Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c21.s2: Pāli and Prākrit Quotations

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c21.s2

Language
English

Pāli and Prākrit Quotations

c21.s2.1

Buddhist and Jaina texts and commentaries contain fragments in verse and prose which appear to be adaptations or quotations from Ājīvika sources and may indeed be paraphrases of the scriptures of the sect. The very important passage in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*,¹ already quoted, with its Māgadhisms and its impressive simile of the ball of thread, may well be authentic. Another such passage may be the story of the merchants in the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*,² which Gosāla is said to have told to the monk Ānanda, and which may have been borrowed by the Jaina author from an Ājīvika collection of *jātakas* or cautionary tales.

c21.s2.2

¹ V. supra, pp. 13-14.

c21.s2.3

² V. supra, p. 59.

c21.s2.4

The Pāli scriptures contain a number of verse passages praising the heretic teachers or propounding unorthodox doctrines, which may also have been taken, perhaps with some alteration, from Ājīvika sources. Thus the *Saṃyutta Nikāya* ³ contains verses in praise of the heretics, said to have been sung by various *devaputtas* in the presence of the Buddha.

c21.s2.5

³ *Sam. i*, pp. 66 ff.

c21.s2.6

The verse sung in praise of Pūraṇa Kassapa closely follows the doctrine ascribed to him in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*,⁴ and may be the concoction of an early Buddhist poet:

c21.s2.7

⁴ V. supra, p. 13.

c21.s2.8

“Kassapa sees neither sin nor merit for the self in this world in maiming, slaying, striking, or violence. Since he has declared our faith, the Master is worthy of honour.” ⁵

c21.s2.9

⁵ *Sam. i*, p. 66.

c21.s2.10

The verse praising Makkhali Gosāla, on the other hand, ascribes to him qualities which elsewhere in the Pāli canon he is not said to possess, and may be a genuine Ājīvika composition :

c21.s2.11

“ Self-restrained, with penance and aversion (from things of the senses), abandoning speech (and) quarrelling with mankind, equable, abstaining from things to be avoided, truthful—now surely such a man commits no sin ! ” 1

c21.s2.12

Finally, after a verse in praise of Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, occurs one in which four heretics are praised together :

c21.s2.13

“ Pakudhaka Kātiyāna, Nigaṇṭha, and these two Makkhali and Pūraṇa, leaders of a school, versed in asceticism—surely now they are not far removed from the righteous ! ” 2

c21.s2.14

This verse, as we have seen,³ looks back to a period when the non-Buddhist heterodox sects were not sharply differentiated.

c21.s2.15

³ *V. supra*, p. 80.

c21.s2.16

The *Mahānāradakassapa Jātaka* ⁴ also contains a number of verses expressing heterodox views, which may have been taken from authentic sources. These are put into the mouth of the ascetic teacher Guṇa, who is called indiscriminately *acelaka* and *ājīvika*, and are verse paraphrases of some of the doctrines assigned in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Makkhali, Pūraṇa, and Pakudha. Similar passages may be found in *Mahābodhi Jātaka*,⁵ and in the *Petavatthu*.⁶ These verses, and the similar prose passages in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* seem to have had a common source, whether in prose or verse, in an authentic Ājīvika work.

c21.s2.17

⁴ *Jāt.* vi, pp. 219 ff.

c21.s2.18

⁵ *Jāt.* v, pp. 227 ff. *V. supra*, p. 18.

c21.s2.19

⁶ *Petavatthu*, iv, 3, p. 57 f. *V. supra*, pp. 20, 146, and infra, pp. 271-72.

c21.s2.20

Comparison between the expressions of Ājīvika views in Buddhist and Jaina texts shows notable similarities. Thus the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*’s version of Makkhali’s doctrine contains the phrases : *N’atthi attakāre, n’atthi parakāre, n’atthi purisakāre, n’atthi balam, n’atthi viriyam, n’atthi purisa-thāmo, n’atthi purisa-parakkamo . . . Sabbe satta niyati-saṅgati-bhāva-pariṇatā . . .*

c21.s2.21

¹ *Tapo-jigucchāya susamvullatto, Vācam pahāya kalaham janena, Samo, savajjā-virato, saccavādi, Na hi nūna tādisam karoti pāpam.* *Sam.*, loc. cit.

c21.s2.22

² *Pakudhako Kātiyāno, Nigaṇṭho, Ye ca p’ime Makkhali-Pūraṇāse, Gaṇassa satthāro, sāmañña-pattā, Na hi nūna te sappurisehi dūre.* *Sam.*, loc. cit.

c21.s2.23

sukha-dukkham paṭisaṃvedenti.¹ With this we may compare the words of the Ājīvika deva, addressed to the Jaina layman Kuṇḍa-koliya in the Uvāsaga Dasao : N’atthi uṭṭhāṇe i vā kamme i vā bale i vā vīrie i vā purisakkāra-parakkame i vā. Niyayā savvabhāvā.² (“There is no effort nor deed (karma), nor strength, nor courage, nor human action, nor prowess. All beings are determined.”)

c21.s2.24

¹ V. supra, pp. 13-14.

c21.s2.25

² Uv. Das. vi, 166. V. supra, p. 133.

c21.s2.26

The Praśnavyākaraṇa Sūtra³ contains a passage which also suggests the text of the Sāmañña-phala Sutta. This purports to describe the doctrines of nāstikas, but some parts of it are perhaps derived from the same sources as Makkhali Gosāla’s doctrine in the Sutta. Thus, the first phase, n’atthi jīvo, na jāī iha pare vā loe, suggests the slogan of the materialist Ajita Kesakambalī, n’atthi ayaṃ loko, n’atthi paro loko.⁴ But the terms in which the Praśnavyākaraṇa speaks of the view that no merit accrues from religious activities, dāṇa-vaya-posahāṇaṃ tava-sañjama-bambha-cera-kallāṇaṃ āiyāṇaṃ n’atthi phalam, resemble Makkhali Gosāla’s na . . . sīlena vā vatena vā tapena vā brahmacariyeṇa vā in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta.⁵ The phrase in the Praśnavyākaraṇa, ammā-piyaro n’atthi na vi atthi purisakāro seems to look back to the sources which provided n’atthi mātā, n’atthi pitā⁴ in Ajita’s creed, and n’atthi purisakāre⁵ in that of Makkhali. The dialectical peculiarities of the two passages have already been noticed.⁶

c21.s2.27

³ Praśnavyākaraṇa, sū. 7, fols. 26-8.

c21.s2.28

⁴ V. supra, p. 15.

c21.s2.29

⁵ V. supra, p. 14.

c21.s2.30

⁶ V. supra, p. 15.

c21.s2.31

A further recollection of Ājīvika sources may be contained in the Mahābhārata, wherein the fatalist Maṅki declares haṭhe n’aiva pauruṣam, “there is no valour in force.”⁷ Similar complaints of the uselessness of courage and human effort (pauruṣa or puruṣakāra) may be found in the epic, for instance, in the words of Bhīma to the python in whose coils he struggles; “Who can conquer Fate by human effort (puruṣakāreṇa). I consider fate to be supreme, but human effort (pauruṣam) useless.”⁸

c21.s2.32

⁷ Mbh., xii, 177, 34 (Poona edn.). V. supra, pp. 38-39.

c21.s2.33

⁸ Vana, 176, 27. (Poona edn.). Numerous verses of similar import are to be found in the Mbh., e.g. Udyoga, 40, 30; Bhīṣma, 58, 1. (Poona edn.).

c21.s2.34

An impressive parallel to Makkhali Gosāla’s description of the cosmic process in the Sāmañña-phala Sutta is to be found in the *Bhagavatī*. Here Gosāla, after declaring his seven *pauṭṭa-parihāras* ¹ states that all those who had reached or were reaching or would reach salvation must " finish in order 8,400,000 *mahākappas*, seven divine births, seven groups, seven sentient births, seven 'abandonments of transmigration' (*pauṭṭa-parihāra*), 500,000 *kammas*, and 60,000 and 600 and the three parts of *kamma*. Then, being saved, awakened, set free, and reaching *nirvāṇa* they have made or are making or will make an end of all sorrow." ² The phrase *caūrāsītiṃ mahākappa-saya-sahassāiṃ* in this passage corresponds to the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta's cull' āsīti mahākappuno sata-sahassāni*.³ The seven " divine births " (*divve*) are perhaps represented by the *satta devā* of the Pāli, and the seven sentient births (*sanni-gabbhe* in Prākrit and *saññi-gabbhā* in Pāli) occur in both texts. The totals of *kammas* differ, but in the *Bhagavatī's* enumeration of the *kammas* and the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta's* total of chief uterine births (*yoni-pamukha*) the formulas are similar. The former has *pañca kammāni saya-sahassāiṃ, saṭṭhiṃ ca sahassāiṃ chac ca sae, tiṇni ya kammamse*, while the latter has *cuddasa kho pan' imāni yoni-pamukha-sata-sahassāni, saṭṭhiñ ca satāni, cha ca satāni, pañca ca kammuno satāni, pañca ca kammāni, tiṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍha kamme ca*.³ The close similarity shows that both passages are garbled borrowings from a common source.

c21.s2.35

¹ V. supra, pp. 31--32.

c21.s2.36

² ... añjūhe, saṭṭhiṃ ... pacchā sijjhanti bujjhanti muccanti parinivvāinti savvadukkhānam antam karemsu vā karenti vā karissanti vā. *Bh. Sū.* xv, *sū.* 550, fol. 673. I accept Hoernle's reading of *kammāni* for *kammani* in the text (*Uv. Das.*, vol. ii, app. ii, p. 19, n. 5). India Office MS. 7447 has *kammāiṃ*.

c21.s2.37

³ V. supra, p. 14, n. 3.

c21.s2.38

Barua has recognized that the passages from the Jaina scriptures quoted above resemble that in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta*, and on this and other evidence has declared that there existed an " Ājīvika language", in which Ājīvika texts were recited and written.⁴ As examples of this Ājīvika language he quotes :—

c21.s2.39

⁴ *JDL.* ii, pp. 46 ff.

c21.s2.40

1. The genitive singular form *mahākappuno* in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta's* account of Makkhali's doctrine,⁵ which seems to stand in place of the genitive plural and which represents the regular Pāli mahākappassa;

c21.s2.41

⁵ V. supra, p. 14, n. 3.

c21.s2.42

2. The word supina, interpreted by Buddhaghosa as "a dream". This Barua equates with the Ardha-māgadhī suviṇa which, he says, means "a bird" (Sanskrit suparṇa). Actually this word has the same normal meaning as supina in Pāli¹;

c21.s2.43

¹ V. infra, p. 252.

c21.s2.44

3. The form hupeyya, as used in the words of the Ājīvika Upaka, "hupeyya āvuso",² which he believes was specifically an Ājīvika expression. In one version of the story the phrase occurs as huveyya pāvuso,³ from which Barua concludes that "the sounds p and v were interchangeable in the Ājīvika language"; and

c21.s2.45

² Vin. i, p. 8. V. supra, p. 94.

c21.s2.46

³ Majjh. i, p. 171.

c21.s2.47

4. The regular use of the present tense with future meaning. This Barua deduces from a single phrase placed in the mouth of Upaka in the commentary to the Sutta Nipāta, sace Chāvaṃ labhāmi jīvāmi, no ce marāmi⁴ (If I win Chāvā I shall live, if not I shall die).

c21.s2.48

⁴ Paramatthajotikā II, vol. i, p. 259.

c21.s2.49

We do not believe that these four references are sufficient to indicate that there was a special "Ājīvika language". The language of the Sāmañña-phala Sutta passage attributed to Makkhali is, however, sufficient to indicate that some of the earliest Ājīvika religious literature, whether verbal or written, was composed in a Māgadhī dialect probably very like the language of the Jainas.⁵

c21.s2.50

⁵ V. supra, pp. 24 ff.

Linked texts (10)