History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c17.s2.17

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”.