Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c10.s2: Other Buddhist References to the Doctrines of the Heretics

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c10.s2

Language
English

Other Buddhist References to the Doctrines of the Heretics

c10.s2.1

In certain other passages of the Pāli canon the distribution of doctrines among the six teachers is significantly altered, in a way which strongly suggests that the credos ascribed in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta to Makkhali, Pūraṇa, and Pakudha were aspects of a single body of teaching.

c10.s2.2

Thus in Mahābodhi Jātaka¹ King Brahmadatta of Benares has five heretical councillors, who are respectively an ahetukavādi, an issarakāraṇavādi, a pubbekatavādi, an ucchedavādi, and a khattavijjavādi. The doctrines maintained by these five are stated in versified form, and are in part paraphrases of the Sāmañña-phala Sutta passages which we have quoted. At the conclusion of the story the five ministers are stated to have been previous incarnations of Pūraṇa, Makkhali, Pakudha, Ajita, and Nigaṇṭha. Thus, assuming that the doctrines were thought to have been held in the order named, the fatalist teaching ascribed in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta to Makkhali is here attributed to Pūraṇa; Makkhali himself becomes a theist²; Pakudha maintains an obscure doctrine which seems to approximate to the orthodox theory of karma³; Ajita upholds materialism, as in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta reference; while Nigaṇṭha, in fact the apostle of ahiṃsā, is here the teacher of a Macchiavellian doctrine, resembling the antinomianism of Pūraṇa, as described in the Sutta passage.⁴

c10.s2.3

¹ Jāt. v, pp. 227 ff.

c10.s2.4

² Ayam loko issara-nimmito ti. Jāt. v, p. 228.

c10.s2.5

³ Imesam sattānam sukham vā dukkham vā uppajjamānam pubbekaten’ eva uppajjati, ti. Ibid.

c10.s2.6

⁴ Mātā-pitaro pi māretvā attano va attho kāmetabbo. Ibid.

c10.s2.7

A further account of heterodox teachings occurs in the Sandaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya.⁵ Here the bhikkhu Ānanda describes to the wanderer Sandaka the four “antitheses to the higher life” (abrahmacariyavāsā). These are:—

c10.s2.8

⁵ Majjh. i, pp. 513 ff.

c10.s2.9

(1) The materialist teacher, who denies the existence of an after-life. The passage describing his teaching is a word-for-word transcription of Ajita Kesakambalī’s doctrine as given in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta.¹ Here, however, no teacher is named.

c10.s2.10

¹ V. supra, p. 15.

c10.s2.11

(2) The antinomian—a repetition of Pūraṇa’s doctrine.²

c10.s2.12

² V. supra, p. 13.

c10.s2.13

(3) The fatalist—repeating the teachings of Makkhali as given in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta up to “. . . experience, joy, and sorrow in the six classes (of existence)”³

c10.s2.14

³ V. supra, pp. 13–14.

c10.s2.15

(4) The atomist. Here the atomic theory of Pakudha⁴ is repeated, but appended to it we are given the second half of Makkhali’s determinist teaching, including the obscure list of categories.⁵

c10.s2.16

⁴ V. supra, p. 16.

c10.s2.17

⁵ V. supra, p. 14.

c10.s2.18

Ānanda then describes the four “comfortless vocations (anassāsikāni brahmacariyāni). These are:—

c10.s2.19

(1) The teacher claiming omniscience.
(2) The traditionalist.
(3) The rationalist, and
(4) The sceptic.

c10.s2.20

To the latter is ascribed the passage given in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta to Sañjaya,⁶ but the other three teachers of the second group are referred to in terms not suggesting any of the six famous heretics.

c10.s2.21

⁶ V. supra, pp. 16–17.

c10.s2.22

The conclusion of the Sutta is surprising. Sandaka realizes that all the teachers are false guides, and that if their doctrines are true all self-control is a work of supererogation. He is converted to the true Dhamma, and declares: “These Ājīvikas . . . are children of a childless mother; they extol themselves and disparage others, yet they have only produced three shining lights, to wit Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca, and Makkhali Gosāla.”⁷

c10.s2.23

⁷ Ime pan’ ājīvikā puttamātāya puttā, attānañ c’ eva ukkaṃsenti pare ca vambhenti, tayo c’ eva niyyātāro paññāpenti, seyyath’ idaṃ Nandaṃ Vaccham, Kisaṃ Saṅkiccaṃ, Makkhali Gosālan ti. Majjh. i, p. 524. I adopt Lord Chalmers’ translation (Further Dialogues i, p. 371), which is based on Buddha, Putta-mātāya puttā ti so kira rā ti saññī hutvā evam āha. Ayam h’ettha attho. Ājīvikā matā nāma, tesaṃ mātā puttamātā hoti iti ājīvikā puttamātāya puttā nāma honti. Op. cit., iii, p. 235.

c10.s2.24

It will be seen that the fatalist teaching, in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta ascribed to Makkhali, is here divided, and the second half linked with the doctrine of Pakudha. The propagators of all the objectionable teachings are classed together under the broad title of Ājīvikas, and two new names, those of Nanda Vaccha and Kisa Saṅkicca, are introduced; these two shadowy figures we shall consider in the following chapter.¹

c10.s2.25

¹ V. infra, pp. 27 ff.

c10.s2.26

Further confusion is to be found in a passage in the *Petavatthu*,² where a verse paraphrase of parts of the doctrines ascribed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Makkhali, Pūraṇa, Ajita, and Pakudha, together with certain new teachings which are to be found among the doctrines of the later Ājīvikas, are placed in the mouth of the peta, Nandaka. Similar verse passages occur in *Mahānārada-kassapa Jātaka*,³ where various doctrines elsewhere ascribed to the six heretics are spoken by the ascetic Guṇa.

c10.s2.27

² iv, 3, pp. 57 ff.

c10.s2.28

³ Jāt. vi, pp. 219 ff. V. infra, pp. 217, 263.

c10.s2.29

Two remarkable references, strongly indicating the confusion of the various doctrines, are to be found in the *Saṃyutta Nikāya*. In one of these⁴ Mahāli, a Licchavi, approaches the Buddha while the latter is residing at Vesāli, and declares: "Pūraṇa Kassapa says, 'there is neither cause nor basis for the sins of living beings; they become sinful without cause or basis. Neither is there cause or basis for the purity of living beings; they become pure without cause or basis.'" The same phrase is repeated in the second passage,⁵ but here the words "ignorance and lack of discernment" ⁶ are substituted for "sins", and their antitheses for "purity". These passages indicate quite clearly that Pūraṇa was thought of as holding doctrines very similar to those of Makkhali, to whom the words are ascribed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*.

c10.s2.30

⁴ Sam. iii, p. 69.

c10.s2.31

⁵ Sam. v, p. 126.

c10.s2.32

⁶ Aññāṇāya adassanāya.

c10.s2.33

In the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*⁷ the six *abhijātis*, or classes of humanity, ascribed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Makkhali, are stated by the monk Ānanda to be a distinctive part of Pūraṇa's teaching. Here the six classes are described in detail, and, significantly, Pūraṇa is said to include in his highest category (*paramasukk’-abhijāti*) none other than the three shining lights of the *Majjhima* passage,⁸ Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca, and Makkhali Gosāla. Thus we have no less than three passages in which parts of Makkhali's doctrine are ascribed to Pūraṇa, and one in which the latter is purported to proclaim the former to be in the highest rank of spiritual attainment.

c10.s2.34

⁷ Ang. iii, p. 383 f.

c10.s2.35

⁸ V. supra, p. 19.

c10.s2.36

The six are mentioned together in the *Milinda Pañha*, as contemporaries of the Greco-Indian King. Here doctrines are ascribed only to the two most important members of the group, Makkhali and Pūraṇa, and their statements are of the most brief description. When the King asks Pūraṇa "Who rules the world?" the latter replies "The earth rules the world".¹ Makkhali's brief speech implies an antinomian and fatalistic doctrine, but also states a view not to be found elsewhere ascribed to the Ājīvikas, to the effect that brāhmaṇas, kṣattriyas, vaiśyas, śudras, and outcastes would all retain their original status in future births.² This doctrine is quite inconsistent with all statements of the Ājīvika theory of transmigration to be found elsewhere; in fact the whole passage, with its obscurity and blatant anachronism, seems to be lacking in all significance as a source for reconstructing Ājīvika history and theology, and merely indicates that, by the time of the composition of the text, Ājīvikism was very imperfectly known in northern India.

c10.s2.37

¹ "Ko lokam pāletī" ti. "Pathavī . . . lokam pāletī" ti. *Milinda Pañha*, p. 4.

c10.s2.38

² "N'atthi . . . kusalākusalāni kammāni, n'atthi . . . kammānam phalam vipāko . . . ye te idhaloke khattiyā . . . brāhmaṇā vessā suddā caṇḍālā pukkusā te paralokam gantvā pi puna brāhmaṇā (etc.) . . . bhavissanti. Op. cit., p. 5.

c10.s2.39

The Tibetan version of the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*, quoted by Rockhill,³ shows even further confusion. The *Dulva* ascribes to Pūraṇa Kāśyapa not only the antinomianism of the Pāli version, but also a denial of life after death, a view attributed in the Pāli to Ajita. "Maskarin son of Gośālī" maintains the same doctrine as in the Pāli; "Sañjayin son of Vairattī" acquires an antinomianism very like that of Pūraṇa in the original text; "Ajita Keśakambala" here maintains not only Pakudha's doctrine of the seven elements, but also the second half of Makkhali's fatalistic catechism, including the long list of obscure categories; "Nirgrantha son of Djñātī" retains his authentic teaching of *karma* wiped out by penance; and "Kakuda Kātyāyana" usurps the place of Sañjaya as the prevaricating sceptic.

c10.s2.40

³ *The Life of the Buddha*, p. 99 f.

c10.s2.41

Rockhill also quotes two Chinese versions of the *Sutta*.⁴ In the first of these, the translation of which is dated A.D. 412–13, we find Pūraṇa maintaining his original doctrine of guiltlessness; Makkhali has acquired part of Ajita’s materialism; “Kakuda Kātyāyana” has a portion of Makkhali’s determinism; Sañjayin remains a sceptic; while the Nirgrantha Jñātṛiputra claims omniscience, as did the historical Mahāvīra.

c10.s2.42

⁴ Op. cit., app. ii, p. 255 f.

c10.s2.43

The second version is a little earlier, the date of its translation, as given by Rockhill, being A.D. 381-395. Here Pūraṇa becomes the materialist; Maskarin Gośāla declares “there is no present world nor the world to come, nor power nor powerlessness, nor energy. All men have obtained their pleasure and pain (?)”—an obscure doctrine, clearly owing much to Ajita’s pronouncement in the Pāli, but evidently implying fatalism in its last phrase. The prevaricating sceptic is here Ajita; “Kakuda’s” teaching is almost unintelligible in the translation—“If there be a man who has been cut off and who sees with his eyes, there can be no dispute (about the question). If the life of the body comes to an end there is nothing to grieve about in the death of life”; Sañjayin declares that there is no reward of sin or virtue—Pūraṇa’s doctrine in the Pāli Sutta; and Nirgrantha maintains that all is the effect of *karma*.

c10.s2.44

The various ascriptions of doctrine to be found in the Buddhist scriptures may be conveniently summarized in tabular form:—

c10.s2.45

| | Dīgha i, 47. | Jāt. v, 227. | Majjh. i, 513. ¹ | Sam. iii, 69. | Sam. v, 126. | Aṅg. iii, 383. | Milinda Pañha, 4-5. | Dulva. | Chinese, A.D. 412-13. | Chinese, A.D. 381-395. |
| Pūraṇa Kassapa | A | D₁ | (A) | D₁ | D₁² | D₂² | X | M | A | M |
| Makkhali Gosāla | D₁D₂ | T | (D₂) | | | | D³ | D | M² | D² |
| Ajita Kesakambali | M | M | (M) | | | | ED₂ | M² | S |
| Pakudha Kaccāyana | E | K | (ED₂) | | | | S | D₁ | ? |
| Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta | R | A | | | | | P | O | A |
| Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta | S | | (S) | | | | A | S | K |

c10.s2.46

¹ Here the teachers are not named, but they may be inferred. ² In a partial or garbled form. ³ In a partial form, with the additional doctrine that caste status does not change from life to life.

c10.s2.47

ABBREVIATIONS A. Antinomianism, the doctrine of no rewards or penalties. D₁. Determinism, the first part of Makkhali’s doctrine.

c10.s2.48

D₂. The second part of Makkhali’s doctrine, including the list of categories. M. Materialism. E. The theory of the seven elemental substances. R. The doctrine of fourfold restraint. S. Prevaricating scepticism. T. Theism. K. The doctrine of *karma*. O. The doctrine of the omniscient teacher. P. The doctrine of salvation by penance. X. “The earth rules the world.”

c10.s2.49

It is clear that some of these passages are more reliable than others. That in the *Dīgha Nikāya* shows a completeness and consistency lacking in the rest, and perhaps represents the original source of the other references. The Tibetan and Chinese versions, which have undergone translation, are most suspect, although it is to be noted that the Chinese versions are of a date probably little later than the final recension of the Pāli canon. Yet, despite the very evident textual confusion and corruption, a striking degree of consistency is shown in some particulars.

c10.s2.50

Of the doctrines here considered those most characteristic of the later Ājīvikas are Makkhali’s determinism and Pakudha’s theory of unchanging elemental substances. It will be seen from the above table that determinism is in five places attributed to Makkhali, in four to Pūraṇa, and in two to Pakudha. The theory of the elements occurs only once in its isolated form, and is there ascribed to Pakudha, but it is twice found combined with determinism. In the Tibetan version, where the ascriptions are most confused, these two theories together are ascribed to Ajita. It may be suggested that the Tibetan version is based not on the *Dīgha* but on the *Majjhima* reference, where the two doctrines are also combined in the same manner. The debt of the Tibetan version to the *Majjhima* is also indicated by the new doctrine devised for Nigaṇṭha, which is perhaps based on direct knowledge of Jaina practice; the doctrine of fourfold restraint, which is ascribed to him in the *Dīgha*, is omitted in the *Majjhima* passage. The remarkable confusion of the Tibetan version may also be accounted for on the assumption that it is derived from the *Majjhima*, for in the latter the names of the teachers are not explicitly stated, and misattribution might thus easily have arisen. The ascription of determinism and the theory of the seven elemental substances to Ajita in the Tibetan version seems certainly erroneous, and may be ignored.

c10.s2.51

Thus we find that Buddhist tradition ascribes Ājīvika teachings not only to Makkhali but also to Pūraṇa and Pakudha and, with the exception of the doubtful Tibetan reference, to no other of the six heretical teachers. It seems therefore that all three had some hand in the development of Ājīvikism.

c10.s2.52

Before leaving the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* a further point must be considered. The passage there ascribed to Makkhali Gosāla employs the Māgadhī *-e* termination almost consistently for the masculine nominative singular. In Ajita’s catechism the termination occurs only twice, in the phrase *bāle ca paṇḍite*, and may there be a corrupt reading, resulting from the proximity of the same phrase in Makkhali’s statement. In the teaching of Pakudha we find the termination only in the phrase *sukhe dukkhe jīva-sattame*. The statements of the other three ascetics contain no Māgadhisms.

c10.s2.53

The Māgadhī forms in Makkhali’s doctrinal statement must surely be of some significance. They have been noticed by Franke,¹ who suggests two possibilities: either that the Māgadhisms have been deliberately introduced in order to make the speaker seem ludicrous, or that they represent reminiscences of the language of the original teachers. The former hypothesis can scarcely be correct. While the Māgadhī dialect was reserved for lowly and humorous characters in the Sanskrit drama, the Māgadhī *-e* termination was regularly employed in the great body of early Jaina literature, and we have no reason to believe that it made a ludicrous impression on the contemporary listener. If the intention had been purely ludicrous the *-e* termination would surely have been employed in the speeches of all six heretics.

c10.s2.54

¹ *Dīgha Nikāya in Auswahl Übersetzt*, p. 56, n. 5.

c10.s2.55

It may be inferred that most of the passage ascribed to Makkhali has a provenance different from that of the others. The first paragraph of this passage, which retains the regular masculine nominative in *-o*, and where the Māgadhī *-e* only occurs in the phrase *n’atthi atta-kāre, n’atthi parakāre, n’atthi purisa-kāre*, may emanate from another source. Different sources of the two parts of this passage are also indicated by the fact that in the *Majjhima* and *Dulva* versions² it is broken up, and the second half incorporated with the theory of the seven elements and attributed in the former to an unnamed teacher suggesting Pakudha, and in the latter to Ajita.

c10.s2.56

² V. supra, p. 22.

c10.s2.57

Further evidence that the first passage of Makkhali’s teaching in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* emanates from a source different from that of the second is supplied by the *Praśnavyākaraṇa Sūtra*.¹ Here we find a description of the doctrines of the *nāstikavādins*, which shows remarkable parallels to the teachings ascribed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Ajita and Makkhali; for example such phrases as “there is no mother nor father, neither is there human action”.² Throughout this passage, besides the regular Ardha-māgadhī masculine ending in *-e*, occurs the Pāli *-o*. This fact suggests that this passage, and the first part of Makkhali’s teaching in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*, look back to a common source in Pāli or in some dialect with masculine endings in *-o*, while the second part of the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* passage is taken from a Māgadhī source. On this hypothesis, however, the three anomalous Māgadhisms (i.e. the compound nouns ending in *-kāre*) in the first part of the Makkhali passage are difficult to explain, especially as the corresponding word in the *Praśnavyākaraṇa* has the *-o* ending. We can only suggest that they occur as the result of contamination from the second part of the passage, where the nominative singular masculine in *-e* is to be found throughout.

c10.s2.58

¹ *Sūtra 7*, fols. 26-8.

c10.s2.59

² *Ammā-piyaro n’atthi, na vi atthi purisakāro*. For further comparisons between the two texts v. infra, pp. 217-18.

c10.s2.60

The brief Māgadhī phrase in the Pakudha passage of the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*³ is unexpected. The first four elements, earth, water, fire, and air, are given the regular Pāli *-o* endings, but the fifth, sixth, and seventh, joy, sorrow, and life respectively, have the Māgadhī *-e*, where *-am* would be expected. It may be suggested that the three latter elements have been interpolated by a different hand in a statement of doctrine which originally taught only four elemental substances, as did the Buddhists and Cārvākas. As will be shown in our second part,⁴ the three latter elements of Pakudha’s list have other points of difference from the four former, and joy and sorrow do not seem to have been accepted as elements by all Ājīvikas.⁵

c10.s2.61

³ V. supra, p. 16.

c10.s2.62

⁴ V. infra, pp. 262 ff.

c10.s2.63

⁵ V. infra, p. 265.

c10.s2.64

To sum up the conclusions of this chapter : Ājīvika doctrine emanated from at least two sources ; the mainstay of early Ājīvikism, the doctrine of *Niyati*, was probably first propagated in a Magadhan dialect ; and the component doctrines of Ājīvikism were early associated with the names of Makkhali, Pūraṇa, and Pakudha.

Linked texts (14)