History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12.s4: Ayampula Visits Gosāla
History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c12.s4
- Language
- English
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.
Linked texts (1)
- Viyāhapannatti — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit