History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c10.s1.t3: 6. Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta
History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c10.s1.t3
- Language
- English
6. Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta
c10.s1.t3.1
If you asked me, "Is there another world?" and if I believed that there was, I should tell you so. But that is not what I say.
c10.s1.t3.2
I do not say that it is so; I do not say that it is otherwise; I do not say that it is not so; nor do I say that it is not not so¹... (The same formula is repeated after various hypothetical questions.)
c10.s1.t3.3
¹ “Atthi paro loko?” ... “thi paro loko” ti iti ce me assa, “atthi paro loko” ti te n ... pi me no. Tathā ti pi me no. Aññathā ti pi me no. No ti pi me no. No no ti pi me no . . . . Dīgha i, p. 58.
c10.s1.t3.4
Of these six statements of doctrine three have little relevance to the study of the Ājīvikas. That which is here ascribed to Ajita Kesakambalī is a clear expression of materialism, and its author, whether Ajita or another, must have been a forerunner of the later Cārvākas. The teaching ascribed to Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is very obscure, but, as Jacobi has pointed out,² while it is not an accurate description of the Jaina creed it contains nothing alien to it. We may accept the identification of Nigaṇṭha with Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, the twenty-fourth tīrthaṅkara of Jainism. The passage ascribed to Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta is probably satirical, a tilt at agnostic teachers who were unwilling to give a definite answer to any metaphysical question put to them. Dr. Barua holds another view, and believes that the statement of Sañjaya represents a doctrine which was held in good faith by a school of Pyrrhonists.³ Whatever the authenticity of this passage, its agnosticism was never a part of the Ājīvika creed, and it may be omitted from further consideration.
c10.s1.t3.5
² Introduction to Gaina Sūtras, pt. ii, SBE. xlv, pp. xx–xxi.
c10.s1.t3.6
³ Pre-Buddhistich Indian Philosophy, pp. 325 ff.
c10.s1.t3.7
We are left with the passages ascribed to Pūraṇa, Makkhali, and Pakudha. The doctrines of all three, and the names of two of these teachers are connected with later Ājīvikism. The authenticity of the ascription of niyativāda to Makkhali Gosāla may be confirmed by reference to the Jaina scriptures, wherein Gosāla Maṅkhaliputta propounds a very similar doctrine.⁴ Pakudha’s fantastic atomism and his Parmenidean doctrine of immobility, which follows logically from Makkhali’s determinism, are integral parts of the teaching of the Dravidian Ājīvikas as described in Tamil texts.⁵ Pūraṇa is mentioned by name and apparently held in high respect by these later Ājīvikas,⁶ and his antinomian ethics are quite consistent with Makkhali’s metaphysics.
c10.s1.t3.8
⁴ V. infra, pp. 218–19.
c10.s1.t3.9
⁵ V. infra, pp. 235 ff., 262 ff.
c10.s1.t3.10
⁶ V. infra, pp. 80–81.
Linked texts (1)
- Sāmaññaphalasutta — Pāli