Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18.s2: Ājīvikas in Tamil Literature

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c18.s2

Language
English

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 (9)