Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c13.s1: Pūraṇa Kassapa

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c13.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (10)