Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c14.s5: Ājīvika Asceticism

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c14.s5

Language
English

Ājīvika Asceticism

c14.s5.1

Whatever relaxation of discipline may have taken place in private, the early Ājīvika performed penance of the most rigorous nature in public. Significant descriptions of his asceticism occur in the Pāli texts, but in reading them it must be borne in mind that some of the penances described may not have been regularly practised by the organized followers of Makkhali Gosāla, but are rather indicative of the activities of the free-lance proto-Ājīvikas.

c14.s5.2

For instance in *Lomahaṃsa Jātaka*¹ it is stated that the Bodhisatta himself had once become an Ājīvika. Naked and solitary, he fled like a deer at the sight of men. He ate refuse, small fish, and dung. In order that his austerities should not be disturbed he took up his abode in the depths of the jungle. In winter he would leave his thicket and spend the night exposed to the bitter wind, returning to the shade as soon as the sun rose. By night he was wet with melted snow (*himodakena*), and by day with the water dripping from the branches of trees. In summer he reversed the process, and was scorched by the sun all day, while at night the thicket shielded him from the cooling breeze.

c14.s5.3

¹ *Jāt.* i, p. 390.

c14.s5.4

This account seems not to represent a typical member of the Ājīvika order, although it is possible that certain solitary hermits were loosely affiliated to it. The figure here described, however, seems to be that of a forest hermit of the most psychopathic type, and the passage is yet another example of the very loose manner in which the term Ājīvika was used in the Pāli texts. It does indicate, however, how closely the word was connected in the popular mind with extreme asceticism.

c14.s5.5

A picture of Ājīvika penances which seems more probably to apply to the regular order is contained in the prologue to *Naṅguṭṭha Jātaka*.² Here it is stated that a company of Ājīvikas was stationed behind the Jetavana at Sāvatthi, and performed false penances (*micchā-tapam*) of various types. These penances included "exerting themselves in a squatting posture" (*ukkuṭika-ppadhāna*), the bat-penance (*vagguli-vata*),³ lying on beds of thorns (*kaṇṭaka-ppasaya*), and the penance of the five fires (*pañca-tapana*). The acts of self-mortification here named seem to be those practised by Indian ascetics of all periods, but we have no reason to believe that they were not also practised by the Ājivika saṅgha. At Sāvatthi Gosāla seems to have made use of a "penance-ground", as well as the pottery in which he regularly resided.¹ It is possible that this adjoined the Jetavana, and that the Ājīvikas described in the Jataka were the train of followers with which Gosāla was usually surrounded.

c14.s5.6

² *Jāt.* i, p. 493.

c14.s5.7

³ Cowell (*The Jātaka* i, p. 307) translates this phrase on the basis of the commentary as "swinging in the air like bats".

c14.s5.8

¹ V. supra, p. 59.

c14.s5.9

The Jaina Aupapātika Sūtra contains a significant list of the types of Ājīvika mendicant.² These include dugharantariyā, who, according to Abhayadeva's commentary, were in the habit of begging food at every third house only; tigharantariyā, who begged at every fourth house; sattagharantariyā, who begged at every eighth house; uppala-beṇṭiyā, who, Abhayadeva explains, under a special vow employed lotus stalks in begging,³ and who perhaps used lotus leaves as begging receptacles; gharasamudāṇiyā, those who begged at every house; vijju-antariyā, who would not go begging when lightning was seen⁴; and finally uṭṭiyā-samaṇā, who, according to Abhayadeva, were ascetics who entered large earthen pots in order to do penance.⁵ It is difficult to provide a satisfactory alternative explanation of the last term, which seems meaningless if interpreted according to the primary meaning of uṣṭrikā (she-camel).

c14.s5.10

² Aupapātika Sūtra, s. 11. Cf. 126.

c14.s5.11

³ ... grāhyatayā bhaikṣatvena yeṣāṁ santi te ...

c14.s5.12

⁴ Vidyut satyam antaram bhikṣu-grahaṇasya yeṣām asti te vidyud-antarikāḥ. Vidyut-sampāte bhikṣāṁ n’ āṭant’ iti bhāv’-ārthaḥ. Abhayadeva to Aupapātika, loc. cit.

c14.s5.13

⁵ Uṣṭrikā mahā-mṛṇmayo bhājana-viśeṣas. Tatra praviṣṭā ye śrāmyanti tapa ... Ibid.

c14.s5.14

For the last item of the list we have partial confirmation from a Tamil source. Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, the fourteenth century commentator on the early Tamil grammar, Tolkāppiyam, quotes as an example an unidentified verse which mentions the existence of ascetics who perform penances in tāḻi, or funerary urns.⁶ Dr. K. R. Srinivasan, who has noticed this reference,⁷ states categorically that these ascetics were Ājīvikas, who, he seems to believe, were identical with Jainas. In fact the text does not give any information on the sectarian affinities of the ascetics in question, but since we know that Ājīvikas were present in the Tamil country, and since this strange system of penance is ascribed to them in the Jaina text, we may assume that the ascetics referred to in the Tamil verse were Ājīvikas.

c14.s5.15

⁶ ... uṇṇāka

c14.s5.16

⁷ ed. Pillai i, p. 182. Ancient India ii, p. J.

c14.s5.17

The *Sthānāṅga Sūtra* gives a further list of Ājīvika ascetic practices, which are said to be severe penances, terrible penances, the abstention from liquids (*rasa*, which the commentator Abhayadeva interprets as ghee, etc.),¹ and indifference to the pleasures of the sense of taste.² Unfortunately we are given no detailed explanation of the distinction between the first and second forms of *tapas*, and the list is only of value as confirmation of the statements of other sources to the effect that, at least in public, the Ājīvikas were given to severe self-mortification.

c14.s5.18

¹ *Ghṛt-ādi-rasa-parityāgaḥ*.

c14.s5.19

² *Tapaḥ . . . uggatave, ghoratave, rasa-nijjūhaṇatā*, *Sthānāṅga* iv, 309.

c14.s5.20

The Ājīvikas' reputation for asceticism apparently reached the Far East. Chinese and Japanese Buddhist Literature classes the *Ashibikas* (i.e. Ājīvikas) with the *Nikendabtras* or Nirgranthas as practising severe penance. "They both hold that the penalty for a sinful life must sooner or later be paid and since it is impossible to escape from it it is better that it be paid as soon as possible so that the life to come may be free for enjoyment. Thus their practices were ascetic—fasting silence immovability and the burying of themselves up to the neck were their expressions of penance."³

c14.s5.21

³ *Sugiura, Hindu Logic as Preserved in China and Japan*, p. 16, quoting *Hyaku-ron So* i, 22. The passage has been noticed by Hoernle (*ERE*. i, p. 269) who, adhering to his own theory, identifies the Ashibikas with the Digambara Jainas.

c14.s5.22

That the Ājīvikas continued to practise severe asceticism at a late period is shown by one of our most recent sources, the Tamil *Civañāṉa-cittiyār*, which speaks of them as prescribing great suffering to all souls (as a necessary means of salvation).⁴

c14.s5.23

⁴ *Pār meṉ maṉṉ uyir evarriṉukkum varunta vēyaraṉkaḷ collum*. *CÑC*. ed. Mudaliyar, p. 255, v. 1.

c14.s5.24

A reference in *Tittira Jātaka*⁵ indicates that the early Ājīvikas performed secret magical rites of a repulsive tantric type. The unfortunate Ājīvika is there said by his prosecutor the tiger to have "removed blood at midnight".⁶ The commentary elucidates this cryptic phrase thus: "*Pupphakam* means blood. . . . He cut off the hands and feet of offenders against the king for his living, took them away, threw them into a room, and let the blood run out from the openings of the wounds; going there at midnight he made a heap of red rice-powder."¹ Francis and Neil, in their translation of this *Jātaka* ignore the commentary, and give:—

c14.s5.25

⁵ *Jāt*. iii, pp. 541-2. V. supra, p. 104.

c14.s5.26

⁶ *Abbhūhitaṃ pupphakaṃ aḍḍharattaṃ*.

c14.s5.27

¹ P u p p h a k a m t i lohitaṃ, idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti; iminā kira jīvikaṃ nissāya rājāparādhikānaṃ hattha-pāde chinditvā te ānetvā sālāyaṃ nipajjāpetvā vaṇa-mukhehi paggharantam lohitaṃ addharatta-samaye tattha gantvā kaṇuka-thupaṃ katvā thapitan ti. I prefer Fausböll's variant reading to that in the text, kuṇḍakadhūmam nāma datvā, which does not make good sense. It is possible that the word te in the commentary refers to the criminals themselves, in which case it seems that the Ājīvika stanched their wounds with rice-powder, but in this case a magical ceremony is also suggested.

c14.s5.28

. . . in midnight fray
wounded, he washed the blood away."²

c14.s5.29

² The Jātaka, vol. iii, p. 322.

c14.s5.30

This is a brilliantly imaginative interpretation, but is by no means consistent with the commentary. Whatever the meaning of the strange phrase in the text, the commentary indicates that the wicked Ājīvika was thought of as performing magical ceremonies. This single reference is not reliably confirmed by other sources, although a significant passage in the *Vāyu Purāṇa* also suggests that the Ājīvikas performed mysterious secret rites.³

c14.s5.31

³ V. infra, pp. 162 ff.

c14.s5.32

Whatever may have been the practices of the primitive solitary Ājīvika in *Lomahaṃsa Jātaka*,⁴ the organized Ājīvika community does not seem to have countenanced the performance of ascetic practices of the most repulsive type. The boy Jambuka, to whom we have already referred,⁵ developed a propensity to nudity and the eating of ordure at a very early age, and for this reason his parents had him initiated into the Ājīvika *saṅgha*. As he was quite satisfied by his repulsive diet he refused to go on the usual begging rounds with his fellow mendicants, who, when they learned of the disgusting behaviour of the boy in their absence, promptly expelled him from the community. The *Dhammapada* commentary gives as their motive for his expulsion the fear that the Buddhist monks might discover Jambuka's evil habits and expose the Ājīvikas to scorn and ridicule. But it seems probable that the Ājīvikas, extremists in asceticism though they were, had definite rules of ascetic conduct, and that their penances were exceeded in repulsiveness by those of some independent ascetics.

c14.s5.33

⁴ V. supra, p. 110.

c14.s5.34

⁵ V. supra, pp. 97, 105-6.

c14.s5.35

That the Ājīvikas lived in communities is clear from this and numerous other references. But it is probable that some Ājīvikas at any rate withdrew themselves from human contacts. Hoernle,¹ on the strength of Weber's paraphrase of the *Paramahaṃsa Upaniṣad*,² has pointed out the existence of two classes of mendicant among the *ekadaṇḍins*, of which the higher, or *paramahaṃsa*, abandoned his loincloth, staff, and begging bowl, and lived absolutely unimpeded by worldly possessions. Some such distinction may have existed among the Ājīvikas, who were sometimes looked upon as a species of the genus *ekadaṇḍin*.³ But we have seen that even Gosāla, although he seems to have been habitually naked, did not discard his begging bowl⁴; and the mendicants described in the *Paramahaṃsa Upaniṣad* are evidently orthodox Hindu ascetics; thus the conclusion is by no means certain.

c14.s5.36

¹ *ERE.* i, p. 260.

c14.s5.37

² *IS.* ii, pp. 174-5.

c14.s5.38

³ V. infra, pp. 169 ff.

c14.s5.39

⁴ V. supra, p. 52.

c14.s5.40

The strange Bodhisatta Ājīvika to whom reference has already been made,⁵ may be such a solitary, although it seems more probable that he was not thought of as being in any way affiliated to the order of Gosāla. A more striking indication of the existence of such solitary ascetics is to be found in the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, in the course of the debate between Gosāla and Adda.⁶ Gosāla attacks Mahāvīra, who, he declares, was formerly a solitary ascetic (*egantacārī samaṇe*), but is now surrounded by disciples. One or other course must be wrong. To this Adda replies that there is no sin in preaching the *dhamma* to others.⁷ Gosāla then changes the subject and maintains that, according to his doctrine, there is no sin for the *egantacārī* in drinking cold water, eating seeds, accepting food specially prepared, or in women.⁸

c14.s5.41

⁵ V. supra, p. 110.

c14.s5.42

⁶ V. supra, p. 53.

c14.s5.43

⁷ *Sū. kr.* ii, 6, vv. 1-5, fols. 388-9.

c14.s5.44

⁸ *Sīodagam sevaī bīyakāyam, āhāyakammam taha itthiyāo. Egantacāriss’ iha amha dhamme, tavassino n’ ābhisameti pāvam.* Ibid., v. 7, fol. 390.

c14.s5.45

We have here a definite indication of lonely wanderers, not gathered in communities, living according to the ascetic rules laid down by Gosāla.

c14.s5.46

The later Dravidian Ājīvikas developed the concept of Maṟkali, whom they confused with Pūraṇa, as remote, motionless, and silent—the Lord who, although he knew all things, did not speak.¹ He appeared and disappeared mysteriously, "like the rainbow, of incomprehensible form, by nature without defect, Pūraṇaṉ, famed for his perfect knowledge."² These passages suggest that the superior grade of Ājīvika monk, the leaders of the *saṅgha*, lived in almost inapproachable solitude, perhaps somewhat relaxing their ascetic discipline, and very occasionally bestowing a theophany upon the lesser members of the community. That "fasting silence and immovability" were among the ascetic practices of the Ājīvikas is confirmed by the Far Eastern sources.³ Yet our authorities speak with two voices. The consensus of the Buddhist and Jaina references seems to indicate that both Makkhali Gosāla and Pūraṇa were often surrounded by crowds of disciples, and freely conversed with their lay supporters.

c14.s5.47

¹ *Aṟintāṉ iṟaivaṉ avaṉ ākutalār ceṟintāṉ* . . . *Nīl.* v, 672.

c14.s5.48

² . . . *terivill-uruvam-* . . . *Ibid.* v, 673.

c14.s5.49

³ V. *supra*, p. 112.

c14.s5.50

THE ĀJĪVIKA *SABHĀ

c14.s5.51

It would appear that the Ājīvikas had regular places for meetings and religious ceremonies. The *Uvāsaga Dasāo*⁴ refers to an *Ājīviya-sabhā* at the town of Polāsapura. When Gosāla visited this town, attended by the *Ājīviya-saṅgha*, he went first to the *sabhā*, where he deposited his begging-bowl (*bhaṇḍaga-nikkhevaṃ kareï*), and from whence he issued, attended by only a few followers, to visit his backsliding lay disciple Saddālaputta.

c14.s5.52

⁴ V. *supra*, p. 52.

c14.s5.53

From this it is evident that, whatever may have been the habits of free-lance Ājīvika ascetics, the organized sect of Makkhali Gosāla was a religious body with a normal corporate and social life, a *saṅgha* in fact, as were the Buddhist and Jaina orders, with a regular meeting place. The use of the word *sabhā* in this connection is striking, since the term seems to imply a building of the type used for royal courts or for folk-moots of the free tribes, and is rarely used to designate a religious edifice. Of the latter usage the Pāli texts seem to present only one example.¹ The word may mean " a public rest house or hostelry ",² and it may therefore be suggested that the Ājīviya-sabhā at Polāsapura was merely a rest house for ascetics of the order. But it seems more appropriate to accept the word in its more usual meaning of " an assembly hall ". Its use suggests that the Ājīvika community employed their meeting-place not only for religious ceremonies but for secular meetings, and was tending, even at this early date, to cut itself off from other communities. In the Dravidian Deccan, at a much later period, it appears with some of the attributes of a caste,³ and it is possible that it began to develop caste characteristics very early. A closely knit corporate life, embracing monk and layman alike, may have arisen as a reaction to the opposition and scorn levelled at the community by other Indian sects, both orthodox and heretical, and the rarity of references to Ājīvikism in later Sanskrit literature may in part be due to the isolation in which the Ājīvika community existed.

c14.s5.54

¹ Dhamma-sabhā, Jāt. vi, p. 333, teste PTS. Dictionary, s.v. sabhā.

c14.s5.55

² PTS. Dictionary, s.v. sabhā. The Dictionary gives only one reference in this sense, to Jāt. i, p. 302.

c14.s5.56

³ V. infra, p. 193.

c14.s5.57

As well as the Ājīvika-sabhā, we read in the Vinaya of an Ājīvika-seyyā, inhabited by Ājīvika ascetics who enticed the Buddhist bhikkhunīs settled near by.⁴ This seems to have been in the nature of a small monastery or vihāra, probably a collection of huts. Further the Bhagavatī Sūtra refers to Gosāla as returning to the pottery of Hālāhalā from the " penance-ground " (āyāvaṇa-bhūmī).⁵ This place, we suggest, was merely an open space on the borders of the city, where ascetics of all types congregated to perform their austerities, and had no specifically Ājīvika connection.

c14.s5.58

⁴ Vin. iv, p. 223. V. infra, pp. 124–25.

c14.s5.59

⁵ V. supra, p. 59.

Linked texts (12)