Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17: Chapter IX. Ājīvikas in Later Times

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. Ājīvikas in Later Times

References in Sanskrit Literature

c17.s1.1

After the Mauryas the Ājīvikas, although occasionally mentioned in Sanskrit literature, never again appear in Northern India as serious rivals to the greater sects. The passages from the early Buddhist and Jaina scriptures may indeed have taken final shape at a comparatively late period, but the flourishing Ājīvika community referred to therein seems to be a recollection of Maurya and pre-Maurya times, rather than a picture of conditions in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.

c17.s1.2

In the *Arthaśāstra* the Ājīvikas are mentioned once. The householder who feeds *Śākyas*, Ājīvikas, or other base mendicants at sacrificial or commemorative ceremonies is to be fined a hundred (*paṇas*).¹ The Ājīvika is mentioned with the Buddhist as the leading representative of the heretical orders. He is still a significant force in the community, for he, and not the *Nirgrantha*, comes second in the list. The latter is presumably included in the general group of base mendicants of other sects. It will be remembered that Aśoka, in the Seventh Pillar Edict, gave the Ājīvika precedence over the *Nirgrantha*,² and the absence of reference to the latter by name in this passage suggests an early date for at least this regulation of the *Arthaśāstra*. Had it been composed as late as the third century A.D., as Keith supposes,³ surely the *Nirgrantha* would have been mentioned in preference to the Ājīvika as a typical representative of heterodoxy. By this time there is ample archæological evidence to show that Jainism was widespread, while similar evidence of Ājīvikism is non-existent.

c17.s1.3

¹ *Śāky-ājīvak’-ādīn vṛṣala-pravrajitān devapitr-kāryeṣu bhojayataḥ śatyo daṇḍaḥ*. *Arthaśāstra* iii, 20, p. 199.

c17.s1.4

² V. supra, p. 150.

c17.s1.5

³ *Asutosh Mookerji Commemoration Volume*, pt. i, pp. 8-22.

c17.s1.6

The *Mahābhārata*, with its many strata, cannot well be attributed to any century. No doubt it was in process of receiving final shape during the period between the Maurya and the Gupta dynasties, and its contents may be taken as indicative of the climate of thought and of social conditions in Western India during that period. It contains no reference to the Ājīvikas—indeed it appears to contain no specific references to the greater heterodox orders of Buddhism and Jainism; but, besides the strange story of Maṅki,¹ it has a number of passages very similar in content to the doctrine of Makkhali Gosāla as outlined in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*. This perhaps indicates that Gosāla’s teachings were by no means uninfluential. We have already suggested that he did but systematize an attitude to life which must have existed long before the emergence of the sect, and which may even have been found among Āryan warriors before their entry into India.² The Ājīvika sect must have acted as a stimulus to such an attitude, which is explicitly expressed in several *Mahābhārata* references.³

c17.s1.7

¹ V. supra, pp. 38-39.

c17.s1.8

² V. supra, p. 7.

c17.s1.9

³ V. infra, p. 218.

c17.s1.10

Though the Ājīvika doctrine of fate may have found its supporters the sect itself continued to decline. A reference in the *Vāyu Purāṇa* seems to depict the Ājīvikas struggling for survival, as a sort of secret society. The relevant passage follows a description of the goblins (*piśāca*), who lurk at twilight among ruined houses, at crossroads, and at other places of doubtful omen. “Roads, rivers, fords, *caitya*-trees, highways—*piśācas* have entered all these places. Those unrighteous people the Ājivas, as ordained by the gods, are the confusers of *varṇa* and *āśrama*, a people of workmen and craftsmen. Goblins are the divinities in their sacrifices, which they perform with wealth (stolen) from beings who resemble the immortals (i.e. brāhmaṇas) and (gained by acting as) police spies, and with much other ill-gotten wealth, and with honey, meat, broth, ghee, sesamum, powder, wine, spirits, incense, greens, *kṛśara* (boiled sesamum and rice), oil, fragrant grass (? *bhadra*), treacle, and porridge. The Lord Brahma likewise appointed black garments, incense, and flowers to be the oblations of the goblins at the quarters of the moon.” ¹

c17.s1.11

¹ > *Patho nadyo 'tha tīrthāni caitya-vṛkṣān mahāpathān*

c17.s1.12

The equivalence of the Ājīva here mentioned and the Ājīvika is attested by the lexicographers.² The *Vāyu*, which is mentioned by Bāṇa and refers to the Guptas, is probably an early specimen of its class.³ In it the habits of the Ājīvikas seem to have changed very considerably since the days of Makkhali Gosāla. The sect has developed a magical and sacrificial cult, and its members are typified not as naked ascetics but as workmen and craftsmen. We may conclude that this description represents the Ājīvikas at a later stage than do any of the Buddhist or Jaina references so far considered. It is perhaps a picture of the degenerate remnant of the Ājīvika lay community in North India during the Gupta period.

c17.s1.13

² V. infra, pp. 182–84.

c17.s1.14

³ Winternitz, *Geschichte der indischen Literatur*, i, p. 463.

c17.s1.15

The same text gives a description of *nagna* ascetics, who should not under any circumstances be allowed to be present at *śrāddha* ceremonies. “Formerly brāhmaṇas, kṣattriyas, vaiśyas, and śūdras were perverted into heretics by the *Asuras*, defeated in the battle of gods and demons. This (perversion) is not the creation of the Self-existent. Since the *nirgranthas* who perform no *śrāddha* and the ragged (beggars) live by force, they who do not live righteously are the naked (ascetics) and other peoples. The twice-born man with vainly matted locks, vainly tonsured, vainly naked, (performing) vain fasts, muttering vain (*mantras*)—he is of the naked (ascetics) and other (heretical) peoples, baseborn men, outcastes, the destroyers of prosperity. Although they do not perish as a result of the deeds which they commit,

c17.s1.16

*Piśācā viniviṣṭā vai sthāneṣv eteṣu sarvaśaḥ*. 284.
*Adharmikā janās te vai Ājīvā vihitāḥ suraiḥ*
*Varṇāśramāḥ saṅkarīkāḥ kāru-śilpi-janās tathā*. 285.
*Amṛtopama-sāttv*¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘
*Etair anyaiś ca* ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ¯ *hanair*,
*Ārabhante kriyā yās tu, piśācās tatra devatāḥ*, 286.
*Madhu-māṃs'-audanair dadhnā tila-cūrṇa-sur'-āsavaiḥ*
˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ˘ ¯ ˘ ¯ 287.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . " 3.

c17.s1.17

*Vāyu*, 69. line of v. 285 I have translated *Varṇāśramāḥ saṅkarīkāḥ* as though a single compound adjective. My rendering of the first line of v. 286 is very tentative.

c17.s1.18

they are well known as men of evil courses. In vain does the conceited man go to a *śrāddha* ceremony or to (a sacrifice) performed by them." 1

c17.s1.19

This passage, as well as that previously quoted, seems to be very corrupt, and has a number of variant readings. Among these an alternative for the second half of verse 30 may be of significance. As well as the reading *śaktyā jīvanti karpaṭāḥ* there is the variant *Śākyā puṣṭi-kalaṃśakāḥ*.² The word *puṣṭi-kalaṃśakāḥ* here seems to be out of place, since it occurs again at the end of verse 32, where it is probably a corruption of *puṣṭi-vināśakāḥ*. On comparing these two versions, both of which are probably corrupt, we are tempted to offer the tentative reconstruction: *Ye viśrāddhaka-nirgranthāḥ Śāky’-Ājīvika-karpaṭāḥ*. This, with the first half of the following verse, might be translated: "The nirgranthas, who perform no *śrāddha*, the Buddhist (*Śākya*) and Ājīvika ragged mendicants (and) they who do not live according to dharma are the *nagna* people etc."

c17.s1.20

² . n. This reading is accepted by the Calcutta

c17.s1.21

In the first *Vāyu Purāṇa* reference we read of the Ājīvas, apparently prosperous craftsmen and artisans, who devote their ill-earned wealth to the worship of the goblins who haunt the sacred groves, with ceremonies suggestive of later tantrism.³ In the second passage we have a group of false ascetics, naked and otherwise (*nagn’-ādi*), who, like the Ājīvas, are the objects of the scorn and opprobrium of the orthodox. Whatever reading we accept for the crucial second half of the 30th verse of the second passage, it is clear that the group *nagn'-ādi* must include the ascetic leaders of the Ājīvas of the first passage; unless indeed the author of the first passage has confused ascetics and goblins, and the *piśācas* who lurk in the twilight in ruined buildings, in groves, and at crossroads actually represent the Ājīvika ascetics, who, like the Bodhisatta Ājīvika of the *Jātaka*,¹ fled at the sight of men, no doubt in this case owing to rising popular antagonism.

c17.s1.22

¹ *Brāhmaṇāḥ kṣattriyā vaiśyā vṛṣalāś c’aiva sarvaśaḥ* *Purā devāsure yuddhe nirjitair asurais tadā* 29. *Pāṣaṇḍa-vaikṛtās tāta, n’ aiṣā sṛṣṭiḥ Svayambhuvaḥ.* *Yad viśrāddhaka-nirgranthāḥ śaktyā jīvanti karpaṭāḥ*, 30. *Ye dharmam n’ anuvartante, te vai nagn’-ādayo janāḥ.* *Vṛthā-jaṭī vṛthā-muṇḍī vṛthā-nagnaś ca yo dvijaḥ* 31. *Vṛthā-vratī vṛthā-jāpī te vai nagn’-ādayo janāḥ* *Kul’-adhamā Niṣādāś ca tathā puṣṭi-vināśakāḥ.* 32. *Kṛta-karm’-ākṣitās tv ete kupathāḥ parikīrtitāḥ,* *Ebhir nirvṛttam vā śrāddham vṛthā gacchati mānavān.* 33. *Vāyu*, 78. In the Poona text the second half of v. 32 reads: *Kulandhamā nikāśāś ca tathā puṣṭi-kalaṃśakāḥ*. For this I have substituted a variant reading (p. 291, n. 21); and I have altered *kulandhamā* to *kulādhamā*. Otherwise the text (vol. i, p. 191).

c17.s1.23

³ An alternative interpretation might be offered that the goblins receive, by decree of Brahma, the offerings intended by the Ājīvas for other divinities.

c17.s1.24

¹ V. supra, p. 110.

c17.s1.25

This puzzling reference in the *Vāyu Purāṇa* leaves many questions unsettled, but at least it indicates that there survived in North India in Gupta times an Ājīvika community, which had by now become corrupt and was probably declining.

c17.s1.26

Mahāyāna Buddhist literature refers to Ājīvikas in connection with its legends of the Buddha, but otherwise takes little note of them. The *Lalita Vistara* mentions them briefly in a list of ascetics which includes *carakas*, *parivrājakas*, *vṛddhaśrāvakas*, *gautamas*, and *nirgranthas*.² They are included in a similar list in the *Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka*,³ where it is stated that a Bodhisattva does not associate with them.

c17.s1.27

² *Lalita-Vistara*, ed. Lefmann, vol. i, p. 380, l. 12.

c17.s1.28

³ *vii*. Kern, *op. cit.*, pp. 275-6.

c17.s1.29

More significant is a reference in Kumāradāsa’s *Jānakīharaṇa*. Here Rāvaṇa, planning the rape of Sītā, approaches Rāma’s hermitage in the guise of "a *maskarin*, a false Ājīvika, his head adorned with piled and matted locks".⁴ Here the word *maskarin* is employed with *Ājīvika*, but in other references it would seem to refer to ascetics of a different type⁵; we have already suggested that the term included any mendicant bearing a staff.⁶ The matted locks of this false Ājīvika are not altogether consistent with the description of Ājīvikas in earlier sources, where they are said to have pulled out their hair by the roots.⁷ We cannot decide whether the author was using the term loosely, whether he was ill-informed as to the habits of Ājīvikas, or whether he had in mind a sub-sect of the Ājīvika order which had abandoned the custom of tonsure.

c17.s1.30

⁴ *Jānakīharaṇa*, xv. 1: *...aṅga-jaṭā-maṇḍita-mastakam* Kañcin maskariṇam Sītā dadarś’ āśramam āgatam. x, 76.

c17.s1.31

⁵ V. supra, pp. 99-100.

c17.s1.32

⁶ V. supra, p. 100.

c17.s1.33

⁷ V. supra, p. 106.

c17.s1.34

The *Jānakī-haraṇa*, the authorship of which is attributed to a King of Ceylon, is thought to have a southern or Sinhalese provenance.¹ The *Bhaṭṭi-kāvya*, written on the same theme and at about the same time, but probably originating from Valabhī,² describes the ascetic guise of Rāvaṇa in terms which leave no doubt that the author has in mind a Śaivite ascetic; like Kumāradāsa’s ascetic his hair is piled upon the top of his head (*śikhī*); he holds an earthen pot; he has a skull in place of the usual begging bowl; he wears two garments died with lac; and he bears a staff.³ Mallinātha’s commentary states that he must have been a *tridaṇḍin*, or Śaivite ascetic, for he is said to have a topknot, whereas the *ekadaṇḍins* or Vaiṣṇavite ascetics, with whom Ājīvikas were sometimes included, did not wear topknots.⁴ The ascetic is further described as a knower of the soul (*ātma-vid*), and as maintaining the vow of a maskarin (*dhārayan maskari-vratam*).

c17.s1.35

¹ Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 119.

c17.s1.36

² Ibid., p. 116.

c17.s1.37

³ Bhaṭṭikāvya, v, 61-3.

c17.s1.38

⁴ *Daṇḍavān tridaṇḍ’ ity arthaḥ. Ata eva śikh’ ity uktam, ekadaṇḍinaḥ śikh’-ābhāvāt.*

c17.s1.39

In both references the ascetic is a maskarin, but in the former he is referred to as an Ājīvika, while in the latter he is clearly orthodox. It will be remembered that Ājīvikas survived in South India, the home of the *Jānakī-haraṇa*, while in the north they seem to have been almost forgotten. It is perhaps significant that the Southern poem at least employs the term Ājīvika, even though the sectarian affiliations of its owner may be in some doubt.

c17.s1.40

Professor D. R. Bhandarkar, however, is of the opinion that the authors of both poems were describing Ājīvikas. “Rāvaṇa . . . approaches Sītā in a disguised form (and) is called both Ājīvika and Maskarin, which must therefore be taken to be synonymous terms. In the Bhattikāvya also Rāvaṇa is represented . . . in the garb of a maskarin. Among . . . various characteristics . . . that of his being a *śikhin* is specified. From this the commentator Mallinātha argues that he was a Tridaṇḍin, and not an Ekadaṇḍin as the latter have no matted hair. But this does not agree with what Utpala says, for . . . he gives Ekadaṇḍin as a synonym of Ājīvika. The word *śikhin* of the Bhaṭṭikāvya . . . agrees with the *uṭṭuṅga-jaṭā* of the Jānakī-haraṇa, and as the latter calls an Ājīvika a Maskarin it appears that an Ājīvika was really a Tridaṇḍin and not an Ekadaṇḍin as Utpala supposes.”¹

c17.s1.41

¹ *IA.* xli, p. 290.

c17.s1.42

This argument falls to the ground when it is recognized that the terms *ājīvika* and *maskarin* are not, as Bhandarkar assumes, synonymous.² In its wide connotation the latter term might be applied to the Vaiṣṇavite beggar with his single staff, to the Śaivite with his triple staff, to the staff-bearing Ājīvika, perhaps even to the Digambara Jaina, who also carried a staff, and no doubt to many nondescript religious mendicants who habitually carried staves. It seems, however, that the term *maskarin* was most frequently applied to the Śaivite ascetic. For example the *Harṣacarita* introduces a *maskarin* who comes as a messenger from the great Śaivite ascetic Bhairavācārya to the court of Harṣa’s ancestor Puṣyabhūti. His figure is graphically described by Bāṇa, and has few characteristics in common with the Ājīvika. He wears a ragged robe, which is stained red; he has a skull, which he uses as a begging bowl and stores in a box of *kharjūra* wood; and he possesses various other articles which hang from a pole over his shoulder. He is evidently a Śaivite like his master.³

c17.s1.43

² V. supra, pp. 99–100.

c17.s1.44

³ Ed. Führer, pp. 152–3.

c17.s1.45

In the same text we find that “renowned *maskarins*, who had correctly learnt the truths of the soul”,⁴ attended the court of Harṣa’s father, Prabhākaravardhana. These are evidently orthodox ascetics. The lexicographers also show that the *maskarin* and the Ājīvika were, from the doctrinal point of view, in different categories.⁵

c17.s1.46

⁴ *Yathāvad-adhigat’-ādhyātma-tattvās* . . . *samstutā maskarinaḥ*. *Harṣacarita*, ed. Führer, p. 239.

c17.s1.47

⁵ V. infra, p. 182.

c17.s1.48

Dr. Barua⁶ cites references from the *Pañcatantra* and the *Mudrārākṣasa* to *kṣapaṇakas* whose characters and descriptions “combine the Jaina with the Ājīvika”. Those in the former reference do honour to Jinendra.⁷ In the latter⁸ one of the spies of Cāṇakya, the great minister of Candragupta, is a tonsured ascetic who respects the teaching of the Arhants, foretells the future, and uses the slogan: "There is no sin for the true believers" (*N' atthi pāvaṃ sāvagāṇaṃ*). The kṣapaṇakas in the former reference seem to be Jainas, and the ascetic of the latter also suggests a Jaina in most particulars. We can draw no inferences from the fact that he was a fortune-teller, for fortune-telling was the trade not only of Ājīvikas, but of ascetics of all orders, as Barua himself admits. The only hint of Ājīvikism in this figure is the antinomianism of his slogan, which suggests the doctrine ascribed by the Buddhists to Pūraṇa Kassapa and Pakudha Kaccāyana.¹ It is therefore possible that Viśākhadatta did introduce an Ājīvika trait into the character of his ascetic.

c17.s1.49

⁶ *JDL.* ii, pp. 62 ff.

c17.s1.50

⁷ *Pañcatantra* v, 1. Bühler edn., vol. iii, pp. 38–41.

c17.s1.51

⁸ The character called simply Kṣapaṇaka, in *Mudrārākṣasa*, act iv.

c17.s1.52

¹ V. supra, pp. 12, 16.

c17.s1.53

Another doubtful case is to be found in the Harṣacarita. Prince Harṣa, following his brother Rājyavardhana against the Hūṇas, hears of the illness of his father, Prabhākaravardhana, while somewhere to the north of the capital Sthānvīśvara. On his way back to his dying father he meets an evil omen in the form of a naked ascetic (*nagn'-āṭaka*), his body covered with many days' accumulation of dirt, and "marked with a peacock's plume".² This dirty and repulsive character suggests a Digambara Jaina monk, with his peacock-feather brush. On the other hand mysterious naked ascetics, also called *nagn'-āṭakas*, appear in Kashmīr in the eleventh century.³ These seem not to have been Jainas, and may have been Ājīvikas. In South India we find Digambaras and Ājīvikas living in the same districts, and the same may have happened in North-Western India, where Jainism seems to have found a home at an early date. The ascetic met by Harṣa may therefore have been an Ājīvika, although it is perhaps more probable that he was a Digambara, whose sect still survives in the same region.⁴

c17.s1.54

² Harṣacarita, ed. Führer, p. 213.

c17.s1.55

³ .

c17.s1.56

⁴ .72.

Varāhamihira and Utpala

c17.s2.1

The astrologer Varāhamihira, writing a century earlier than Bāṇa, seems to have known of Ājīvikas, whom he mentions in a catalogue of ascetics. His tenth century commentator, Utpala or Bhaṭṭôtpala, apparently confused them with Vaiṣṇavites, quoting in support the Jaina writer Kālakācārya, of the fifth century. The passages have been variously explained, and are worthy of close scrutiny.

c17.s2.2

The relevant verse in Varāhamihira's *Bṛhajjātaka* states that ascetics of various orders are born under the influence of four or more powerful planets occupying a single astrological house. According to the dominant planet of the group, so will the child become an ascetic of one or other order.¹ Varāhamihira mentions seven types of ascetic, with the heavenly bodies under whose influence they are born; seven categories are further defined by Utpala, as follows:—

c17.s2.3

¹ *Ekasthaiś caturādibhir balayutair jātāḥ pṛthagvīryagaiḥ* . . . *iti*.

c17.s2.4

1. *Śākyas*, defined by Utpala as *'Raktapaṭa* (Red-robed), born under the dominant influence of Mars (*Māheya*).

c17.s2.5

2. *Ājīvikas*, called by Utpala *Ekadaṇḍins*, born under Mercury (*Jña* or *Budha*).

c17.s2.6

3. *Bhikṣus*, called by Utpala *Sannyāsīs*, born under Jupiter.

c17.s2.7

4. *Vṛddhas*, called by Utpala *Vṛddhaśrāvakas* or *Kapālīs* (skull-bearing Śaivite ascetics), born under the Moon.

c17.s2.8

5. *Carakas*, called by Utpala *Cakradharas*, born under Venus (*Sita* or *Śukra*).

c17.s2.9

6. *Nirgranthas*, the member of whom is described by Utpala as a "naked ascetic without a robe, etc.",² born under Saturn (*Prābhākarī* or *Saura*); and

c17.s2.10

² *Nagnaḥ kṣapaṇakaḥ pravaran-dar-rahitaḥ*.

c17.s2.11

7. *Vanyāśanas* who, according to Utpala, are eaters of what is to be found in forests—hermits eating roots and fruits. These are born under the Sun (*Ina*).

c17.s2.12

Having described each type of ascetic in turn, Utpala continues with the definitions of Kālakācārya. These are as follows:—

c17.s2.13

*Tapasvī* born under the Sun;
*Kapālika* ,, ,, the Moon;
*Raktapaṭa* ,, ,, Mars;
*Ekadaṇḍin* ,, ,, Mercury;

c17.s2.14

Yati born under Jupiter; Caraka ,, ,, Venus; and Kṣapaṇaka ,, ,, Saturn.

c17.s2.15

After this quotation Utpala further defines some of the terms used by Varāhamihira. “Here the word *Vṛddhaśrāvaka* implies ascetics who serve Maheśvara, and the word *Ājīvika* those who serve Nārāyaṇa.” ¹

c17.s2.16

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 177: *...inām pravrajyānām upalakṣaṇam*

c17.s2.17

This remarkable passage was noted by Kern,² who inferred from it that the Ājīvikas were orthodox Vaiṣṇava ascetics. His view was supported by Bühler.³ The passage was studied by Hoernle,⁴ who commented on it fully. “Bhaṭṭotpala (states) . . . that the Ekadaṇḍins or Ājīvikas are devotees of Nārāyaṇa, that is Viṣṇu. On the other hand Śīlāṅka, speaking of the Ekadaṇḍins in another connection, declares them to be devotees of Śiva.⁵ It is clear that what these two commentators had in their mind was the class of ascetics who are still known as Daṇḍins . . . These ascetics are usually classed as belonging to the Śaivite division of Hindus : but they are rather eclectics in that they invoke not only Śiva but also Viṣṇu as Nārāyaṇa.” Hoernle then continues with a description of these ascetics, taken from the *Bombay Gazetteer*.⁶ After further discussion he concludes: “Ekadaṇḍin is a general term for a class of ascetics which includes two subdivisions, the orthodox Śaivite Daṇḍins and the heterodox Jain Ājīvikas or Digambaras. (Here Hoernle refers to his own theory, considered below,⁷ that the Ājīvikas merged with the Digambara Jainas.) The Jain writer Kālakācārya, of course, meant to indicate the latter by the word ekadaṇḍin; and Varāhamihira therefore, to preclude misunderstanding, substituted the more definite term Ājīvika. The orthodox commentator, Bhaṭṭotpala, misunderstanding the position, confused the heterodox Ājīvika with the orthodox Daṇḍin.” We agree with Hoernle’s conclusion that the term ekadaṇḍin, like maskarin, was a word which embraced a large class of mendicants. But he is perhaps too intuitive in recognizing Kālakācārya’s intention, and Varāhamihira’s wish “to preclude misunderstanding”, which was apparently ineffectual in the case of Utpala, who “misunderstood the position”.

c17.s2.18

² *Manual of Indian Buddhism*, p. 17.

c17.s2.19

³ *IA.* xx, p. 362.

c17.s2.20

⁴ *ERE.* i, pp. 266-7.

c17.s2.21

⁵ Hoernle gives no reference for this statement. Śīlāṅka’s comment on Sū. Kr. ii, 6, in one place refers to *ekadaṇḍins* as performing *Vrateśvara-yāga* (fol. 401), but a few lines later he speaks of them as having undertaken the restraints and rules of the *Pāñcarātra*, which was certainly a Vaiṣṇavite sect (fol. 402).

c17.s2.22

⁶ *A Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency*, vol. ix, pt. i, p. 542.

c17.s2.23

⁷ V. infra, pp. 175 ff.

c17.s2.24

Even in the fifth century, when Kālakācārya wrote, the Ājīvika must have been much rarer than most other types of staff-bearing mendicant. We believe that Kālaka intended by the term ekadaṇḍin not the Ājīvika, as Hoernle believes, but the whole class of ascetics bearing single staves. For astrological purposes both Vaiṣṇava ekadaṇḍins and Ājīvikas would be classed together on the strength of this common characteristic. In compiling the Bṛhajjātaka Varāhamihira probably used the term Ājīvika in preference to ekadaṇḍin for the simple reason that the latter term would not fit well into the metrical scheme of the Śārdūla-vikrīḍita stanza, with the handling of which he seems to have experienced some difficulty.

c17.s2.25

Utpala’s position may be made clear by a further quotation from Kālakācārya, occurring in the former’s long commentary to the crucial verse of Varāhamihira: “The planets Sūrya, etc., in order are to be known as the presiding influences (nāha) of consecrations into the systems (maggesu) of Fire (Jalaṇa), Hara, Sugata, Keśava, Śruti, Brahman, and the Naked.” ¹ To this Utpala adds: “The Keśava-devotee means the Bhāgavata.” ² After the Sun and Moon Kālaka plainly intended the five planets to be read in their traditional Indian order; Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. Thus Mercury, said by Varāhamihira to dominate the Ājīvika, would occur fourth on the list, and, according to Kālakācārya’s second classification would become the presiding planet of the devotee of Keśava, or Viṣṇu. When commenting on Varāhamihira Utpala must have had before him the two lists of Kālakācārya, whom he seems to have respected highly. Kālaka declared that the ascetic born under Mercury was a devotee of Viṣṇu and an ekadaṇḍin; Varāhamihira stated that he was an Ājīvika; both were great astrologers and worthy of Utpala’s confidence; therefore the term Ājīvika implied the devotee of Nārāyaṇa.

c17.s2.26

¹ ...

c17.s2.27

² ...

c17.s2.28

It is, however, by no means certain that Utpala’s misunderstanding was as grave as Hoernle supposed. It will be shown in the second part of this work¹ that by the time of Utpala the Southern Ājīvikas had adopted several theistic beliefs, for instance devotion to the divine Maṛkali and a theory of avatāras. On the other hand the Pāñcarātra Vaiṣṇavites held a theory of niyati, which perhaps owed something to Ājīvikism.² The heresy of Buddhism gradually drew nearer to the main stream from which it had deviated, and Jainism and Sikhism have done likewise. It would be surprising if at least some members of the small Ājīvika sect had not by the time of Utpala absorbed elements of the doctrines of the rising schools of theism.

c17.s2.29

¹ V. infra, pp. 275 ff.

c17.s2.30

² V. infra, p. 281.

c17.s2.31

Before leaving this crucial passage of Utpala’s commentary we must consider the interpretation of Professor D. R. Bhandarkar,³ which is supported by Barua.⁴ According to Bhandarkar the phrases: *Atra vṛddhaśrāvaka-grahaṇam Mahéśvar’-āśritānām pravrajyānām upalakṣaṇam, Ājīvika-grahaṇam ca Nārāyaṇ’-āśritānām*, have been completely misunderstood by Kern and Bühler, because they concentrated their attention upon the second phrase without giving due consideration to the first. The true rendering of the second phase should not be; “And the use of (the term) Ājīvika refers to those who have taken refuge in Nārāyaṇa,” but “. . . used as a mark to denote the monastic orders seeking refuge with Nārāyaṇa”. “The point which Kern lost sight of,” continues Bhandarkar, “was the word upalakṣaṇa, ‘a mark indicative of something that the word itself does not actually express.’ Sanskrit commentators often employ the word upalakṣaṇa when they want a certain word or expression in the original to denote things, not, truly speaking, signified by that word or expression. . . . Thus according to Utpala, Ājīvika does not signify Nārāyaṇ-āśrita . . . but simply indicates it. . . . The theory propounded by Professor Kern . . . has, therefore, no grounds to stand on.”

c17.s2.32

³ IA. xli, pp. 287-8.

c17.s2.33

⁴ JDL. ii, p. 73.

c17.s2.34

Dr. Barua expresses gratitude to Professor Bhandarkar for his discovery of the true meaning of this passage, and gives a rather imaginative paraphrase of it. "Professor Bhandarkar," he writes, "has rendered a great service by rectifying a fatal error in the interpretation of Utpala's commentary, which led such veteran Sanskritists as Professors Kern and Bühler to suppose that the Ājīvikas were the worshippers of Nārāyaṇa, i.e. Bhāgavatas. But now thanks to Professor Bhandarkar no one doubts that Utpala's meaning was just the contrary. The Ājīvikas and the Bhāgavatas furnished him with a typical instance whereby he could illustrate *upalakṣaṇa*, a figure of Rhetoric used in characterizing what a word does not denote. ‘Ājīvikagrahaṇam ca Nārāyaṇaśritānām,’ i.e. to accept one as an Ājīvika is not to denote a worshipper of Nārāyaṇa."

c17.s2.35

In fact the term *grahaṇa* in this context means simply "a word mentioned",¹ and not, as Barua implies, "the acceptance" of one as belonging to the class denoted by the word. *Upalakṣaṇa* means "implying something that has not been expressed",² the connotation of the word, as distinct from its denotation. Thus *vṛddhaśrāvaka* literally means "an elderly disciple", but its secondary meaning or *upalakṣaṇa* is, according to Utpala, "a devotee of Śiva." Similarly *Ājīvika* means, according to the usual interpretation, "a professional ascetic" ³; but Utpala declares that it further means "a devotee of Nārāyaṇa" by *upalakṣaṇa*.

c17.s2.36

¹ Monier Williams, *Sanskrit-English Dictionary*, s.v.

c17.s2.37

² Ibid., s.v. *upalakṣaṇa*.

c17.s2.38

³ V, supra, pp. 101-2.

c17.s2.39

The futility of Bhandarkar's attempt to escape this conclusion is evident without long comment. The term Ājīvika, on his interpretation of Utpala, does not "refer" to worshippers of Nārāyaṇa, but "is used as a mark to denote" them. It does not "signify" them, but "simply indicates" them. For all these hair-splitting distinctions without difference Professor Bhandarkar cannot show that Utpala's phrase means any more than: "The word Ājīvika connotes a worshipper of Nārāyaṇa."

c17.s2.40

On Dr. Barua's interpretation of Professor Bhandarkar's explanation of this passage any comment is unnecessary.

c17.s2.41

As with so many other references to the Ājīvikas, we cannot draw final conclusions from this quotation from Utpala. Certainly he believed that the Ājīvikas were Vaiṣṇavites. This conclusion may have been reached after the rule of thumb equation of Varāhamihira’s Ājīvika with Kālaka’s *ekadaṇḍin*, but it is possible that Utpala had heard something, perhaps at third or fourth hand, of the Dravidian Ājīvikas, some of whom had by this time become theistic in their outlook. From the space which Utpala devoted to the explanation of the term, it would seem that it was by now little known in North India. Thus this crucial reference provides, if nothing more, yet another indication of the lingering death which Ājīvikism was dying.

Śīlāṅka and the Trairāśikas

c17.s3.1

Like Utpala, Śīlāṅka, the ninth century¹ commentator to the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga*, seems to have been in some confusion about the Ājīvikas. He had a sound understanding of *niyativāda*,² a cardinal doctrine of the Ājīvikas, which was attributed by the later Jaina commentator Guṇaratna to Pūraṇa,³ who was remembered as a prophet by the Southern Ājīvikas.⁴ On the other hand Śīlāṅka does not associate the *Niyati* doctrine with Gosāla, with Pūraṇa, or with Ājīvikism. He recognizes one significant teaching of later Ājīvikism, the doctrine of *maṇḍala-mokṣa*,⁵ which he correctly attributes to the followers of Gosāla; but besides this he states in another context that the Ājīvikas believe in the doctrine of salvation by good conduct (*vinayavāda*), and he associates them with the Digambara Jainas and with the lesser Jaina schism of the Trairāśikas.

c17.s3.2

¹ Glasenapp, *Der Jainismus*, p. 107.

c17.s3.3

² V. infra, pp. 230 ff.

c17.s3.4

³ V. supra, p. 81.

c17.s3.5

⁴ V. supra, p. 80.

c17.s3.6

⁵ V. infra, p. 259.

c17.s3.7

The relevant references in Śīlāṅka’s commentary are quoted below:—

c17.s3.8

1. The text refers to Mahāvīra as having understood the doctrines of the *Kriyāvādins*, *Akriyāvādins*, *Vainayikas*, and *Ajñānavādins*. On the third of these schools Śīlāṅka comments: “Saying ‘Salvation comes only from good conduct’, the followers of the doctrine of Gosālaka walk in the path of good conduct, and are hence termed Vainayikas.”⁶ 2. On another passage, which describes certain ascetics who revile the monk leading a righteous life, Śīlāṅka comments with an ambiguous phrase which has formed the basis of an important theory of Hoernle’s: “They are the Ājīvikas who follow the doctrine of Gośāla, or Digambaras.” ¹

c17.s3.9

⁶ *Vinayād eva mokṣa ity evam Gosālaka-mat’-ānusāriṇo vinayena carant’ iti Vainayikā vyavasthitāḥ*. To *Sū. kr.* i, 6, 27, fol. 152.

c17.s3.10

¹ *Te ca Gośālaka-mat’-ānusāriṇa Ājīvikā Digambarā vā.* Ibid., to i, 3, 3, 8, fol. 90.

c17.s3.11

3. He uses a similar phrase when commenting on a verse describing the best means of converting the heretical opponents of Jainism: “They are the Ājīvikas, etc., who follow the doctrine of Gośāla, or Boṭikas (i.e. Digambaras).” ²

c17.s3.12

² *Te Gośālaka-mat’-ānusāriṇa Ājīvik’-ādayaḥ (sic) Boṭikā vā.* Ibid., to i, 3, 3, 14, fol. 92.

c17.s3.13

4. On the theory that the soul freed from *karma* may yet become defiled and return to *saṃsāra*, Śīlāṅka states that the view is held by “the Trairāśikas, who follow the doctrine of Gośāla, and who have twenty-one *sūtras*, arranged according to the order of the Trairāśika *sūtras* in the *Pūrvas*.” ³

c17.s3.14

³ *Trairāśikā Gośālaka-mat’-ānusāriṇo, yeṣāṃ ekaviṃśati sūtrāṇi Pūrva-gata-trairāśika-sūtra-paripāṭyā vyavasthitāni.* To Sū. kr. i, 1, 3, 11, fol. 45.

c17.s3.15

The second and fourth of these references have been used by Hoernle to further his theory that the later Ājīvikas merged with the Digambara Jainas. He writes: “Śīlāṅka states that the reference is to the Ājīvikas or Digambaras. Seeing that, in his comment on another passage of the same work, he identifies . . . the Ājīvikas with the Terāsiyas (Sanskr. Trairāśikas), it follows that in Śīlāṅka’s view the followers of Gosāla, the Ājīvikas, the Terāsiyas, and the Digambaras were the same class of religious mendicants.” ⁴

c17.s3.16

⁴ *ERE.* i, p. 262.

c17.s3.17

We do not believe that these references are more conclusive as proofs of the merging of the Ājīvikas and the Digambaras than is the dubious statement of Utpala as proof of the merging of the Ājīvikas and the Vaiṣṇavites. Hoernle notes only two of the references; on a careful examination of all of them it may be necessary to modify his theory.

c17.s3.18

In the second phrase, Hoernle has interpreted the conjunction *vā* in the sense of “i.e.” It is doubtful if the particle was ever used in Sanskrit, as is “or” in English, in this sense, to denote the synonymity of two or more words or phrases. We admit that Śīlāṅka, by the use of the word *vā*, indicated that the Ājīvikas were "of the same class of religious mendicants as the Digambaras". But the text of the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga* plainly shows that the class implied by Śīlāṅka was a very wide one, comprising all those who revile the righteous Śvetāmbara monk. The third phrase makes the position clearer. Here Śīlāṅka makes separate mention of the Boṭikas or Digambaras, who are not included among the miscellaneous ascetics represented by the word *ādayaḥ*, appended to *Ājīvika*. The adjective *Gośālaka-mat’-ānusāriṇa* may apply only to the first, or to both, of the two nouns, but in view of the word *ādayaḥ*, it would seem that Śīlāṅka intended it to apply to the first; otherwise he would have added this word to *Boṭika-* instead of to *Ājīvika-*. Thus it appears that he did not look on the Boṭika as a follower of Gosāla, and made a clear distinction between the two sects. If any doubts remain they are removed by a fifth phrase of Śīlāṅka, on a verse condemning the dietary habits of non-Jaina ascetics, which, he states, is "a description of the evil conduct of Ājīvikas, etc., followers of other doctrines, and Digambaras".¹ In this phrase, not noticed by Hoernle, the conjunction *ca* is used in place of the ambiguous *vā*.

c17.s3.19

¹ *Ājīvikādīnām paratīrthikānām Digambarāṇām c’ asadācāra-nirūpaṇāya*. Śīlāṅka to *Sū. kr.* i, 3, 3, 12, fol. 91.

c17.s3.20

His use of the word *ādayaḥ* indicates that Śīlāṅka knew of more than one sect of followers of Gosāla, and that the term Ājīvika was not regularly used by all his followers. We shall see in our second part that differences of doctrine developed within the Ājīvika community, small though it was.² Is it possible that the Vainayikas, called by Śīlāṅka followers of Gosāla,³ but not referred to as Ājīvikas, were one such schism? Śīlāṅka declares in another context that the Vainayikas seek a rebirth in heaven (not complete salvation or *mokṣa*, as in the first reference quoted above), by fourfold good conduct, in mind, word, body, and in giving towards gods, kings, ascetics, kinsfolk, elders, inferiors, mother, and father—a total of thirty-two categories.⁴ The same statement concerning the Vinayavādins is made by the later commentator Guṇaratna, but he includes among their teachers such famous names as Vasiṣṭha, Vālmīki, and Vyāsa,¹ as well as Parāśara, who is elsewhere said by Guṇaratna to have taught a doctrine of natural evolution²; and he nowhere connects them with Gosāla or with the Ājīvikas. The doctrines of Gosāla are often obscure; it is true that the Ājīvikas were frequently accused by their opponents of antinomianism and immorality, but perhaps their ethics were not in most respects less strict than those of other sects of the time; yet, even after making the utmost allowance for the *odium theologicum* of their opponents, it seems unlikely that the average follower of Gosāla’s doctrines placed so strong an emphasis on ethics as Śīlāṅka suggests. Unless Śīlāṅka was mistaken we can only explain this puzzling reference by suggesting that the Vinayavādins or Vainayikas were a later sect, which perhaps arose as a schism of the Ājīvikas, and which, while maintaining very different doctrines, yet remembered Gosāla with respect. If it be admitted, on the strength of Utpala’s statement and of other less definite suggestions, that some of the Ājīvikas drifted towards unorthodox Vaiṣṇavism, we may tentatively identify these with the Vinayavādins, and thus also account for the statement of Guṇaratna that the latter revered the saints of Purāṇic legend. Thus we may also account for the difficult -ādayaḥ in the third phrase of Śīlāṅka quoted above.

c17.s3.21

² V. infra, pp. 279-80.

c17.s3.22

³ V. supra, p. 174.

c17.s3.23

⁴ *Vainayikānām vinayād eva kevalāt paralokam ap’ icchatām dvātriṃśad anena prakrameṇa yojyāḥ : tad yathā sura-nṛpati-yati-jñāti-sthavir’-adhama-mātṛ-pitṛ-kāyena dānena ca caturvidho vinayo vidheyaḥ*. To 209. Cf. infra, p. 261, n. 2.

c17.s3.24

¹ [Text missing in original]

c17.s3.25

² [Text missing in original]

c17.s3.26

In Śīlāṅka’s fourth phrase the false prophet is said to be the leader of the Trairāśikas. A sect of Trairāśikas, a schism of the Jaina community, is well known in early Jaina literature, and is said to have been founded in the city of Antariñjikā by the monk Rohagupta, in the 544th year of Mahāvīra’s *nirvāṇa*,³ or in A.D. 18, according to the traditional reckoning. The Trairāśikas held unorthodox views, resembling those of the Vaiśeṣika school of philosophy, on the fundamental categories of Indian metaphysics, and they admitted only three principles of predication, *sat*, *asat*, and *sadasat* as against the seven of Jaina logic.

c17.s3.27

³ [Text missing in original]; il, quoted *Abh. Rāj.*, s.v. Terāsiya. V. also Guérinot, *La religion Djaina*, pp. 47-8. The *Kalpa Sūtra* (*Sthavirāvalī*, 6, ed. Jacobi, p. 80) makes Rohagupta a pupil of Mahāgiri, the eighth *sthavira*, and second after Bhadrabāhu. This tradition would date the origin of the Trairāśikas over 200 years earlier than would that of the *Avaśyaka Sūtra*.

c17.s3.28

In the *Samavāyāṅga* Commentary¹ it is stated that the Ājīvikas were also called Trairāśikas, and held the three-category system of logic. It is nowhere stated that they maintained the Vaiśeṣika categories of the Rohagupta Trairāśikas. It is unlikely that a paṇḍit of the calibre of Śīlāṅka could have confused the latter with the Ājīvikas, although they too had a *trairāśika* system of logic, and perhaps other points of doctrine in common with the Trairāśikas of Rohagupta. The fact that the two sects were well known to have been founded by different teachers, living in periods five hundred years apart, should be sufficient to show that they were not, as Professor Hoernle believed, identical.

c17.s3.29

¹ To *sū.* 147, fol. 130. V. infra, p. 179.

c17.s3.30

In this connection the passage in the *Samavāya*,² commented on by Abhayadeva, is important. Both the text and the commentary are repeated almost verbatim in the *Nandi Sūtra*,³ with its commentary by Haribhadra. This passage purports to describe the *Dṛṣṭivāda*, the lost twelfth *aṅga* of the Jaina canon. That book appears to have been a comparison, in parallel passages, of the doctrines of orthodox Jainism with those of three heresies, the Ājīvika, the Catuṣkanayika, and the Trairāśika. The first part of this text was a description of the *parikammāim*, which the scholiasts define as the preparations necessary to grasp the meaning of the *sūtras* correctly. These *parikammas* were divided into seven groups, which were in turn divided into subsections. Their names are given as *siddha-seṇiyā-parikamme*, *maṇussa-*, *puṭṭha-*, *ogahaṇa-*, *uvasampajja-*, *vippajaha-*, and *cuyācuya-seṇiyā-parikamme*. The commentators seem to have had little knowledge of the true nature of these *parikammas*, and they need not detain us. Significant for our purpose is a passage in the text: "Six (of these *parikammas*) are orthodox, seven are Ājīvika, six are Catuṣkanayika, seven are Trairāśika."⁴ The Ājīvikas and the Trairāśikas are said to maintain the *cuyācuya-seṇiyā-parikamma*, which was not recognized by the orthodox Jainas, nor by the Catuṣkanayikas.

c17.s3.31

² *Samavāya*, *sū.* 147, fol. 128 ff.

c17.s3.32

³ *Nandi*, *sū.* 56, fol. 107 ff.

c17.s3.33

⁴ *Cha sasamaïyāim, satta ājīviyāim, cha caukkaṇaïyāim, satta terāsiyāim.* *Samavāya*, fol. 128. The Bombay text has *satta . . . sasamaïyāim*, which is certainly a misprint, since it does not agree with the commentary, nor with Weber’s paraphrase (*IS.* xvi, p. 364). The *Nandi* (fol. 108) mentions only the last two, *cha caukkaṇaïyāim, satta terāsiyāim*.

c17.s3.34

The sect of the Catuṣkanayikas seems to have differed from orthodox Jainism mainly in the fact that it compressed the orthodox seven *nayas* into four, omitting the first Jaina *naya* (*naigama*), and including it with the second or third (*saṅgraha* and *vyavahāra*), according to its reference to generals or particulars; and throwing the last three Jaina *nayas* (*sāmprata*, *samabhirūḍha*, and *evambhūta*) together, as being all three concerned with words. The four *nayas* or standpoints of the sect thus become:—

c17.s3.35

1. *Saṅgraha*, predication from the general properties of a thing;
2. *Vyavahāra*, from its individual aspect;
3. *Ṛjusūtra*, from its momentary condition; and
4. *Śabdādi*, from the implication of the words used to designate it.¹

c17.s3.36

¹ *Nandi Comm.*, fol. 113. *Samavāya Comm.*, fol. 129.

c17.s3.37

It thus seems that the Catuṣkanayikas were a small sub-sect of the Jainas, with a somewhat unorthodox epistemology.

c17.s3.38

In describing the three heresies the commentaries refer to the Ājīvika system as that propagated by Gosāla²; later, after dealing with the Catuṣkanayikas, it is stated that “the Ājīvikas are also called Trairāśikas”.³

c17.s3.39

² *Gośālaka-pravartit’ājīvika-pākhaṇḍika-siddhānta*. *Samavāya*, *Comm.*, loc. cit.

c17.s3.40

³ *Tā eva c’ Ājīvikās Trairāśikā bhaṇitāḥ*.

c17.s3.41

The summary of the *Dṛṣṭivāda* continues with a description of the contents of its second part, *suttāim*. It is stated that the doctrines of all four sects are contained therein, and are repeated in the form of *sūtras* in both orthodox and heretical recensions. Each of the four sects has twenty-two *sūtras*, of which those of the orthodox are in the form of separate aphorisms (*chiṇṇa-cheaṇaāim*), while the Ājīvika *sūtras* are combined, and the *sūtras* of the Trairāśikas and the Catuṣkanayikas are arranged with reference to the three or four *nayas* of the respective sects.⁴ Here the Ājīvikas are again referred to as followers of Gosāla’s doctrines, and the Trairāśikas also are said to be called Ājīvikas.⁵

c17.s3.42

⁴ *Samavāya Comm.*, fol. 130. *Nandi Comm.*, fol. 108. The *Nandi* declares that the Catuṣkanayikas are in accordance with orthodox usage.

c17.s3.43

⁵ *Trairāśikā api Ājīvikā ucyante*.

c17.s3.44

It is not made clear whether these four parts of the *sūtra* section of the *Dṛṣṭivāda* were written from the orthodox angle, as mere statements of the doctrines of the heresies, or whether they contained passages from authentic scriptures of the sects; the former alternative seems more probable. In either case the lost *Dṛṣṭivāda* must represent a stage in the history of Jainism when sectarian animosity was by no means as strong as it later became. Reasons for the regrettable disappearance of the work may be readily suggested.

c17.s3.45

But although the four sects were akin they are nowhere said to have been identical. None of the statements contained in the *Samavāya* or the *Nandi*, or in their commentaries, justifies Hoernle’s view that the Ājīvikas and the Trairāśikas of Rohagupta were the same sect. We interpret them to mean that the Ājīvikas were sometimes also called Trairāśikas, because they maintained the doctrine of the three *nayas*. From one of the statements¹ it would appear that the Trairāśikas were also occasionally called Ājīvikas. The Rohagupta Trairāśikas, who had some points in common with the Ājīvikas and some with the Vaiśeṣikas, were probably in other respects much closer to Jaina orthodoxy than were the Ājīvikas of Gosāla’s sect. That the commentaries to the *Nandi* and *Samavāya* use the words “founded by Gosāla” only in respect of the Ājīvikas, and never of the Trairāśikas, also strongly suggests that the two were separate though in some respects similar. The Trairāśika sect of the Jaina church was founded by Rohagupta; but the Ājīvikas, who were also *trairāśikas* were founded by Gosāla. In using the phrase *Gosālaka-pravartita* the commentators seem to have been consciously trying to avoid any cause of confusion between the two communities.

c17.s3.46

¹ V. supra, p. 179, n. 5.

c17.s3.47

We are now in a position to understand a little better the fourth statement of Śīlāṅka quoted above,² which declares that the belief in return from *mokṣa* is held by the Trairāśika followers of Gosāla, who have twenty-one *sūtras* arranged according to the order of the Trairāśika *sūtras* in the *Pūrvas*. The last word probably refers to the fourteen *Pūrvas* of the original Jaina canon, which have long been lost. According to the *Samavāya* and the *Nandi*³ these were summarized in the third part of the *Dṛṣṭivāda*, called *Pūrvagatam*. Śīlāṅka seems to have confused this part with the second, which contained the sūtras of the four sects, unless indeed he looked upon the Dṛṣṭivāda as itself a Pūrva. He seems to have known of the Dṛṣṭivāda, but he disagrees with the Samavāya and the Nandi in attributing twenty-one sūtras to the Trairāśikas in place of twenty-two in the Samavāya and Nandi lists. Either Śīlāṅka did not know of these lists, or he was quoting from a defective memory. The best interpretation of his obscure phrase that we can offer is: "The Trairāśikas who follow Gosāla (i.e. the Ājīvikas, not the Rohagupta Trairāśikas) have sūtras arranged in the same way as are those of the Trairāśikas (i.e. the Rohagupta Trairāśikas) in the Pūrvas (i.e. the Dṛṣṭivāda)."

c17.s3.48

² V. supra, p. 175.

c17.s3.49

³ Loc. cit.

Nemicandra on the Ājīvikas

c17.s4.1

The non-canonical Jaina work Pravacana-sār’-oddhāra, composed by Nemicandra in the twelfth century,¹ contains interesting verses in which all ascetics are classified in five categories: Nirgranthas (Jainas), Śākyas (Buddhists), Tāpasas (Jaṭilas, or brāhmaṇical ascetics with matted locks), Gairukas (ascetics who bear a triple staff, and whose clothes are stained with red ochre), and Ājīvas (the followers of Gosāla).²

c17.s4.2

¹ [Text of note missing in source image]

c17.s4.3

² pañcahā samaṇā, muṇiṇo, 731. Sakkā ya Sugaya-sisā, je jaḍilā te u Tāvasā gīyā, Je dhāū-rattā-vatthā tidaṇḍiṇo Geruyā te u, 732. Je Gosālaga-mayam aṇusaranti bhaṇṇanti te u Ājīvā. Samaṇattaṇeṇa bhuvaṇe pañcavi pattā pasiddhim ime, 733. Pravacanasārōddhāra i, sect. 94, fol. 212. A Berlin MS. of this text (Weber, Verzeichniss, no. 1939), reads samaṇattaṇam in the last line of v. 733.

c17.s4.4

Since Nemicandra was a Jaina philosopher, and his own sect occurs first on the list, it seems that the author intended his five groups of ascetics to be read in declining order of excellence. If so it is plain that he viewed the Ājīvikas with disfavour. Moreover, since Nemicandra was a Jaina of the Digambara sect,³ his reference to the Ājīvikas further disproves Hoernle’s contention that they and the Digambaras were the same.

c17.s4.5

³ Guérinot, La Religion Djaïna, p. 82.

Lexicographical References

c17.s5.1

Several lexicographers of the tenth to the twelfth centuries mention the Ājīvikas in the company of a motley collection of ascetics. Their citations are significant in that they indicate that the name was not forgotten, but can be accepted as evidence of the continued existence of Ājīvikas only in South India, for which much stronger evidence may be found elsewhere. Halāyudha and Yādava were southerners,¹ and had no doubt come into contact with the Tamil Ājīvikas, whom we consider in the next chapter. For Hemacandra and Ajayapāla, who wrote in Gujarāt,² we cannot suggest personal knowledge of the Ājīvikas; they probably included the word in their lists by borrowing from the Southern dictionaries, or because of its presence in Jaina literature.

c17.s5.2

¹ *History of Sanskrit Literature*, pp. 133, 478.

c17.s5.3

² *Ibid.*, 478.

c17.s5.4

The earliest surviving lexicographer, Amara, does not mention the word Ājīvika, although *maskarin* occurs in his *Kośa*,³ with the names of a few other ascetics both orthodox and heretical.

c17.s5.5

³ *Amarakośa* ii, 4 1.

c17.s5.6

Halāyudha gives two lists of unorthodox ascetics in separate verses,⁴ the first of which, including such words as *muni*, *yati*, *śvetavāsāḥ*, and *sitāmbara*, contains clothed heretical ascetics, and the second members of the naked category:—

c17.s5.7

⁴ *Abhidhāna-ratnamālā* ii, 189–190.

c17.s5.8

*Nagnāṭo digvāsāḥ kṣapaṇaḥ śramaṇaś ca jīvako jainaḥ*
*Ājīvo maladhārī nirgranthaḥ kathyate sadbhiḥ.*

c17.s5.9

"By the educated a naked wanderer is called *digvāsāḥ*, etc."

c17.s5.10

*Maskarin* is included by Halāyudha among a further group of holy men, which contains such orthodox types as *pārāśarin* and *tapasvin*.⁵

c17.s5.11

⁵ *Ibid.*, ii, 254.

c17.s5.12

Hemacandra's *Abhidhāna-cintāmaṇi* does not mention the Ājīvika, but *maskarin* is included in two verses containing the names of mendicants of more or less orthodox types.⁶ The same author's *Anekārtha-saṅgraha* gives *kṣapaṇa* as one of the several possible meanings of *Ājīvaka*.⁷

c17.s5.13

⁶ *Abhidhāna-cintāmaṇi* vv, 809–810.

c17.s5.14

⁷ *Anekārtha-saṅgraha*, ed. Zachariae, 3, 41.

c17.s5.15

Yādava's *Vaijayantī* gives the following names of naked heretics:—

c17.s5.16

*Kṣapaṇa-śramaṇau nagno nagnāṭaś ca digambaraḥ*
*Ājīvo jīvako jaino nirgrantho malavāry api.*¹

c17.s5.17

¹ *Vaijayantī*, ed. Oppert, p. 202, v. 16.

c17.s5.18

Finally Ajayapāla, probably following Hemacandra, quotes *kṣapaṇa* as one possible meaning of *jīvaka*.²

c17.s5.19

² [Missing text in source] . . v. 3.

c17.s5.20

Of these lexicographical references Hoernle notes only one, that of Halāyudha, who "enumerates a large number of names of the two Jain divisions, the Śvetāmbaras . . . and the Digambaras . . . The latter, he says, are also known as the Ājīva, which is only a shorter form of Ājīvika. . . It is evident now, from what has been said, that the terms Niggantha and Ājīvika denote the two Jaina orders which are known to us as Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras ".³

c17.s5.21

³ [Missing text in source] . . .

c17.s5.22

This appears to be an over-simplification. The verse which, according to Hoernle, enumerates the titles of Śvetāmbaras, actually includes such broad general terms as *tapasvin*, *śānta*, *muni*, and even *liṅgin*, which probably refers to a Śaivite ascetic bearing a *liṅgam*. On the other hand the next verse, giving names of naked ascetics, contains the word *śramaṇa*, a term certainly used by the Śvetāmbaras and Buddhists as well as the Digambaras, and also *nirgrantha*, which term, on Hoernle's theory, specifically denoted the Śvetāmbara, as opposed to the Ājīvika or Digambara.

First 173 of 212 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)