Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12: Chapter IV

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV

c12.1

THE LAST DAYS OF MAKKHALI GOSĀLA

c12.2

THE SIX *DISĀCARAS

c12.3

The history of Gosāla is resumed in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*¹ in the twenty-fourth year of his asceticism. He was then living at Sāvatthi in the workshop of his devoted disciple Hālāhalā the potter-woman, surrounded by a community (*saṅgha*) of Ājīvikas.

c12.4

¹ *Bh. Sū.* xv, *sū.* 539, fols. 658–669.

c12.5

At this time he was visited by six *disācaras*, named Sāṇa, Kalanda, Kaṇiyāra, Acchidda, Aggivesāyaṇa, and Ajjunna Gomāyuputta. According to the text the six ascetics "extracted the eightfold *Mahānimitta* in the *Puvvas*, with the *Maggas* making the total up to ten, after examining hundreds of opinions". After briefly considering this eightfold *Mahānimitta* Gosāla declared the six inevitable factors in the life of every being—gain and loss, joy and sorrow, life and death.² Thenceforward he claimed to be a *jina*, an *arhant*, a *kevalin*, and a possessor of omniscience.

c12.6

² *Te cha disācarā aṭṭhavihaṃ puvvagayaṃ maggadasamaṃ satehiṃ satehiṃ mati-daṃsaṇehiṃ nijjuhanti.* . . . *Gosālaṃ Maṅkhaliputtaṃ uvaṭṭhāiṃsu. Taë ṇaṃ se Gosāle* . . . *savvesiṃ pāṇāṇaṃ* . . loc. cit.

c12.7

The passage describing the visit of the *disācaras* is of great obscurity. The author introduces into the story six new characters, who seem to have been responsible for the collation of the Ājīvika scriptures from earlier material. The character of the newcomers is obscure, and the compound *disācara* seems unique. It is not quoted either in the St. Petersburg Lexicon or in the Dictionary of the Pāli Text Society, and seems not to occur elsewhere in the Jaina texts, this being the only reference given in Ratnacandrajī's *Ardha-māgadhī Dictionary*.

c12.8

The *disācaras* were obviously wandering ascetic philosophers of some sort, but the uncommon name given to them suggests that they were of a special type. They were evidently on good terms with Gosāla, and appear to have shared his doctrines. Their names, like those of most of the lesser figures associated with Gosāla, cannot well be connected with any of those in Pāli and Sanskrit literature. Sāṇa, Kaṇiyāra, and Acchidda seem to have no counterparts whatever; Kaḷanda, however, is in some manuscripts called Kaṇanda,¹ which suggests the Vaiśeṣika philosopher Kaṇāda. The name of Ajjuṇṇa Gomāyuputta suggests that of Ajjuṇa Goyamaputta,² the teacher whose mantle possibly fell upon Gosāla, but who must have died sixteen years previously.³ Barua⁴ suggests that he was “the same as the Ājīvika Pāṇḍuputta, son of a repairer of old carts”.⁵ Since the epic Arjuna was the son of Pāṇḍu, Pāṇḍuputta and Ajjuṇa may be taken as synonyms of the same name, but the argument is extremely tenuous. Even though we accept the very doubtful equivalence of the two names, Pāṇḍuputta of the Pāli reference may equally well have been Ajjuṇa Goyamaputta, the previous host of the soul of Udāī, from whose body that soul was said to have passed to that of Gosāla in its last paüṭṭa-parihāra.⁶

c12.9

¹ Teste, JDL. ii, p. 41, n.

c12.10

² V. supra, pp. 32–34.

c12.11

³ The patronymic appears in the form Goyamaputta in at least one MS.—India Office Cat. No. 7447, fol. 201.

c12.12

⁴ JDL. ii, n 41

c12.13

⁵ V infra, nn 196–97

c12.14

⁶ V, supra, p. 32.

c12.15

The surname Aggivessana occurs here and there in the Pāli scriptures. Saccaka Nigaṇṭhaputta, who visited the Buddha at Kūṭāgāra-sālā near Vesālī, and was converted by him, is referred to by this title.⁷ The same Saccaka is elsewhere referred to as a furious debater of Vesālī, who was defeated in argument by the Buddha.⁸ Another Aggivessana is Dīghanakha the paribbājaka, nephew of the bhikkhu Sāriputta, and also converted by the Buddha.⁹ It is hardly probable that either of these two have any connection with the disācara Aggivesāyaṇa; the name seems certainly that of a clan or gotra.

c12.16

⁷ "

c12.17

⁸ "

c12.18

⁹ "

c12.19

The disācara Aggivesāyaṇa may also be connected with Agniveśa, the semi-legendary physician upon whose doctrines the Caraka Saṃhitā is based.¹⁰ The text states that Atreya, who had learned ayurveda from Bharadvāja, imparted his knowledge to six disciples, Agniveśa, Bhela, Jatūkarṇa, Parāśara, Hārīta, and Kṣūrapāṇi, each of whom produced a sūtra.¹ The names of the five fellow-students of Agniveśa bear no resemblance to those of the five other disācaras, their number and this one name being the only points common to the two groups. We may note, however, that Bharadvāja is here two generations removed from Agniveśa; the same may be said of Bhāraddāi in the list of the paüṭṭaparihāras of Udāī²; here Bhāraddāi is two generations removed from Gosāla, and therefore presumably from Aggivesāyaṇa the disācara. This further tenuous similarity is probably coincidental and we must conclude that there are no certain references to any of the six disācaras outside the Bhagavatī Sūtra.

c12.20

¹⁰ "ajjh. i, pp. 497 ff.

c12.21

¹ Caraka Saṃhitā, ed. Sastri i, 29 ff., p. 13.

c12.22

² V. supra, p. 32.

c12.23

It is probable that the disācaras were Gosāla’s chief disciples, and that the meeting at Sāvatthi was a conference at which the doctrines of the Ājīvikas were codified and the claims of their leader to omniscience and perfection were explicitly stated. The disācaras may have been wandering evangelists, to whom Makkhali Gosāla had assigned dioceses corresponding to the six quarters (diśā) of early Hinduism and Buddhism.³ On this hypothesis, however, it is not easy to suggest the functions of the disācaras representing the upward and downward directions.

c12.24

³ Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa xiv, 6, 11, 5. Siṅgālovāda Sutta, Dīgha iii, pp. 188–9. Sthānāṅga vi, sū. 499.

c12.25

The scriptures and doctrines which formed the agenda of this important meeting will be considered at greater length in the second part of this work.⁴

c12.26

⁴ V. infra, pp. 213–15.

Gosāla is Exposed by Mahāvīra

c12.s1.1

At that time Mahāvīra was in the neighbourhood of Sāvatthi, and the visit of the six disācaras to Gosāla was reported to him by his chief disciple Indabhūī Goyama.⁵ Mahāvīra then told his followers the story of the birth of Gosāla and of the early association of the two ascetics, which we have paraphrased above. The news of Mahāvīra’s exposure of Gosāla rapidly spread through the city, and seems to have resulted in a popular demonstration against the latter. Gosāla, who at the time was at the penance-ground (*āyāvaṇa-bhūmi*), returned to Hālāhalā’s workshop with his followers, his eyes blazing with rage.¹

c12.s1.2

⁵ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 540, fols. 659–660.

c12.s1.3

¹ Ibid., sū. 546, fols. 666-7.

c12.s1.4

Shortly afterwards Ānanda, a simple-minded ascetic disciple of Mahāvīra, was passing the pottery. On seeing him Gosāla called to him, and told him a cautionary story of a company of merchants, who, while passing with their caravan through a desert, found that their water supply was exhausted. In their search for water they found a large anthill, which had four heaps (*vappu*) rising from its base. On breaking the first they found an abundant supply of clear water, while the second yielded gold, and the third jewels. Delighted at their discovery they decided to break down the fourth and last. A worthy and thoughtful member of the company tried to restrain them, saying that the breaking of the last heap would cause their destruction. But his warning was not heeded, and the merchants proceeded to demolish it. From it there emerged a fiery serpent, which burnt the whole company to ashes, sparing only the cautious merchant, who had tried to prevent the demolition of the last heap of the anthill. Gosāla threatened that if Mahāvīra continued to slander him he would reduce him to ashes in the same manner as the serpent had destroyed the merchants.²

c12.s1.5

² Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 547, fols. 668-670.

c12.s1.6

The story of the merchants is important in that it indicates that Gosāla, like the Buddha, was in the habit of employing folk-tales in his preaching. This story is repeated with but slight variation in the *Jātaka*,³ where, perhaps significantly, the merchants are said to have come from Sāvatthi.

c12.s1.7

³ Jāt. iv, p. 350.

c12.s1.8

The terrified Ānanda returned and repeated the story to Mahāvīra, who calmed his fears and forbade for the future all association of his followers with Gosāla.⁴

c12.s1.9

⁴ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 549, fol. 671.

c12.s1.10

The facts that Ānanda was ready to listen to Gosāla’s story, and that Mahāvīra was compelled to forbid all communications between his disciples and the Ājīvika leader, tend to strengthen the suspicion that the rift between the two sects was not at first so profound as the *Bhagavatī* account suggests.⁵

c12.s1.11

⁵ V. supra, p. 53.

Gosāla Visits Mahāvīra

c12.s2.1

After this incident Gosāla, filled with anger, visited Mahāvīra at the Koṭṭhaga caitya, attended as usual by a band of followers. Here he explained that he was not really Gosāla Maṅkhaliputta, the former colleague of Mahāvīra, but Udāī Kuṇḍiyāyaṇīya,¹ and expounded fully his doctrine of transmigration under the control of Niyati.² After this long lecture Mahāvīra replied that Gosāla was like a thief chased by villagers, feverishly trying to hide himself. " It won't do, Gosāla !" he said, " that shadow is your own, and nobody else's !"³

c12.s2.2

¹ V. supra, pp. 30 ff.

c12.s2.3

² Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 550, fols. 673-4. V. infra, pp. 219, 249 ff.

c12.s2.4

³ Tam mā evam Gosālā n' ārihasi . . . Sacc' eva te sā chāyā, no annā. Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 551, fol. 677.

c12.s2.5

Thereupon Gosāla's anger flared into fury, and he roundly cursed Mahāvīra.⁴ This horrified the disciple Savvāṇubhūti, who reproached Gosāla sternly for so reviling his former teacher.⁵ Gosāla promptly turned his anger upon the faithful disciple, and immediately reduced him to a heap of ashes by the magic force which he had accumulated from his asceticism. When a second disciple, Suṇakkhatta, remonstrated with him, he also suffered the same fate, although he survived long enough to pay a final homage to his master Mahāvīra.

c12.s2.6

⁴ Op. cit., sū. 552, fol. 677.

c12.s2.7

⁵ Op. cit., sū. 553, fol. 677.

c12.s2.8

Gosāla once more turned to Mahāvīra and repeated his curses. The latter reproached him in terms the same as those used by his two dead disciples. Gosāla then stepped back and attempted to destroy his adversary by his magic power; but on so perfect an ascetic as Mahāvīra the magic was quite ineffectual. The stream of supernatural force rebounded, and penetrated the body from which it had emanated.

c12.s2.9

Apparently Gosāla was unaware of what had happened. " You are now pervaded by my magic force," he said to Mahāvīra, " and within six months you will die of bilious fever (pittajjara)."

c12.s2.10

Unperturbed, Mahāvīra replied that the magic power of Gosāla had had no effect on him, but that Gosāla himself would die of bilious fever within seven nights, smitten by his own powers. He, Mahāvīra, on the other hand, would live on earth as a jina for another sixteen years.⁶

c12.s2.11

⁶ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 553, fol. 678.

c12.s2.12

The news of this magic duel spread through the city. The whole populace was aroused to a high pitch of excitement, and the partisans of one or other of the ascetics fiercely maintained their masters' causes.

c12.s2.13

Now Mahāvīra permitted his disciples to approach Gosāla and dispute with him. Already the latter began to feel the effects of the magic power, and his complexion changed its hue. Many of his disciples left him, and went over to Mahāvīra's faction, but a few remained faithful to their old master. Staring about him, tearing his beard, and stamping the ground, Gosāla cried “Alas, I am ruined!”¹ and returned to the potter-woman's workshop.

c12.s2.14

¹ Hā hā aho, haō'ham assi. Op. cit., fol. 679.

c12.s2.15

The circumstantial details of this story give it a measure of credibility. After extracting the supernatural element we have the record of a violent quarrel which took place between Gosāla and Mahāvīra, shortly before the death of the former, in the course of which two followers of the latter lost their lives. This is Hoernle's interpretation of the story.² Barua, on the other hand, suggests that the account of the deaths of the two disciples may be a veiled admission that they betrayed their leader and joined the faction of Gosāla.³ This is by no means impossible, but in view of the explicit statement of the text we prefer the former explanation.

c12.s2.16

² ERE. i, p. 259.

c12.s2.17

³ JDL. ii, pp. 34 ff.

c12.s2.18

It would seem that, prior to this incident, the two teachers had generally tolerated one another, and the followers of the two sects had been often on not unfriendly terms. The quarrel at the Koṭṭhaga caitya apparently changed the situation, and from now on the relations of the Ājīvikas and the Nirgranthas became openly hostile, tempered only by the vows of *ahiṃsā* which the members of the latter sect maintained, as probably did the Ājīvikas also.

Gosāla's Delirium

c12.s3.1

The discomfited Gosāla, once more at his headquarters in Hālāhalā's pottery, appears to have lapsed into a state bordering on delirium. He clutched a mango stone in his hand, drank spirits, sang continuously, danced, did reverence to his patron Hālāhalā,¹ and sprinkled his fevered limbs with the cool muddy water in which the potter's clay had been mixed.²

c12.s3.2

¹ Añjalikammam karemāṇe. There seems no reason to interpret the phrase, as does Hoernle, in a sexual sense. It may imply that Gosāla commanded his followers to revere Hālāhalā after his death.

c12.s3.3

² Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 553, fol. 679.

c12.s3.4

Here the thread of the story is broken by another pronouncement of Mahāvīra to his disciples.³ He declared that the magic heat (teye) which was destroying Gosāla was sufficient to reduce the sixteen great regions (jaṇavayā) to ashes. He further stated that, to hide the shame of his objectionable conduct (vajja), Gosāla would lay down the doctrine of the eight last things (carimāim),⁴ and of the four drinks (pāṇagāim) and the four substitutes for drink (apāṇagāim).⁵

c12.s3.5

³ Ibid., sū. 554, fol. 679 ff.

c12.s3.6

⁴ V. infra, pp. 68 ff.

c12.s3.7

⁵ V. infra, pp. 127 ff.

c12.s3.8

The interpolation of Mahāvīra's prophecy is very significant. The writer of the Bhagavatī seems to have composed this passage with the same motive as he did that on the sesamum plant⁶—to discredit the Ājīvikas by attributing an unworthy origin to points of Ājīvika doctrine. Thus in its details the account may be unreliable; but the essential import of the passage, that Gosāla during his last illness laid down certain new doctrines based on his own actions and on the events of the time,⁷ is by no means incredible, and may be accepted for want of contrary evidence.

c12.s3.9

⁶ V. supra, pp. 47 ff.

c12.s3.10

⁷ V. infra, pp. 68 ff.

Ayampula Visits Gosāla

c12.s4.1

The Bhagavatī Sūtra's account returns to the dying Gosāla.⁸ In Sāvatthi there dwelt Ayampula, an earnest lay adherent of the Ājīvika order. In the early part of the night he was suddenly troubled by an important question: "What is the form of the hallā?"⁹ He decided to put this question to his omniscient teacher, so he rose and went to the potter's workshop. There he found Gosāla in the shameful condition already described. Ayampula was about to retire, but was intercepted by some of the Ājīvika disciples who surrounded Gosāla. They informed him that their master had just propounded his new doctrines of the eight finalities, the four drinks, and the four substitutes for drink; and they added that Gosāla was quite able to answer Ayampula’s question. While they kept him out of sight of Gosāla they made a sign to the latter to throw aside his mango stone before giving audience to Ayampula. At last the credulous Ayampula was allowed to approach. The master’s words to him were of the strangest character: “This is not a mango stone, but a mango skin. Of what form is the *hallā*? It is like a bamboo root. Play the *vīṇā*, old fellow, play the *vīṇā*, old fellow!”¹

c12.s4.2

⁸ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 554, fols. 680-1.

c12.s4.3

⁹ Kimsaṇthiyā hallā paṇṇattā? Ibid., loc. cit.

c12.s4.4

¹ *Bhagavatī Sūtra*, XV. i.

c12.s4.5

After this remarkable utterance we are told that Ayampula was fully satisfied, and went home.

c12.s4.6

The nature of the *hallā*, about which Ayampula’s mind was so troubled, is uncertain. The commentator Abhayadeva confidently defines the *hallā* as “a certain insect, the form of which is like that of the *govālikā* grass”,² and on Gosāla’s reply to Ayampula’s question, Abhayadeva remarks, “it is well known in the world that the form of the *govālikā* grass is that of a bamboo root.”³ The explanation of Abhayadeva is the only one available. But the reader asks whether Ayampula would go to the trouble of visiting Gosāla at night if his inquiry were of a purely entomological nature. The explanation of Abhayadeva may disguise the fact that the commentator himself was unaware of the meaning of this rare word.

c12.s4.7

² *Ibid.*

c12.s4.8

³ *Idam ca vamśi-mūla-samsthitāvam tṛṇa-govālikāyā loka-pratītam.* Ibid., loc. cit.

c12.s4.9

The incident may have been inserted by the author of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* with satirical intention. It seems certain that the later Ājīvikas held surprising theories about the *jīva*, for instance that it was of eight parts and five hundred *yojanas* in size.⁴ The question of Ayampula is possibly the ludicrous counterpart of a serious question put to Gosāla concerning the size of the soul, and Gosāla’s reply may be similarly ludicrous in intention.

c12.s4.10

⁴ V. infra, pp. 270 ff.

c12.s4.11

Gosāla’s statement that the object which he had been holding was not a mango stone but a mango skin is probably to be read in the context of the four substitutes for drink, as laid down by Gosāla in his delirium. The ascetic undertaking the final Ājīvika penance, which involved ritual suicide by slow starvation, was permitted to hold a raw mango in his mouth, without sucking its juice or eating it.¹ The presence of a mango stone in Gosāla’s hand would have indicated to Ayampula that he had broken his own rule by eating the flesh of the fruit. Hence he is purported to have denied that it was a mango stone. His exhortation to Ayampula to play the *vīṇā* is perhaps connected with the two *mārgas*, stated by the commentator to be song and dance, which he is said to have ordained at the conference with the six *disācaras*.² There is reason to believe that we have here a further Jaina attempt to ascribe an unworthy origin to later Ājīvika practice.

c12.s4.12

¹ V. infra, p. 128.

c12.s4.13

² V. supra, pp. 56-58, and infra, p. 117.

Gosāla’s Repentance and Death

c12.s5.1

When Gosāla realized that his end was near he gave orders to his disciples for the preparation of a sumptuous funeral. They were to bathe his body in scented water, anoint it with sandal paste, array it in a rich robe, and bedeck it in all his ornaments. They were then to mount it on a bier drawn by a thousand men, and to proceed through the streets of Sāvatthi, proclaiming that the *jina* Gosāla Maṅkhaliputta, the last *tīrthaṅkara* of the twenty-four *tīrthaṅkaras* of this *Avasarpiṇī* had passed away. After this his body was to be cremated.³

c12.s5.2

³ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 554, fol. 681.

c12.s5.3

Towards the end of the seventh night Gosāla came to his senses. He fully realized how evil had been his past conduct, and was afflicted with the most lively remorse. He told his disciples that he was no *jina*, but a fraud, a murderer of *śramaṇas*, a betrayer of his teacher, dying from the effects of his own magic power. He recognized Mahāvīra as the true *jina*, cancelled his former instructions, and told his disciples to desecrate his body on his death. They were to tie a rope to his left foot, to spit thrice into his face, and to drag his body round the streets of Sāvatthi, proclaiming that he was not a *jina* but a cheat and a murderer, and that Mahāvīra was the only true *jina*. After this they were to dispose of his body without respect.⁴

c12.s5.4

⁴ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 555, fols. 681-2.

c12.s5.5

On his death the Ājivika monks kept only the letter of his instructions. Upon the floor of the pottery they traced a plan of the city of Sāvatthi, and over this they dragged the body by its left foot, proclaiming all the while that Gosāla was not the true *jina*. Then they unfastened the rope from the ankle of the dead man, opened the door of the pottery, and, adorning the body according to Gosāla’s first instructions, performed the funeral with great pomp.¹

c12.s5.6

¹ Ibid., *sū.* 556, fol. 682.

c12.s5.7

Hoernle interprets the *Bhagavatī* story as follows: “The taunts of his rivals and the consequent distrust of the townspeople made Gosāla’s position at Sāvatthi untenable. It preyed on his mind so much that it became utterly unhinged and throwing aside all ascetic restraint he gave himself up to drinking . . . Six months of this riotous living brought on his end.”² The period of six months, which Hoernle gives for the last phase of Gosāla’s life, seems to be based on the duration of the final penance which he is said to have ordained shortly before his death.³ Yet the *Sūtra* states categorically that his death occurred on the seventh night from the magic duel. Barua⁴ has noted the discrepancy, and does not accept the Jaina story, but believes that Gosāla died voluntarily at the end of a penance of six months’ duration.

c12.s5.8

² *ERE.* i, p. 259.

c12.s5.9

³ V. infra, pp. 127 ff.

c12.s5.10

⁴ *JDL.* ii, p. 36.

c12.s5.11

Whatever inaccuracy there may be in the details of the account there seems no reason to disbelieve the broad outline of the story, which is narrated with a vividness and a wealth of circumstantial detail rare in canonical Jaina literature. After an illness which involved fever and delirium, and which was perhaps induced by his penances, Gosāla died, and was given a sumptuous funeral by his followers. The story of his deathbed repentance is so gratifying from the Jaina point of view that it is hard to accept. Accounts of similar last-minute conversions and edifying last words are common in the popular religious literature of all places and periods, and can rarely be authenticated. It requires little critical acumen to realize that this part of the story is quite unreliable.

c12.s5.12

Dr. A. S. Gopani appears to accept the accuracy of the whole of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* story of Gosāla, including even the account of his deathbed conversion, without criticism.⁵ In this course we cannot follow him. The whole chapter is pervaded by sectarian prejudice, and, as we have seen, many of its episodes seem to have been devised in order to provide an ignominious origin for certain elements of Ājīvika belief and custom. On the other hand it seems probable that the author used as material for his biography of Gosāla authentic Ājīvika traditions, which he adapted to suit his own purposes. It is not impossible, after critical examination, tentatively to separate this hypothetical Ājīvika tradition from the Jaina interpolations and corruptions. This we have attempted to do in our treatment of the several episodes of Gosāla's life-story. There remains, however, the question : even after the most careful sifting, how much of this residue of authentic tradition is itself historically reliable ? We cannot answer this question, for both Buddhist and Hindu sources are completely silent on the most important incidents of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* story, and therefore we have no independent confirmation of it. For want of contradictory evidence we can but provisionally accept these unconfirmed traditions wherever they are not inherently improbable, all the while bearing in mind the fact that they are based on the slender authority of a single text, compiled by the opponents of the protagonist of the story ; we must also remember that the final recension of the text in question took place over a millennium after the events it purports to describe, and was carried out by men who had scant regard for historical accuracy.

c12.s5.13

⁵ *Bhāratīya Vidyā.* ii, pp. 201–210, and iii, pp. 47–59, passim.

The Date of Gosāla's Death

c12.s6.1

Certain indications in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*, taken together with references elsewhere in the Jaina canon and in the Buddhist scriptures, may be used tentatively to fit the year of Gosāla's death into a framework provided by those of his great contemporaries, Buddha and Mahāvīra.

c12.s6.2

As we have seen ¹ Gosāla is said to have lived as an ascetic for twenty-four years, the first six of which were spent with Mahāvīra, and the last sixteen as a pseudo-*jina* at Sāvatthi. It seems that the whole of the twenty-four year period occurred during the lifetime of his two greater rivals.

c12.s6.3

¹ V. supra, pp. 50-51.

c12.s6.4

Reliable synchronisms of the events of Gosāla’s life with that of the Buddha do not exist. The Sāmañña-phala Sutta depicts him, together with the other five heretical teachers, as being alive during the reign of King Ajātasattu of Magadha,¹ but this statement is of little value as a synchronism, especially when it is remembered that all six are referred to in the Milinda Pañha as the contemporaries of King Menander of Sākala.² In the Saṃyutta Nikāya³ King Bimbisāra, Ajātasattu’s father and predecessor, is reported to have told the Buddha that the six heretics were well established in their status as teachers,⁴ while the Buddha was young and had but recently become a mendicant.⁵ This suggests that Makkhali Gosāla was considerably older than the Buddha, but no value can be placed on the statement, for the heretics seem here obviously introduced as representatives of older and well-established philosophic schools, and not as individuals.

c12.s6.5

¹ V. supra, pp. 11–12.

c12.s6.6

² V. supra, p. 21.

c12.s6.7

³ Sam. i, p. 68.

c12.s6.8

⁴ Saṅghino gaṇino ñātā yassassino titthakārā.

c12.s6.9

⁵ Daharo c’ eva jātiyā, navo ca pabbajāyā.

c12.s6.10

Two important statements in the Bhagavatī Sūtra itself do, however, give a clue to the approximate date of Makkhali Gosāla’s death. These are, firstly, Mahāvīra’s prophecy that he would survive the death of Gosāla by sixteen or sixteen and a half years. This statement was made twice, the first time to Gosāla himself after the magic duel at the Koṭṭhaga caitya,⁶ when the duration of Mahāvīra’s survival of Gosāla is given as sixteen years; and again soon after the death of Gosāla, when Mahāvīra was taken ill at the town of Meṇḍhiyagāma.⁷ Remembering Gosāla’s curse, the disciple Sīha feared that his master would die within six months as a result of the magic duel, but Mahāvīra calmed his fears, and stated that he had yet sixteen and a half years to live on earth as a jina. Mahāvīra quickly recovered, after eating the flesh of a cockerel killed by a cat.

c12.s6.11

⁶ V. supra, p. 60

c12.s6.12

⁷ Bh. Sū. xv, sū. 557, fols. 685–6.

c12.s6.13

At a distance of over two thousand years the discrepancy of six months in the two statements is not very significant, but of the two the second seems the more probably accurate. It may be suggested that the extra half-year is the insertion of a meticulous copyist who had access to early records now lost to us and desired greater accuracy for Mahāvīra’s forecast.

c12.s6.14

A second point of synchronism is contained in the list of the eight finalities proclaimed by Gosāla in his last illness.¹ These are :—
1. The last drink (*carime pāṇe*).
2. The last song (*carime geye*).
3. The last dance (*carime naṭṭe*).
4. The last greeting (*carime aṅjalikamme*).
5. The last great stormcloud (*carime pokkhala-saṃvaṭṭaë mahāmehe*).
6. The last sprinkling scent-elephant (*carime seyaṇaë gandha-hatthī*).
7. The last battle with large stones (*carime mahāsilākaṇṭaë saṅgāme*).
8. The twenty-fourth and last *tīrthaṅkara* of this *Avasarpiṇī* (*imīse Osappiṇīë caüvīsāë titthakarāṇaṃ carime titthakare*), who was Gosāla himself.

c12.s6.15

¹ *Bh. Sū.* xv, *sū.* 554, fol. 679. V. supra, pp. 62-63.

c12.s6.16

Abhayadeva explains three of these eight finalities as having been laid down by Gosāla to impress his followers with the cataclysmic quality of his own impending death²; the first four, on the other hand, were put forward with the even more reprehensible motive of excusing his own delirious conduct in singing, dancing, drinking muddy water, and saluting Hālāhalā.³ The eighth and last was, of course, Gosāla himself. All of them were supposed inevitably to occur at a *jina's nirvāṇa*, according to Ājīvika teaching.

c12.s6.17

² *Puṣkala-saṃvarttak'-ādīni tu trīṇi bāhyāni prākṛt'-ānupayoge 'pi carama-sāmā... fol. 684.

c12.s6.18

³ ... Etāni kila nirvāṇa-kāle jinasy' āvaśyam-bhāvin' iti n' asty eteṣu doṣa ity asya ... avadya- ... anti. Abhayadeva to *Bh. Sū.*, fols. 683-4.

c12.s6.19

This very plausible explanation of the strange list is accepted with modifications by Hoernle. "The *raison d'être* of this curious doctrine," he writes ". . . is that the dubious death of their master was felt by his disciples to require investment with some kind of rehabilitating glamour."⁴

c12.s6.20

⁴ V. supra, pp. 61-62.

c12.s6.21

The first four of the eight finalities were obviously suggested by the behaviour of Gosāla in his delirium.⁵ For the sixth and seventh Hoernle has found striking parallels.⁶ The *Nirayāvalikā*⁷ contains the account of a splendid rutting elephant called "Sprinkler" (Seyaṇaë), because he was in the habit of sprinkling the ladies of the Magadhan court with water from his trunk while they were bathing. This elephant, together with a priceless necklace, was given by King Seṇiya (Bimbisāra of the Buddhist texts), to his younger son Vehalla.

c12.s6.22

⁵ 7.

c12.s6.23

⁶ Gopani and Chokshi edn., pp. 19 ff.

c12.s6.24

On the accession of Prince Kūṇiya (Ajātasattu), Seṇiya’s wicked son, the new king desired this fine elephant and the necklace. Inspired by his covetous wife Paümavaï, Kūṇiya demanded the treasures of Vehalla, who, disinclined to give them up and fearful for his life, fled with them to the court of his maternal uncle, Ceḍaga, who was chieftain of Vesālī, and head of the clan of the Licchavis, the chief element of the Vajjian confederacy of the Pāli texts. After some negotiation war broke out between Magadha and the Licchavis over the two treasures, and a great battle took place. The outcome is not clearly stated in the text, but the battle is said to have been very fiercely fought, and in it a prince Kāla was killed by Ceḍaga and the forces under his command were completely routed. It would seem therefore that all did not go well for the Magadhan invaders. The battle is referred to as Rahamusala, and is said to have taken place during the lifetime of Mahāvīra, who, according to the text, knew telepathically of the death of the prince Kāla. These events seem certainly to be those which inspired the sixth and seventh of the finalities, the sprinkling scent elephant and the battle with great stones.

c12.s6.25

Although Hoernle seems to have been unaware of the fact, the story of Kūṇiya’s war with the Licchavis is told elsewhere in Jaina literature. The *Bhagavatī Sūtra*¹ gives an account of the campaign, with significant differences of detail. Here two battles are fought, called *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* and *Rahamusale* respectively. Kūṇiya is said to have gone out to the *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* battle only after the engagement had commenced, when he heard that the fortunes of his armies were declining. Ceḍaga, a mighty archer, shot Kūṇiya’s ten brothers on ten successive days, and his success seemed assured until, on the eleventh day, the god Indra presented Kūṇiya with a great war-engine, which struck down the Licchavis with great stones. The second defeat of Ceḍaga, at the *Rahamusala* battle, took place in similar circumstances, after Kūṇiya had received from Camara, the Indra of the Asuras, a wonderful chariot armed with a great club, which worked havoc among the Licchavis.

c12.s6.26

¹ *Bh. Sū. vii, sū. 299 ff., pp. 576 ff.*

c12.s6.27

Jinadāsa's *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*¹ continues the story. The *gaṇarājas*, or chieftains of the confederate clans, demoralized by the two defeats, abandoned Ceḍaga and returned to their own cities. Ceḍaga retreated on Vesālī, and prepared for a siege. The city held out for twelve years, when it was betrayed by the treachery of the ascetic Kūlavālaya, the force of whose religious merit had formerly protected it. He was won over by a beautiful prostitute in the employ of Kūṇiya, and persuaded to break his vows and to betray the city. Ceḍaga committed suicide by drowning, and the Licchavis emigrated to Nepal.²

c12.s6.28

¹ *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*, vol. ii, pp. 172 ff.

c12.s6.29

² The elliptical account of the *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi* is expanded in a *bhāṣya* to the *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra*, which is not available, but is paraphrased in *Abhidhāna Rājendra*, vol. iii, s.v. Kūlavālaya.

c12.s6.30

Thus we have two synchronisms for the date of Gosāla's death, the first being the tradition of its occurence sixteen and a half years before that of Mahāvīra, and the second that of its taking place during the war between Magadha and Vesālī in the reign of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya. Of the two the latter seems the more reliable. It is probable that the author of the *Bhagavatī* made use of an authentic Ājīvika tradition, for the occurrence of the great battle and the death of their leader in the same year would make a great impression upon Gosāla's followers, and the memory of the synchronism might well be accurately preserved. On the other hand the tradition of the sixteen and a half years between the deaths of the two teachers is of a type more easily corrupted. The author of the *Bhagavatī* seems to have had a predilection for certain numbers. For instance the number six occurs in this chapter in various contexts. Thus Gosāla lives with Mahāvīra for six years,³ he performs a six months' penance,⁴ he confers with the six *disācaras*,⁵ he proclaims the six inevitables,⁶ he threatens Mahāvīra with death in six months' time.⁷ A period of sixteen years has already been introduced once into the story, when it is stated that Gosāla spent sixteen years in the pottery at Sāvatthi as leader of the Ājīvika order,¹ and, as will be shown, certain evidence indicates that Mahāvīra did not survive Gosāla by so long a period.² Although this evidence is inconclusive, and although we accept the tradition of the sixteen years between the deaths of the two men as a working hypothesis, the possibility must be recognized that the author of the *Bhagavatī* may have introduced the period of sixteen or sixteen and a half years into his account of Mahāvīra’s prophecy with his former statement in view. It would indeed be an edifying act of cosmic justice if Mahāvīra, threatened with rapid death by Gosāla, were portrayed as surviving his adversary by the length of the latter’s career as a false prophet. In our efforts to fix the date of Gosāla’s death we must therefore give the greatest credence to the synchronism of this event with the war between Magadha and Vesālī, and our first efforts must be towards settling the approximate date of the war.

c12.s6.31

³ V. supra, p. 40.

c12.s6.32

⁴ V. supra, p. 50.

c12.s6.33

⁵ V. supra, p. 56 ff.

c12.s6.34

⁶ V. supra, ibid.

c12.s6.35

⁷ V. supra, p. 60.

c12.s6.36

¹ V. supra, p. 32,

c12.s6.37

² V. infra, p. 75.

c12.s6.38

Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri³ has identified the war of the *Nirayāvalikā Sūtra* with that referred to in the Pāli scriptures as having taken place soon after the Buddha’s death. The account of the preparations for this war is to be found in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, and that of the war itself in Buddhaghosa’s commentary thereon. Much of the story is therefore contained in a comparatively late source, but it must be remembered that Buddhaghosa was himself a Magadhan, and may have had access to trustworthy records or traditions about the earlier history of his own country.

c12.s6.39

³ PHAI. pp. 171 ff.

c12.s6.40

According to the Pāli record the war is said to have arisen, not over a wonderful elephant, but over an unnamed river-port (*Gaṅgāyam ekam paṭṭana-gāmam*),⁴ half of which was in Magadhan territory and half in that of the Licchavis. There, from the foot of a mountain, descended a very costly fragrant material.⁵ When King Ajātasattu went to claim this strange substance he found that the Licchavis had preceded him, and had removed it; he therefore planned the war in order to gain possession of the scent-producing mountain. Plans seem to have been laid very carefully; according to the *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta* Ajātasattu’s first step was to send the minister Vassakāra to the Buddha, to inquire as to the probable outcome of an immediate attack.¹ Vassakāra’s visit is said to have been made while the Buddha was at Gijjhakūṭa near Rājagaha, the Magadhan capital, just before his journey northwards, at the end of which he died. According to Buddhaghosa it was on the Buddha’s advice that Ajātasattu decided not to wage immediate war on the Vajjis, but to bide his time.² The *Sutta* further states that the Buddha, as he proceeded northwards, once more met the minister Vassakāra, who, together with another minister named Sunīdha, was supervising the erection of a fort at Pāṭaligāma,³ and that he correctly prophesied the future greatness of the city that would arise on the site.

c12.s6.41

⁴ Sum. Vil. ii, p. 516.

c12.s6.42

⁵ Tatr’ āpi ca pabbata-pādato mahaggham gandhabhaṇḍam otarati. Sum. Vil., loc. cit.

c12.s6.43

¹ *Dīgha* ii, pp. 72 ff.

c12.s6.44

² *Sum. Vil.* ii, p. 522.

c12.s6.45

³ *Sunīdha-Vassakārā* ... *Pāṭaligāme nagaram māpenti*

c12.s6.46

Buddhaghosa completes the story by stating that Ajātasattu, not confident of his ability to overcome the Vajjis by force, sent the unscrupulous Vassakāra, in the guise of a refugee, to sow dissension among the Licchavi clansmen. Three years were spent by Vassakāra in preparing the ground for Ajātasattu’s invasion, at the end of which period the latter crossed the Ganges and occupied Vesālī with little opposition.⁴

c12.s6.47

If the tradition is accurate Vassakāra’s visit to the Buddha must have taken place within a year of the latter’s death. Three years were spent in preparing the ground for the invasion, which must therefore have occurred some two years or more after the death of the Buddha. If we allow a few months to cover the duration of the actual campaign, and the time taken for the news of the war to reach Sāvatthi, and if we accept Raychaudhuri’s equation of the Pāli and Jaina accounts, we may place the death of Gosāla approximately three years after that of the Buddha.

c12.s6.48

On a careful examination of the two stories, however, it seems by no means certain that they refer to the same campaign. The *gandha-hatthī* of the Jaina account reminds the reader of the *gandha-bhaṇḍam* of the Pāli and we may suggest that the author of the *Nirayāvalikā* and Buddhaghosa both worked on the same tradition, but that one of the two, probably the latter, had received it in a garbled form. The obscure perfumed material of the Pāli account is less plausible than the tame elephant of the *Nirayāvalikā*, and the latter therefore seems more reliable in this particular. The two stories agree on the break-up of the confederation, and on the betrayal of Vesāli by an agent of Magadha. Otherwise they have little in common.

c12.s6.49

In the Jaina story the war is said to have taken place at some unspecified time after the self-inflicted death of the imprisoned King Seṇiya. No definite statement is given of the time which elapsed between the death of Seṇiya and the war, but between the two events there occurred the repentance of King Kūṇiya (Ajātasattu), the funeral ceremonies of his father, and the removal of the court from Rājagṛha to Campā. Although the interval does not appear to have been very great it may have lasted for one or two years. This probability is strengthened by the Buddhist account of a war with Kosala soon after Ajātasattu’s accession.¹ In the Buddhist story the visit of Vassakāra which initiated Ajātasattu’s schemes against the Vajjis and was the first in a chain of events culminating in the Buddha’s death, must have taken place at least six or seven years after the death of Bimbisāra-Seṇiya, since the *Mahāvaṃsa* states that the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa* occurred in the eighth year of the reign of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya.²

c12.s6.50

¹ *PHAI.* p. 170.

c12.s6.51

² *Ajātasattuno vasse aṭṭhame muni nibbuto.* *Mahāvaṃsa* ii, 32, p. 15.

c12.s6.52

The accounts of the progress of the war in the two stories are also discrepant. The *Nirayāvalikā* tells of a fierce battle in which at least part of Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya’s forces was defeated by Ceḍaga.³ The other Jaina accounts speak of protracted warfare. The Pāli story, on the other hand, makes no mention of any severe fighting, but suggests that the resistance of the Vajjis was slight, since they had been previously weakened by the intrigues of Vassakāra.⁴ Yet the building of the fort at Pāṭaligāma suggests not that Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya contemplated the invasion of the territory of a comparatively weak enemy, but that he was himself expecting invasion; this indeed is explicitly stated to be the motive in fortifying the village.⁵

c12.s6.53

³ V. supra, p. 69.

c12.s6.54

⁴ V. supra, p. 72.

c12.s6.55

⁵ *Vajjīnaṃ paṭibāhāya.* *Dīgha* ii, p. 86.

c12.s6.56

The similarities and differences in the two accounts, if taken together, indicate that the war was a protracted one and had at least two phases, which are suggested by the Jaina tradition of two great battles, and of the lengthy siege of Vesālī.

c12.s6.57

In the first, which took place soon after the accession of Ajātasattu-Kūniya, and with which the Jaina tradition of the elephant is connected, the Magadhan invasion was frustrated, and it would even seem that Magadha itself was in danger of a counter-invasion from the Vajjis. In the second phase of the war it was decided favourably to Ajātasattu through the intrigues of Vassakāra, some two or three years after the death of the Buddha. On the strength of the Jaina story, it may well be that the final capture of Vesālī did not take place until an even later date.

c12.s6.58

If we accept c. 483 B.C. as the date of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa*,¹ on the basis of the *Mahāvaṃsa* synchronism the accession of Ajātasattu must have occurred in the year c. 491 B.C., and his second campaign against the Vajjis c. 481-480 B.C. The first campaign, soon after which the death of Gosāla occurred, must have taken place at some time between the date of Ajātasattu’s accession and the year preceding the Buddha’s death. We suggest that the first campaign occurred c. 485 B.C., and the death of Gosāla in that year, or in 484 B.C., if we allow a year for the news of the “Battle of Great Stones” to spread to Sāvatthi and to become fixed in the popular consciousness. On the strength of the *Bhagavatī* statement that Mahāvīra survived Gosāla for sixteen and a half years,² this date would place that of Mahāvīra’s death in 468-467 B.C. which agrees with the date suggested by Jacobi on the basis of Hemacandra’s *Pariśiṣṭa-parvan*,³ and supported by Charpentier.⁴ Whatever our interpretation of the discrepant traditions, however, it seems clear that the death of Gosāla was not far removed in time from that of the Buddha.

c12.s6.59

¹ De la Vallée Poussin (*Indo-européens et Indo-iraniens*, pp. 238 ff.) outlines various theories at some length. With de la Vallée Poussin I provisionally support Geiger’s date (*Mahāvaṃsa* translation, p. xxviii), which is consistent with my general chronological scheme.

c12.s6.60

² V. supra, p. 67.

c12.s6.61

³ *The Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu*, p. 8.

c12.s6.62

⁴ *CHI.* i, p. 156.

c12.s6.63

There are two difficulties at least in the acceptance of the above theory. The first is a statement in the *Kalpa Sūtra* to the effect that the kings of the Licchavis instituted a festival in memory of Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa*.¹ This implies that they were still influential at the time of his death, and could not then have been completely overthrown by Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya. Yet the latter is said to have threatened to root out, destroy, and utterly ruin the Vajjis.² We must assume that Ajātasattu did not carry out his threats, but that the chiefs of the Vajjis were merely reduced to subordination, and allowed a degree of local autonomy. The marriage of Candra Gupta I to the Licchavi princess Kumāradevī,³ and the rise of a Licchavi dynasty in Nepal,⁴ indicate that the chief clan of the Vajjian Confederacy retained its individuality for some eight hundred years after the war with Ajātasattu.

c12.s6.64

¹ *Kalpa Sūtra*, sū. 123. *SBE*. xxii, p. 266.

c12.s6.65

² *Dīgha* ii, pp. 72–3.

c12.s6.66

³ *PHAI*. p. 445. De la Vallée Poussin, *Dynasties* . . ., pp. 33–5.

c12.s6.67

⁴ De la Vallée Poussin, *Dynasties* . . ., p. 173.

c12.s6.68

More serious is the fact that the Pāli scriptures record the death of Mahāvīra or Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta as taking place at Pāvā during the Buddha’s lifetime, and as being accompanied by serious confusion and quarrelling among his supporters. The event was reported to the Buddha by the novice Cuṇḍa, who expressed the hope that on the death of the Buddha similar quarrels would not arise in his order.⁵ This fact indicates that Mahāvīra’s death was thought of as having taken place towards the end of the Buddha’s life, when the Buddhist *bhikkhus* were very concerned about the future of the community on the death of its founder. We suggest that the Pāli record may not in fact refer to the death of Mahāvīra at Pāvā, but to that of Gosāla at Sāvatthi, which the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* also mentions as having been accompanied by quarrelling and confusion.⁶ At a later date, when the chief rival of Buddhism was no longer Ājīvikism but Jainism, the name may have been altered to add to the significance of the account.

c12.s6.69

⁵ *Majjh*. ii, pp. 243 ff.

c12.s6.70

⁶ V. supra, pp. 58 ff.

c12.s6.71

A further objection might be raised that the Śvetāmbara Jaina tradition places the date of Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa* in the year 470 before Vikrama, or 528 B.C., while the Digambara traditional date is even earlier—the impossible year of 605 before Vikrama.⁷ The wide divergence of the two traditions tends to make even the more plausible date suspect. It is to be noted that the Sinhalese tradition of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa* occurring in 544 B.C. is almost certainly some sixty years too early.¹ But the Buddhist and Jaina traditions taken together confirm Jacobi’s contention that the Buddha predeceased Mahāvīra by about sixteen years.²

c12.s6.72

⁷ *PHAI*. p. 173, n.; *CHI*. i, p. 155.

c12.s6.73

¹ De la Vallée Poussin, *Indo-européens*, p. 240.

c12.s6.74

² *Ibid.*, p. 241.

c12.s6.75

Yet another argument against the theory that Mahāvīra predeceased the Buddha may be derived from the account of the war between Magadha and the Licchavis in the *Nirayāvalikā Sūtra*. Mahāvīra was alive at the time, and in contact with the Magadhan court. If we reject the Jaina tradition of his death sixteen and a half years after that of Gosāla, and accept the Buddhist record of its occurrence before that of the Buddha, we must assume that he too died very shortly after the first campaign of Ajātasattu-Kuṇiya. This must have occurred at some time between 491 and 484 B.C., on the basis of our calculations, which are founded on the assumption that the Buddha died in 483 B.C.³ Now Mahāvīra was seventy-two years old at the time of his death, and must have been at least in his late sixties at the time of the war, if we assume that he predeceased the Buddha. But Ceḍaga, the chieftain of the Licchavis, was his maternal uncle, and therefore was probably considerably older than Mahāvīra. Although he was thus a very old man, on the hypothesis of Mahāvīra’s advanced age at the time, he is yet described as leading the Licchavi forces in battle and taking a full part in the campaign. Moreover, according to Jinadāsa, he survived the twelve-year siege of Vesāli which followed the battle. Such elderly leadership is by no means impossible, but at least very improbable, and points to an inaccuracy in one or other of the stories.

c12.s6.76

³ *Ibid.*, p. 242; *Das.* ii, p. 111, n.

c12.s6.77

Hoernle has made two attempts to fix the date of Gosāla’s death. In the first he suggests 483 B.C., arrived at by counting back sixteen years from Jacobi’s date for Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa*.⁴ His second and revised estimate involves more complicated calculations.⁵ He accepts 482 B.C. as the “practically certain” date of the Buddha’s *nirvāṇa*. The father and predecessor of Ajātasattu, King Bimbisāra, was murdered by his son eight years before the *nirvāṇa*, or in 490 B.C. Hoernle believes that for some years before this Ajātaśattu was *de facto* ruler, and that the war took place not in the year of his legal, but of his *de facto* accession, which cannot have been long before the murder of Bimbisāra. Jacobi's theory of the later date of Mahāvīra's death he now rejects, in order to devise a chronological scheme according to which Mahāvīra may predecease the Buddha; but the *Bhagavatī* tradition of the sixteen years' interval between the deaths of Mahāvīra and Gosāla he accepts without question. He therefore suggests 484 B.C. for the death of Mahāvīra and 500 B.C. for that of Gosāla, and for the war and the *de facto* accession of Ajātaśattu.

c12.s6.78

⁴ *ERE.* i, pp. 260–1.

c12.s6.79

Hoernle's second calculation has the one advantage that it allows the acceptance of the Buddhist tradition of Mahāvīra's death being prior to that of the Buddha. For the sake of the acceptance of this one story other statements equally probable have been rejected. The *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta's* record, that preparations for a campaign against the Vajjis were made in the last year of the Buddha's life, is not brought into relation with the chronological scheme. Hemacandra's statement that the *nirvāna* of Mahāvīra occurred 155 years before the accession of Candragupta Maurya,¹ which the Jaina tradition places in 313 B.C.,² is rejected.

c12.s6.80

¹ *Pariśiṣṭaparvan* viii, 341.

c12.s6.81

² *CHI.* i, p. 164.

c12.s6.82

Hoernle's interpretation of the chronology of the war cannot be accepted. No statement that it took place in the first year of Ajātaśattu's reign, whether legal or *de facto*, can be found in either Buddhist or Jaina sources. Though Hoernle believes that it occurred during the lifetime of Bimbisāra-Seṇiya, both the *Nirayāvalikā* and the *Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta* make it clear that it took place after his suicide or murder, not after his abdication. Whatever the accuracy of other calculations, Hoernle's theory is untenable.

c12.s6.83

In our opinion the synchronism of Gosāla's death with the war with the Vajjis is by far the most reliable of any indications of the date of the former event. Illiterate and semi-literate people all over the world retain accurate memories of the years of births and deaths by this naturally arising system of synchronism with important historical events, and there is far less danger of error in such a method than in the memory of the number of years elapsing between one event and another. Therefore we believe that the death of Gosāla occurred soon after the great war between Magadha and the Vajjis, and this war could not have taken place in 500 B.C., if we maintain the general accuracy of both Buddhist and Jaina traditions.

The Name and Titles of Makkhali Gosāla

c12.s7.1

Before leaving the most famous of the Ājīvika leaders the question of his name and titles calls for further consideration. As we have seen, the name appears in various forms.¹ In the Pāli texts it is Makkhali Gosāla; in Buddhist Sanskrit, Maskarin Gosāla, Gośālīputra, or Gośalīkāputra; in Jaina Prākrit, Gosāla Maṅkhaliputta; and in Tamil, Maṛkali.

c12.s7.2

¹ V. supra, p. 34.

c12.s7.3

Of these forms the Pāli seems the best. Although the word maṅkha, which Hoernle believed to be a nonce-word, does exist outside the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*,² and even although Gosāla’s father may have been a religious mendicant called by that term,³ the nasal which has found its way into the Jaina form Maṅkhaliputta seems anomalous, and cannot well be the linguistic ancestor of the ṛ in the Tamil form Maṛkali. That this element of the name is a patronymic, as is implied by the Jaina form, is improbable, since it is refuted by the joint testimony of Pāli and Tamil sources. The *Mahāvastu’s* metronymic forms, Gośālī- and Gośalīkā-putra, are nowhere confirmed by Pāli sources, but are if anything disproved by the dubious Jaina statement that the name of Gosāla’s mother was Bhaddā.⁴ It is probable that the personal name of the teacher was Gosāla, and that Makkhali, or Maskarin, a fairly common appellation of a staff-bearing ascetic, was rather a title than a proper name.

First 177 of 194 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)