History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c16.s2: Ājīvikas in Maurya Times
History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c16.s2
- Language
- English
Ājīvikas in Maurya Times
c16.s2.1
It would seem that Ājīvikism spread fairly rapidly beyond the region of its origin. The *Mahāvaṃsa* records that, by the time of the Mauryas, it had found its way to Ceylon, where the king Paṇḍukâbhaya, the grandfather of Aśoka’s contemporary Devānaṃpiya Tissa, built a “house of Ājīvikas” (*Ājīvikānaṃ gehaṃ*) at Anurādhapura.¹
c16.s2.2
¹ *Mahāvaṃsa* x, 101–2.
c16.s2.3
A passage in the *Petavatthu* tells of King Piṅgala of Suraṭṭha, who, two hundred years after the Buddha’s *nibbāna*, left his kingdom in the service of the Mauryas (*Moriyānaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ*).² As he was returning to his capital he was met by a *peta*, who told him that he was the disembodied soul of one who had formerly been a heretic of Suraṭṭha, who had held Ājīvika views. The passage indicates that Ājīvikism may have spread to Gujarāt by this period.
c16.s2.4
² *Petavatthu* iv, 3, 17.
c16.s2.5
Evidence that Aśoka was a friend of the Ājīvika order, and that it flourished during his reign, rests on the very solid basis of his own inscriptions. Literary references also link him with the Ājīvikas. Both the *Divyāvadāna*³ and the *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*⁴ tell of an Ājīvika mendicant attached to the court of King Bindusāra, Aśoka’s father, who correctly prophesied the coming greatness of the Prince. In the first account he is called Piṅgalavats-ājīva, a *parivrājaka*, and seems to have been a court prognosticator. At the invitation of Vindusāra he watches the princes at play, and by various omens he recognizes that Aśoka will become king. As Aśoka is not the favourite prince Piṅgalavatsa dares not tell the King of his prophecy, and when questioned refuses to give a definite answer. But he tells Aśoka’s mother, Queen Subhadrāṅgī, of her son’s coming greatness, and on her advice he leaves the kingdom, lest Vindusāra force an answer from him. On the death of Vindusāra he returns to the Magadhan court.
c16.s2.6
³ *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 370 ff.
c16.s2.7
⁴ *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*, pp. 365 ff.
c16.s2.8
In the *Mahāvaṃsa Commentary*’s version of the story the Ājīvika is a *kulūpaga*, or household ascetic, of the Queen. His name is given as Janasāna, of which there are the variants Jarasona and Jarasāna, and he is said to have been of brāhmaṇa family. The Commentary states that he was very wise, having been born as a python in the days of Buddha Kassapa, and in this form having overheard the discussions of *bhikkhus* well versed in philosophy. He correctly prophesies Aśoka’s future greatness from the Queen’s pregnancy longings; no reason is given for his quitting the court, but by the time of Aśoka's accession, he appears to have abandoned his former patrons. The king is said on one occasion to have asked his mother whether any prophet had forecast his prosperity; the queen replied that Janasāna had done so, whereupon Aśoka sent a deputation with a carriage to bring the Ājīvika to the palace. Janasāna was then residing at an unnamed place a hundred yojanas distant from Pāṭaliputra; on the journey to the capital he met the elder Assagutta, by whom he was converted, and he entered the Buddhist order.
c16.s2.9
The two stories, while differing considerably in important details, including the name of the Ājīvika prophet, seem to have a basis of fact. The very discrepancies in the two accounts suggest that the authors drew their material independently from a widespread tradition which had developed with the passage of time. Such a story seems more probably dependent on a real occurrence than on a monkish fiction. We may therefore believe that Bindusāra kept at his court an Ājīvika fortune-teller who was persona grata to the chief queen. The Divyāvadāna's story of his flight is not altogether convincing; it fits too well into the framework of Vindusāra's hostility to Aśoka and the latter's usurpation of the throne of Magadha to give an impression of authenticity. The account of the conversion of Janasāna in the Mahāvaṃsa Commentary, with its strong flavour of pious edification, is even more suspect. But neither account is intrinsically impossible. Bindusāra's interest in unorthodox philosophy is strikingly attested by a classical reference.¹ We may conclude that, even before the introduction of Aśoka's policy of toleration, Ājīvikas were patronized by the court of Magadha.
c16.s2.10
¹ Athenæus xiv, 67. Quoted CII. i, p. xxxv.
c16.s2.11
The Divyāvadāna gives another much more questionable story of Aśoka's relations with the Ājīvikas.² Aśoka, hearing that a nirgrantha in Puṇḍravardhana had defiled a picture or statue of the Buddha, ordered the destruction of all Ājīvikas in the locality, as a result of which order 18,000 were massacred in a single day. The same crime was later committed by another nirgrantha layman in Pāṭaliputra, in punishment of which the king offered a reward of a dīnāra for the head of every *nirgrantha* brought to him. This second wave of persecution led to the murder of the king’s younger brother, Prince Vitāśoka.
c16.s2.12
² Divyāvadāna, p. 427. V. supra, p. 139.
c16.s2.13
The loose use of the terms *nirgrantha* and *ājīvika* in this story makes it uncertain whether they were intended to apply to the order of Mahāvīra or to that of Makkhali; it may indeed have been intended to refer to both sects indiscriminately. As it stands, the story is quite incredible, in that it makes the apostle of toleration a monster of quite un-Buddhist fanaticism. If it has any significance it is to indicate a tradition of hostility to Ājīvikas and Jainas, which may have occasionally flared up under other monarchs into open persecution. The story suggests that Ājīvikism was specially prevalent at the time in Puṇḍra, a suggestion also conveyed by the Jaina story of Mahāpaüma.¹ The trampling on the image, with its indication of iconoclasm on the part of the anti-Buddhist *nirgrantha-ājīvikas*, is a theme which recurs at a much later date in Kashmīr, in connection with the mysterious naked ascetics employed by King Harṣa.²
c16.s2.14
¹ V supra, pp. 142 ff.
c16.s2.15
² V. infra, pp. 206 ff.
c16.s2.16
The inscriptions of Aśoka give us references which for the first time are completely reliable records of the contemporary influence of the Ājīvika sect. These occur in the Seventh Pillar Edict, and in the dedicatory inscriptions in the Barābar and Nagārjunī caves.
c16.s2.17
The Seventh Pillar Edict³ is found in only one version, on the Delhi-Topra pillar. It was issued in the twenty-seventh year of Aśoka’s consecration, or 237 B.C., according to Hultzsch’s computation. It describes the imperial policy for the propagation of *dharma*, and especially the duties of the officers of public morals (*dharma-mahāmātra*), who, in Hultzsch’s translation, “were ordered . . . to busy themselves with the affairs of the *saṃgha*; likewise others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with the Brāhmaṇas (and) Ājīvikas; others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with the Nirgranthas; others were ordered . . . to busy themselves also with various (other) sects; (thus) different Mahāmātras (are busying themselves) specially with different (congregations).”⁴
c16.s2.18
³ CII. i, pp. 131 ff.
c16.s2.19
⁴ . . . *saṃghathasi pi me kaṭe ime viyāpaṭā hohamti ti, hemeva bābhanesu ā[j]īvikesu pi . . . nigamthesu pi me kaṭe ime viyāpaṭā hohamti nānā . . . e viyāpaṭā hohamti ti paṭivisiṭham paṭivisiṭham tesu tesu [te] . . . mātā*. Ibid., p. 136, ii, 15–16.
c16.s2.20
The absence of any conjunction linking the words *bābhanesu* and *ājīvikesu* has led Bühler to interpret the former as an adjective governing the latter . . . " likewise I have arranged it that they will be occupied with the Brāhmaṇical Ājīvikas ".¹ Following Kern, he expresses his belief that the Ājīvikas were Vaiṣṇavas.² The theory of Kern and Bühler has been attacked by Hoernle ³ and D. R. Bhandarkar,⁴ and few would now accept it. In the Seventh Pillar Edict the word *bābhanesu* seems certainly to be a noun. The absence of a copulative conjunction presents a difficulty, but no doubt other examples can be found wherein a *ca* seems to be omitted. But, even granting all these provisos, there may be a modicum of truth in the old theory of Kern and Bühler. A close connection between the Brāhmaṇa and the Ājīvika is indicated by Asoka's classification of the sects. The bodies among which the *mahāmātras* were active seem to be divided into four sections, to each of which is given a clause in the inscription, the clauses each concluding with the verb *hohamti*. The four classes are (1) the Buddhist *saṅgha*, (2) Brāhmaṇas and Ājīvikas, (3) *Nirgranthas* or Jainas, and (4) various heretics. Even if we admit that Aśoka intended to make a distinction between Brāhmaṇas and Ājīvikas, it is evident that he considered the Ājīvikas to be more closely related to the orthodox brāhmaṇas than were the Jainas, since Brāhmaṇa and Ājīvika are included in the same clause. We have already found references which point to the fact that the Ājīvikas were nearer to the orthodox ascetic orders in their conduct than were either of the other great heretical communities.⁵ Aśoka seems to have recognized this fact. It will also be remembered that Jarasāna, the Ājīvika fortune-teller at his father's court, came of a brāhmaṇa family.⁶ Even before Aśoka's day it is possible that some of the Northern Ājīvikas had begun to draw very close to the parent stock.
c16.s2.21
¹ *Epi. Ind.* ii, p. 272.
c16.s2.22
² *IA.* xx, p. 362.
c16.s2.23
³ *ERE.* i, p. 267.
c16.s2.24
⁴ *IA.* xli, pp. 286-290.
c16.s2.25
⁵ V. supra, p. 131.
c16.s2.26
⁶ V. supra, p. 146.
c16.s2.27
The Seventh Pillar Edict also gives some indication of the influence of the Ājīvikas at the time. The Ājīvika *saṅgha* appears as a fully developed religious community, on an equal footing with the two other non-brāhmaṇic systems, and is not relegated to the last category of the " various heretics ". It may be suggested that, since Aśoka mentions the Ājīvikas before the Nirgranthas, or Jainas, the former sect seemed to the king to be either more influential or more worthy of support than the latter.