History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c11.s4.25

c11.s4.25

Hoernle, without explicitly accepting either story, suggests that a kernel of truth may be extracted from them. He writes: "the two accounts . . . are quite independent of each other . . . All the more valuable are the two accounts, both in respect of the points in which they agree and in which they differ. They agree on two points: first, that Gosāla was born of low parentage in a cowshed . . . and secondly, that (his profession) . . . was not sincere, but adopted merely for the sake of getting an idle living."² In our opinion the correspondences are less striking than the differences, and prove nothing. The provision of fanciful etymologies for proper names was a common practice in Ancient India, and many other examples are to be found. The name Gosāla would inevitably suggest birth in a cowshed to the ancient etymologist. Both Buddhist and Jaina opposed the Ājīvikas, and it is not surprising that both tried to establish Gosāla’s base lineage and insincerity. The fact is that neither story belongs to the Ājīvika tradition, and even if that tradition could be re-established we should still be far from the true story of the birth and early life of Makkhali Gosāla. The Jaina story is of the nature of an exposure, and the Buddhist is obviously created *ad hoc*. Both clearly show the intense *odium theologicum* which almost invariably attached itself to the Ājīvikas and to their founder. We can only admit that the Jaina account is not inherently impossible. It may be that Gosāla was born at a village called Saravaṇa of mendicant parents; even the story of his birth in a cowshed may be based on fact. But the evidence with which to establish this with any degree of certainty is lacking.