Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c13: Chapter V. Pūraṇa and Pakudha

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Pūraṇa and Pakudha

Pūraṇa Kassapa

c13.s1.1

That Pūraṇa, the antinomian of the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*, played a not unimportant part in early Ājīvikism is evident from a number of references in the Pāli canon and from two other references of a much later date.

c13.s1.2

A verse in the *Samyutta Nikāya* ¹ mentions four of the six heretics together. Of these the names *Pakudhako Kātiyāno* and *Nigaṇṭho* stand as separate singular nouns, but those of Makkhali and Pūraṇa are combined in the form *Makkhali-Pūraṇāse*. No doubt the exigencies of the metre must have had some influence in inspiring the poet to compound the names, but the fact that he did so suggests that he looked upon the two as closely connected. It is also perhaps significant that all four are mentioned as leaders of a single school (*gaṇassa satthāro*), and that the name of Makkhali precedes that of Pūraṇa. The conclusions we derive from this verse are strengthened by those passages in the Pāli canon in which Pūraṇa is said to have maintained the doctrine of the six classes of men, and other teachings elsewhere ascribed to Makkhali.² Conclusive evidence of Pūraṇa’s important status in Ājīvikism is provided by the two later references, the Jaina Tamil poem *Nīlakēci*, and Guṇaratna’s *Tarka-rahasya-dīpikā*.

c13.s1.3

¹ *Sam.* i, p. 66. V. infra, p. 217, where the verse is quoted.

c13.s1.4

² V. supra, p. 20.

c13.s1.5

The first of these texts depicts a demi-goddess, Nīlakēci, converted to Jainism and travelling from one teacher to another to dispute on points of doctrine. Her opponents include among others the Buddhist elder Maudgalyāyana and the Buddha himself, Parāśara, who is the protagonist of Sāṅkhya metaphysics, and Pūraṇa, the leader of the Ājīvikas.³ He is described as the chief of a monastery of Ājīvika monks at a place called Kukkuṭanagara, “the Lord Pūraṇa, without comparison in intelligence.”¹ He receives Nilakēci, and expounds his doctrine to her, stating that Maṅkali is the Ājīvikas’ Lord (*irai*).² Thus it is plain that the Tamil Ājīvikas looked upon Pūraṇa as a great leader, the contemporary of the Buddha, and second only to Maṅkali himself. The name Pūraṇa may by this time have become a title, for it seems in one verse to be applied not to the teacher, but to the deified Maṅkali.³ The location of Kukkuṭanagara, where Pūraṇa is said to have taught, may be of some significance, and is considered in a later chapter.⁴

c13.s1.6

³ V. infra, pp. 199–200.

c13.s1.7

¹ *Pūraṇaṉ eṉpāṉ puruvara-k-karravaṉ*. *Nil.* v, 668. V. also v. 673.

c13.s1.8

² *Nil.* v, 671.

c13.s1.9

³ Ibid., v, 673.

c13.s1.10

⁴ V. infra, pp. 201-2.

c13.s1.11

The other two Tamil works containing outlines of Ājīvika teaching do not refer to Pūraṇa, although in *Maṇimēkalai* the anonymous teacher with whom the heroine discusses Ājīvika philosophy has the epithet of Pūraṇa, “the Elder.”⁵ This word is employed in place of the name Pūraṇa at least twice in the Pāli scriptures.⁶ The *Civañāṉa-cittiyār*, which is later than the two first-mentioned works, mentions neither Pūraṇa nor Maṅkali. These works, in so far as they give information about the Ājīvikas, will be considered more fully in due course.⁷

c13.s1.12

⁵ *Ācīvaka-nūl-ariṉta-Pūraṇaṉai*. *Maṇi.* xxvii, 108.

c13.s1.13

⁶ V. also *Jāt.* i, 509.

c13.s1.14

⁷ V. infra, pp. 196 ff.

c13.s1.15

Meanwhile we have evidence that, at an even later period, Pūraṇa was not forgotten. In the *Tarka-rahasya-dīpikā*, Guṇaratna’s commentary on Haribhadra’s *Ṣaddarśana-samuccaya*, the author presents in his preface a list of theories on the nature of the world, which is interesting from many points of view. “Various theorists,” writes Guṇaratna, “propound various theories on the nature of the world. For instance some declare the world to be born of Nārīśvara; others maintain that it arose from Soma and Agni; . . . some that it is made by Time; . . . the Sāṅkhyas, that it arose from *prakṛti*; the Buddhists, that it is a mere conception (*vijñaptimātram*); Pūraṇa, that it is born of Destiny (*Pūraṇo niyati-janitam*); Parāśara, that it arises by natural evolution (*pariṇāma-prabhavam*); the Turks, that it comes into existence through a wholly divine man from among their religious teachers.¹ These and other teachers of various doctrines are to be found."² Guṇaratna’s list proves that the memory of Pūraṇa survived as late as *c.* A.D. 1400.³ It is surprising that he did not quote Gosāla as the representative of the *niyativādins*, for he must have known the name from its frequent occurrence in his own Jaina literature, which makes only one dubious reference to Pūraṇa. By this time it is doubtful whether Ājīvikas survived in northern India, and those members of the sect with whom Guṇaratna may have come in contact had perhaps deified Makkhali and looked upon Pūraṇa only as their human prophet. As will be shown in a later chapter, at least some of the Dravidian Ājīvikas seem to have held this view.⁴

c13.s1.16

¹ *Turuṣkā, gosvāminām aika-divya-puruṣa-prabhavam.* Guṇaratna seems to refer to the Christians. *Turuṣka* was a very loosely used term, and the passage suggests Christ rather than Allah or Muhammad.

c13.s1.17

² *Saddarśana-samuccaya*, ed. Suali, p. 20.

c13.s1.18

³ Glasenapp, *Der Jainismus*, p. 108.

c13.s1.19

⁴ V. infra. p. 276.

c13.s1.20

These two references establish without reasonable doubt that Pūraṇa was an important figure among the later Ājīvikas; and the Pūraṇa of these texts must surely be none other than Pūraṇa Kassapa of the Pāli scriptures. It is surprising that no detailed reference to him occurs in the Jaina canon, where several Pūraṇas are mentioned, but none certainly suggesting the heretic Pūraṇa of the Buddhist scriptures. For this reason our knowledge of Pūraṇa’s life is more fragmentary than that of the life of Makkhali Gosāla, for in the case of Pūraṇa we have not two independent sets of sources upon which to work.

c13.s1.21

Of Pūraṇa’s birth and origin Buddhaghosa gives a fanciful story,⁵ bearing the same stamp as that provided by him to account for Makkhali Gosāla’s initiation into asceticism.⁶ He was born, says Buddhaghosa, as a slave, the hundredth in the household of his master; from the fact that he made up the total of one hundred slaves he was given the name Pūraṇa, "the Completion."⁷ His birth was considered auspicious, and he was treated well and never scolded. Despite this he ran away from his master. In his flight his garments were stolen by thieves. Pūraṇa had not the sense to cover himself with leaves or grass, and entered a certain village as naked as on the day of his birth (*jāta-rūpeṇ’ eva*). The villagers thought that he was a holy man, and gave him liberal alms. Pūraṇa was so impressed by the ease with which he gained a living in the state of nudity that even when offered a garment he would not put it on. Gradually his reputation grew and he gained a following of five hundred disciples.

c13.s1.22

⁵ *Sum. Vil.* i, p. 142.

c13.s1.23

⁶ V. supra, p. 37.

c13.s1.24

⁷ *Dāsa-sataṃ pūrayamāṇo jāto.* *Sum. Vil.*, loc. cit.

c13.s1.25

The story is scarcely worthy of serious consideration. Its only value is to show that Pūraṇa, like Makkhali, was habitually naked. This fact is confirmed by the *Divyāvadāna*,¹ where he is described as a *nirgrantha*, clothed in the garment of righteousness (*dharma-śāta-praticchanna*); the phrase is obviously an euphemism for a state of total nudity.

c13.s1.26

¹ Ed. Cowell and Neil, p. 165.

c13.s1.27

We have little information about the events of Pūraṇa’s life. The *Mahāvastu* ² states that he met the Buddha, before the latter’s enlightenment, at the village of Uruvilvā, and that while the latter received liberal alms from the villagers, Pūraṇa’s bowl remained empty. A certain Pūraṇa who may be the Pūraṇa Kassapa of Buddhist tradition, is described in the Jaina *Bhagavatī Sūtra*.³ He is said to have been a foolish ascetic (*bālatavassī*), who had previously been a householder in an unidentifiable place called Bebhela. On his begging rounds he made use of a bowl divided into four sections, and gave the contents of the first section to travellers, the second to crows and dogs, and the third to fish and tortoises, keeping only the contents of the fourth section for himself. He is said to have died by self-starvation after twelve years of asceticism, in the eleventh year of Mahāvīra’s ascetic career. In their details the two stories are not consistent, for, according to our synchronisms,⁴ the eleventh year of Mahāvīra’s asceticism fell in *c.* 500–499 B.C., the year following his breach with Gosāla. If Pūraṇa’s mendicancy commenced only twelve years before this date the Buddha must then have been in the thirteenth or fourteenth year of his enlightenment, and could not have met the mendicant Pūraṇa while still a *bodhisattva*. We suggest that the twelve years in the Jaina story refer in fact not to Pūraṇa’s whole career as a mendicant, but to the period of his claim to *jina*-hood. Thus the two stories may be harmonized.

c13.s1.28

² Ed. Senart, vol. ii, p. 207.

c13.s1.29

³ *Bh. Sū.* iii, *sū.* 143, p. 304 f.

c13.s1.30

⁴ V. supra, p. 74.

c13.s1.31

The evidence of the Pāli texts indicates that Pūraṇa’s doctrines and practices did not differ greatly from those of Makkhali Gosāla, and that considerable confusion existed in the minds of the authors of the *Nikāyas* concerning the teachings of the two. In no less than four references Pūraṇa is described as maintaining part of the doctrine of determinism attributed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Makkhali.¹ In one of these he is said to hold the doctrine of the six classes of men (*abhijāti*) and even to place Makkhali Gosāla, together with the shadowy Nanda Vaccha and Kisa Saṅkicca, in the highest class.²

c13.s1.32

¹ V. supra, pp. 18, 20–21.

c13.s1.33

² *Aṅg.* iii, p. 383. V. supra, p. 20.

c13.s1.34

There can be little doubt that, with differences of approach and emphasis, Pūraṇa and Makkhali taught what was virtually the same doctrine. Pūraṇa’s reference to Makkhali as belonging to the highest of the six classes, and the passage in *Nīlakēci* above-mentioned,³ suggest that he may have looked up to Makkhali as his spiritual superior, at least during part of his career. But he appears to have claimed omniscience,⁴ and his very title suggests that he was looked upon by his followers as perfect.

c13.s1.35

³ V. supra, p. 81.

c13.s1.36

⁴ *Aṅg.* iv, p. 428.

The Death of Pūraṇa

c13.s2.1

While our knowledge of the events of Pūraṇa’s life is negligible, we have an account of his death which contains interesting features, and, existing as it does in more than one version, may have a basis of truth. The sources agree that Pūraṇa died by his own hand. The Buddhist accounts add that his death took place at Sāvatthi, after a great miracle contest in which he and his fellow heretics were worsted by the Buddha. The event was a popular subject for illustration by Buddhist sculptors and artists.⁵

c13.s2.2

⁵ Foucher, *L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique* . . ., vol. i, pp. 534–7.

c13.s2.3

The description of Pūraṇa’s suicide is contained in the commentary to the *Dhammapada*,¹ and in the *Divyâvadāna*.² A Tibetan version of the story also exists.³ The first version differs from the two latter in several particulars, and is considerably briefer. In the Pāli version an unnamed *seṭṭhi* of Rājagaha is said to have suspended a bowl by a cord sixty feet in the air, and to have invited holy-men of all sects to fly up and bring it down, offering to become the disciple of the successful competitor. On six successive days the six heretics tried to persuade the *seṭṭhi* to give them the bowl, but refused to put their magic powers to the test. On the seventh day the bowl was retrieved by the *bhikkhu* Piṇḍola Bhāradvāja, who gave a remarkable display of levitation. On hearing the news of his disciple’s feat the Buddha reproached him, and forbade the repetition of such miraculous displays.

c13.s2.4

¹ *Dh. A.* iii. 199 ff.

c13.s2.5

² *Divy.* 143 ff.

c13.s2.6

³ Rockhill, *The Life of the Buddha*, p. 80.

c13.s2.7

The heretics were delighted at the news, thinking that the cessation of Buddhist miracles would leave them masters of the field. But their hopes were dashed when they heard that the Buddha had told King Bimbisāra that his injunction was binding on the *bhikkhus* only, and not on himself, and that if the heretics attempted to display their powers he too would perform a miracle. He further declared that in four months’ time he would give such a performance at Sāvatthi. The heretics decided to pursue him unremittingly, in the hope of shaking his equanimity and thus weakening his magic powers. They followed him to Sāvatthi, and there obtained from their disciples one hundred thousand pieces of money, with which they erected a pavilion. King Pasenadi offered to have a similar pavilion erected for the Buddha, but he refused, stating that he had a pavilion-builder, and would perform his miracle under the mango tree of Gaṇḍa, the King’s gardener. The heretics, hearing of his promise, uprooted all the mango trees for a league around.

c13.s2.8

On the full moon of the month Āsāḷhi the Buddha was presented with a mango fruit by Gaṇḍa. He told the latter to dig a hole and plant the mango stone. No sooner had the Buddha washed his hand over the spot where the stone was planted than a tree sprang up, fifty cubits high and covered with flowers and fruit. The populace, realizing the evil stratagems of the six heretics, began to pelt them with mango stones.

c13.s2.9

The god Sakka then took a hand in the contest. He ordered the wind to uproot the heretics' pavilion, the sun to scorch their naked bodies, and the wind to cover them with dust and to cause countless drops of rain to fall on them. Looking like mottled cows (*kabara-gāvi-sadisā*) they fled in all directions.

c13.s2.10

Meanwhile a peasant who was a devotee of Pūraṇa Kassapa had unyoked his oxen, and, taking a vessel of gruel and a cord, had set out for Sāvatthi, intending to watch the miracle-contest. On the way he met Pūraṇa in his flight, and said: "I set out, sir, to see my noble masters perform a miracle. Where are you going?" "What is a miracle to you? (*Kin te paṭihāreṇa ?*)," replied Pūraṇa, "Give me that pot and cord!" He then took the pot and cord, went to the bank of a river, tied the pot round his neck, and jumped into the stream. Raising bubbles in the water, he died, and was reborn in the Avīci hell.

c13.s2.11

The *Divyāvadāna* tells a slightly different story. The instigator of the miracle-contest is here said to be the tempter, Māra. In the form of Pūraṇa he suggested to Maskarin that the Buddha should be challenged to a contest; in the form of Maskarin he repeated the suggestion to Sañjayin, and so on from one of the six heretics to another. The six then asked King Bimbisāra to arrange the contest, but, mindful of the Buddha's orders, he refused. Thereupon the heretics left for Śrāvastī, followed by the Buddha, who knew of their plans by virtue of his superhuman insight. King Prasenajit of Kosala was more favourable to the ascetics' proposal than had been Bimbisāra, and he carried the challenge to the Buddha, who was staying at the Jetavana. The Buddha agreed to take part in a miracle contest after an interval of seven days. Meanwhile the heretics gathered their supporters together and laid their plans.

c13.s2.12

On the seventh day the contest took place outside the city, where each teacher was provided with a specially prepared pavilion. The Buddha performed several spectacular miracles, but the six heretics were powerless, and their discomfiture was completed by a violent rainstorm, caused by Pañcika, the general of the *yakṣas*. The heretics ran in all directions, but the Buddha was untouched by the rain, and his rivals were put to the final humiliation of having to take refuge in his pavilion.

c13.s2.13

Then Pūraṇa, fearing that the Buddha would win over his disciples, began to discuss philosophical questions with them, and tempers rose high. Metaphysical slogans—“The world is eternal!” “The world is transient!” “The world is both!” “The world is neither!” “Body and soul are one!” “Body and soul are different!”—were bandied from one to another of the ascetics and their followers, and they left the scene of the contest a quarrelling rabble.¹

c13.s2.14

¹ “Antavāl lokaḥ,” “Anantaḥ,” “Antavāṁś c’ ānantavāṁś ca,” “N’aiv’ āntavān n’ānantavān,” “Sa jīvas tac charīram,” “Anyo jīvo ‘nyac charīram” iti te kalahajātā viharanti bhaṇḍana-jātā vigṛhītā vivādam āpannāḥ. Divyāvadāna, p. 164.

c13.s2.15

The terrified Pūraṇa took to flight. On his way he was met by a hermaphrodite (paṇḍaka), who disrespectfully asked him where he was going. He replied that the time had come for his departure from the body, his faculties being somewhat impaired. The sun, he said, had given him a thirst, and he asked the whereabouts of the nearest pond.² The hermaphrodite, addressing Pūraṇa by uncomplimentary epithets such as śramaṇ’-adhama and hīn’-asat-puruṣa, pointed to a nearby lotus pond. There Pūraṇa tied a pot full of sand about his neck, jumped into the water, and was drowned.

c13.s2.16

² The words of Pūraṇa are very obscure. Gamanāya me samayaḥ pratyupasthitaḥ kāyasya me balavīryaṁ kiñcit spṛṣṭhaś ca bhāvaḥ sukhaduḥkhate me. Anāvṛtam jñānam ih’ ārhatāṁ dūrāpagato ‘smi. Paratimir’-āpanudaś ca tṛṣam patati. Acakṣva me dūṣika etam artham—śītodakā kutra sā puṣkiriṇī? Op. cit., p. 165. The editors of the text remark, “Much of this page is evidently in verse, but is too corrupt to be so arranged.” Op. cit., p. 706.

c13.s2.17

The other ascetics (nirgranthāḥ) made a search for Pūraṇa, and while seeking him they met a prostitute. They asked her whether she had seen Pūraṇa, “clothed in the garment of righteousness”; she replied scornfully with an obscene verse, and would give them no information. Ultimately they found him lying dead in the lotus pond. They pulled out his body, and, leaving it on one side, they went away.

c13.s2.18

The Tibetan version of the story, as summarized by Rockhill,³ appears to agree in essentials with the Divyāvadāna version.

c13.s2.19

³ The Life of the Buddha, p. 80.

c13.s2.20

These stories clearly contain elements inserted for the edification of the Buddhist community, but the central fact of both versions, the suicide of Pūraṇa, is by no means incredible. Death by ritual suicide was the common end of the Jaina ascetic who felt his faculties begin to fail, and similar suicides by Ājīvikas are well attested.¹ It is probable, as the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* suggests,² that Pūraṇa’s followers developed a legend of their master ending his life by suicide in an odour of sanctity, and that this story was twisted by the Buddhists into the complimentary forms paraphrased above.

c13.s2.21

¹ V. infra, pp. 127 ff.

c13.s2.22

² V. supra, p. 83.

c13.s2.23

Certain elements of the two Buddhist stories differ, but their common features are more numerous. Both agree that, after a miracle contest at Sāvatthi, in which Pūraṇa and his fellow ascetics were worsted, and which was followed by a violent storm, he committed suicide by drowning, with a pot tied about his neck.

c13.s2.24

The pot occurs in both accounts; this fact strengthens the probability that this feature of the story has some basis of fact. We are reminded of the potter’s shop in which Makkhali Gosāla died, and also that Dravidian Ājīvika ascetics seem to have been in the habit of performing fatal penance in large funerary urns (*tāḷi*).³

c13.s2.25

³ V. infra, pp. 111-12.

c13.s2.26

Other incidents in the stories of Pūraṇa’s death remind us of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*’s account of the death of Gosāla. Both events take place in Sāvatthi, both follow a contest at which miraculous powers are displayed, and both take place in an atmosphere of great excitement and tension among the ascetic communities. The great storm which preceded Pūraṇa’s death suggests the Last Great Storm Cloud, one of the eight finalities declared by Gosāla in his last illness.⁴ Pūraṇa’s frantic flight from the scene of the contest and his violent thirst may be parallelled by the delirium of Gosāla, when he bathed in muddy water used for mixing the potter’s clay.⁵ Mango stones occur in both stories.⁶ The strange figure of the prostitute in the *Divyāvadāna* version of the story tenuously suggests Hālāhalā the potter-woman, for it would seem, in the light of the numerous references to the licentious conduct of the early Ājīvikas,⁷ that the author of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* intended to insinuate that her relations with Gosāla were closer than those of a hospitable lay disciple.

c13.s2.27

⁴ V. supra, p. 68.

c13.s2.28

⁵ V. supra, p. 62.

c13.s2.29

⁶ V. supra, pp. 61-64.

c13.s2.30

⁷ V. infra, pp. 123 ff.

c13.s2.31

Probably certain elements of the story of Gosāla’s death have found their way, in a corrupt form, into the Buddhist story of Pūraṇa’s suicide. If this be the case the credibility of the former story is strengthened without by any means invalidating the latter. We may provisionally accept the historicity of the suicide of Pūraṇa at Sāvatthi, at the same time recognizing that the details of both versions of the story are unreliable.

c13.s2.32

The event is said to have taken place during the reigns of King Bimbisāra of Magadha and Pasenadi of Kosala. Rockhill, basing his view on the Tibetan version, believes that it occurred in the sixteenth year of the Buddha’s ministry.¹ This date seems definitely too early. As Malalasekera has pointed out,² it would exclude the possibility of King Ajātasattu visiting Pūraṇa,³ since the former could have been only a small child at the time of the death of the latter. There are other weighty objections to Rockhill’s figure. Buddha’s ministry lasted forty-four years. If we retain 483 B.C. as the date of his *nirvāṇa*,⁴ on Rockhill’s theory Pūraṇa’s suicide must have occurred *c.* 511 B.C. But, on the basis of our synchronisms,⁵ and of the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*’s statement that Gosāla’s ministry lasted for sixteen years,⁶ the latter’s ministry must have commenced *c.* 501 B.C., or ten years after Pūraṇa’s death. This invalidates the strong Buddhist tradition that the ministries of the six heretical teachers were contemporary, and renders it quite impossible that Pūraṇa could have been in any way subordinate to Makkhali Gosāla.

c13.s2.33

¹ *The Life of the Buddha*, p. 79.

c13.s2.34

² *DPPN.*, s.v. *Pūraṇa*.

c13.s2.35

³ V. supra, pp. 11–12.

c13.s2.36

⁴ V. supra, p. 74, n. 1.

c13.s2.37

⁵ V. supra, p. 74.

c13.s2.38

⁶ V. supra, p. 32.

c13.s2.39

We suggest that Pūraṇa’s death took place towards the end of the reigns of Bimbisāra and Pasenadi; thus it must have occurred at least nine or ten years before that of the Buddha, on the basis of the Sinhalese Chronicle,⁷ and eight years or more before that of Makkhali, on the basis of our previous calculations.⁸ The Jaina statement that Pūraṇa died in the eleventh year of Mahāvīra’s asceticism⁹ is not unplausible. It would place the event in the year *c.* 500–499 B.C., immediately after Makkhali Gosāla’s claim to enlightenment. This does not invalidate the framework of the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*, wherein King Ajātasattu states that he had sought guidance from Pūraṇa as well as from the other five heretics, since he may well have visited Pūraṇa before his usurpation of the throne of Magadha. This date for Pūraṇa’s death does, however, somewhat lessen the probability that he was a follower of Makkhali Gosāla. That he died in the first or second year of Makkhali’s *jina*-hood, after what seems to have been a long ascetic career, indicates that he was Makkhali’s senior. But it is not impossible for an older teacher to respect a considerably younger man as his spiritual superior, and a comparatively young man may acquire a reputation of great sanctity. Despite Pūraṇa’s probable seniority to Makkhali our conclusion is by no means invalidated.

c13.s2.40

⁷ V. supra, p. 73, n. 2.

c13.s2.41

⁸ V. supra, p. 74.

c13.s2.42

⁹ V. supra, p. 83.

c13.s2.43

We may tentatively reconstruct the relations of the two prophets as follows :—Pūraṇa, a heretical leader of long standing, maintaining a fatalistic doctrine with tendencies to antinomianism, came in contact with Makkhali Gosāla, a younger teacher with doctrines much the same as his own, but with a more successful appeal to the public. Recognizing his eclipse, he admitted the superiority of the new teacher, and accepted the sixfold classification of men, which placed Makkhali Gosāla and his forerunners Nanda Vaccha and Kisa Saṅkicca in the highest category.¹ Soon after this he decided that his star had set, and ended his own life.

c13.s2.44

¹ V. supra, pp. 27 ff.

c13.s2.45

A passing reference to an Āpūraṇa the son of Kaśyapa is to be found in the *Mahābhārata*, where the word occurs in the enumeration of the names of *nāgas* inhabiting the subterranean city of Bhogavatī.² This is probably a coincidence, but it is not wholly impossible that the name found its way into the catalogue through an early editor who had heard of Pūraṇa ; on this hypothesis the extra syllable prefixed to the name might be accounted for by the necessity of avoiding an iambic cadence, which would otherwise occur throughout the *pāda*.

c13.s2.46

² *Nāgānām eka-vaṃsānāṃ yathā-śreṣṭhaṃ tu me śṛṇu*, 8 . . .

Pakudha Kaccāyana

c13.s3.1

The relations of this ascetic teacher to the later Ājīvikas are less clear than those of Pūraṇa Kassapa, but there is evidence to show that he too had some influence on the finished doctrine of the sect. We have already seen that he is praised with Makkhali Pūraṇa and Nigaṇṭha in a significant verse of the Saṃyutta Nikāya.¹

c13.s3.2

¹ V supra, p. 80 and infra, p. 217.

c13.s3.3

His doctrine, according to the Sāmañña-phala Sutta, was one of seven eternal and immutable elements, earth, water, fire, air, life, joy, and sorrow.² The Majjhima Nikāya³ incorporates with this doctrine part of Makkhali Gosāla's fatalist creed, and one of the Chinese versions of the Sāmañña-phala Sutta makes of Pakudha a determinist.⁴ His characteristic teaching is, however, a very primitive atomism, perhaps the earliest of Indian atomic theories.⁵

c13.s3.4

² D. i, 56.

c13.s3.5

³ ii, 243.

c13.s3.6

⁴ Walser, op. cit., p. 142.

c13.s3.7

⁵ Basham, History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas, pp. 269–70.

c13.s3.8

As we hope to establish in our second part, the Southern Ājīvikas held a theory of elements very similar to that of Pakudha. The three chief Tamil sources, Maṇimēkalai,⁶ Nīlakēci,⁷ and Civañāṉa-cittiyār,⁸ all declare that, according to Ājīvika doctrine, there are five immutable atomic elements (aṇu or poruḷ): earth, air, water, fire, and life (uyir or cīvam). Maṇimēkalai, however, the oldest of these sources, adds "but joy and sorrow, these too are atoms".⁹ Nīlakēci leaves the total of the elements at five, but Civañāṉa-cittiyār states, "Our Lord has declared to us the seven which we must consider, including these two which are joined with them, namely good and evil."¹⁰ This is surely the seven-element theory of Pakudha Kaccāyana, with the more moral categories puṇya and pāpa substituted for the hedonistic sukha and duḥkha.

c13.s3.9

⁶ xxvii, 163.

c13.s3.10

⁷ 113. V. infra, pp. 263–65.

c13.s3.11

⁸ Nīl. vv, 674–5. V. infra, p. 265.

c13.s3.12

⁹ CÑC., ed. Mudaliyar, p. 256, v. 2. V. infra, pp. 265–66.

c13.s3.13

¹⁰ Inpam um tuṉpam um ivaiy um aṇu-v eṉa, Maṇi xxvii, 163. V. infra, p. 263.

c13.s3.14

A further point in which Pakudha suggests the conduct of the Ājīvikas of later times is to be found in Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Sāmañña-phala Sutta. His brief remarks on Makkhali Gosāla and Pūraṇa Kassapa have already been discussed,¹ and certainly do not give us reason to accept his statements on Pakudha without question. For the names of Makkhali and Pūraṇa Buddhaghosa supplies fantastic and derogatory derivations, but in the case of Pakudha he contents himself with stating that he avoided cold water. Even after excretion he did not perform a ritual ablution, unless he obtained hot water or rice-gruel (kañjiya). To cross a stream, Buddhaghosa continues, was a breach of his vows, for which he atoned by making a mound of sand.² The kañji and the mound of sand suggest practices of the Ājīvikas. Some southern Ājīvika ascetics seem to have used kañji as their regular food,³ while the heap of sand is parallelled by a heap of red powder, which was part of the religious paraphernalia of an Ājīvika ascetic mentioned in the Jātaka.⁴ These points of contact are admittedly very slight, but they tend to strengthen the conclusion derived from the similarity of Pakudha’s doctrines to those of the later Ājīvikas, that he and his followers had some hand in the development of the sect.

c13.s3.15

¹¹ Puṇṇiya-pāvam eṉṉum iraṇṭiṉ um poruṭ' avaittē-y eṉṉiya-v iv arriṉ ōtum ē' eṉa-v eṉkaḷ ōtu naṉṉiya-v oruvaṉ kūrum. CÑC., p. 266, v. 10.

c13.s3.16

¹ V. supra, pp. 37, 82-83.

c13.s3.17

² Sīt'-udaka-paṭikkhitto esa. Vaccam katvā pi udakakiccam na karoti, unhodakam vā kañjiyam vā labhitvā karoti. Nadim vā magg'-odakam vā atikkamma, ‘sīlam me bhinnan’ ti vālika-thūpam katvā sīlam adhiṭṭhāya gacchati. Sum. Vil., i, p. 144.

c13.s3.18

³ IA, xli, pp. 88-9. V. infra, p. 204.

c13.s3.19

⁴ V. infra, p. 113.

c13.s3.20

About Pakudha’s life and works we have no certain information. Dr. Malalasekera states that his followers did not hold him in high esteem, and that he did not lay claim to full enlightenment,⁵ but the references on which he bases his statement ⁶ repeat the same phrases for each of the six heretical leaders, and therefore do not carry conviction. Elsewhere the six are referred to as being held in great respect,⁷ and Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta and Makkhali Gosāla certainly seem to have laid claim to full enlightenment, although in the passages referred to they, along with the four other heretics, are said not to have done so.

c13.s3.21

⁵ DPPN., s.v. Pakudha.

c13.s3.22

⁶ Majjh. i, 240; ii, 4; Sam. i, 68.

c13.s3.23

⁷ V. supra, p. 11.

c13.s3.24

Dr. Barua ⁸ has equated Pakudha (called Kakudha in Buddhist Sanskrit texts) with Kabandhin Kātyāyana, one of the questioners of the sage Pippalāda in the Praśna Upaniṣad. He believes that the names Kakudha and Kabandhin, which both indicate that their owner was a humpback, are equivalent. There are no further points of contact, however. The *Upaniṣad* merely states that Kabandhin asked Pippalāda whence all beings came,¹ and received the reply that they were produced by Prajāpati from matter (*rayi*) and breath (*prāṇa*).² If the equivalence be accepted, it probably implies that Pakudha or Kakudha was the senior of the Buddha and of the other heretics, and that he was closer to the main current of Indian philosophy than were Makkhali and Pūraṇa.

c13.s3.25

⁸ Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, p. 281.

c13.s3.26

¹ Kuto ha va imāḥ prajāḥ prajāyanta? *Praśna*, Poona edn., p. 3.

c13.s3.27

² Śaṅkara interprets these terms as Soma and Agni. Op. cit., p. 4.

c13.s3.28

In any case we may infer that Pakudha was less influential than were either of the two ascetics we have previously considered. In the Jaina texts Makkhali Gosāla appears as a real human being; Pūraṇa Kassapa emerges as a personality in the two accounts of his suicide; Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta was the founder of an enduring sect; and the materialist Ajita Kesakambalī seems to have been singled out by the Buddha for scathing condemnation.³ On the other hand the two remaining members of the group of six heretics, Pakudha Kaccāyana the atomist and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta the agnostic, are never more than shadowy lay figures, nowhere individualized, not worthy of a special mention apart from their fellow ascetic leaders. We may therefore conclude that they made but a slight impression upon contemporary religious life.

c13.s3.29

³ V. supra, p. 55.

Linked texts (16)