Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17.s2: Varāhamihira and Utpala

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17.s2

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (3)