire could not so much as look after his own, in that his victim was carried away by the robbers, how should he look after the Brāhmaṇa who worshipped him? G. 140: II, p. 44: One day the Brāhmaṇa put rice and ghee in the fire which at once caught his hut and rendered it all waste: naturally he was enraged G. 23-4; VI, pp. 206-207-GG. 886-895: *milakkha* (Mleccha—) G. 892.

c6.s4.20

To Worship fire, the Common drudge of all,
Senseless and blind and deaf to every call,
And then one’s self to live a life of sin—
How could one dream that this a heaven could win?¹³ and so on.

c6.s4.21

¹³ Ibid., p. 207-G. 893 (*Vessānara*).

c6.s4.22

The wind-god *Vāyu* (*Māluta*) has also been the laughing stock of the story-teller.¹⁴ *Varuṇa* is still a power, ranked with the highest,¹⁵ but he is gradually reduced to a tree-god,¹⁶ more prominently, a Nāga king *par* excellence,¹ and a lord of the oracle girls (*vāruṇī*)² who, possessed by the god, would, as the Greek Pithias, prophesy smooth things.³

c6.s4.23

¹⁴ J., I, p. 165-G. 16; also VI, p. 263-G. 1142.

c6.s4.24

¹⁵ J., VI, p. 164-G. 750.

c6.s4.25

¹⁶ J., IV, p. 8.

c6.s4.26

¹ J., VI, pp. 164, 257-329-GG. 1153-7; 1164-71; 1350, 1424-8; 1439.

c6.s4.27

² J., VI, p. 586-G. 2425. *Vāruṇīva pavedhenti thanadhārābhisiñcathā*: the commentator explains *vāruṇī* as *yakkhāviṭṭhā ikkhanikā*. Cf. *atiyakkhā*; VI, p. 502-G. 1828.

c6.s4.28

³ Cf. D. N. Sen, 4th Oriental Conference Proceedings, II, p. 699.

c6.s4.29

Of other mythological Deities of benevolent character, we may mention Siri or Sirimā, the Goddess of Luck, of plenty and success, who was very popular.⁴ She is stated to be the daughter of Dhataraṭṭha, one of the four guardian angels.⁵ Then we have *Gaṅgā-devatā*, the presiding female deity of the Ganges or rivers in general. She is represented on one of the Barhut medallions, mounted on elephant-faced *makara* and holding a goad in her right hand.⁷ *Maṇi-mekhalā*, the divinity of the sea, who looks after men sailing over the vast ocean, seems to have come in at a rather later stage, but commands respect over a wider area.⁸

c6.s4.30

⁴ J., III, pp. 257, 258 (*ahaṃ mahājanassa issariyadāyikā*) 261, 262-G. 50, 51 (synonymous with Lakkhi) 263, 264; V, p. 399. G. 236-7.

c6.s4.31

⁵ The *Jātaka* mythology distinguishes between the Vedic *Śrī* and the popular one by representing the former as a daughter of Śakra or Indra and the latter as the daughter of Dhr̥tarāṣṭra the guardian angel. See Barua and Sinha, *op. cit.*, pp. 74-8; Barhut Sculpture: Cunningham, *op. cit.*, pls. XXIII, I, LIV; also *Buddhist India*, ligs. 36, 37, 38.

c6.s4.32

⁷ Barua and Sinha, *op. cit.*, p. 68; Cunningham, *op. cit.*, pls. XXXVI.

c6.s4.33

⁸ J., IV, pp. 17-21; VI, pp. 35 ff., Cf. for details regarding this divinity and the Far-Eastern versions, S. levi in *I. H. Q.*, VI, pp. 597 ff. VII, pp. 173 ff. 371 ff; other heavenly beings: the *gandhabbas*, the *Kimpurisas* and the *Kinnaras*: J., IV, pp. 25-ff. G. 110, 111, 116, 442 ff-G, 169-186; VI, p. 265-G. 1146; See Barua and Sinha *op. cit.*, p. 91, Cf. for philological and ethnical relations between the Asses, Horses and the Gandharvas, the Greek Centaurs and the Iranian Gandarewa: J. Przyluski, *Indian Culture*, III, pp. 613-20.

c6.s4.34

It is quite natural, that the mutual assimilation of different traditions of diverse sections of the people, different explanations about the same Natural phenomena, diversity in the conception of the various aspects of Nature, gradually enlarged the huge pantheon with various traditions about individual gods and goddesses, almost on the lines parallel to those we find in Greece, Rome and other parts of the ancient world. Anthropomorphic considerations naturally played the supreme rôle in the evolution of these ideas. "The primitive mind is swayed by wonder and fear, and naturally tries to do recompense for the good done or to appease the anger of the omnipotent agents. As such, the gods were worshipped, and this worship was nothing but offering various kinds of food or sacrificing animals to them—practically, the same means as win success with ordinary men. In course of time, this sacrifice elaborated into a complicated ritual and came to have a different purpose and meaning."⁹

c6.s4.35

⁹ N. C. Banerjee in *Calcutta Review*, XXIII, pp. 67-8.

c6.s4.36

If wonder or gratitude impelled man to venerate or worship the various deities mentioned before, fear made him dread the spirits of evil which infested the world. People had to take recourse to various arts and artifices to counteract these evils, to what we call spells, charms or magic which still survive. Prominent among these evil spirits which endangered the safety of man were the Asuras, the eternal enemies of the gods,¹ the Dānava-rakkhasas,² the Vijjādharas or the wizards flying invisibly and endowed with all sorts of spells and magic (abbhutadhamma),³ and above all the Yakkhas and various other spirits.⁴

c6.s4.37

⁶ J., II, pp. 423 ff; G. 113-4.

c6.s4.38

¹ J., I, pp. 202-206-G. 30.

c6.s4.39

² J., III, p. 527.

c6.s4.40

³ J., III, pp. 303, 455; 527-G. 90 (Vāyussa putto); the episode is depicted in a Barhut railing. See Barua and Sinha, op. cit., pp. 89-90; J., IV, p. 496-G. 341.

c6.s4.41

⁴ For detailed lists see the Mahāsamaya Suttaṇta and the Āṭānāṭiya Suttana of the Dīgha Nikāya : Dialogues of the Buddha, II, pp. 286 ff; III, pp. 188 ff.

c6.s4.42

The Four Great Kings (Cātummahārājā) were the guardians of the four quarters : Dhataraṭṭha in the East at the head of the Gandhabbas, Viruḷha in the South at the head of the Kumbhaṇḍas, Virupakkha in the West above the Nāgas and Vessavaṇa-Kubera in the North above the Yakkhas.⁵ All the quarters (disā) were worshipped in times of danger or calamity.⁶

c6.s4.43

⁵ J., III, p. 257.

c6.s4.44

⁶ J., VI, p. 562-G. 2256—'Sabbā disā namassisaṃ puthuṃ katvāna añjaliṃ.' These four great kings are all called Yakkhas in the Barhut inscriptions : their representations on a railing of the Stūpa are lifesize : See Cunningham, op. cit., pls. LIII, XXII, LV; Barua & Sinha op. cit., pp. 65-7.

c6.s4.45

Of all the evil spirits, the Yakkhas were the most commonly dreaded, and people were in perpetual fear of them. Vessavaṇa, the Lord of the Yakkhas himself, is not held without fear.⁷ To common people, the world seemed to be infested with the Yakkhas. Even their signs and bodily forms were not left out. They could be recognised because they had unwinking and red eyes, cast no shadow, were fearless and without mercy,⁸ in stature as tall as palm trees, head as big as an hawk.⁹ They lived on the flesh of men and beasts,¹⁰ and haunted deserts and forests, trees or waters.¹¹ The she-goblins, the Yakkhinīs were even more dreadful, as they, by their various snares of beauty, music, smell, taste and comfort, attracted men and made them their prey.¹² People were believed to be possessed by the Yakkhas : a goblin named Naradeva took possession of the minister Kāvinda on every fast day, so that he barked like a mad dog.¹³ It, however, seems from the descriptions that the Yakkhas might have been an aboriginal tribe,¹⁴ like the Nāgas.

c6.s4.46

⁷ J., I, p. 328; II, p. 16; III, p. 502; VI, p. 265.

c6.s4.47

⁸ J., VI, p. 307.

c6.s4.48

⁹ J., I, p. 273; also I, p. 102; IV, p. 491.

c6.s4.49

¹⁰ J., I, p. 101; III, p. 327; V, p. 458: for cannibalism see Grierson, Piśāca in J.R.A.S., 1905.

c6.s4.50

¹¹ J., I, pp. 99, 349; upon the central rafter of the hut : II, p. 16.

c6.s4.51

¹² J., I, pp. 240, 395-7; 11, p. 128; III, p. 502 (a female Yakkha with a face of a horse : assamukhi Yakkhinī).

c6.s4.52

¹³ J., V1, p. 383.

c6.s4.53

¹⁴ It seems also correct to say that the Yakkha worship in its ultimate analysis is indisputably hero-worship.—Barua and Sinha, op. cit., p. 67; In the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra, III. 14-15; V, 24, the Yakkhas are greatly praised; a Yakkhanagara is mentioned at J., I, p. 101.

c6.s4.54

The Nāgas, under the guardian angel Virupakkha, or as sometimes Dhataraṭṭha,¹⁵ were, according to the superstitious belief, the Siren-serpents whose worship has been so important a factor in the folklore, superstition and poetry of India from the earliest times down to-day (cf. nāgapañcamī). Cobras in their ordinary form, they lived, like mermen and mermaids, beneath the waters¹ in great luxury and wealth in rich palaces surrounded with beautiful gardens.² They could at will, and often did, adopt the human and other forms;³ and though terrible if angered, were kindly and mild by nature, and people offered them sacrifice with milk, rice, fish and meat and drink.⁴ "Not mentioned," says Rhys Davids,⁵ "either in the Veda or in the pre-Buddhistic Upaniṣads, the myth seems to be a strange jumble of beliefs, not altogether pleasant, about a strangely gifted race of actual men, combined with notions derived from previously existing theories of tree-worship and serpent-worship, and river-worship. But the history of the idea has still to be written."⁶

c6.s4.55

¹⁵ J., V, p. 164-G. 751 'Dhataraṭṭho hi Nāgānaṃ bahunaṃ api issaro.'

c6.s4.56

¹ Supra, p. 65.

c6.s4.57

² See especially J., VI, pp. 269-70-GG. 1164-71, where we have a picturesque description of Bhogavatī (or Hiraññavatī), the city of Varuṇa, the nāgarāja; also VI, p. 167.

c6.s4.58

³ J., II, p. 13.

c6.s4.59

⁴ J., I, p. 498. At J., IV, p. 353-4-G. 198, the spirit of a banyan tree who reduces the merchants to ashes is called a Nāgarāja, the soldiers he sends forth from his tree are Nāgas and the tree itself is the dwelling place of the Nāga.

c6.s4.60

⁵ Buddhist India, pp. 23-4.

c6.s4.61

⁶ On the Nāgas as an important race of men occupying an important place in the political conflicts, at the time just before the Buddha, see Supra, pp. 63-5. The Nāga maidens Vimalā, wife of Varuṇa and her daughter Irandatī are described as possessing rare beauty : J., VI, pp. 262-G. 1140; 266-G. 1149; 269-G. 1169-70. See illustration of Nāga mermaids in water, at Buddhist India, fig. 41: "These Nāgas are represented on the ancient bas-reliefs as men or women either with cobras rising from behind their heads or with serpentine forms from the waist downwards." Ibid, fig. 42.

c6.s4.62

Then there were the Garulas (Garuḍas), or the Supaṇṇas, the Indian counterpart of the harpy and griffin, half man, half bird, perpetual enemies of the Nāgas, on whom they feed.⁷ They also could, and did, adopt the human form, and were of beautiful form, so much so that a queen of Benares fell in love at first sight with a Supaṇṇarāja who carried her away to his island-above.⁸ According to Rhys Davids,⁹ "they also were, perhaps, originally a tribe of actual men, with an eagle or a hawk as their token on their banner."

c6.s4.63

⁷ J., II, p. 13: VI, p. 191.

c6.s4.64

⁸ J., III, pp. 91 ff. G. 105-8; 187 ff. G. 55-9; here also the nigrodha tree has some connection with the abode of the garulas or supaṇṇas.

c6.s4.65

⁹ Buddhist India, p. 224.

c6.s4.66

Of other such feared creatures, having an ethnological probability, were the man-eating Pisācas,¹⁰ similar to the Yakkhas, the Bheravas and¹¹ the Kumbhaṇḍas.¹²

c6.s4.67

¹⁰ J., II, p, 16-G. 9-10: III, pp. 146-7-G. 183-4; cf. the terrible description of a pisāca (pisāya) in the Uvāsagadasāo, pp. 46-51; also Grierson in J. R. A. S., 1905.

c6.s4.68

¹¹ J., I, p. 499.

c6.s4.69

¹² J., II, p. 397; III, pp. 146-147-G. 183-4.

c6.s4.70

And there were various Titans, souls, or spirits supposed to animate and to reside in the wind (ākāsatthadevatā),¹³ in water (udakarakkhasā),¹⁴ in thunder and rain,¹⁵ above all the tree-gods (rukkhadevatā).¹⁶

c6.s4.71

¹³ J., I, p. 499.

c6.s4.72

¹⁴ J., I, pp. 128, 170-1; sea-sprite (samuddadevatā) : p. 497.

c6.s4.73

¹⁵ J., I, p. 167.

c6.s4.74

¹⁶ J., I, pp. 168-328: 415, 423, 441.

c6.s4.75

Tree-worship is indeed very old, and widely spread.¹ It was, of course, not the trees as such, but the souls or spirits supposed to dwell within them (*nibbattadevatā*) and to haunt them, that were looked upon as gods. And this notion survived down to the rise of Buddhism as we see from the *Upaniṣads*.² Our stories are full of references to this tree-worship, with its superstitious and savage customs. Offerings were made to the tree-spirits:³ even human sacrifices were offered,⁴ they were consulted as oracles, and expected to grant children, fame and wealth;⁵ they were believed to injure those who injured the trees in which they dwelt,⁶ and they were pleased when garlands were hung upon the branches of the tree, lamps lighted round it, and *bali* offerings were made, at the foot of the tree.⁷

c6.s4.76

¹ Cf. "there is scarcely one tribe of Indo-European stock that did not worship and even offer sacrifices to trees and tree-spirits." Jarl Charpentier on the *Naicāśākha* of the *Ṛgveda* in J. R. A. S., 1930, pp. 335 ff., which he has tried to explain as "worshipper of the banyan tree."

c6.s4.77

² See Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 227 : J. IV, p. 154.

c6.s4.78

³ J., I, pp. 169; 259 ff. 344 ff. G. 76, 423-G. 8, 425-6; III, p. 23 ff G. 26, 146 ff. IV, p. 153.

c6.s4.79

⁴ J., III, p. 160; V, pp. 472, 474, 488.

c6.s4.80

⁵ J., I, pp. 259, 404-5 (a tree spirit is asked to settle the dispute between the two merchants); 423; III, p. 23 (*sukhaseyyaṃ pucchati*); IV, p. 351, ff. G. 179-197; 456; 474; this idea is fully alive to-day and is of a particularly primitive trend.

c6.s4.81

⁶ J., IV, pp. 210, 353.

c6.s4.82

⁷ J., III, p. 23.. "*gandhapañcaṅgulikāni datvā mālāgandhadhūpehi pūjetvā dīpaṃ jāletvā sukhaṃ sayā ti vatvā rukkhaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā pakkamati.*" IV, p. 153; Cf. VI, p. 327-G. 1441-3; Cf. Barua, *Barhut Stone as a Story-teller*, for an interpretation of the Barhut Scenes of worship of the Bo-trees.

c6.s4.83

Horried and hideous practices were connected with this tree-worship. In the *Dummedha Jātaka*,⁸ we hear of these devoted-people (*devatāmaṅgalakā*) offering sacrifices to the banyan-tree in which the entrails, blood and flesh (*maṃsalohita*) of the victims—goats, cocks, pigs and the like—are the substantial parts of the *bali*. In the *Dhoṇasākha Jātaka*,⁹ a still more horrid picture is witnessed. The unhappy princes are knocked unconscious (*Visaññī*), their eyes slit out, the bodies (*kalebarāṇi*) cut open, and the entrails taken out, and the carcases thrown into the river. The entrails are hung as garlands on the tree, which is marked with spread hands dipped in the blood of the victims (*lohitapañcaṅgulikāni*).¹⁰ Quite a similar description occurs at another place also.¹¹ One does not find the slightest reason to doubt these detailed descriptions: though the custom may not have been widely prevalent. The spirit of the tree was obviously looked upon as having an insatiable craving for human and animal flesh and blood. "The present custom of daubing the tree with vermilion is most probably a reminiscence of far more sinister rites."¹²

c6.s4.84

⁸ J., I, p. 259.

c6.s4.85

⁹ J., III, pp. 157 ff.

c6.s4.86

¹⁰ On the *lohitapañcaṅgulika*, etc. cf. Vogel in *Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Kon. Akademie von Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde*, 5; J., IV, p. 218 ff. referred to by Jarl Charpentier, J. R. A. S., 1930, p. 343.

c6.s4.87

¹¹ J., V, p. 456.

c6.s4.88

¹² J. Charpentier, op. cit., p. 344.

c6.s4.89

No doubt, these horrible practices of animal sacrifices¹ held sway among the people.² The doctrine of *ahiṃsā*, though preached from long before, was only now beginning to bear fruit. People were beginning to realise, partly through humanitarian sense and partly through fear of something, the utter uselessness of animal-slaughter and to develop a bold and a questioning spirit:

c6.s4.90

¹ J., VI, p. 133 describes thus : a sacrificial pit (*yaññavāṭa*) was dug with a level floor, surrounded with a fence (*vāṭaparikkhapanam*) for ancient brahmins had enjoined that this fence should be made, lest some righteous ascetic or brahmin might come and stop the rite : some specimens of the hymns sung : *Udetā ayaṃ cakkhumā-ekarājā* : II, p. 33; G. 17; *Apetā ayaṃ ca* : II, p. 35-G. 17; *ayaṃ te yūpo kāmaduho paratthā* : VI, p. 211-G. 906.

c6.s4.91

² See also J., I, pp. 150 (neck of the deer placed on the block—*dhammagandikam*); III, p. 45 (*sabbacatukkayañña*) also VI, p. 133 : IV, p. 115; the custom of offering feasts to the departed also seems to have been prevalent; J, I, p. 166 ff.

c6.s4.92

“Why, brahmin, though thyself with reason blest,
Hast thou this dull insensate tree addressed?
Vain is thy prayer, thy kindly greeting vain,
From this dull wood no answer wilt thou gain,”³

c6.s4.93

³ J., III, p. 24-G. 25.

c6.s4.94

and the scathing arguments in the *Bhūridatta Jātaka*⁴ vividly express this questioning spirit.

c6.s4.95

⁴ J., VI, pp. 210-14-G. 904-930.

c6.s4.96

However, the dread of the evil spirits was hard to kill. The simpler and unsophisticated mind looked to easier ways of deliverance, other than sacrifice and prayer to gods. Innumerable superstitions and charms grew up. Magic (*dibbamāyā*) and witch-craft were prominent.⁵ Signs and portents (*nimittāni*) were also believed in.⁶ And for all these, there were the soothsayers, under the designation *lakkhaṇapāṭhakas* or *aṅgavijjāpāṭhakas*,⁷ *supinapāṭhakas*,⁸ *nemittikas*⁹ and the *nakkhattajānanakas*¹⁰ already referred to. Fortune-telling and interpretation of dreams were part of their profession. To the same class belonged the professors of *bhūtavijjā*.¹¹ All these were believed to exercise power over evil spirits and demons, and to interpret and avert bad omens, by their magic incantations (*mante*); charmed sand (*parittavālikam*) to be kept on the head and the charmed thread (*parittasuttakam*) to be twisted round the brow were believed to ensure safety from dangers.¹² Places were supposed to be haunted by supernatural beings (*amānussapariggahita*), and charms were employed to counteract their evil effects.¹³ The idea of washing away the sins in the sacred bathing-places like *Payāga* on the *Yamunā* river, *Doṇa*, *Timbaru* and others¹⁴ was prevalent. Oaths were taken on various occasions and for various purposes, specially the ‘*saccakiriya*’ or an act of truth.¹ In the ideas relating to cosmology, the explanation of the doctrines of Karma and of transmigration of soul modified the old ideas; yet people continued to believe in the existence of Heaven as the place of rewards for the good done in life, and of Hell as the abode of punishment.² And in this way hocus-pocus, all existing among the people, the simple folk, naturally gave rise to a questioning spirit that would take nothing for granted.

c6.s4.97

⁵ J., I, p. 456. VI, p. 458-G. 1623-4.

c6.s4.98

⁶ J., I, pp. 120 : 154 (a bird strikes a hunter while he is starting for hunting thinking this to be an ill omen he stays for a while); VI, p. 10.

c6.s4.99

⁷ J., I, p. 290; II, p. 21; V, pp. 458, 484.

c6.s4.100

⁸ J., V, p. 443; VI, p. 10.

c6.s4.101

⁹ J., IV, p. 124; V, p. 296; VI, p. 5.

c6.s4.102

¹⁰ J., I, pp. 120, 133, 257; III, p. 59; V, pp. 127-30.

c6.s4.103

¹¹ J., III, p. 511.

c6.s4.104

¹² J., I, pp. 396-399.

c6.s4.105

¹³ J., II, pp. 15-6.

c6.s4.106

¹⁴ J., V, p. 388-G. 199; VI, pp, 197-8-G. 857.

c6.s4.107

¹ J., III, pp. 138-9 GG. 169-172; *Saccakiriya* was an Act of Truth a formal declaration of fact, accompanied by a command and resolution or prayer that the purpose of the agent shall be accomplished. The formula of the Act is with slight changes of words, '*etena saccena*.. or *etena saccavajjena* J., I, pp. 294, 331; IV, pp. 31-G. 47; 142-G. 117; 320-G. 103-115; 410-G. 75-7; V, pp. 29-G. 80-2; 87-G. 260; 95-G. 296; VI, pp. J, 91-G. 376-82; 154-G. 729; 242; it is used for so many purposes: to obtain water to drink: J., pp. 170 ff-G. 19; to cause a forest fire to turn back: J., I, pp. 213 ff. G. 34; J. I, pp. 331 ff. G. 74; to counteract the effect of poison: J. IV, pp. 28 ff-G. 47; to avert ship-wreck; J. 1V, p. 137 ff-G. 117; to obtain a son: J., IV, pp. 315 ff-G. 103-113; VI, pp. 1 ff; to deliver animals; J., IV, pp. 333 ff; to deliver a man from captivity: J., V, pp. 21 ff.-G. 80-2; to avenge a wrong: J. V, pp. 75 ff-G. 260: J., VI, pp. 30 ff; to avert human sacrifice: J., VI, pp. 131 ff. G. 729; See for a detailed treatment of the subject, as a psychic motif in Hindu fiction: E. W. Burlingame in J. R. A. S., 1917, pp. 429 ff. also J. A. O. S., 52, pp. 316-7.

c6.s4.108

² J., I, p. 168, 174, 232, 490; II, pp. 86, 202; III, pp. 42, 45, 185, 206; IV, pp. 3; V, pp. 266-7; VI, pp. 105-6, 246, 354; belief in the earth's swallowing a wicked man. J., I, p. 322.

c6.s4.109

There comes a time in the life of every race, as it does in the life of every thoughtful individual, when it is felt that the ordinary interpretation of the world we live in, and the standard of values by which we estimate the ends or ideals we pursue in life, should be revised, reconstructed or overhauled. And it was such an awakening that began to see the light in the period of which we are speaking. This is not to say that it was a sudden revolution: in fact at all times and in all ages orthodoxy has always been shadowed by heterodoxy: only the degree changes, the extent differs. The whole of the popular animistic notions mentioned before, and no doubt many others, survived in full force. But no one man believed in them all. Gradually the sphere of the questioning, the revolting, spirit widens. And then during this period, as Prof. Rhys Davids³ has rightly observed, suddenly there is evidence of a leap forward in speculative thought, of a new birth in ethics, of a religion of conscience threatening to take place of the old religion of custom and magic.⁴ And the marvel of it is, that the same process of regeneration was taking place simultaneously in other centres of civilisation—in China, Persia, and Egypt, in Italy and Greece.⁴ It was a time reverberating, more vigorously than ever before, with the conflicts of ideals and of practices. The old order of things had had yielded place to self-introspection (*paṭivekhā* of Aśoka, P. E. III) and to asceticism (*tapas*). Dr. Barua in his History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy⁵ has rightly designated this period as neo-Vedic and Sophistic or the period of Śramaṇas and Brāhmaṇas. Yājñavalkya was the great landmark between the post-Vedic and the neo-Vedic and later ages. In point of fact, as the learned Doctor says, we can regard this period as that which shows the germs, the beginnings, of all that we find later, a period which saw the existence of various orders of teachers, both Vedic and anti-Vedic, representing different groups or schools of thought, which again may roughly be divided into either Śramaṇas and Brāhmaṇas or Hermits and wanderers.¹

c6.s4.110

³ *Buddhist India*, p. 239.

c6.s4.111

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 238 ff.

c6.s4.112

⁵ pp. 191, 416.

c6.s4.113

¹ Barua, op. cit., p. 191.

c6.s4.114

Before returning to these two orders of asceticism, let us very briefly have an idea as to the philosophical speculations that were uppermost in those days.²

c6.s4.115

² The Brahmajāla Suttanta (See Dialogues of the Buddha, I, pp. 26-55) and the Ācārāṅga Sūtra, I, 7, 1, 3, describe at length the various metaphysical and ethical speculations current at the time among the Brāhmaṇas and the Śramaṇas.

c6.s4.116

Of course the most remarkable trend of philosophic speculation was anti-Vedic. The thinkers had, in course of time, ceased to feel the fascination of, and cherish admiration for, Vedic learning and Vedic rites: the self (ātman) is not obtainable by the study of the Veda, the sacrifices and all gifts and oblations are inefficacious: the observance of moral precepts (sīlam) and the contemplation, knowledge, and realisation of the nature of Brahman are far superior to the performance of Vedic sacrifices and the acquisition of Vedic learning:³ this, in general, was the trend of thought. Not going deeper into details, we shall just reproduce this anti-Vedic feeling as it is presented in our stories.

c6.s4.117

³ Barua, op. cit., p. 193. It is true that such a revolt goes back to ancient times: it can be traced as far back as the celebrated hymn on Frogs, Ṛgveda, VII, 163; see Barua, op. cit., p. 194; but it begins to be more shaped, and clearly defined during this period.

c6.s4.118

ANTI-VEDIC MOVEMENT.

c6.s4.119

We are, first of all, reminded of the two most prominent figures of the Upaniṣadic times, viz., Uddālaka Āruṇi and his son Śvetaketu. With Uddālaka Āruṇi, Indian wisdom seems to have taken a new turn,⁴ as we can see from his biological speculations and his conception of Matter and Spirit in which he shows a close resemblance to Anaxagoras.⁵

c6.s4.120

⁴ In fact the whole family of the Āruṇis is distinguished in history for Vedic learning. The most divergent lines of tradition meet in the person of Uddālaka Āruṇi' Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 396.

c6.s4.121

⁵ Barua, op. cit., p. 124.

c6.s4.122

UDDĀLAKA AND SETAKETU.

c6.s4.123

Both the Setaketu and Uddālaka Jātakas⁶ preserve the traditional information about these two celebrities, but in a very confused and corrupted form. We must note that the Pāli name Uddālaka is equivalent to the Saṃskṛta Auddālaka i.e., the son of Uddālaka. And obviously the two Jātakas speak of one and the same person, viz., Śvetaketu Auddālaka, though they unknowingly give different incidents regarding his life. The Setaketu Jātaka describes him as one born of a Brāhmaṇa family from the north and studying at Takkasilā, where he is stated to have met a Caṇḍāla who asked him a question about the quarters (disā). On the other hand, the Uddālaka Jātaka associates the origin of the name Uddālaka (Auddālaka) with the Uddālaka tree under which he was conceived, and describes him as the fruit of an illegal union of his mother—a gaṇikā—with a wise purohita of a Brahmadatta king of Benares. In both these accounts, the Jātaka-historian has evidently confounded Śvetaketu Auddālaka with Philalethes Satyakāma Jābāla.¹

c6.s4.124

⁶ J., III, pp. 232-7. GG. 8-12; IV, pp. 297-304-GG. 62-76; cf. J., I, p. 401-GG. (2)

c6.s4.125

¹ See Chāndogya Upaniṣad, IV, 4-9; Barua, op. cit., p. 125.

c6.s4.126

But as to the general views—social and ethical—of Śvetaketu Auddālaka and his father (i.e., Uddālaka), both the Jātakas agree. The conversation between the Father and the Son shows some resemblance to the one embodied in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad,² the latter setting forth the philosophical views much more elaborately. In the former the son inquires: What makes the Brāhmin? how can he be perfect? tell me this. What is a righteous man, and how he wins Nirvāṇa's bliss?³ The father replies:

c6.s4.127

² VI, 4.

c6.s4.128

³ J., IV, p. 302-G. 70.

c6.s4.129

"He has no field, no goods, no wish, no kin,
Careless of life, no lusts, no evil ways.
Even such a Brāhmin peace of soul shall win,
So as one true to duty men him praise."⁴

c6.s4.130

⁴ Ibid., p. 303-G. 71.

c6.s4.131

Setaketu again asks:

c6.s4.132

"Khattiya, Brāhmin, Vessa, Sudda and Caṇḍāla Pukkusa,
All these can be compassionate, can win Nirvāṇa's bliss:
Who among all the saints is there who worse or better is?"⁵

c6.s4.133

⁵ Ibid., p. 303-G. 72.

c6.s4.134

Uddālaka replies:

c6.s4.135

"None among all the saints is there who worse or better is."⁶

c6.s4.136

⁶ Ibid., p. 303-G. 73.

c6.s4.137

Then Setaketu retorts:

c6.s4.138

"You are Brāhmin, then, for nought: vain is your rank I wis."⁷

c6.s4.139

⁷ Ibid., p. 303-G. 74.

c6.s4.140

At last his father, in his further reply, strikes the keynote of Uddālaka's philosophy:

c6.s4.141

"With canvas dyed in many a tint pavilions may be made:
The roof, a many-coloured one: one colour is the shade.
Even so, when men are purified, so is it here on earth.
The good perceive that they are saints, and never ask their birth."⁸

c6.s4.142

⁸ Ibid., p. 304-G. 75-6; for fuller details regarding the philosophic views of Uddālaka see Barua, op. cit., pp. 124 ff.

c6.s4.143

In the earlier part of the story, Setaketu is represented as doubtful about the efficacy of Vedic Learning and favouring self-control. And his father, Uddālaka, maintains the usefulness of the Vedas, but at the same time accepts, right conduct as the means to attain bliss: "The Vedas will bring only fame but right conduct will give us bliss."¹

c6.s4.144

¹ J., III, pp. 236-7-GG. 10-3; IV, pp. 299-301-GG. 62-65: *Kittim hi pappoti adhicca Vede Santim, puenti caravena danto*.

c6.s4.145

It is not impossible, as Dr. Barua says,² that the Sophistic movement, characteristic of Indian philosophy before Mahāvīra and the Buddha, had originated with Uddālaka Āruṇi. He may well be regarded as the pioneer of the *paribbājakas* or the Wanderers. As years passed the Sophist mind gradually became more and more antagonistic to the Vedic theology. We find this in our stories, as the following quotations will show:

c6.s4.146

² op. cit., p. 130; also Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 247.

c6.s4.147

"These *Veda* studies are the wise man's toils,
The lure which tempts the victims whom he spoils;
A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,
But which the prudent passes safely by.
The *Vedas* have no hidden power to save
The traitor or the coward or the knave";

c6.s4.148

And what are the sacrifices?

c6.s4.149

"The fire, though tended well for long years past,
Leaves his base master without hope at last...
If he wins merit who to feed the flame
Piles wood and straw, the merit is the same
When cooks light fires or blacksmiths at their trade,
Or those who burn the corpses of the dead...
These Brāhmins, all a livelihood require;
And so they tell us Brahmā worships fire;
Why should the increate, who all things planned,
Worship himself the creature of his hand?
Doctrines and rules of their own, absurd and vain,
Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain."

c6.s4.150

What are the Brāhmaṇas then?

c6.s4.151

"These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat:
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahmā set his creatures right?"

c6.s4.152

'Where is your Brahmā?' they ask.

c6.s4.153

"If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bliss?"

c6.s4.154

Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood—truth and justice fail?
I could your Brahmā one th'Unjust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."¹

c6.s4.155

¹ J., VI, pp. 206-8-GG. 883-902.

c6.s4.156

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT. And thus, with robust faith in their doctrines, and with a powerful mastery over thoughts, dispelling doubts (*samsaya*) by reasoning (*naya*), logic (*nāya*) and proofs (*hetu*),² and with appeal to precedents (*nippadesa*)³ and common sense, these thinkers, and more correctly propagandists, imbued the whole people with a new ideal and a new way of living. The philosophers were left free to indulge in any amount of speculation. In the tradition of the time there was only one sage, Māṇḍavya, a contemporary of Kaṇha Dīpāyana (i. e., Vyāsa) who was impaled, for reasons other than his bold theories.⁴

c6.s4.157

² J., VI, p. 244-G. 1092.

c6.s4.158

³ J., VI, p. 227.

c6.s4.159

⁴ J., IV, pp. 28-9.

c6.s4.160

SPECULATIVE FERMENT. And, as we come nearer to Mahāvīra and the Buddha, we feel the whole atmosphere surcharged with philosophic mood. It was a time 'seething with speculative ferment.' But, as Dr. Barua rightly observes, "we have to imagine a time when there was no organised religion or established Church in the country to interfere with the freedom of speculation by imposing upon its adherents its professed dogmas, and when conversion implied, in the case of a learner or truth-seeker, no more than a transition from one mode of self-training to another which he deemed more suitable to his temperament. Nor even in the case of a layman did it ever demand that unflinching devotion or that profession of blind faith which leads men by imperceptible steps to harbour bigotry, to become religious fanatics, and to shut the gates of benevolence upon every fellow-being who is a stranger."⁵

c6.s4.161

⁵ Barua, op. cit., p. 365.

c6.s4.162

Several *Jātakas* give us a glimpse of some of the speculations that were going on at this time. They are given just to show their uselessness and wrongfulness in the eyes of others, like the Buddhists, who considered these as false doctrines (*micchāvādam*).

c6.s4.163

THE MICCHA-DITTHIKAS. The *Mahābodhi Jātaka*,⁶ for instance, presents before us five thinkers of five different philosophic doctrines, viz., *Ahetuvādi, Issarakāranavādi, Pubbekatavādi, Ucchedavādi* and *Khattavijjāvādi*. An interesting subject is introduced in order to refute their arguments. The Bodhisatta attributes the acts of a monkey to the monkey-skin he wears, and so the five 'heretics' (*micchādiṭṭhika*) charge him with murder of a monkey.

c6.s4.164

⁶ J., V, pp. 228 ff.

c6.s4.165

The *Ahetuvādi* denied the existence of cause, that is to say his philosophy was the doctrine of non-causation or the hypothesis of chance. He taught the people that beings in this world were purified by rebirth (*ime sattā saṃsārasuddhika*). To him the Bodhisatta says: 'if you say that all acts of men, good or base (*akaraṇiyaṃ karaṇiyaṃ vā*), spring from natural causes (*udīranā ca saṃgatyā bhāvāyamanuvattati*), how can you find sin in involuntary acts? My deed should be blameless, according to your doctrine.'¹

c6.s4.166

¹ Ibid., pp. 237-G. 139-41. This apparently corresponds to the doctrine attributed to Pūraṇa Kassapa, one of the six rivals of the Buddha, in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, III, pp. 383 *ff*. The same is again termed *Akiriyā-vāda* or the theory of non-action, according to which, when we act or cause others to act, it is not the Soul that acts or causes others to act. The Soul is passive (*niṣkriya*). Therefore whether we do good or bad, the result thereof does not affect the Soul in the least: *Sāmaññaphala-sutta* (*Dialogues*, I, pp. 69 *ff*); *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, I, 1, 13. See Barua, op. cit., pp. 278-9. Cf. the *Pariṇamavāda* of Maskarin Gośāla: Ibid., pp. 304 *ff*. *Ārya* śura identifies the doctrine of non-causation with that of *Nature-svabhāva-vāda*: *Jātakamālā*, pp. 148-9.

c6.s4.167

The *Issarakāraṇavādi* believed and taught that everything was the act of a supreme being (*ayam loko issaranimmito*). The argument put forward against him is: 'if there is some Lord who fulfils in every creature, weal or woe and good or bad actions, the sin lies with him, man only works his will. I must be then blameless.'²

c6.s4.168

² J., V, pp. 238-G. 142-4: This, to a certain extent, resembles the Theistic doctrine (*Īśvara-vāda*), which is as old as the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*, if not earlier, and the best exponent of which was Āsuri: See Barua, op. cit., pp. 213 *ff*., 266.

c6.s4.169

The *Pubbekatavādi* professed the doctrine of previous actions, *i.e.*, *Karman*: sorrow and joy, that befalls man here, is, according to him, the result of some previous action (*sattānaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā pubbekatin 'eva uppajjati*). To him the answer was: 'why, sir, do you blame me if you believe in the truth of the doctrine that everything is the result of former action! each act's a debt discharged (*porāṇako iṇamokkho*) and the monkey pays his debt.'³

c6.s4.170

³ J., V, pp. 238-9-G. 145-7: This is of course the well-known doctrine of Karma, or Fate (*niyati*), fully developed by Yājñavalkya: "A man is of desire: As is his desire, so is his will. As is his will, so is his action. And as he acts, so he attains." *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*, IV, 4, 5; See Barua, op. cit., pp. 175, 310-1.

c6.s4.171

The *Ucchedavādi* was an Annihilationist. He believed in annihilation at death. In his view, no one passes hence to another world, but this world is annihilated (*ito paralokagatā nāma n'atthi, ayaṃ loko ucchijjāti*). To him the Bodhisatta replies: 'You, sir, maintain that each living creature's form (*rūpaṃ*) is composed of four elements (*i.e.*, earth, water, air and ether): to these component parts each body, when dissolved, goes. The dead exist no more, the living still live on; should this world be destroyed, both wise and fools are gone: none then is defiled by a guilt, stain amidst a ruined world. If this is true, I am blameless.'⁴

c6.s4.172

⁴ J., V, pp. 239-G. 148-51. This of course corresponds to the famous doctrine of Materialism of the mythical Cārvāka who teaches us to eat ghee even though we run into debts. It was fully developed at this period by Ajita Keśakambalin, one of the six famous rivals of the Buddha. Cf. *Sāmaññaphala Sutta* (*Dialogues*, 1, pp. 73 *ff*). The Keśakambalins are compared to the Epicureans of Greece: Barua, op. cit., pp. 287 *ff*. The doctrine is popularly known as *lokāyatikam*: see J., VI, pp. 286-G. 1245.

c6.s4.173

Lastly, the *Khattavijjāvādī* professed the Militarist doctrine, according to which a man ought to seek his own advantage even at the cost of killing one's parents (*mātāpitaro pi māretvā attano va attho kāmetabbo*). To him the direct reply was: "You, sir, maintain that a man may kill his parents or any other person if occasion justifies. Why, then, do you blame me?"¹

c6.s4.174

¹ J., V, pp. 240-G. 152; also p. 490; The term *Kṣatravidyā* occurs in a list of sciences given in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, VII, 1, 2, and is explained by Śaṅkara as the science of archery (*Dhanurvidyā*). But that seems to be a general meaning. Buddhaghoṣa and Aryaśura are probably more correct in understanding by it the science of government (*nītiśattham*): *Dialogues of the Buddha*, 1, p. 18 n; also Barua, *op. cit.*, pp. 292-3.

c6.s4.175

It is evident that all these philosophies, those of the Fortuitous Originists, the Theists, the Fatalists, the Annihilationists and the Militarists, are discussed and stubbornly hated and refuted by both Mahāvīra² and Gotama Buddha.³

c6.s4.176

² Mahāvīra, as his disciples inform us, broadly divided the philosophical views of his time into three groups: *Akiriyam* or metaphysics, *Aññānam* or Scepticism, and *Vinayam* or morals; see *Uttarādhyayana* Sūtra, XVIII, 23; *Sūtrakṛtānga*. X, 12, 4 ff. *Sthānāṅga Sūtra*, IV, 4.

c6.s4.177

³ See *Brahmajāla-Suttanta*, *Dialogues of the Buddha*, I, pp. 27 ff.

c6.s4.178

There may be discerned a few more philosophical reflections in the stories here and there, garbed in a confused and indistinct form. But we need not go much deeper. One doctrine, *viz.*, the doctrine of Time (*Kālavāda*), as presented in the *Mūlapariyāya Jātaka*,⁴ however, deserves our notice. The Doctrine of Time,⁵ in its embryo, can be traced in Aghamarṣaṇa's hymn in the *ṚgVeda*.⁶ Passing through the minds of Post-Vedic teachers, such as Bāḍhva and Yājñavalkya, it was highly elaborated in the *Mahābhārata*.⁷ The *Jātaka* offers a criticism of the Epic doctrine of time: A well-versed Brāhmaṇa taught five hundred pupils. In course of time they began to think: "We know as much as our teacher: there is no difference." When the teacher knew this, he put to them a question—in order to tame them, proud and stubborn as they had all become. He asked: Time consumes all things, including even itself. Can you tell me who consumes time—the all-consumer?⁸ No one could answer. It came to them as a riddle of the Sphinx. So the teacher said in a bitter tone of irony: "Do not imagine that this question is in the three Vedas. You think that you know all that I know!"

c6.s4.179

⁴ J., II, pp. 260-1-G. 188.

c6.s4.180

⁵ See Barua, *op. cit.*, pp. 199 ff.

c6.s4.181

⁶ X, 190.

c6.s4.182

⁷ Schrader, *Indischen Philosophie*, pp. 21-7.

c6.s4.183

⁸ J., II, pp. 260-G. 188: *Kālo ghasati bhūtāni sabbam eva sah' attanā, yo ca kālaghaso, bhūto sa bhūtapacanim paci.* Cf. note on this *Jātaka* in *Matriculation Pāli Selections* Calcutta University.

c6.s4.184

Here the Brāhmaṇa is represented, as usual, as a Vedic thinker, but he was rather a Bodhisatta or a pre-Buddhistic thinker on Buddhist lines who opposed the Vedic or Epic doctrine of time. As Dr. Barua puts it, according to the Vedic theory, Time not only consumes everything, but also itself in the sense, as the *Jātaka* commentator points out,¹ that even the time-before-meal (*purebhattakālo*) and the time-after-meal (*pacchābhattakālo*) do not abide (*na pāpunāti*). According to the Bodhisatta's view, an Arhat is the consumer of Time (*Kālaghaso*) inasmuch as he is not bound to be reborn. Having completely rooted out the inherent tendencies to sensuality, eternalism, orthodoxy and ignorance, he is released for ever from metempsychosis.²

c6.s4.185

¹ J., II, pp. 260-1.

c6.s4.186

² Barua, op. cit., p. 204.

c6.s4.187

The most pronounced antagonism that the *Jātaka* stories seem to show is towards the Ājīvikas, who, under Maskarin Gosāla, formed a stubborn sect in the time of the Buddha who opposed them.³ The order of the Ājīvikas is decidedly of older standing than that of the Jainas or the Buddhists,⁴ and is thrice mentioned in the edicts of King Aśoka whose grandson Daśaratha gave them some cave-dwellings at the Nāgārjunī and Bārābār hills.⁵

c6.s4.188

³ For a complete treatment of the subject see Dr. Barua's beautiful monograph on *The Ājīvikas*, Calcutta University Publication: also his *History of pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy*, pp. 297-318; *I. H. Q.*, III, pp. 235 *ff*; Bhandarkar, *I. A.*, 1912, pp. 286*ff*. Hoernle's appendix to *Uvāsagadasāo*.

c6.s4.189

⁴ Barua, op. cit., p. 300.

c6.s4.190

⁵ See Senart, *Inscriptions de Piyadasi*, II, 82, 209.

c6.s4.191

In the *Lomahaṃsa Jātaka*,⁶ an interesting, though biased, life of an ājīvika is portrayed. "Unclothed (*acelako*),⁷ remained solitary and lonely (*ekavihārī*), fleeing like a deer from the face of men; his food was small fish, cow-dung, and other refuse; and in order that his vigil might not be disturbed, he took up his abode in a dread thicket in the jungle. In the snows of winter, he came forth by night from the sheltering thicket to the open air, returning with the sun-rise to his thicket again, and as he was wet with the driving snows by night, so in the daytime he was drenched by the drizzle from the branches of the thicket. Thus day and night alike he endured the extremity of cold. In summer, he abode by day in the open air, and by night in the forest, scorched by the blazing sun by day, and fanned by no cooling breezes by night, so that the sweat streamed from him:

c6.s4.192

⁶ J., 1, pp. 390-1.

c6.s4.193

⁷ Acelakas as an order of ascetics are also mentioned at J., V. pp. 16-G. 39; 75.

c6.s4.194

Now scorched, now froze, lone in the lonesome woods,
Beside no fire, but all afire within,
Naked, the hermit wrestles for the Truth."⁸

c6.s4.195

⁸ Ibid. G. 93: *Majjhima Nikāya*, 1, 79.

c6.s4.196

In the eyes of the Buddhist story-teller, who deliberately and probably with exaggeration, gives such minute details, these austerities were worthless and delusive. And so he makes him discard this delusion (*laddhiṃ*) and lay hold of the real truth (*sammādiṭṭhi*).

c6.s4.197

The Mahānāradakassapa Jātaka¹ again brings before us another naked (acelako ; naggo) ājīvika, Guṇa Kassapa by name, whose views remarkably agree with those of Maskarin Gosāla. He lived in a deer park adjoining Mithilā, was approved by all as wise (dhīrasammato), famous, a man of varied discourse (citrakathī), and with a large following of disciples (gaṇī).² King Aṅgati of Videha, with his ministers, went to him and asked him many questions in reply of which Kassapa said: ‘There is no fruit, good or evil, in following the law; there is no other world, O king,—who has ever come back hither from thence? All beings are equal and alike, there are none who should receive or pay honour: there is no such thing as strength or courage,—how can there be vigour or heroism? All beings are predestined (niyatāni), just as the stern-rope must follow the ship. Every mortal gets what he is to get, what then is the use of giving? There is no use in giving—the giver is helpless and weak: gifts are enjoined by fools and accepted by the wise.’³

c6.s4.198

¹ J., VI, pp. 220-255. The text is confused and indistinct: many of the gāthās are placed in the Buddha’s (Satthā) mouth so that it becomes very difficult for us to ascertain the exact value of the presentation.

c6.s4.199

² Ibid., pp. 222-G. 961-2.

c6.s4.200

³ Ibid., pp. 225-G. 980-984.

c6.s4.201

Then the following exposition describing the powerlessness of sin to produce consequences hereafter is much more important:

First 200 of 370 passages. Read on

Cites (18)