History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18.s1: The Inscriptions

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18.s1

Language: English

The Inscriptions

c18.s1.1

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

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;

Linked texts (4)

Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Carnatica
South Indian Inscriptions
Inscription on a sculptured stone-slab from Mathurā — Prakrit