History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c11.s7: Gosāla and the Sesamum Plant

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c11.s7

Language: English

Gosāla and the Sesamum Plant

c11.s7.1

Still addressing his disciple Indabhūī Goyama, Mahāvīra is said by the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* to have told of two significant incidents which led to the separation of the two ascetics.

During the season of *Śarada* the couple left the *vihāra* at the village of Siddhatthagāma, and set out for Kummāragāma. Neither of these places can be located, but we may assume that they were somewhere in Magadha. On the way to Kummāragāma they passed a flourishing sesamum shrub in full bloom. Looking at it, Gosāla asked Mahāvīra a question, apparently designed to test the latter's intuitive knowledge. "Sir," he asked, "will this sesamum bush bear fruit or not, and what will become of these seven sesamum flowers?"⁴ Mahāvīra replied that the shrub would develop, and that the seven sesamum flowers would produce seven seed-pods in one cluster.¹

c11.s7.3

⁴ *Esa ṇam Bhante tila-thaml... phajjissati? Eë ya satta tila-puppha-jīvā udāittā... uvavajjihinti?* Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 542, fol. 664. In the above paraphrase we take *nipphajjissai* to mean "develop" or "bear fruit". This seems to make much better sense in the context than "perish", the interpretation of Hoernle (*ERE*. i, p. 263), and Barua (*Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy*, p. 301).

c11.s7.4

¹ *Esa nam tilatthambhaë nipphajjissaï, no na-nipphajjissaï, eë ya satta tila-puppha-jīvā . . . egäë tila-saṅguliyäë satta tilā paccāyäissanti.* Op. cit., loc. cit. In this context the meaning of the word *saṅgulikā*, which I have translated "cluster", is uncertain. Abhayadeva interprets it as *phalikā* seed-pod. Each sesamum flower produces a pod, and in this case seven pods would therefore be expected; yet the text mentions only one *saṅgulikā*, which I therefore take to mean a cluster of pods or flowers. A single sesamum pod contains many more than seven seeds, and the *satta tilā* here seem to be not single seeds, but pods.

c11.s7.5

This very definite answer displeased Gosāla, and he determined to prove Mahāvīra a liar; so he quietly dropped behind and pulled up the sesamum bush. But at that moment a shower of rain fell, the plant took root again,² and so the flowers ripened and seven sesamum pods were produced in one cluster, just as Mahāvīra had prophesied.

c11.s7.6

² According to Jiṇadāsa's version of the story, the sesamum was replanted by the foot of a passing cow, sent by the *devas*. (*Āvaśyaka cūrṇi* i, p. 297.)

c11.s7.7

Soon afterwards the couple returned by the same road.³ As they drew near the spot where the sesamum plant grew Gosāla reminded Mahāvīra of his forecast, and declared that he would find that the plant had not ripened and the seeds had not formed. Mahāvīra, on the other hand, stood firm by his prophecy. He declared that he had been aware all the time of what Gosāla had done. The plant had been pulled up, and had temporarily died, but it had been reanimated by the shower and was once more living, while the seven pods had developed in the cluster. Plants, Mahāvīra added, were capable of *paüṭṭa-parihāra*, or reanimation without transmigration.⁴

c11.s7.8

³ *Bh. Sū.* xv, sū. 544, fol. 666.

c11.s7.9

⁴ *Vaṇassaīkāīyā paüṭṭa-parihāram pariharanti.* Loc. cit.

c11.s7.10

Gosāla would still not believe Mahāvīra's word. But, on approaching the sesamum cluster, he found that it contained the seven seed-pods, just as Mahāvīra had prophesied. The revival of the sesamum plant made such an impression upon him that he became convinced that all living things were likewise capable of reanimation. And on this point he and Mahāvīra parted company, and their association came to an end.

c11.s7.11

The strange story of Gosāla and the sesamum plant is possibly the adaptation of an Ājīvika parable connected with a particular point of Gosāla's doctrine. The early Ājīvikas may well have had a favourite simile resembling the story—that just as an uprooted sesamum plant may revive after rain, so a dead body may, given certain favourable conditions, be reanimated. This was certainly part of the Ājīvika creed,¹ and since its technical term, *païṭṭa-parihāra*, is also used here in the story of the sesamum shrub, it would seem that the story and the theory are in some way connected. Thus the Jaina account in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* may have been devised on the basis of the Ājīvika simile to discredit the latter sect. On the other hand we have no other evidence that the Ājīvikas used such a simile, and the possibility that the story has some basis of fact cannot be excluded.

c11.s7.12

¹ V. supra, p. 31.

Linked texts (1)

Viyāhapannatti — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit