Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17.s1: References in Sanskrit Literature

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (11)