Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18: Chapter X. The Southern Ājīvikas

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. The Southern Ājīvikas

c18.1

The Ājīvikas maintained themselves in the Dravidian-speaking part of India in a more flourishing condition than in the North, and survived in the Tamil country until at least the fourteenth century. This fact may be established on very solid evidence: firstly by a number of inscriptions mentioning the Ājīvikas, and covering a period of nearly a millennium; secondly by the three Tamil religious texts, *Maṇimēkalai*, *Nīlakēci*, and *Civañāṇa-cittiyār*, of widely differing date, each of which gives an outline of Ājīvika doctrine from the Buddhist, Jaina, and Śaivite standpoints respectively; and thirdly by a number of shorter references in other Tamil and Canarese works.

The Inscriptions

c18.s1.1

The epigraphic references to the Ājīvikas may be classified chronologically as follows:—

c18.s1.2

1. Simhavarman Pallava's grant of the village of Vilavaṭṭi to the Brāhmaṇa Viṣṇuśarman.¹ The village is identified by Dr. Kṛṣṇamacarlu with Viḍavalūru, in the Nellore District of Madras. The grant is dated in the tenth year of the King's reign, or A.D. 446. Among the numerous local taxes mentioned are those on iron, leather shops, clothworkers, cloak makers, ropeworks, and Ājīvikas.²

c18.s1.3

¹ *Ep. Ind.* xxiv, pp. 206-209.

c18.s1.4

² *Ibid.*, p. 208, where the text reads *Ājīvika-karā*.

c18.s1.5

2. A grant of the Eastern Cālukya Ammarāja II (945–970) of the four adjacent villages of Tāṇḍikoṇḍa, Ammalapūṇḍi, Gollapūṇḍi, and Ācuvulaparru to the temple of Samastabhuvanāśraya at Vijayavāṭī.³ Of these villages only the first can be traced, but they were all in the District of Guntūr. The component *Ācuvula* in the name of the fourth village is probably equivalent to *Ācuva*, the usual form of Ājīvika in the Tamil inscriptions, and the name therefore means "the village of the Ājīvikas".

c18.s1.6

³ *Epi. Ind.* xxiii, pp. 161–170.

c18.s1.7

3. An inscription of Kaṇṇaradeva or Kṛṣṇa III Rāṣṭrakūṭa (mid tenth century) on the walls of the Kailāsanathasvāmin temple at Kāvanūr, in the North Arcot District of Madras.¹ This lays down that seller and purchaser or mortgager and mortgagee must belong to the same community (*jāti*) . . . in the case of land being gifts to Gods, physicians, or Ājīvikas.²

c18.s1.8

¹ *AR.*, No. 159 of 1921.

c18.s1.9

² Sastri, *The Colas*, vol. i, p. 445. The text of the inscription has been supplied by the Government Epigraphist for India.

c18.s1.10

4. An inscription of Rājendra Coladeva at Āvaṇi, Kolar District, Mysore,³ dated in the King's third year (A.D. 1072). In it the inhabitants of the *viṣaya* declare a list of local taxes, and decide that the *Ācuvi-makkaḷ* are to pay one *kācu* each for the minor tolls, and that if they fail to do so they are to pay a further *kācu*. . . . Except for the house of the schoolmaster, the temple-manager, and the village watchman, and the houses which have paid the minor tolls, one-quarter *kācu* is levied on every house.⁴

c18.s1.11

³ *E.C.*, x, Mb. 49a.

c18.s1.12

⁴ . . . . . *acipuvatākavum . . . . . kkōyil-uṭaiyāṉ vīṭum taḷārar-vīṭum ciṟucuṅkattukku iṟutta vīṭu tavira nīkki niṉṟa vīṭukaḷukku vīṭṭāl kāl kācu koḷvatākavum.* Rice's transliteration is modified in accordance with the system of the Madras University *Tamil Lexicon*. The obscure words *Ācuvam uṇṇum* in the inscription cannot be interpreted unless we accept the suggestion that *uṇṇum* is a misreading or a scribe's error for *eṇṇum*. In this case we would translate the phrase: "The people of the Ājīvikas, called the Ācuvam should pay one *kācu* per head." *Ācuvam* was probably a collective name for the whole Ājīvika community.

c18.s1.13

5. An inscription assigning local taxes to the Vīraṭṭaneśvara temple, Kīlūr, South Arcot District, Madras, dated the 33rd year of the reign of Kulottuṅga Coladeva (A.D. 1103).⁵ Among the taxes is the *Ācuvi-kācu*.

c18.s1.14

⁵ *AR.*, no. 283 of 1902. *SII.* vii, 912. Professor Sastri believes that this inscription is of Kulottuṅga III Parakesarī, in which case its date would be c. A.D. 1211 (*The Colas*, vol. ii, p. 709).

c18.s1.15

6. An inscription of Rājarāja III's seventh year (c. A.D. 1223) at Tiruvoṟṟiyūr,⁶ decreeing the levying of new taxes on this and other villages which had hitherto been exempt. Among the taxes is "the *kācu* paid by the people of the Ājīvikas", or “ the Ājīvika poll-tax ” (*Acuvikaḷ-pērār-kācu*), which is followed by the tax on the Uvaiccas (*Uvaiccar-pērār-kuṭi-k-kācum*).¹

c18.s1.16

⁶ *AR.*, no. 199 of 1912.

c18.s1.17

¹ Sastri, *The Colas*, vol. ii, p. 334, n. The text of this inscription has been supplied by the Government Epigraphist for India.

c18.s1.18

7. An inscription of Rājarāja III’s 22nd year, Śaka 1160, or A.D. 1238, at the Perumal Temple, Poygai, near Viriñcipuram,² recording the gift of the village of Kumāramaṅgalam to the temple. Among the taxes there levied was the *Āciva(ka)-kācu*.

c18.s1.19

² *SII.* i, no. 59.

c18.s1.20

8. An inscription of Rājarāja III’s 24th year, Śaka 1161 (A.D. 1239–1240), in the same location.³ This records the gift to the temple of the village of Puttūr, where the *Ācuva-k-kaṭamai* was levied.

c18.s1.21

³ *SII.* i, no. 61. No. 62 is a duplicate of this inscription.

c18.s1.22

9. An inscription of Rājarāja III’s 28th year (A.D. 1243–4), in the same location.⁴ This records the gift of the village of Aṭṭiyūr to the temple, with all taxes and rights, including the *Ācuva-k-kaṭamai*.

c18.s1.23

⁴ *SII.* i, no. 64.

c18.s1.24

10. A fragmentary inscription of one Rājagambhīra-Śambhuvarāyaṇ, dated in the year following Śaka 1180 (A.D. 1259), at the Ammaiappeśvara temple, Paḍaveḍu.⁵ The donor gave a village, the name of which is lost, to the temple; among the taxes there levied were the *Uvaccan-per-k-kaṭamai* and the *Ācuvikaṇ-per-k-kaṭamai*. The tax on the Uvaccas, which occurs in the list immediately before that on the Ājīvikas, and which is also found in the Tiruvorriyūr inscription (No. 6 above), is of some significance, and is considered below.⁶

c18.s1.25

⁵ *SII.* i, no. 78.

c18.s1.26

⁶ V. infra, pp. 192–93.

c18.s1.27

11. An inscription at Channakēśava Temple, Maḍivāḷa, Kolar District, Mysore,⁷ dated in the 37th year of a king whose name is illegible, but who was probably the Hoysala Rāmanātha Deva, in which case the date of the inscription would be *c.* A.D. 1291. Various village taxes, including the *Ācuva-k-kaṭamai* are devoted to the maintenance of a perpetual lamp in the temple for the victory of the King.

c18.s1.28

⁷ *Epi. Carn.* x, Kolar, no. 28.

c18.s1.29

12. An inscription at Kalluhaḷḷi, Kolar District, Mysore, dated Śaka 1215 (A.D. 1294)⁸ A minister of Rāmanātha Deva makes a religious donation of village taxes, including the Ācuva-k-kaṭamai.

c18.s1.30

⁸ *Epi. Carn.* x, Kolar, no. 18.

c18.s1.31

13. An inscription at Kaivāra, Kolar District, Mysore, dated in the 40th year of the Hoysala Rāmanātha Deva (A.D. 1294).¹ Lands are donated to establish an annual festival on the King's birthday. The Ācuva-k-kaṭamai occurs among the numerous taxes mentioned.

c18.s1.32

¹ Epi. Carn. x, Chintamani, no. 88.

c18.s1.33

14. An inscription at Maḍivāḷa, Bowringpet taluq, Kolar District, Mysore, dated Śaka 1251 (A.D. 1339).² Village taxes, including the Ācuvam aulambalam, are dedicated to the local temple.

c18.s1.34

² Epi. Carn. x, Bowringpet, no. 28. This is not the same village as that of no. 11 above, which is in Kolar taluq.

c18.s1.35

15. An inscription at Haḷepāḷya, Kolar District, Mysore, dated Śaka 1268 (A.D. 1346).³ A grant to one Komuppaṇ of the village of Mātaraicaṇ-paḷḷi, with the right to receive all taxes, including the Ācuvam tari-irai.

c18.s1.36

³ Epi. Carn. x, Malur, no. 39.

c18.s1.37

16. A further inscription at Kaivāra (v. No. 13, above), remitting certain taxes to the temple of Bhīmeśvara, including the Ācuva-k-kaṭamai.⁴ The grant is dated Śaka 1267 (A.D. 1346).

c18.s1.38

⁴ Epi. Carn. x, Chintamani, no. 90.

c18.s1.39

17. An inscription at Guḍihaḷḷi, Kolar District, Mysore, dated Śaka 1268 (A.D. 1346).⁵ Certain inhabitants of the nāṭu, including the sāmantādhipati Aṅkaya-nāyakkar, make a grant to the temple at Ceṅkai. Among the taxes mentioned is the Ācuvam avalambalam.

c18.s1.40

⁵ Epi. Carn. x, Sidhlaghatta, no. 67.

c18.s1.41

The presence of the word Ājīvika in certain South Indian inscriptions was known to Hoernle,⁶ who, following Hultzsch,⁷ identified the Ājīvikas there mentioned with the Jainas. Barua also noted the recurrence of the name.⁸ But neither authority appears to have been aware of the full range of inscriptions, their knowledge being based on those at Poygai. We have here evidence that the Ājīvikas existed not only around one small centre during the first half of the thirteenth century, but that they were present in what are now the Arcot and Nellore districts of Madras Province, and in the Kolar District of Mysore, for at least nine hundred years, from A.D. 446, the date of the inscription of Simhavarman Pallava, until A.D. 1346, the date of the Guḍihaḷḷi inscription. The evidence of the astrologer Vaidyanātha Dīkṣita,¹ indicates that they survived into the following century.

c18.s1.42

⁶ ERE. i, p. 266.

c18.s1.43

⁷ SII. i, p. 88, n. 5.

c18.s1.44

⁸ JDL. ii, p. 78.

c18.s1.45

¹ V. supra, p. 184.

c18.s1.46

Few authorities seem to have devoted much thought to these inscriptions. Professor Nilakanta Sastri has noted the Ājīvika references in two at present unpublished² without pausing to consider their significance from the point of view of religious history, while Professor B. A. Saletore has remarked on the implications of the Āvaṇi inscription, and has correctly interpreted the nature of the Ājivika tax there levied.³

c18.s1.47

² Nos. 3 and 6 above.

c18.s1.48

³ *M.E.R.* 1912, pp. 223-4.

c18.s1.49

A further brief contribution on these inscriptions has been provided by Professor A. Chakravarti, who quotes and considers the Poygai inscriptions in his introduction to *Nīlakēci*,⁴ and arrives at original conclusions. "It is evident," he writes, "that Dr. Hultzch (*sic*) makes an unfortunate mistake in translating *Ācuvakkatamai* as the tax on Ajivikās (*sic*). *A priori* it is absurd to suggest that any minister would propose levying a tax on wandering mendicants who have to beg for their daily food. . . . Further, from the context it is clear that the term refers to some kind of professional tax since it occurs in the midst of words relating to professional tax, ‘the tax on looms, the tax on shops, the tax on gold-smiths (*sic*), and the tax on oil mills, and *Ācuvakkatamai* translated as the tax on Ajivikās (*sic*).’ Probably the term *Ācuvakkatamai* refers to the tax laid on Bronzesmiths (*sic*) who made moulds for casting vessels and other objects of bell-metals. The Tamil term *ācu* is generally used synonymously with mould. Hence it can only mean a tax on moulding and casting. It is not for us to determine exactly what it means. It is enough for our purpose to state that it does not and cannot mean tax on Ajivikās (*sic*) and the rendering given by Dr. Hultzch (*sic*) is evidently wrong."⁵

c18.s1.50

⁴ "Neelakesi", pp. 251-261.

c18.s1.51

⁵ *Op. cit.*, p. 258.

c18.s1.52

Professor Chakravarti is right to refuse to accept the equivalence of *Ācuva* and *Ājīvika* without question; but we cannot admit his two objections. The first is quickly answered.

c18.s1.53

The tax was levied not on Ājīvika mendicants, but on their patrons, the Ājīvika laymen. Chakravarti’s second objection is more serious. The tax is usually listed among many trade taxes of various kinds. The usual form of the word as it occurs in the inscriptions is *Ācuva*, a possible Dravidian corruption of *Ājīva* or *Ājīvika*, but a word which might be based, as Chakravarti suggests, upon a Tamil word *ācu*. One of the Poygai inscriptions, however, gives a form much closer to the correct Sanskrit—*Ācivi(ka)*,¹ and any doubts should finally be set at rest by the earliest of our inscriptions, that of Simhavarman Pallava.² This is in Sanskrit, and the *Ājīvika-kara* is there mentioned in its correct Sanskrit form.

c18.s1.54

¹ No. 7 above.

c18.s1.55

² No. 1 above.

c18.s1.56

Professor Krishnaswami Aiyangar, controverting the earlier view of Sewell, that the tax was levied “on everyone who professed the Jaina religion”,³ remarks that: “There is nothing to warrant that it (i.e. the tax) was taken from them (i.e. the Ājīvikas) as it is included among other general taxes. It is likely that it was intended for feeding and otherwise providing for these mendicants by the community.”⁴ He suggests that the tax was not a special tax on Ājīvikas, but a tax on the village communities for the benefit of the Ājīvika ascetics. The general disfavour in which the Ājīvikas were held makes this theory intrinsically improbable; it is completely disproved by reference to the Āvaṇi inscription,⁵ where the word *Ācuvi-makkaḷ* is obviously in the nominative, and where it is plainly shown that the Ājīvikas were taxed at a higher rate than the rest of the villagers. Several other inscriptions would be very difficult to understand, on Professor Aiyangar’s hypothesis.

c18.s1.57

³ *Historical Inscriptions of South India*, p. 137. Sewell apparently accepted the general theory that the Ājīvikas were Digambara Jainas.

c18.s1.58

⁴ Ibid., p. 137, n. 1.

c18.s1.59

⁵ No. 4 above. V. infra, pp. 194–95.

c18.s1.60

As Chakravarti has noticed, the Ājīvika tax is usually mentioned together with a number of trade taxes, including those on the low-caste leather-workers and oil-pressers. Moreover, the Tiruvorriyūr and Paḍaveḍu inscriptions⁶ mention the tax with that on the *Uvaccas*. The latter term is sometimes used in Tamil for Muslim settlers, and it was interpreted in this sense by Hultzsch.¹ It may also mean the low-caste temple-drummers of the sect of Kālī.² In either sense the term indicates unorthodoxy, and that the Ājīvika should have been placed beside the Uvacca indicates that both were looked upon as unorthodox. The juxtaposition of the Ājīvika, the leather-worker, the oil-presser, and the weaver in other inscriptions is also significant, and perhaps indicate that the Ājīvikas were treated as a caste, following one dominant occupation. The close connection in earlier times between Ājīvikas and potters and their wares³ suggests that pottery was their traditional craft, and it is perhaps significant that the relevant inscriptions do not elsewhere mention taxes on potters. On the other hand the considerable fund of taxable wealth which they must have possessed, and the dislike which seems to have been felt for them, suggest that they may have been moneylenders or money-changers.⁴

c18.s1.61

⁶ Nos. 6 and 10 above.

c18.s1.62

¹ *SII.* i, p. 82, n. 4.

c18.s1.63

² Madras University *Tamil Lexicon*, s.v. Uvacca.

c18.s1.64

³ V. supra, p. 134.

c18.s1.65

⁴ I am indebted to Dr. L. D. Barnett for this suggestion.

c18.s1.66

The Simhavarman grant proves that, by the middle of the fifth century A.D., the Ājīvikas were well established in the district, for the tax was not then newly imposed upon them, but its proceeds were merely transferred by the King to the recipient of the grant. The legends of the Jainas, with whom the Ājīvikas seem to have been originally associated, ascribe the first important penetration of Jainism into South India to the Maurya epoch, when the pontiff Bhadrabāhu led a band of ascetics, including the ex-Emperor Candragupta himself, to Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa.⁵ Aśoka sent Buddhist missionaries to the Tamil country, and his political influence extended as far as North Mysore.⁶ The Maurya period seems to have been one in which all unorthodox sects flourished and expanded. Probably Ājīvika ascetics found their way to the Tamil country during this period, when they were patronized by Mauryan kings, and perhaps exercised considerable influence.

c18.s1.67

⁵ *PHAI.*, pp. 241-2.

c18.s1.68

⁶ Ibid., pp. 256-7.

c18.s1.69

At this time it is unlikely that Brāhmaṇical Hinduism had made any important impression on the indigenous population, whose religious practices seem to have centred round wild nature deities, propitiated by village witch-doctors with ceremonies which involved religious hysteria and the shedding of blood.¹ Dancing, probably ecstatic,² and bloody magical ceremonies ³ seem to have been practised by the early Ājīvikas. Thus the unkempt Ājīvika ascetic might make a greater immediate impression upon the early Dravidians than did the grave Buddhist *bhikkhu*. Although Ājīvikism never gained so strong a hold as did its rivals, we may suggest that it survived longer in the Dravidian South than in the North because it was more in keeping with Dravidian character and tradition.

c18.s1.70

¹ Iyengar, *History of the Tamils to 600 A.D.*, pp. 74 ff.

c18.s1.71

² V. supra, p. 117.

c18.s1.72

³ V. supra, pp. 112–13.

c18.s1.73

We may surmise that, with the growing influence of Hindu Buddhist and Jaina missionaries, the status of the Ājīvikas in the South fell. Village communes levied a special tax upon them, which was maintained under the orthodox Pallavas, Colas, and Hoysalas.

c18.s1.74

This tax is referred to as *kara*, *kācu*, *kaṭamai*, *avalampalam*, and *tari-irai*. The Āvaṇi inscription ⁴ indicates that the term *Ācuvi-kācu* was, at least sometimes, taken in its literal sense, as the gold coin of that name, weighing about 28 grains.⁵ The same inscription points to the fact that the *Ācuvi-kācu* was a poll-tax. The Ājīvika community paid it “per person” (*pērāl*), while the quarter *kācu* levied in respect of the minor tolls upon the rest of the village community was paid “per house” (*vīṭṭāl*). From this we infer that the Ājīvika household might pay as much as twenty or thirty times the tax of the orthodox; and the tax was doubled if payment fell into arrears.

c18.s1.75

⁴ No. 4 above.

c18.s1.76

⁵ Madras University *Tamil Lexicon*, s.v. *kācu*.

c18.s1.77

The word *pērāl*, here used in respect of the Ājīvika tax, recalls the phrases *Acuvikaḷ-pērār-kācu* and *Ācuvikan-per-k-kaṭamai*, in other inscriptions.⁶ It seems that in both these cases *pēr* or *per* must be read in the sense of a person or individual. This is the view taken by Saletore.⁷ An alternative suggestion,⁸ that *pērāl* means “in the name of” the Ājīvikas, does not seem probable. The contrast between *pērāl* and *vīṭṭāl* in the Āvaṇi inscription, and the use of the words *pēr* and *per* in the two other inscriptions mentioned, provide convincing evidence that the Ājīvika tax was, in these cases at least, a poll-tax, in contrast to the house-taxes paid by most other members of the village community. But even on the alternative interpretation of the Āvaṇi inscription, it seems that the Ājīvikas paid much heavier taxes than did other classes of the community. Probably they were considerably richer than the average peasant of the time, for the assembly of the *viṣaya* would hardly have imposed this oppressive tax if it had not considered its victims capable of paying it. The tax at Āvaṇi is a measure of the unpopularity of the Ājīvikas, and shows that they were under a disability which marked them as a class apart from the rest of the population.

c18.s1.78

⁶ Nos. 6 and 10 above.

c18.s1.79

⁷ *Mediæval Jainism*, pp. 223–4.

c18.s1.80

⁸ Offered by Dr. S. Vithiananthan.

c18.s1.81

In considering the Ājīvikas in South India we must not disregard the many inscriptions in which no reference to them occurs. It is by no means certain that the examples given above exhaust the inscriptional references to Ājīvikism, for the full text of many inscriptions is not available. But it is certain that there are many inscriptions from the region where Ājīvikas are known to have existed, which make no mention either of the sect or of a tax upon it. One significant inscription of this type is to be found at Kaivāra,¹ where the Ājīvika tax was levied in A.D. 1294.² This inscription, which is dated A.D. 1375, lists a number of village taxes, but not that on the Ājīvikas. We may infer that by this time they had ceased to exist in the village. That the tax was rescinded by the village commune is *a priori* less likely. Similar evidence of the period of the disappearance of the Ājīvikas in other villages is unfortunately lacking.

c18.s1.82

¹ *Epi. Carn.* x, Chintamani, 94.

c18.s1.83

² V. supra, no. 13.

c18.s1.84

The absence of the tax in villages other than those mentioned may either be due to the fact that no Ājīvikas resided therein, or that they were not specially taxed. The latter alternative is more probable, since literary evidence indicates that Ājīvikas existed further south than the villages mentioned in the inscriptions, in Madurā and Malabar,³ and it is hardly likely that the Ājīvikas in the extreme south came by sea. We have no reason to believe that an Ājīvika tax was imposed there;

c18.s1.85

³ V. infra, pp. 197 ff.

c18.s1.86

but there is evidence that Jainism was sometimes severely persecuted by Pāṇḍyan kings,¹ and it is not impossible that the Ājīvikas further south suffered more severely at the hands of orthodoxy than did those of the Arcot and Kolar districts.

c18.s1.87

¹ Smith, *Early History of India*, pp. 474–5.

Ājīvikas in Tamil Literature

c18.s2.1

There appears to be no definite reference to Ājīvikas in the earliest Tamil literature, the only possible exception being the unidentified quotation by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar in his commentary to the *Tolkāppiyam*, which we have already mentioned.² In the anthologies of erotic and martial poems, which form the most striking monument of ancient Dravidian culture, the *antaṇar* or *brāhmaṇas* are already present, although the Āryan way of life has only partially imposed itself.³ Yet the voluminous literature of the anthologies seems to contain no certain reference to any of the unorthodox sects. The famous *Tirukkural*, somewhat later than the anthologies, admittedly contains ten verses on fate (*ūḻ*).⁴ But all can be interpreted as applying to the orthodox *karma*, and although it is possible to suggest that they were in part inspired by Ājīvika ideas this cannot be finally established.

c18.s2.2

² V. supra, p. 111.

c18.s2.3

³ *CHI.* i, p. 596.

c18.s2.4

⁴ *Tirukkural*, 371–380.

c18.s2.5

In view of the Jaina tradition of the migration under Bhadrabāhu, and of the claim of Aśoka to have sent Buddhist missionaries to the Dravidian lands, we cannot accept the negative evidence of the anthologies as proof of a late penetration of heterodoxy into the Tamil country. The Bhaṭṭiprolu Casket, of the end of the second century B.C.,⁵ indicates that Buddhists existed in the Āndhra country at this date, and it would be rash to claim that there were none further south. As we have already suggested, it is probable that the heterodox sects began their southward expansion during the Maurya period. But at the time of the composition of the anthologies it may be assumed that they had made little impression upon the lives of the people in the districts south of the Kāviri, where most of the earliest Tamil literature was written.

c18.s2.6

⁵ Sircar, *Select Inscriptions* i, p. 215, n. 1.

c18.s2.7

Although Tamil authorities of the older school claimed a much greater antiquity for their early literature, we may tentatively attribute the oldest and most important of the anthologies, the *Puranānūru* and the *Akanānūru*, to the early centuries of the Christian era.¹ Somewhat later come the so-called "epics", two of which contain definite evidence of the presence of Ājīvikas in the extreme south.

c18.s2.8

¹ *Tamil Studies*, pp. 315-19.

c18.s2.9

The translator of *Manimēkalai*, Dr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, has claimed that the Buddhist logic propounded in the work is earlier than that of Diṅnāga, and has suggested the fourth century A.D. for the composition of the text.² Rather the evident similarity of the two systems suggests the reverse. It is not probable that the great Buddhist logician borrowed his system almost intact from an obscure Tamil poet, or even from an unknown third source to which both he and Cāttaṇ of Madurā may have been indebted. More probably the author of *Manimēkalai* was himself versed in Diṅnāga’s logic. Therefore we must posit a somewhat later date for the composition of *Manimēkalai* than Dr. Aiyangar would admit, and suggest that it and the kindred "epic" *Cilappatikāram* represent conditions as they existed in South India in the sixth or seventh centuries of the Christian era.

c18.s2.10

² *Ibid.*, 78 ff.

c18.s2.11

As already noticed,³ *Cilappatikāram* gives evidence of the existence of a community of Ājīvika ascetics at Madurā, whose order the father of the heroine Kaṇṇaki entered on the death of his daughter. They are described as "saints with the mien of gods, Ājīvikas (performing) severe penances".⁴ This indicates that Ājīvikas were at least occasionally respected and it gives no suggestion of slackness or hypocrisy among their monks.

c18.s2.12

³ V. supra, p. 134.

c18.s2.13

⁴ *Kaṭavular-kōlaṭṭ-aṇṇalar perun-tavatt’-Ācīvakar*. *Cilappatikāram* xxvii, 98-9.

c18.s2.14

The reference in *Manimēkalai* is longer and more important. The poem treats of the religious quest of the heroine Manimēkalai, who, after many adventures of a magical and mystical type, arrives at Vañji, where she finds many religious teachers of different sects, and listens to their doctrines. Already a convinced Buddhist, she decides that no other sect has any profound knowledge of the truth, and becomes a nun. The text is an example of a class of philosophical literature which, stripped of its fictional trappings, resulted in such works as Civañāṉacittiyār, and the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha. The doctrines of the opposing sects are stated in Maṇimēkalai briefly, with an attempt at objectivity. Among the teachers of Vañji is “The Elder, knowing the book of the Ājīvikas”,¹ who delivers a lecture which is of great importance for the elucidation of Ājīvika doctrine and which will be considered in our second part. The author to whom the work is attributed, Cāttaṉ of Madurā, seems to have looked upon Vañji, the ancient capital of the Kerala kingdom, as a centre in which representatives of many religions and sects rubbed shoulders. His testimony suggests that Ājīvikism had by this time penetrated to Malabar. Some doubt exists as to the exact location of the ancient Vañji, which was probably at what is now Tiru-karur, near Cochin.²

c18.s2.15

¹ Ācīvaka-nūl-arinta-purāṇaṇ. Maṇi. xxvii, 108.

c18.s2.16

² CHI. i, p. 595.

c18.s2.17

The most valuable reference to Ājīvikas in Tamil literature is that contained in the anonymous Jaina poem Nīlakēci. This seems to have been written by an author who had read the Buddhist Maṇimēkalai, and wished to provide a Jaina counterpart to that work. But the poem is a step nearer to the fully developed study of various philosophical systems than Maṇimēkalai, wherein the philosophy is subordinate to the story.

c18.s2.18

From the literary point of view the narrative of Nīlakēci is of little importance, but serves merely as a framework for the substance of the poem, the exposition of various philosophical systems, and the detailed refutation of all but that of the Jainas. The story has, however, some significance for the light it throws on the date of the work, and for its reference to the Ājīvika teacher, Pūraṇa. The animal sacrifices at the temple of Kālī in Puṇḍravardhana are interrupted through the preaching of a Jaina ascetic, Municandra. The goddess summons from the South one of her underlings, the demi-goddess Nīlakēci, to shake Municandra’s resolution and thus destroy his power. Nīlakēci, after tempting the ascetic in various ways reminiscent of those used by Māra against the Buddha, admits herself beaten, and is initiated by the muni into the Jaina faith with a long discourse on Jaina cosmology and the doctrine of *karma*. On her conversion Nīlakēci makes good use of her power of flight by passing rapidly from one city to another, challenging the greatest non-Jaina teachers to debate, and invariably defeating them, with arguments often of considerable subtlety. It will be seen that this narrative is a mere vehicle for a dissertation on Jainism and the refutation of opposing theories.

c18.s2.19

The list of teachers whom Nīlakēci is said to have defeated in debate, and the cities in which they are said to have taught, is of some interest. Despite the Śaktic narrative framework the main enemy of the author of this poem is evidently Buddhism, the doctrines of which are the first to be refuted and to which are devoted four chapters, while the other sects receive only one each.

c18.s2.20

The names of Nīlakēci’s opponents, in their Sanskrit forms, are:—

c18.s2.21

1. The Buddhist nun Kuṇḍalakeśī at Kāmpilya; she describes the greatness of the Buddha and the five *skandhas* of Buddhism;

c18.s2.22

2. Arkacandra, at Ujjain; he is a Buddhist preacher specially interested in ethics;

c18.s2.23

3. Maudgalyāyana (Tamil, Mokkala) at Padmapura, who rather attacks Jaina doctrines than defends his own;

c18.s2.24

4. Buddha himself, at Kapilapura, which is said to be by the seashore; he discusses the five *skandhas*, the four noble truths, the doctrine of emptiness (*śūnyavāda*), and that of momentariness (*kṣaṇikavāda*); he finally abandons his doctrine of soullessness (*anātma*) as a result of Nīlakēci’s subtle arguments;

c18.s2.25

5. Pūraṇa the Ājīvika, at Kukkuṭanagara;

c18.s2.26

6. Parāśara the Sāṅkhya, at Hastināpura; his doctrine, while recognizing twenty-five *tattvas*, is monistic, and describes Puruṣa as free from all activity, without *guṇas*, always an enjoyer, not undergoing modifications, not bound by *karma*, eternal, all-pervading, all-perceiving, all-enjoying existence;

c18.s2.27

7. Lokajit, a Vaiśeṣika teacher, at a place unspecified;

c18.s2.28

8. Bhūtika, a teacher of the Veda, at the town of Kākanti¹; his doctrine is that of the eternal and self-existent Vedas; and finally 9. Piśācaka, a materialist (*bhūtavādī*), at the court of a king named Madanajit, the location of whose capital is not stated.

c18.s2.29

¹ Kākan, Monghyr District (Jain, *Life in Ancient India*, p. 291).

c18.s2.30

The presence of such figures as Maudgalyāyana, Buddha, and Parāśara suggests that the anonymous author intended his poem to be historically plausible. He appears to have considered Pūraṇa, whom he thought of as the contemporary of Buddha, to be the founder of Ājīvikism. Thus we have independent confirmation of the historicity of Pūraṇa Kassapa of the Pāli canon.

c18.s2.31

The doctrines propounded by the teachers give some indication of the date of the composition of the work. The author seems to have known *Maṇimēkalai*, and consciously to have modelled his poem on the philosophical part of that work. His language is somewhat later than that of *Maṇimēkalai*. We may therefore suggest the seventh century A.D. as the earliest possible date of the poem's composition. The work must have been in existence by the end of the thirteenth century, if, according to Professor Chakravarti's theory, Vāmanamuni, the commentator to *Nīlakēci*, lived at that time.¹ It is probable, however, that the poem antedates its commentator by several centuries on the evidence of the doctrines of the nine teachers. *Nīlakēci* must have been written when it was still possible for a Dravidian Jaina to look on Buddhism as his sect's most dangerous rival. The author has nothing to say about the Vedānta school of Śaṅkara or the Viśiṣṭādvaita of Rāmānuja, so we may assume that he wrote before the influence of these philosophers was much felt in South India. Moreover he does not mention devotional Śaivism. It therefore seems that *Nīlakēci* was written before any of these sects became very influential in the Tamil country. We may suggest the ninth century as the latest date at which it could have been written.

c18.s2.32

¹ Chakravarti, "Neelakesi," p. 11.

c18.s2.33

Professor Chakravarti does not agree with this conclusion. The absence of references to the Ājīvikas in the Tamil devotional anthologies convinces him that they were extinct when the hymns were composed.² He overlooks the reference to them in the *Civañāṉa-cittiyār*, of the fourteenth century. The author of *Nīlakēci* states that he learnt Jaina doctrine from one Tēvar, whom Chakravarti identifies with the author of the *Tirukkural*.¹ Hence he believes that the poem was written as early as the first century A.D. Overlooking any other objections to this very early date, the identification proposed by Chakravarti cannot be proved. Chakravarti gives the name in its honorific plural form, “Thevar,” which title is sometimes used to mean Tiruvalluvar.² But the text gives the name in the singular form, *Tēvaṇ*, which is not so used, but may be applied to the Jaina *Arhant*.³ We must therefore Cakravarti’s conclusion that *Nīlakēci* was written at so early a date, and assign the work to the eighth or ninth century.

c18.s2.34

² "Neelakesi," p. 8.

c18.s2.35

¹ Ibid., p. 10. Reference to *Nil. v*, 5.

c18.s2.36

² Madras University, *Tamil Lexicon*, s.v. *tēvar*.

c18.s2.37

³ Ibid., s.v. *tēvaṇ*.

c18.s2.38

Most of the information about the Ājīvikas given by the poem concerns their philosophy, and will be considered in the second part of this work. It does, however, shed a little light on the general character of Dravidian Ājīvikism at the period.

c18.s2.39

In the poem *Nīlakēci* is said to have “gone to the great city of Kukkuṭa, and entered Camaṭaṇṭa”,⁴ where she found Pūraṇa’s monastery. Vāmanamuni, the commentator, gives no information about Camaṭaṇṭa, other than that it is the name of a town (*ūr*). The former place he ignores. In a footnote Professor Chakravarti states that Kukkuṭa- or Kōḷi-nagar is a name of Uraiyūr or Trichinopoly, but he gives no basis for this doubtful statement. The scenes of *Nīlakēci*’s other philosophical debates are all in Northern India, and we may infer that the author thought of Kukkuṭanagara as also situated in the north. The *Dhammapada Commentary* mentions a town called Kukkuṭavatī,⁵ elsewhere referred to as Kukkuṭa, somewhere in the Himālayan region, at a distance of 120 leagues from Sāvatthi. Perhaps Kukkuṭanagara was the town remembered by the Ājīvikas as the birthplace of Pūraṇa, since the Buddha is represented in the poem as meeting *Nīlakēci* in Kapilapura or Kapilavastu, the city of his birth. Camaṭaṇṭa, or Samaḍaṇḍa, may have been a near-by suburb or village.

c18.s2.40

⁴ *Kukkuṭa mā nakar niṉṟu . . . pōy c-Camaṭaṇṭam pukkaḷ*. *Nil.* 666.

c18.s2.41

⁵ *Dhp. Comm.* ii, pp. 116 ff., teste *DPPN*. s.v. *Kukkuṭavatī*.

c18.s2.42

A second possibility is that the Tamil author imagined the events as taking place in Samataṭa, the Delta region of Bengal.

c18.s2.43

The near-by region to the west of the Delta was sometimes called Daṇḍabhukti,¹ and Samaḍaṇḍa may be a corruption of the two names Daṇḍabhukti and Samaṭaṭa. If so the name Kukkuṭanagara ("City of the Cock") may be explained by the similarity of the words Tāmralipti, the chief river-port of the area, and tāmracūḍa ("the copper-crested"), a common literary epithet for the cock. That the author of Nilakēci had but a poor knowledge of North Indian geography is proved by his placing Kapilapura on the sea coast, and in such an author confusion is not impossible. If this alternative be accepted it may indicate that the Dravidian Ājīvikas looked upon Bengal as the original home of their faith.

c18.s2.44

¹ History of Bengal, vol. i, ed. Majumdar, p. 23 and map opp.

c18.s2.45

The Ājīvika hermitage is described as adorned with fragrant flowers,² and thus gives the impression of being a pleasant and comfortable place. Here the teacher rules with great respect and dignity, and expounds the Ājīvika scriptures (araṇam) to visitors. He is "the Great Mind, the great one than whom none is greater, Pūraṇan the Lord, the Most Learned".³ He is careful to stress that his followers are not Jainas, as though the two sects might easily be confused.⁴ From this it might be inferred that the Southern Ājīvikas practised nudity, and that the confusion was thus likey to arise, but Vāmanamuni in his commentary took the phrase to mean that the Ājīvikas, like the Jainas, maintained an anekāntavāda system of epistemology,⁵ and that misunderstanding might thus occur. The Ājīvika monks are described as mā-tavar, or ascetics performing extreme penances. Yet the teacher concludes his speech by urging his visitor not to condemn them because of their addiction to cuvai, which, as we have seen,⁶ may mean sensual pleasure. The chapter on the Ājīvikas in Nilakēci yields no other information about the history and development of the Ājīvika sect in the South.

c18.s2.46

² Ibid., 667.

c18.s2.47

³ Pūraṇan enpāṉ peruvarakkarravaṉ. Nil. 668.

c18.s2.48

⁴ Ayaliyar tām alla v Ācīvakarkaḷ. Nil. 669.

c18.s2.49

⁵ Tikamparatvam oppiṉum anekāntavātikaḷ ākiya nirkkiranta-v-allar Ājīvakar.

c18.s2.50

⁶ V. supra, p. 125.

c18.s2.51

Civañāṇa-cittiyār, one of the most famous Tamil Śaivite texts, is the third important source for Dravidian Ājīvikism. Its author, Aruṇandi Śivācārya, lived in the thirteenth century,¹ and we therefore see in his work Ājīvikas in their final phase. The text is in two parts, the *Parapakṣam* and the *Supakṣam*. The former outlines the chief opposing systems of the time, including Materialism, Buddhism, Jainism, and the orthodox sects, each of which is refuted. The second part is an exposition of Śaivite doctrine and philosophy, and is of no importance for our study.

c18.s2.52

¹ V. Nallaswami Pillai, “*Śivajñāna Siddhiyār*,” pp. xlv-vi.

c18.s2.53

In the *Parapakṣam* the Ājīvikas are discussed immediately after the Jainas. The latter are described as naked ascetics,² thus showing that the author had the Digambara sect in mind. Even at this late date, therefore, the Ājīvikas were distinct from the Digambaras. But Aruṇandi appears to have considered the Ājīvikas akin to the Jainas, for they are referred to in his poem as *Ācīvakaṇ amaṇarkaḷ*³ (Skt. *śramaṇa*), the usual Tamil word for Jaina ascetics.

c18.s2.54

² *CÑC.*, p. 213.

c18.s2.55

³ *CÑC.*, p. 255, v. 1.

c18.s2.56

Aruṇandi says little about the customs of the Ājīvikas. They practise severe penances, and pull the hairs from their heads. Their doctrine is one of atomism; *Niyati* the principle of determinism, which looms so large in the Pāli accounts of Makkhali Gosāla’s system, is scarcely mentioned; and something like the usual doctrine of *karma* is maintained. Apparently Aruṇandi had met Ājīvikas who had moved far in the direction of Jainism, without completely losing their identity.

c18.s2.57

Certain references of Canarese provenance, collected by Dr. K. B. Pathak⁴ must here be mentioned. The first of these is in the *Ācārasāra* of Vīranandi, a Digambara work in Sanskrit, of the twelfth century. This states that the mendicant (*parivrāt*) who practises extreme penance will reach the heaven of Brahmakalpa, lower than that destined for the Ājīvika, who, ignorant of the true doctrine though he be, will attain the higher heaven of Sahasrāra-kalpa.⁵ The commentary adds that the Ājīvika is a kind of Buddhist *bhikṣu*, subsisting upon rice-gruel (*kāñji*).¹ Vaṭṭakera's *Mūlācāra*, not quoted by Pathak, contains a similar verse, followed by one which states that non-Jaina ascetics can rise no higher than Sahasrāra.²

c18.s2.58

⁴ *The Ājīvikas a Sect of Buddhist Bhikkhus*, *IA*. xli, pp. 88-9.

c18.s2.59

⁵ *... ācāravān api Ājīvakaḥ Sahasrāra- 127 (as quoted by Pathak, loc. cit.).

c18.s2.60

¹ *Ājīvakaḥ: ... kāṃji bhikṣu*. Quoted Pathak, loc. cit. p. 264.

c18.s2.61

² xii, 132-3.

c18.s2.62

Dr. Pathak also quotes a commentary to Nemicandra's *Trilokasāra* by Mādhavacandra, another Southern Digambara, who disagrees with Vīranandi and Vaṭṭakera, and, like the *Aupapātika Sūtra*,³ forecasts an even more exalted destiny for Ājīvika ascetics. Ājīvika ascetics, who eat *kāñji*, etc., will reach Acyutakalpa, the last stage before *nirvāṇa*, but will go no further, while the naked *carakas*, and the *parivrājakas* with one or three staves, will be reborn in the lower heaven of Brahmakalpa.⁴ This statement is confirmed by the Canarese commentator, Padmaprabha Traividya.⁵

c18.s2.63

³ V. supra, p. 140.

c18.s2.64

⁴ *Nagn'- ...* *...* Quoted Pathak, loc. cit.

c18.s2.65

⁵ *Ājīvā ambila kūḻan umbaru Acyuta-pad-otti Acyuta-kalpa-paryyamta(m) puṭṭuvaru*. Quoted Pathak, loc. cit.

c18.s2.66

These passages show that the Ājīvika, although by one commentator believed to be a sort of Buddhist, was *persona grata* to the Digambara Jaina. He is promised a very high place in the Jaina heavens, rising far above the orthodox *caraka*, *ekadaṇḍin*, and *tridaṇḍin*. This surely indicates that the Jaina theologians recognized him as akin to themselves, and paid him qualified respect. It is evident from these quotations and from the *Civañāṇa-cittiyār*, that some Ājīvikas were being absorbed into Jainism during the Middle Ages. As we shall show, other Ājīvikas developed theistic tendencies, and may have found a place in the growing devotional Vaiṣṇavism of the time.

Linked texts (14)