History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15.s1: Begging and Dietary Practices

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15.s1

Language: English

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.

Linked texts (11)

Mahāvibhaṅga — Pāli
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mahāparinibbānasutta — Pāli
Mahāsaccakasutta — Pāli
Vāyupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Nīlakēci — Tamil
Sūyagaḍa — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Uvavāiya — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Vinayapiṭaka — Pāli
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli
Viyāhapannatti — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit