Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15.s6: Relations between Ājīvikas and Jainas

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c15.s6

Language
English

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.

c15.s6.12

⁶ *Aṅg.* iii, 384.

c15.s6.13

⁷ *Aṅg.* iii, 384; *Sum. Vil.* i, 162 (*Dīgha* iii, p. 273) seems to accept this interpretation (v. supra, p. 109).

c15.s6.14

⁷ *Bhikkhū kaṇḍaka-vuttikā ye vā pan’ aññe pi keci kamma-vādā kiriya-vādā* (*Aṅg.* iii, 383). Our interpretation differs from Hare’s. V. infra, p. 243.

c15.s6.15

The classification of the *abhijātis* indicates that the Ājīvika regarded the Jaina as second to himself in sanctity. The Buddhist bhikkhu was but a poor third, and the orthodox brāhmaṇa was presumably included with the wretched kurūra-kammanta in the black category, although, as has been shown,¹ there are certain indications that early Ājīvika practice and doctrine were closer to orthodoxy in some particulars than were the practices and doctrines of Buddhism and Jainism.

c15.s6.16

¹ V. supra, p. 131.

c15.s6.17

The Bhagavatī Sūtra’s account of Gosāla’s death indicates that for most of the period of the ministry of the Ājīvika leader relations between Jaina and Ājīvika were not unfriendly. Ānanda, Mahāvīra’s disciple, to whom the long story of the merchants was told,² seems to have treated Gosāla with great respect before Mahāvīra forbade all association with him. Further evidence that Jaina strictures on Ājīvika morals did not always imply intolerant social relations is given by the story of Saddālaputta, wherein Gosāla is said to have praised Mahāvīra in the usual Jaina terms.³ The Bhagavatī Sūtra⁴ names twelve Ājīvika laymen, including one Ayampala or Ayambula, probably Ayampula of Sāvatthi,⁵ who are held up to the Jainas as models of virtue and non-violence. They are surprisingly described as “worshippers of the arhants and the gods”, or “worshippers of the arhants as gods”,⁶ although Abhayadeva the commentator states that the false arhant Gosāla is here meant. The Buddha declared that he knew of only one Ājīvika to reach heaven,⁷ but the Jaina Aupapātika Sūtra⁸ assures Ājīvika ascetics of various types⁹ of a divinity of twelve sāgarovamāim in duration in the heaven called Accuakappa. The promise is repeated in the Bhagavatī Sūtra.¹⁰ The same rebirth was forecast for Gosāla by Mahāvīra, although in his case it was to be followed by a long succession of births in less pleasant conditions.¹¹

c15.s6.18

² V. supra, p. 59.

c15.s6.19

³ V. supra, pp. 52–53.

c15.s6.20

⁴ Bh. Sū. viii, sū. 329, fol. 369. V. supra, p. 122.

c15.s6.21

⁵ V. supra, p. 62.

c15.s6.22

⁶ Aupapātika Sūtra, sū. 56.

c15.s6.23

⁷ Majjhima Nikāya, i, 483.

c15.s6.24

⁸ Sū. 56.

c15.s6.25

⁹ Including the *teu-kāiya*, *vāu-kāiya*, etc.

c15.s6.26

¹⁰ xv, 1.

c15.s6.27

¹¹ Bhagavatī Sūtra, xv, 1; cf. Uvāsagadasāo, p. 142.

c15.s6.28

¹⁰ Bh. Sū. i, sū. 26.

c15.s6.29

Thus the early relations of the two sects seem to have been of a friendly and mutually respectful type, broken only from time to time by quarrels over doctrine and discipline. We have already suggested that relations between Ājīvikas and Buddhists worsened owing to strenuous competition in conversion. With the Jainas the same worsening may have taken place, and for the same reason. The *Uvāsaga Dasāo* speaks of two conversions from Ājīvikism, the first that of Saddālaputta by Mahāvīra,¹ and the second that of an unnamed Ājīvika *deva* by the Jaina layman Kuṇḍakoliya of Kampilla.² The *Bhagavatī* states that many of Gosāla’s adherents deserted him after the magic duel at Sāvatthi. We have no mention of counter-conversions from Jainism and Buddhism to Ājīvikism, but if the lost Ājīvika scriptures were restored to us records of these too would doubtless be forthcoming. Dr. Barua has ingeniously suggested that the *Bhagavatī* account of the killing of the two Jaina disciples Savvāṇubhūti and Suṇakkhatta³ conceals their defection from Jainism to the cause of Gosāla. In view of the clear statement of the text this must remain an unproved and unacceptable hypothesis. More probable is Barua’s further suggestion, that Mahāvīra’s ban on all contact between his followers and those of Gosāla may represent measures taken by the early Jaina community to counteract large-scale defections to the Ājīvikas.⁴

c15.s6.30

¹ *Uv. Das.* vii; v. supra, p. 52.

c15.s6.31

² *Ibid.* vi; v. supra, p. 133.

c15.s6.32

³ V. supra, p. 66.

c15.s6.33

⁴ *JDL.* ii, pp. 34–5. Barua’s view that Suṇakkhatta of the *Bhagavatī* is identical with Suṇakkhatta the Licchavi of *Majjh.* i, pp. 68 ff. is quite unprovable. The two characters have nothing in common except their names.

Linked texts (9)