Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15: Chapter VII. The Early Ājīvika Community (II)

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. The Early Ājīvika Community (II)

Begging and Dietary Practices

c15.s1.1

While it is certain that Ājīvika ascetics normally begged their food, like their Buddhist and Jaina counterparts, the sources speak with two voices on Ājīvika begging practices and dietary vows, just as they do on the ascetic customs of the sect.

c15.s1.2

The most detailed description of the begging customs of naked mendicants is contained in the *Mahāsaccaka Sutta* of the *Majjhima Nikāya*. In it the Buddha asks the *nigaṇṭha* Saccaka Aggivesana how the Ājīvikas maintain themselves. He replies that " the *acelakas*, Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca, and Makkhali Gosāla ", are men of loose habits, who lick their hands (after eating). They do not obey when one says to them " Come Sir! " or " Stay Sir! " They do not accept food brought to them, or food specially cooked for them, nor do they accept invitations to dine. They do not eat food from the mouth of a pot or pan, nor on the threshold, nor among faggots or pestles. They do not accept food from two people eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing mother, or from a woman (who has recently been ?) *in coitu*. They will not take gleanings, nor accept food if a dog is standing near or if flies are buzzing round it. They will not take fish, meat, spirits, wine, or other strong drink. They are one-house men, taking one mouthful, two-house men taking two mouthfuls, or seven-house men, taking seven mouthfuls. They live on one saucer (of food daily), or on two, or on seven. They take one meal every day, or every two days or every seven. So they exist (even), eating food at fortnightly intervals.¹

c15.s1.3

¹ *Majjh. i, p. 238. The paraphrase is somewhat expanded and adapted on the basis of Chalmers' translation. The original text is: *... r (Papañca Sūdanī ii, pp. 43 ff.). The text runs: ... do Vaccho, Kiso Saṅkicco, Makkhali Gosālo, ete hi bho Gotama acelakā muttācārā hatth'-āpalekhanā na ehibhadantikā na tiṭṭhabhadantikā, na abhihaṭam, na uddissakaṭam

c15.s1.4

When the Buddha asks Aggivesana how these ascetics survived on so meagre a diet the latter replies that they ate enormous meals in secret.

c15.s1.5

This passage seems to give a convincing picture of the begging habits of Makkhali Gosāla and his two shadowy predecessors, who are named with him in the text; it might be inferred that it also applies to the community which he established. But its reliability, as applying to the Ājīvika order, is questionable. In another passage of the *Majjhima*¹ the same words are put into the mouth of the Buddha himself, when he describes his own ascetic conduct before his enlightenment. In fact the ascetics here described do not seem to be members of the organized Ājīvika community, despite the inclusion of the name of Makkhali Gosāla; the description of ascetic begging practice applies to the wide class of *acelakas*, or naked ascetics, which class seems to have included not only organized Ājīvikas, but free-lance Ājīvikas and *nirgranthas* or Jainas, as well as independent ascetics and members of the smaller mushroom communities of the time. Some of the practices referred to may have been followed by Makkhali Gosāla’s Ājīvikas, but there is no reason to believe that they followed all of them.

c15.s1.6

¹ *JDL.* II, p. 48.

c15.s1.7

Dr. Barua² has pointed out the parallel between the series one-house men (*ekāgārikā*), two-house men (*dvāgārikā*), and seven-house men (*sattāgārikā*), in the above passage, and that in the *Aupapātika Sūtra* already quoted,³ describing the seven types of Ājīvika mendicant. These include *dugharantariyā*, *tigharantariyā*, and *sattagharantariyā*, and on the strength of this similarity Barua has suggested that the two passages may have a common source in an Ājīvika text.

c15.s1.8

² V. supra, p. 111.

c15.s1.9

The parallel is not very striking. The *dugharantariya*, who *na nimantanaṃ sādiyanti. Te na kumbhī-mukhā paṭigaṇhanti, na kaḷopimukhā paṭigaṇhanti, na eḷakamantaram, na daṇḍamantaram, na musalamantaram, na pāyamānāya, na purisantara-aṭṭhito hoti, na yattha makkhikā i na suraṃ na merayaṃ na thusodakam pipanti. Te ekāgārikā vā honti ekālopikā, dvāgārikā vā honti dvālopikā, sattāgārikā honti sattālopikā. Ekissa pi dattiyā yāpenti, dvīhi pi dattīhi yāpenti, sattahi pi dattīhi yāpenti. Ekādhikam pi āhāraṃ āhārenti, dvīhikam pi āhāraṃ āhārenti, sattādhikam pi āhāraṃ āhārenti, iti evarūpam addhamāsikam pi pariyāya-unuyuttā viharanti.*

c15.s1.10

on his begging round misses two houses and calls at every third, is probably not the same person as the *dvāgārika* of the *Majjhima* passage, who, on the obvious interpretation which is confirmed by Buddhaghosa, confines his begging to two patrons only. The long *Majjhima* list makes no reference to the *uppalabeṇṭiyā*, the *vijju-antariyā*, or the *uṭṭiyā-samaṇā* of the *Aupapātika*.

c15.s1.11

The statement of the *Majjhima* passage above quoted, that the Ājīvikas do not accept invitations (to meals) is particularly suspect, for the *Vinaya*¹ tells of a relative of King Bimbisāra who had become an Ājīvika monk and who persuaded the King to invite all heretical communities to dine in turn, his own, we may presume, being included. A few pages further on² we find the Buddhist *saṅgha* provided with a superfluity of food and inviting ascetics of other communities to come and partake of it; on this occasion Ājīvikas seem to have made good use of the invitation. The *Arthaśāstra*³ finally shakes our faith in the applicability of the *Majjhima* passage to the organized Ājīvika community, by stating that Ājīvikas may not be invited to *śrāddha* feasts; the ban would have been unnecessary if cases had not occurred in which Ājīvikas did attend such functions.

c15.s1.12

¹ *Vin.* iv, p. 74. V. infra, p. 136.

c15.s1.13

² *Vin.* iv, p. 91. V. infra, pp. 136–37.

c15.s1.14

³ *Arthaśāstra* iii, 20, p. 199. V. infra, p. 161.

c15.s1.15

Barua, however, takes the passage as applicable to the followers of Makkhali Gosāla. "An Ājīvika," he writes, "never incurred the guilt of obeying another's command. He refused to accept food which had been specially prepared for him. He did not accept food from people when they were eating, lest they should go short or be disturbed. He did not accept food collected in time of drought. . . . He did not accept food where a dog was standing by or flies were swarming round lest they lose a meal. He did not eat fish or meat, nor use intoxicants."⁴ We cannot agree with Barua that such rigid conduct was demanded of the Ājīvika, in view of the numerous references which tell a different story. The passage in the *Majjhima* on which he bases his statement must clearly contain a catalogue of the habits of non-Buddhist mendicants of all types, and cannot have applied *in toto* to the Ājīvikas.

c15.s1.16

⁴ *Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy*, pp. 167–8.

c15.s1.17

Hoernle, in his study of the Ājīvikas,¹ has interpreted the phrase *hatth’-āpalekhana* in this crucial passage to imply that the Ājīvika monk had no begging-bowl, but received his alms of sticky rice direct into his hand. This statement is open to the criticism that Gosāla himself is depicted in the *Uvāsaga Dasāo* as carrying a begging-bowl (*bhaṇḍaga*).² Further, the *Sūrakṛtāṅga* has a remarkable passage, which, according to the commentator Śīlāṅka, describes Ājīvikas or Digambaras, wherein they are stigmatized for eating out of vessels, presumably those of householders.³

c15.s1.18

¹ *ERE.* i, p. 265.

c15.s1.19

² V. supra, p. 52.

c15.s1.20

³ *Sū. kr.* i, 3, 3, 12, fol. 91. *Tubbhe bhuñjaha pāesu.*

c15.s1.21

Both in this passage and in the dialogue of Adda and Gosāla in the same book,⁴ the Ājīvika is accused of being willing to eat what is specially prepared, and thus the lie is given to another item of the Pāli list.⁵ In fact, if the Buddhist thought that the fantastic dietary rules of the *acelakas* useless, or even ridiculous, to the Jaina the conduct of the Ājīvika was little better than that of a householder, lax in the extreme. Gosāla is also said to have disagreed with the pious Adda on the question of the propriety of the ascetic’s drinking cold water, eating seeds, and having intercourse with women. The earlier *Sūrakṛtāṅga* passage, which Śīlāṅka applies to the Ājīvikas, records yet another practice in which the heterodox ascetic did not come up to Jaina standards of behaviour. The unnamed victim of Jaina condemnation was accused of begging food on behalf of sick members of the community and of taking it to them,⁶ whereas the Jaina mendicant was not allowed to take more than he required for his own use. The Ājīvikas are accused of “wavering between two ways of life” (*duppakkham c’eva sevaha*), a taunt similar to that levelled by an unnamed Ājīvika at the Buddha, whom he called a " shaven householder " (*muṇḍa-gahapatika*).¹

c15.s1.22

⁴ *Sū. kr.* ii, 6, fol. 388 ff. V. supra, pp. 53–54, 114.

c15.s1.23

⁵ This according to Jacobi’s interpretation (*Gaina Sūtras SBE.* xlv, pp. 267, 441). The phrases are “. . . *bhuñjaha* . . . *tam uddissādi jam kaḍam* (*Sū. kr.* i, 3, 3, 12, fol. 91), and *āhāyakammam* . . . *paḍisevamāṇā* (*Sū. kr.* ii, 6, 8, fol. 390). Both verses are very obscure. Jacobi’s first interpretation is based on Śīlāṅka. In the second case Śīlāṅka’s brief comment (. . . *ādhākamma* . . .) is as ambiguous as the text.

c15.s1.24

⁶ *Sambaddha-samakappā u, annamannesu mucchiyā* *Piṇḍavāyam gilāṇassa, jam sāreha dalāha ya.* *Sū. kr.* i, 3, 3, 9, fol. 90.

c15.s1.25

¹ *Vin.* iv, p. 91. V. infra, p. 137.

c15.s1.26

One minor rule of Ājīvika begging practice is that recorded by Jiṇapaha Sūri, already noted in another context.² His *Vihimaggapavā* states that the ascetic followers of Gosāla did not beg food of their female relations, because Gosāla himself was once disappointed at not receiving alms, presumably from his own kin.

c15.s1.27

² V. supra, p. 54.

c15.s1.28

Our conclusion on the begging and dietary habits of the Ājīvikas must be that in general they were somewhat less lax than those of the Buddhists and less strict than those of the Jainas. Indeed if a passage in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* ³ is to be believed they even went so far as to permit the eating of animal food. " This is laid down in the Ājīvika rule, that all beings whose (capacity for) enjoyment is unimpaired obtain their food by killing, cutting, cleaving, lopping, amputating, and attacking." It is noteworthy, however, that the same passage mentions the names of twelve Ājīvika laymen whose lives were led on the principles of strict *ahiṃsā* approved by Jainism, and who were destined for reincarnation in heaven.

c15.s1.29

³ *Ājīviya-samayassa ṇaṃ ayaṃ atthe paṇṇatte: akkhīṇa-paḍibhoīṇo savva-sattā se hantā chettā bhettā lumpittā vilumpittā uddavaittā āhāram āharenti.* Bh. Sū. viii, sū. 329, fol. 369.

c15.s1.30

The *Vāyu Purāṇa*, in a cryptic passage, refers to the Ājīvikas as using wine and meat, among other things, in their religious ceremonies.⁴ This indicates that they were not averse to eating animal food, at least on religious occasions. Yet *Nīlakēci* states that the silence of Maṛkali is due to his solicitude for the lives of animalcules. " If he did not remain silent, by his speech he would destroy. He is of such a nature that he checks himself, otherwise he would be enmeshed in illusion."⁵ The commentator Vāmana Muni explains as: " . . . by speaking he would destroy several living beings as with a sword . . . and, becoming sinful, he would be reborn in *saṃsāra*, be deluded with passions, and perish indeed."⁶ *Nīlakēci*, in common with the two other chief Tamil sources, appears to attempt a logical and unbiassed outline of Ājīvika teaching before refuting it, and therefore seems to carry more weight than the two northern sources, which suggest that the Ājīvikas were addicted to meat-eating. We therefore conclude that the Ājīvikas, like the Buddhists and Jainas, were believers in *ahiṃsā*, and usually vegetarians. It is not impossible that, as the *Vāyu Purāṇa* indicates, some of their number practised magical rites which involved the shedding of blood. But it is unlikely that the Ājīvikas were unaffected by the doctrines of *ahiṃsā* which prevailed among other non-Brāhmaṇical sects. It is probable that in the period of the formation of these sects no community practised vegetarianism as strictly as in later times; both the Buddha¹ and Mahāvīra² are said to have eaten meat at least once in the course of their careers as religious leaders.

c15.s1.31

⁴ *Vāyu*, 69, 286-7. V. infra, pp. 162 ff.

c15.s1.32

⁵ *Ceṛiyāt' uraippiṉ eriṉtāṉ; aṉaiya-viyalp' ākutaṉāṉ mariṉtāṉ raṭumār rakatte mayaṉki.* Nil. v, 672.

c15.s1.33

⁶ *Ivaṉ pēccāl araiyuṉtu aṉēkam pirāṉi marikkum ātaṉiṉ vāḷiṭṭu-c cilarai veṭṭiṉāṉ pōlum pāpam uṭaiyaṉ ātalil saṃsārattu-p piṟantu rākātiyāṉ mayaṉki-k kēḷtāṉ ē.*

c15.s1.34

¹ *Dīgha* ii, p. 127.

c15.s1.35

² *V.* supra, p. 67.

Accusations of Worldliness and Immorality

c15.s2.1

By the Buddhist the Ājīvika ascetic was accused of secret indulgence in rich foods behind a cloak of false austerity, while by the Jaina he was often condemned for his unchastity.

c15.s2.2

The first accusation is best expressed in the *Mahāsaccaka Sutta*, part of which has been quoted above.³ When the ascetic Saccaka has completed his description of the extravagant fasts of the *acelakas* the Buddha asks him: "How can they survive on such fare?" To this Saccaka replies: "From time to time they eat excellent food, spice it with excellent spices, and drink excellent beverages. Thus they increase their bodily strength and grow fat."⁴

c15.s2.3

³ *V.* supra, pp. 118–19.

c15.s2.4

⁴ *App’ ekadā bho Gotama uḷārāni uḷārāni khādaniyāni khādanti, . . . bhojanāni bhuñjanti, . . . sāyaniyāni sāyanti, pānāni pivanti; te imehi kāyam balam gāhenti nāma brūhenti nāma, medenti nāma.* Majjh. i, p. 238.

c15.s2.5

As has been shown, the passage seems intended to apply to extreme ascetics generally, and not to the Ājīvikas alone. It has already been made clear that Ājīvika practices were not as strict as the *Mahāsaccaka Sutta* suggests. The story of the princely Ājīvika mendicant, who persuaded the Buddha to relax his rule forbidding common meals in the order, and invited him and his *bhikkhus* to a meal provided by his relative King Bimbisāra,¹ suggests a freedom of discipline and an absence of austerity which is not to be disproved by passages of vague application such as that in *Mahāsaccaka Sutta*. The latest available reference to Ājīvikas, that of Vaidyanātha Dīkṣita, the fifteenth century astrologer, confirms their reputation for voracity; the author states that the Ājīvika is devoted to food (*aśana-paro*) and loquacious (*jalpako*).²

c15.s2.6

¹ *Vinaya*, i, 190 and infra, n. 190.

c15.s2.7

² *Ibid.*, p. 184.

c15.s2.8

If the Buddhist insisted on the hypocrisy of the Ājīvika in the matter of diet, the Jaina accused him of sexual laxity. The accusation is explicit in the dialogue between Gosāla and Adda in the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, wherein the former is made to declare that, according to his *dhamma*, the ascetic incurs no sin from women.³ The same book also speaks of indifferent ascetics, the slaves of women, who maintain that there is no more sin in intercourse with women than in squeezing a boil.⁴ These, however, are identified by Śīlāṅka not with the Ājīvikas but with the Buddhists or Śaivites. The *Sūtrakṛtāṅga* again levels the same accusation at unnamed ascetics, whom Śīlāṅka identifies with the followers of Gosāla, and who appear to maintain the doctrine of *maṇḍala-mokṣa*, a characteristic feature of the creed of the Dravidian Ājīvikas.⁵ “A wise man,” states the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, “should consider that these (heretics) do not live a life of chastity.”⁶ The nature of the relations of Gosāla with his patron Hālāhalā the potter woman are nowhere explicitly stated, but it seems to be implied that they were not honest.

c15.s2.9

³ *Sū. kr.*, ii, 6, 18; *cf.* pp. 53–54, 114, 121.

c15.s2.10

⁴ *Sū. kr.*, ii, 6, 20: *n'atthi itthīsu doso uunnu kau sia*. *Ibid.*, i, 3, 4, 10, fol. 97. *lejja muhuttagam, Evam vinnavanitthīsu doso uunnu kau sia*.

c15.s2.11

⁵ V. infra, pp. 257 ff.

c15.s2.12

⁶ *Sū. kr.* i, 1, 3, 13, fol. 45. *Etāṇuvīti medhāvī bambhacere ṇa te vase*.

c15.s2.13

A possible Buddhist reference to Ājīvika sexual laxity occurs in the *Vinaya*.⁷ At Sāvatthi a certain layman gave a building (*uddositam*) to the community of *bhikkhunīs*. On his death his two sons divided the property, and the elder, an unscrupulous rogue, laid claim to the nunnery. After failing to obtain its return by legal means he tried to drive the *bhikkhunīs* out by threats.

c15.s2.14

⁷ *Vin. iv*, pp. 223 ff.

c15.s2.15

Their elder, Thullanandā, informed the officials (mahāmattā), who punished the young man. His final stratagem was to import a community of Ājīvika ascetics, to whom he gave a settlement (Ājīvika-seyyam) in the vicinity, with the instructions to entice the bhikkhunīs (etā bhikkhuniyo accāvadatha). The significance of the word accāvadatha is uncertain, and it is possible that the Ājīvikas were merely told to revile the nuns. This is the interpretation of Buddhaghosa.¹ But the bhikkhunīs had already been reviled to no effect, and it might be expected that a different stratagem would be tried in this case; therefore the alternative meaning of the word seems more appropriate here. With this uncertain exception the Buddhists do not depict the Ājīvikas as sexually lax, but only as devoted to useless and hypocritical fasts and penances.

c15.s2.16

¹ Atikkamitvā vadatha akkosathā ti. Samantapāsādikā iv, p. 906.

c15.s2.17

Turning to later references we find but faint suggestions of Ājīvika licentiousness. The Ājīvika teacher in Nilakēci, however, seems aware of the accusation, and tells his interlocutor not to be censorious because his community is addicted to cuvai, an ambiguous word which may mean sensual pleasure.² A Canarese poem, dated 1180, and inscribed near the doorway of the Gommateśvara temple at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa includes a verse on the "other guides who, while exhorting their ascetics against the evils of false penance, allow themselves to be closely associated with women".³ The use of the word āptar to indicate the false guides, suggests that the Jaina author had the Ājīvikas in mind, since the term seems to have been a popular designation of Maṛkali among the Dravidian Ājīvikas.⁴ The Rājataraṅgiṇī speaks of an ascetic, who may have been an Ājīvika, living in the hut of a prostitute.⁵ These hints suggest that the small Ājīvika community retained some of its bad reputation; but as its influence waned the accusations seem to have been pressed home less fiercely, and in many cases to have been forgotten. With the exception of the doubtful phrase in Nilakēci, the three chief Tamil sources make no mention of Ājīvika immorality.

c15.s2.18

² Cuvai-y ē-y uṭaiyamm eṇa nī-y ikaḷ al. Nil. 678. The commentary equates cuvai with sarasam, which is equally ambiguous.

c15.s2.19

³ Epi. Carn. ii (2nd edn.), No. 234. The translation is that of Dr. Narasimhachar.

c15.s2.20

⁴ V. supra, p. 79.

c15.s2.21

⁵ V. infra, p. 209.

c15.s2.22

The long Jaina tradition that the Ājīvikas were not celibate cannot be wholly without foundation. It is clear that many ancient Indian ascetics, including the proto-Jainas who followed Pārśva,¹ took no vows of chastity. The legendary ṛṣis shared their austerities with their wives, and must have had later counterparts. Their own religious literature shows that the Jaina monks themselves were not always as strict in the maintenance of chastity as the founder of their order might have desired, and that occasional lapses were often looked upon as mere peccadilloes.² The dissolute religious mendicants of the farce *Matta-vilāsa* are types of a class which must have been very widespread in Ancient India. We are not justified in believing, on the strength of Jaina evidence, that the Ājīvikas were necessarily as debauched and degenerate as the characters in that play however. That the Ājīvika order was capable of survival for two thousand years, that it produced scriptures, and a philosophy and logic of its own, is proof that some at least of its members were educated, thoughtful, and sincere. The references to stern Ājīvika austerities and to the Ājīvika practice of *ahiṃsā* in the texts which we have quoted, indicate that, however relaxed their discipline may have been in some respects, the Ājīvikas generally pursued their religious quest by the traditional Indian paths of pain, fasting, and gentleness.

c15.s2.23

¹ Hoernle, *ERE*. i, p. 264, basing his view on *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra* xxiii, 11 ff.

c15.s2.24

² *Sū. kr.* iv, 2, and Jain, *Life in Ancient India According to the Jaina Canon*, pp. 199–202.

c15.s2.25

Whether celibate or not, it would seem that the Ājīvika mendicant was by no means continuously engaged in austerities. Besides those describing his begging and ascetic practices, and the more reprehensible activities attributed to him, there are a number of references which show the Ājīvika monk playing a comparatively active part in everyday life. The *Majjhima*,³ for instance, tells of Pāṇḍuputta, the son of a wagon-maker,⁴ an Ājīvika ascetic of Rājagaha. This man was seen by the *bhikkhu* Mahāmoggalāna, standing in a wagon-maker's shop, and intently watching the making of a felloe. When the wheelwright had finished his work the Ājīvika is said to have cried out with joy at the excellence of the workmanship. His asceticism had by no means destroyed his interest in his hereditary trade, and he may be taken as a type of his fellow Ājīvikas.

c15.s2.26

³ *Majjh.* i, p. 31.

c15.s2.27

⁴ *Purāṇa-yānakāra-putta* suggests a repairer of old carts, perhaps a village wheelwright.

c15.s2.28

The Ājīvika seems frequently to have been an astrologer or fortune-teller. *Nakkhatta Jātaka*¹ tells the story of an Ājīvika regularly dependent on a certain family for support (*kulūpaka*), who was consulted about the most propitious date for a wedding after the preliminary preparations had already been made, and who caused it to be postponed in his annoyance. A similar *kulūpaga* Ājīvika was attached to the court of King Bindusāra, and correctly prophesied Aśoka’s greatness.² The ascetics of both sexes who appear so frequently in later literature from the *Arthaśāstra* onwards as spies, confidential agents, matchmakers, and fortune-tellers, may have included Ājīvikas among their number.

c15.s2.29

¹ *Jāt.* i, p. 257.

c15.s2.30

² *Mahāvamsa* Comm. i, p. 190. *Divyāvadāna* pp. 370 ff. V. infra, pp. 146-47.

The Final Penance

c15.s3.1

Whatever corruptions and laxities may have existed in the Ājīvika order, the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* clearly shows that the Ājīvika ascetic sometimes put an end to his own life by austerities of the extremest type.

c15.s3.2

It will be remembered that, after the magic duel between Mahāvīra and Gosāla, the former told his followers that the latter was mortally afflicted and was returning to Hālāhalā’s pottery to die, but that before his death he would proclaim the eight finalities (*carimāim*), the four drinks (*pāṇagāim*), and the four substitutes for drink (*apāṇagāim*).³ These Mahāvīra described in cryptic language, which is only partially elucidated by the commentator Abhayadeva.⁴ The eight finalities have already been enumerated⁵ and seem to be portents of very rare occurrence. The four drinks and the four substitutes for drink, on the other hand, are apparently a series of rules regulating the final penance of the Ājīvika ascetic.

c15.s3.3

³ V. supra, p. 62.

c15.s3.4

⁴ *Bh. Sū.* xv, sū. 554, fol. 679. Comm. fol. 684.

c15.s3.5

⁵ V. supra, p. 68.

c15.s3.6

Mahāvīra, after describing the eight finalities, declared that Gosāla, to excuse his own unseemly conduct, would also institute the new doctrine of the pāṇagāim and apāṇagāim. The former, which Abhayadeva defines as “kinds of liquid suitable to an ascetic”,¹ are :

c15.s3.7

¹ *Jalaviśeṣā vrati-yogyāḥ.*

c15.s3.8

1. *Gopuṭṭhaë*, “that which has fallen from a cow’s back.” ²
2. *Hattha-maddiyaë*, “that which is soiled by the hand, such as the water used in a pottery.” ³
3. *Āyavatattaë*, “that heated by the sun,” and
4. *Silāpabbaṭṭhaë*, “that fallen from a rock.”

c15.s3.9

² *Go-pṛṣṭhād yat patitam.*

c15.s3.10

³ *Hastena mardditam mṛditam malitam ity arthaḥ, (sic) yath’ aitad ev’ ātanyanik’-odakam.*

c15.s3.11

The substitutes for drink are :—

c15.s3.12

1. *Thāla-pāṇaë*, “taking a metal pot (*sthāla*), as though a drink to soothe fever—by implication holding an earthenware pot (*bhājana*) also.” ⁴
2. *Tayā-pāṇaë*, holding an unripe mango or other fruit in the mouth without drinking the juice.
3. *Simbali-pāṇaë*, holding unripe *simbali*-beans or certain other seeds in the mouth in the same way, and
4. *Suddha-pāṇaë*, the penance of the “pure drink”.

c15.s3.13

⁴ *Sthāla-pāṇam... sthāla-pāṇkam, kaṇmam pakareti. Je ṇam te deve ṇi... si sarīragamsi agaṇi-kāë sambhavati, se ṇam saëṇam... Taō pacchā sijjhati... antam kareti. Se ttam suddhapaṇaë. Bh. Su. xv, sū. 554, fol. 680.*

c15.s3.14

The last item of the second list is described in the text of the *Sūtra*. For six months the ascetic eats only pure food (*suddha-khāimāim*); for two months he lies on the ground, for two on wood, and for two on *darbha* grass. On the last night of these six months two mighty gods, Punnabhadda and Māṇibhadda will appear, and with their cool hands will soothe his fevered body. “He who submits to (the caresses of) those gods will further the work of serpenthood. If he does not submit, a mass of fire arises in his body, and he burns up his body with his own heat. Then he is saved and makes an end. That is the pure drink.” ⁵

c15.s3.15

The six months’ penance here described appears to have something in common with the fatal penance of the Jainas, and shows conclusively that the Ājīvika ascetic of greatest sanctity, like the Jaina, and less regularly the Hindu, cheerfully died a lingering death for the sake of his spiritual welfare.

c15.s3.16

Of the eight items in the lists of *pāṇagāim* and *apāṇagāim* the last, the penance of the "pure drink", seems to include the other seven. Despite Abhayadeva's definition,¹ the four drinkables in the first list cannot have been the usual beverages of the Ājīvika, for in his argument with Adda Gosāla maintains that there is no sin for the ascetic in drinking cold water.² By this he must have implied water from any normal source of supply. In most respects Ājīvika dietary practice seems to have been less strict than that of the Jainas, and it cannot have included the insistence on the drinking of dirty or stale water only.

c15.s3.17

¹ V. supra, p. 128, n. 1.

c15.s3.18

² V. supra, p. 121.

c15.s3.19

The *suddhapāṇaë* penance seems to have differed from the fatal penance of the Jainas in that it involved not death from starvation, but from thirst. The ascetic finding his physical powers waning would enter on the six months' course of austerities. At some stage in his penance he would refrain from all drinks but the four *pāṇagāim*. At the final stage he would only allow himself the four *apāṇagāim*. This interpretation is substantially that of Barua,³ but we cannot wholly accept his explanation. "The practices of the four drinkables and four substitutes . . . appertain to three successive stages of religious suicide. . . . In the first stage the dying Ājīvika was permitted to drink something; . . . in the second stage he was permitted not to drink anything but to use some substitutes (*sic*) . . . while in the third he had to forego (*sic*) even that. . . . The Ājīvika had to lie down for six months, lying successively for two months at a time on the bare earth, on wooden planks, and on *darbha* grass. This indicates that the longest period for the penance was six months, each stage having been gone through in two months. . . ." Apparently Dr. Barua implies that the Ājīvika ascetic was capable of surviving for four months in a tropical climate without drinking. If this interpretation be correct it is surprising that a creed capable of imparting such superhuman endurance to its members should have become extinct.

c15.s3.20

³ *JDL.* ii, p. 53.

c15.s3.21

In the text it is nowhere explicitly stated that the *pāṇagāim* and *apāṇagāim* are in any way connected with the first two stages of the *suddhapāṇaë* penance; in fact they are not said to be connected with it at all, except in so far as all eight were ordained by Gosāla in his last delirium. If, as seems probable, the first seven items of the lists are all linked with the *suddhapāṇaë*, the stage of the *apāṇagāïm* can only have commenced within a few days of the end.

c15.s3.22

Dr. Barua further believes that Gosāla himself practised the penance. “Mahāvīra’s prophecy,” he writes, “that Gosāla . . . would die . . . in seven days . . . is in conflict with the statement that eight new practices of the Ājīvikas emerged from Gosāla’s personal acts. Considering that the first seven practices . . . are traceable in his acts in the delirium of fever, a presumption is apt to arise that the eighth practice, called the Pure Drink, also arose from his personal example. . . . If the Ājīvikas observed this practice in blind imitation of their master, as I believe they did, Mahāvīra’s prophecy can be reconciled with his statement about Gosāla’s death only by the supposition that he did not actually die in seven days but survived the attack of fever for a period of six months, during which he practised the penance of Pure Drink in the manner above described.” 1

c15.s3.23

Dr. Barua’s contention, on comparison with the text, seems to be based on inadequate premises. Gosāla is not explicitly stated to have practised any of the *pāṇagāïm* and *apāṇagāïm*. Of the four drinks in the former list the first, third, and fourth are not mentioned as having been used in any way by Gosāla. The second “water soiled by the hand, such as that used in a pottery”, he did not drink, according to the letter of the text, but merely used to sprinkle his limbs.² The four substitutes for drink the only one suggested by Gosāla’s delirious conduct is the second, holding an unripe mango in the mouth. The *Sūtra* states only that Gosāla held a mango stone in his hand,³ and although the commentator suggests that he sucked it to allay his fever this is not expressly stated in the text, which makes no mention of Gosāla’s lying on the ground, on wood, or on *darbha* grass. In fact the resemblances between the details of the Ājīvika fatal penance and those of Gosāla’s last delirium are by no means close. Perhaps, as the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* suggests, some features of the former were modelled on the latter. But that Gosāla himself died by this means cannot be demonstrated.

c15.s3.24

¹ JDL. ii, pp. 36-7.

c15.s3.25

² *Bh. Sū.* xv, sū. 553, fol. 679.

c15.s3.26

³ . . . . . .

c15.s3.27

Certain elements in the penance are significant. The *gopuṭṭhaë* (which both Hoernle and Barua interpret, perhaps unnecessarily, as "that which is excreted by the cow"¹), occurs first in the list of the legitimate drinks of the dying ascetic; his last bed is the sacred *darbha* grass. These two features strongly indicate that the Ājīvika was by no means unaffected by orthodox ideas. We have already found one faint indication that some Ājīvikas may have been closer to the main current than their Buddhist and Jaina contemporaries,² and the inclusion of the cow and the *darbha* in the account of the Ājīvika fatal penance confirms our views. The strange divinities Punnabhadda and Māṇibhadda raise questions which are more appropriate to the second part of this work.³ The fire which consumes the body of the emancipated ascetic, and the mysterious reference to "serpenthood", suggest a magical or tantric element in Ājīvikism, of which we have found traces elsewhere.⁴

c15.s3.28

¹ *ERE*. i, p. 263; *JDL*. ii, p. 53.

c15.s3.29

² V. supra, p. 93.

c15.s3.30

³ V. infra, pp. 272-73.

c15.s3.31

⁴ V. supra, pp. 112-13.

Ājīvika Laymen

c15.s4.1

The early Ājīvika community, both religious and lay, was drawn from all sections of the population. Like Buddhism and Jainism, Ājīvikism seems to have made no stipulations about the status of its converts, and apparently did not encourage caste distinctions.

c15.s4.2

At the bottom of the scale of castes is Pāṇḍuputta, the son of a wagon-maker.⁵ This trade, by the time of the Buddha, had lost the respect in which it was held in Ṛg-vedic times and had become a despised occupation.⁶ Yet Pāṇḍuputta appears to have been a full member of the order, and well respected.

c15.s4.3

⁵ V. supra, pp. 126-27.

c15.s4.4

⁶ *CHI*. i, p. 207.

c15.s4.5

At the other extreme is the *kulūpaga* Ājīvika, Janasāna, the adviser to the chief queen of King Bindusāra, who, according to the *Mahāvaṃsa* commentary, came of brāhmaṇa stock.⁷

c15.s4.6

⁷ V. supra, p. 127, and infra, pp. 146 ff.

c15.s4.7

As an example of the numerous Ājīvikas who must have joined the Order from the military class we have a kinsman (ñāti sālohito) of King Bimbisāra, who, even after becoming an Ājīvika monk, appears to have continued his friendly relations with the King.¹ The epic tradition of fatalism, of which the Mahābhārata presents many indications,² suggests that Ājīvikism made a special appeal to the warrior element of the population.

c15.s4.8

¹ Vin. iv, p. 74. V. supra, p. 120, and infra, p. 136.

c15.s4.9

² V. supra, p. 7; and infra, p. 218.

c15.s4.10

The greatest support for Ājīvikism seems to have come from the industrial and mercantile classes. The Vinaya mentions one unnamed mahāmatta who was an adherent of the Ājīvikas,³ but with this and the other exceptions mentioned above all those Ājīvikas referred to in the Buddhist and Jaina texts whose caste affiliations are specified were of the trading classes.

c15.s4.11

³ Vin. ii, p. 165. V. infra, p. 136.

c15.s4.12

Ājīvika layfolk seem to have been specially numerous at Sāvatthi, but there is evidence that they also existed elsewhere. Among the Sāvatthi Ājīvika lay-adherents were the faithful potter-women Hālāhalā, Gosāla’s host for sixteen years ⁴; Ayampula, the rich and earnest disciple who visited Gosāla by night during his last delirium ⁵; and the wealthy seṭṭhi Migāra who, when he began to favour the Buddha, was besieged in his home by a body of ascetics who are called indiscriminately naggasamaṇa, acelaka, and ājīvika.⁶ We have also a reference to a family of lay Ājīvikas visiting Sāvatthi from a village at some distance from the capital,⁷ from which we may infer that the sect gained converts in the surrounding countryside.

c15.s4.13

⁴ V. supra, p. 32, etc.

c15.s4.14

⁵ V. supra, pp. 62–63.

c15.s4.15

⁶ Dhp. Comm. i, pp. 390 ff. V. supra, p. 97; and infra, p. 138.

c15.s4.16

⁷ V. infra, p. 135.

c15.s4.17

At Polāsapura the Ājīvika community is said to have had its own meeting place at the time of Gosāla’s visit,⁸ so it may be inferred that the town was an early centre of the organized Ājīvika sect. The only local Ājīvika whose name is mentioned is Saddālaputta, who, like Hālāhalā, was a potter. He is described as being very wealthy, the owner of five hundred potters’ workshops as well as a krore of hoarded gold and another krore lent out at interest.⁹ Although these figures are no doubt exaggerated, and Saddālaputta himself may be a fictitious character, his story is significant both for the study of the economics of Ancient India and for that of the Ājīvikas.

c15.s4.18

⁸ V. supra, p. 115.

c15.s4.19

⁹ Uv. Das. vii, 180 ff.

c15.s4.20

Polāsapura, the town in which he lived, is of doubtful location. The only evidence of its whereabouts is given by the statement that its king was Jiyasattu, but this king's name occurs so frequently in the Jaina scriptures, and in so many and varied contexts, that it is impossible to attach it to any historical figure.¹

c15.s4.21

¹ Hoernle (*Uv. Das.* vol. ii, p. 3, n. 4) suggested that Jiyasattu was Mahāvīra's maternal uncle Ceḍaga, the chieftain of Vesālī. This view is based on the statement of the text that Jiyasattu was king of Vāṇiyagāma, believed by Hoernle to be Vesālī. (*Uv. Das.* i, 3.) But the same text states that he was also king of Campā, Bāṇārasī, Ālabhiyā, Kampillapura, and Sāvatthī, and Ceḍaga can hardly have controlled these towns, most of which were in Kosala. It is more probable that the name was a title, held by a local ruler.

c15.s4.22

Although the organized Ājīvika sect seems to have been strongest in Kosala, communities of Ājīvika laymen must have existed beyond the bounds of that kingdom at a very early period. The *Aṅguttara* mentions the conversion by the *bhikkhu* Ānanda of "a certain disciple of the Ājīvikas, a householder",² at Kosambi, but no information of interest is given about this single witness to the presence of Ājīvikism in the kingdom of Vamsa. In Magadha we have evidence of the presence of early Ājīvikas of the pre-Makkhali loosely organized class, such as Upaka³; Pāṇḍuputta⁴ is a further example of a Magadhan Ājīvika, whose relations with Makkhali Gosāla's order are uncertain. Barua⁵ would include among wealthy Ājīvika supporters one Kuṇḍakoliya of Kampilla, a *seṭṭhi* even wealthier than Saddālaputta.⁶ But this would appear to be an error, for throughout the relevant passage of the *Uvāsaga Dasāo* Kuṇḍakoliya is referred to as a "servant of the *Samaṇa*" (i.e. of Mahāvīra), and actually succeeds in converting the Ājīvika *deva* who tries to shake his faith in his master.

c15.s4.23

² *Aṅg.* i, p. 217.

c15.s4.24

³ V. supra, pp. 94–95.

c15.s4.25

⁴ V. supra, pp. 126–27.

c15.s4.26

⁵ *JDL.* ii, p. 38.

c15.s4.27

⁶ *Uv. Das.* vi, 163 ff.

c15.s4.28

The above evidence indicates that at an early period communities of Ājīvika laymen were to be found in all the great cities of the Ganges basin. While they included members of all classes the sect was especially patronized by the rising mercantile groups. That two potters, Hālāhalā and Saddālaputta should be included among the few names which are mentioned, that Gosāla should have used a potter's workshop at his headquarters, and that pots were employed in Ājīvika penances,¹ together suggest that the sect was in some way specially connected with the potter caste, and made a special appeal to its members.

c15.s4.29

¹ V. supra, pp. 111-12.

c15.s4.30

There are few indications of the social status of Ājīvika laymen in later centuries. One intimation is, however, contained in the Tamil classic *Cilappatikāram*. Here the father of the heroine Kaṇṇaki, who, on her death, gave away all his wealth and entered the Ājīvika order,² is described as a *mānāykan*.³ This word Dikshitar translates as "sea-captain",⁴ but his translation may be questioned, and the word may here have the more usual meaning of "general". In either case the reference shows that the Dravidian Ājīvikas received the support of men of substance. The imposition of the Ājīvika tax in South India⁵ indicates a certain degree of affluence among those subject to it.

c15.s4.31

² *Cilappatikāram* ed. Aiyar xxvii, 84-102.

c15.s4.32

³ Ibid., i, 23.

c15.s4.33

⁴ " *Śilappadikāram*," p. 88.

c15.s4.34

⁵ V. infra, p. 195.

c15.s4.35

The social status of the remnants of the Northern Ājīvika community seems to have fallen at an early date. By the time of the final composition of the *Vāyu Purāṇa*, which may perhaps be related to the Gupta period,⁶ the Ājīvikas seem to have possessed the humble status of *śūdras*, or even of outcastes. They are described in the *Purāṇa* as being of mixed *varṇa*, a class of workmen, worshipping *piśācas*; but they still seem to be comparatively wealthy, and employ much ill-gotten wealth on their religious ceremonies.⁷

c15.s4.36

⁶ Patil, *Cultural History from the Vāyu Purāṇa*, p. 16.

c15.s4.37

⁷ *Vāyu*, 69, 285-6. V. infra, pp. 162 ff.

Relations between Ājīvikas and Buddhists

c15.s5.1

The Pāli texts contain many strictures upon Ājīvika ascetics, and they are generally described as being foolish, repulsive, and hypocritical. In the *Majjhima* the Buddha is said to have told the wanderer Vacchagotta that no Ājīvika had ever "made an end of sorrow" on his death, and that in the ninety-one *kalpas* of his previous births he remembered but one Ājīvika who had been reborn in heaven.¹ The latter was a believer in *karma* and in the efficiency of works, and therefore was not an orthodox follower of Makkhali Gosāla.

c15.s5.2

¹ *Ito kho so Vaccha ekanavuto kappo yam aham anussarāmi, n’ ābhijānāmi kañci Ājīvakam saggūpagam aññatra ekena, so p’ āsi kamma-vādī kiriya-vādī.* Majjh. i, p. 483.

c15.s5.3

In the *Aṅguttara* the Buddha accuses the Ājīvikas, together with numerous other classes of ascetics, of committing all the five sins, and declares that they are all destined for the infernal regions.²

c15.s5.4

² *Aṅg.* iii, p. 276. [The text mentions the Ājīvikas in connection with the five sins and the infernal regions, and contrasts them with the believer in the efficacy of works who is reborn in the heaven of Anantamānasa, and thus seems to imply that this heaven is attainable by Ājīvikas of the highest sanctity (*Papañca Sūdanī* to Majjh. 11, vol. ii, pp. 9–10. V. infra, p. 261).]

c15.s5.5

Ājīvika laymen are depicted as cruel and deceitful. The lay Ājīvikas from a distant village who bought the daughter of a Sāvatthi prostitute as a wife for their son, through the intervention of the *bhikkhu* Udāyi, are said to have treated her like a slave, and would allow neither her mother nor the matchmaker to see her.³

c15.s5.6

³ *Vin.* iii, pp. 135 ff.

c15.s5.7

Two references in the *Vinaya* indicate the shame and annoyance felt by Buddhist monks at being mistaken for Ājīvikas. The first incident is said to have taken place when a group of *bhikkhus* was robbed of their robes on the road from Sāketa to Sāvatthi. Not being permitted to beg fresh robes of householders, they entered the city of Sāvatthi naked, and the citizens wondered at the handsome naked Ājīvikas whom they saw talking with the clothed *bhikkhus*.⁴ The second incident also took place at Sāvatthi, at the Jetavana, when the Buddha allowed his monks to remove their robes and expose their bodies to a cooling shower of rain. At the time the pious laywoman Visākhā sent her maid to invite them to a meal, but when she saw the naked *bhikkhus* the girl returned to her mistress and declared that the *ārāma* was no longer occupied by Buddhist monks but by Ājīvikas.⁵ As a result of both these incidents the Buddha amended the rules of the order, to avoid any danger of similar misapprehensions in future.

c15.s5.8

⁴ Ibid. iii, pp. 212 ff.

c15.s5.9

⁵ Ibid. i, pp. 290 ff.

c15.s5.10

Yet the attitude of dislike and distrust indicated by these stories is only one side of the picture. There is evidence to show that, like Aśoka 250 years later, many laymen of the Buddha’s time, while bestowing special favour on one sect, were the friends and patrons of all. We have seen that King Bimbisāra fed the Buddhist saṅgha and other religious communities, at the behest of one of his kinsmen who had become an Ājīvika ascetic.¹ A further Vinaya passage tells of a mahāmatta who was an Ājīvika disciple, and who also gave a meal to the Buddhist order, which was graced by the Buddha himself. On this occasion the Master is said to have reprimanded the bhikkhu Upananda for his impoliteness in coming late to the feast.² The Vinaya also mentions a Buddhist layman who visited a park in the company of a number of Ājīvikas³; and we have seen that the bhikkhu Udāyi was not too proud to act as matchmaker on behalf of Ājīvika laymen.⁴

c15.s5.11

¹ Ibid. iv, p. 74. V. supra, pp. 120, 131-32.

c15.s5.12

² Ibid. ii, p. 165.

c15.s5.13

³ Ibid. ii, p. 130. V. infra, p. 137.

c15.s5.14

⁴ V. supra, p. 135.

c15.s5.15

A very significant indication of friendly relations between the two sects is the story of the announcement of the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa to the elder Mahākassapa. At the head of a band of 500 bhikkhus he was resting by the roadside on the way from Pāvā to Kusinārā, when there passed by a certain Ājīvika, who came from Kusinārā holding a mandārava flower in his hand; this indicated that some great and auspicious event had taken place, for the mandārava grows in the worlds of the gods, and only rains upon earth on such occasions. The monks asked the Ājīvika if he knew their leader, and it was he who told them that Gotama had passed to nirvāṇa seven days previously.⁵ In the Vinaya story the Ājīvika’s words are very respectfully spoken. He addresses Mahākassapa by the title āvuso, and implicitly admits the greatness of the Buddha by referring to him as parinibbuta instead of mata.⁶ He, too, is addressed by the courteous title āvuso.

c15.s5.16

⁵ Vin. ii, p. 284.

c15.s5.17

⁶ Am, āvuso, jānāmi. Ajja satt’-āha-parinibbuto samaṇo Gotamo. Tato me idam mandārava-puppham gahitam.

c15.s5.18

Not only did Ājīvikas feed Buddhists, but on occasions Buddhists fed Ājīvikas. While at Vesāli the Buddha’s followers [Figure: THE BUDDHA'S PARINIRVĀṆA. (From Foucher, L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique.) On the right an Ājīvika informs Mahākassapa of the Master's death.]

c15.s5.19

found themselves with more food than they required, and gave their surplus to those ascetics who accepted leavings (vighās’-āda). An Ājīvika who had been thus fed by the bhikkhus was later overheard by one of them telling a fellow Ājīvika of the food which he had obtained from the “shaven-headed householder” (muṇḍa-gahapatika), Gotama. The bhikkhus reported the matter to their master, who forbade the distribution of surplus food to mendicants of other orders in future.¹

c15.s5.20

¹ Vin. iv, p. 91.

c15.s5.21

This story may be the traditional explanation of a hardening and worsening of relations between the two sects, which perhaps took place in the Buddha’s lifetime. Its implication is that the breach arose from the discourteous conduct of the Ājīvikas. Perhaps the latter, with their sterner discipline, began to ridicule the easy-going Buddhists, and the growth of mutual recriminations and of sarcastic attacks on both sides, led to the ostracism of the Ājīvikas by the Buddhist order. The incident of the Ājīvika who declared the Buddha to be a “shaven householder” is not the only such case recorded in Buddhist literature. The Vinaya also mentions a company of Ājīvika laymen who mocked a group of bhikkhus in an unnamed park, because the latter were carrying sunshades. The Ājīvikas are said to have derided the bhikkhus before the Buddhist laymen to whom they were talking, saying that they looked like officials of the treasury (gaṇaka-mahāmattā), and were “bhikkhus who were not bhikkhus” (bhikkhū na bhikkhū).²

c15.s5.22

² Ibid. ii, pp. 130-1.

c15.s5.23

It is clear from these examples that the Buddhists were very sensitive to these accusations of laxity in discipline. No doubt many of the simpler lay folk of the time were inclined to estimate the sanctity of a religious order by the severity of its discipline, and to bestow their alms accordingly. It may be inferred that the Ājīvikas were equally sensitive to the Buddhist accusations of hypocrisy. They are said to have expelled the repulsive Jambuka from their community for fear of the scandal that the Buddhist saṅgha would make of his conduct if it became known.³

c15.s5.24

³ V. supra, p. 97.

c15.s5.25

With each sect attempting to win members from the others animosity must inevitably have arisen. The violence of the competition for supporters is evident from the story of Migāra, the rich banker of Sāvatthi of whom we have heard before in more than one context.¹ Migāra first appears on the scene as an earnest devotee of the naked ascetics, but his loss of faith begins when his newly married daughter-in-law, the Buddhist laywoman Visākhā, refuses to pay reverence to the 500 mendicants whom he entertains, declaring that they are devoid of modesty and shame, and unworthy of respect. When Migāra agrees to entertain the Buddhist *saṅgha* the Ājīvikas besiege his home, in a frantic attempt to prevent their rivals from obtaining so wealthy and influential a convert.

c15.s5.26

¹ *Dham. Comm.*, pp. 299 ff. V. supra, pp. 97, 132.

c15.s5.27

That of Migāra is not the only example of conversions from Ājīvikism to Buddhism. The ascetics Upaka and Jambuka and the unnamed Ājīvika layman of Kosambi have already been mentioned.² The *kulūpaga brāhmaṇa* Ājīvika of the Mauryan court, Janasāna, is also said to have been converted to Buddhism.³ The wanderer Sandaka, who seems to have owed loose allegiance to Makkhali Gosāla, is another case in point.⁴ That strong animosity, aroused by rivalry in conversion, continued among the less tolerant members of both communities may be inferred from Aśoka’s pleas for mutual forbearance and respect among the sects of his time.⁵

c15.s5.28

² V. supra, pp. 94 f., 97, 133.

c15.s5.29

³ *Ibid.*, p. 97.

c15.s5.30

⁴ *Majjh.* i, p. 513. V. supra, pp. 18–19.

c15.s5.31

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 97.

Relations between Ājīvikas and Jainas

c15.s6.1

That Ājīvikas and Jainas were originally on good terms and indeed closely related, is evident from the Jaina tradition of the early friendship and association of Gosāla and Mahāvīra.⁶ The near relationship of the two sects is confirmed by the Buddhist tradition associating Makkhali Gosāla and Pūraṇa Kassapa, the two chief Ājīvika leaders, with Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, or Mahāvīra, as members of the group of six heretics with whom the early Buddhists waged a continuous war of words. The frequent confusion of the terms *nirgrantha* and *ājīvika* in the Buddhist texts⁷ also points in the same direction. That the confusion persisted in some Buddhist circles even as late as post-Mauryan times is shown by a story in the *Divyāvadāna*, in which [Figure: DISCOMFITURE OF A NAKED ASCETIC. (From Foucher, *L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique.*) This is believed by Foucher (op. cit., i, p. 532) to represent Visākhā defying a naked ascetic. The old man on the terrace is perhaps Migāra.]

c15.s6.2

⁶ V. supra, pp. 39 ff.

c15.s6.3

⁷ V. supra, pp. 96–97.

c15.s6.5

a nirgrantha layman is said to have defiled an image or picture (*pratimā*) of the Buddha, as a result of which desecration the Emperor Aśoka ordered the destruction of all the *ājīvikas* in the region.¹ Here the terms seem plainly intended to be taken synonymously, in striking contrast to Aśoka’s own inscription, where the two sects are sharply distinguished.²

c15.s6.6

¹ *Divyāvadāna*, p. 427. V. infra, pp. 147–48.

c15.s6.7

² V. infra, p. 148.

c15.s6.8

Our belief in the early and close relationship of the two sects is strengthened by similarities in practice and doctrine, such as in the custom of ascetic nudity, and by the Ājīvika *abhijātis*, or six classes of mankind.³ The points in which these resemble and differ from the *leśyās* of the Jainas will be considered in our second part.⁴ Meanwhile the classification is of interest for the intimations which it gives of the attitude of the early Ājīvikas to their rivals among the heterodox communities. The highest, or supremely white group (*parama-sukk’-abhijāti*) contains only Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca, and Makkhali Gosāla. Below these is the white category (*sukk’-abhijāti*), containing Ājīvikas and Ājīvinīs. Next comes the green (*halidda*), which holds “the householder clad in white robes, the disciple of the *acelakas*”, to which Buddhaghosa adds: “he (i.e. Makkhali) makes the *nigaṇṭha* (laymen), who give him his necessities, superior (to the *nigaṇṭha* ascetics of the red class).”⁵ Fourth from the top is the red class (*lohita*), “*nigaṇṭhas* who wear a single garment”⁶; while in the lowest place but one is the blue (*nīla*), “*bhikkhus* who live as thieves, and believers in *karma* and (the efficiency of) works.”⁷ Finally in the lowest and most debased and reprobate class, the black (*kaṇh’-abhijāti*), are found thieves, hunters, and others who live by violence.

c15.s6.9

³ *Aṅg.* iii, 383; *Sum. Vil.* i, p. 162. V. supra, pp. 20, 27, 109, and infra, pp. 243ff.

c15.s6.10

⁴ V. infra, p. 245.

c15.s6.11

⁵ *Gihī odāta-vasanā acelaka-sāvaka* (*Aṅg.* iii, 384). *Ayam attano paccaya-dāyake nigaṇṭhe hi pi jeṭṭhakatare karoti* (*Sum. Vil.* i, 162). Our interpretation of *jeṭṭhakatare* is admittedly tentative. It seems that Buddhaghosa is using the word very loosely.

First 174 of 203 passages. Read on

Linked texts (31)