History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c24.s1: The Elements

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c24.s1

Language: English

The Elements

c24.s1.1

That the Ājīvikas of South India had a theory of elemental atoms is made clear by all the three chief Tamil sources. This atomic theory does not seem to be connected in origin with the doctrine of *Niyati* ascribed in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* to Makkhali Gosāla, but was probably derived from the primitive Eleatic atomism of Pakudha Kaccāyana in the same text. Pakudha must therefore be included with Makkhali Gosāla and Pūraṇa Kassapa among the founders of the community. We have already quoted the relevant passage,¹ which states that there exist seven elemental categories (*kāya*), namely earth (*pathavi-kāya*), water (*āpo-k.*), fire (*tejo-k.*), and air (*vāyo-k.*), with joy (*sukha*), sorrow (*dukkha*), and life (*jīva*) as the seventh. Although all seven are described as *kāya*, in their enumeration this word is not suffixed to the last three; this perhaps indicates that the three latter elements were thought of as different and less solid than the others. Linguistic evidence points to the possibility that they are an addition to the theory by another hand.²

c24.s1.2

¹ V. supra, p. 16.

c24.s1.3

² V. supra, p. 25.

c24.s1.4

The seven elements are described as unmanufactured (*akaṭā*); they are barren (*vañjhā*), which must imply that they do not multiply as do living beings; and they are as firm as mountains and as stable as pillars.³ They do not move nor develop nor affect one another.⁴ As a corollary all change is illusion—No man slays nor causes to slay.⁵ Thus Pakudha’s theory of the seven stable elements leads to the later Ājīvika doctrine of *avicalita-nityatvam*.

c24.s1.5

³ *Kūṭaṭṭhā, esika-ṭṭhāyi-ṭṭhitā*. Dīgha i, p. 56.

c24.s1.6

⁴ *N' aññamaññaṃ... na aññamaññaṃ vyābādhenti, n'ālam aññamañ-nassa sukhāya vā dukkhāya vā*. Ibid.

c24.s1.7

⁵ Ibid.

c24.s1.8

In none of the Pāli texts is this theory associated with Makkhali Gosāla, so perhaps it was not his. Yet it is often to be found connected with parts of Makkhali’s teaching, when these are ascribed to some other philosopher. Thus the doctrine of the ancient teacher Guṇa, in *Mahānāradakassapa Jātaka*,¹ contains first a statement of the ineffectuality of all effort, whether human or divine, followed by an enumeration of the seven *kāya* which are indivisible and do not injure one another (*acchejjā avikopino*), and concludes by a statement of Makkhali’s doctrine of automatic salvation in a period of 8,400,000 *mahākappas* through the power of *Niyati*. This teaching is falsely called in the text *ucchedavāda* or annihilationism, but is obviously Ājīvikism, and Guṇa himself is referred to as an Ājīvika.

c24.s1.9

¹ *Jāt.* vi, pp. 219 ff. Cf. *Petavatthu* iv, 3, pp. 57–61. V. infra, p. 271.

c24.s1.10

These elemental theories seem gradually to have gained in importance at the expense of the doctrine of *Niyati*, which, as we have seen, plays a lesser part in the Tamil than in the Pāli and Prākrit texts.

c24.s1.11

The earliest of the three chief Tamil sources, *Maṇimēkalai*, states that the atoms are the chief subject of discussion in the Ājīvika scripture called “the Book of Maṛkali”.² They are described as “atoms of four types, together with life”.³ Thus it is evident that the atom of life is thought to be somewhat different from the four material elements. It is later stated that this element has the special characteristic of perceiving all the other four atoms in their combinations.⁴ The other two categories of Pakudha are included almost as an afterthought in the penultimate line of the Ājīvika elder’s sermon—“Joy and sorrow, even these are atoms”.⁵ The atoms are said to be neither destroyed nor created, and one atom cannot penetrate another. An atom will not split, nor multiply by fission, nor will it expand or grow.⁶

c24.s1.12

² *Nūṛ-poruḷkaḷ*. *Maṇi.* xxvii, 112.

c24.s1.13

³ *Uyir ōṭ’ oru nāl-vakai aṇu*. Ibid., xxvii, 113.

c24.s1.14

⁴ *Av vakai-y aṛivat’ uyir enpa paṭum ē*. Ibid., 119.

c24.s1.15

⁵ *Inpam un tuṉpam um ivai-y um aṇu-v eṉa*. Ibid., 163.

c24.s1.16

⁶ *Ciḷaivatu ceyyā puṭitāy-piṟaṉ’ oṉṟ’ oṉṟir pukuṭā. . . Oṉṟ’ iraṇṭ’ āki-p piḷappaṭuṉ ceyya-v aṇi-yum avar poṟ parappaṭuṉ ceyyā*. Ibid., 127–131.

c24.s1.17

Unlike the bodies (*kāya*) of Pakudha Kaccāyana the atoms in *Maṇimēkalai* do move and combine, at least on the lower level of truth. They may come together densely to form a diamond, or loosely, as in a hollow bamboo.¹ These combinations seem to have been thought of as mere juxtapositions of atoms of various types,² and not as the mingling of one atom with another.³ Thus the character of the atoms of Pakudha is in one particular maintained in Maṇimēkalai, although the latter text does not confirm their immobility.

c24.s1.18

¹ Vayiram āy-c cerintu varpam um ām vēy āy-t tuḷai paḻum. Ibid., 133–6.

c24.s1.19

² Cerintu. Ibid., 135.

c24.s1.20

³ Oṉṟ oṉṟir pukuṭā. Ibid., 128.

c24.s1.21

The combination of atoms occurs in fixed ratios of "one, three-quarters, half, and one-quarter—according to their combinations in this ratio so do they receive their names".⁴ This passage may be elucidated by a comparison with a similar passage in Civañāṉa-cittiyār. This text states that the atoms will only combine in fixed proportions, into a sort of molecule, that of earth containing four atoms of earth, three of water, two of fire, and one of air.⁵ These proportions, 4 : 3 : 2 : 1, are the same as those of Maṇimēkalai, 1 : ¾ : ½ : ¼, and it seems probable that both refer to the same doctrine. Buddhist atomic theory allows no molecule of one element only, but teaches that all gross matter is to some extent adulterated by the presence of atoms of other elements.⁶ We may believe that the Ājīvikas held similar views. The molecule of earth was constituted in the above proportions, and no doubt the molecules of the other elements were similarly constituted, but with the relative preponderance appropriately changed. To this doctrine of molecular combination Maṇimēkalai adds that the atoms cannot be seen in their pure state, but only when they form aggregates as bhūtas or objects.⁷

c24.s1.22

⁴ Oṉṟu muk-kāl arai kāl āy uṟun tuṉṟum ik-kaṭaṉāṟ peyar cola-p paḻum ē. Ibid., xxvii, 140–1.

c24.s1.23

⁵ Kūṭu-neṟi nila’ nāṉku, nīr mūṉṟ’ iṉṟ’, iraṇṭ’ aḷal, kāl oṉṟ’ āy. CṄC., p. 262, v. 7. I am much indebted to Mr. M. S. H. Thompson for valuable advice on this point.

c24.s1.24

⁶ V. infra, p. 269.

c24.s1.25

⁷ Pūṭatt’ iraṭci-y uḷ. Maṇi. xxvii, 1, 147.

c24.s1.26

It is nowhere in the text stated whether all atoms of one class were thought of as being identical, or whether it was considered that special differences existed within each genus of atom, to account for the great differences in the material contents of the world. It would seem, however, that the macroscopic differences in the structure and texture of matter were thought of as caused by the variation of the densities of the microscopic *aṇu*s which composed it.¹ The diminutive size of the atom is clearly stated. A single atom can only be detected by a divine eye,² but a large aggregate of atoms may be seen, just as a single hair is invisible in the twilight, while a number of hairs together may be perceived.³

c24.s1.27

¹ V. supra, p. 264, n. 1.

c24.s1.28

² Ōr aṇu-t teyva-k-kaṇṇōr uṇarkuvar. Maṇi. xxvii, 1, 146.

c24.s1.29

³ Mālai-p-pōtil oru mayir ariyār, cālatt' iraṇ-mayir tōrrutal cālum. Maṇi. xxvii, 148–9.

c24.s1.30

The four material elements are said to have characteristic properties and tendencies. Earth is hard, and has a downward tendency; water is cold, and has a similar tendency to descend and find its level upon earth; fire burns and moves upwards; while air has the attribute of motion in a horizontal direction.⁴

c24.s1.31

⁴ Varpam āki-y uṟu nilan tāḻntu cor paṭu; cītatt' oṭu cuvai-y uṭaillāy iḻin eṇa nilaṉ cērnt' āḷvatu nīr; tī-t teṟutal u' mēr cēr iyalpum uṭaittāṉ; kārru v ilaṅki-y acaittal kaṭaṉ. Ibid., 120–4.

c24.s1.32

*Nīlakēci* confirms most of the statements of *Maṇimēkalai*. Here, however, the elements are only five in number, and joy and sorrow are nowhere mentioned as being atomic in nature. Their characteristics are expressed somewhat differently. Here earth has all sense qualities except sound⁵; water, coolness (*taṉmai*); fire, burning (*erittal*), wind, blowing and howling (*ceritta virai-y oṭ*); and life, instructing and knowing (*arittal arital*).⁶ The elements are not said to combine in regular ratios, as in *Maṇimēkalai*. They are without *guṇa*,⁷ which the commentator Vāmaṉamuni translates as *iyalpu*, quality or characteristic. The sensual qualities of the elements thus do not appear to have been thought of as present in the individual atoms, but were latent in them, emerging only on their combination. Atoms could not interpenetrate.⁸

c24.s1.33

⁵ Pulam āk oli-y oṇ' oḷiya mutark' āṉ. Nīl. 675.

c24.s1.34

⁶ Ibid., 676.

c24.s1.35

⁷ Kuritta poruḷiṉ kuṇam āl ivai-y ē. Ibid.

c24.s1.36

⁸ Ibid., v. 677.

c24.s1.37

*Civañāṉa-cittiyār* repeats the doctrine of *Maṇimēkalai*, with few significant variations. The atoms are the usual five, to which virtue and vice are added, apparently as an afterthought, in the final verse of the ten which expound Ājīvika doctrine.⁹

c24.s1.38

⁹ Puṉṉiya pāvam eṉṉum iraṇṭiṉ um porunt' avaittē. CÑC. p. 265, v. 10.

c24.s1.39

The change from the "joy and sorrow" of Pakudha and Maṇimēkalai to "virtue and vice" indicates a movement towards orthodoxy, and brings the Ājīvika classification of the elements nearer to the six Jaina categories of soul, matter, space, time, dharma, and adharma. We have already pointed out that Aruṇandi, the author of Civañāṉa-cittiyār, seemed to look upon the Ājīvikas as an unorthodox branch of Jainism,¹ and the alteration in the names of the two last categories seems to be a further indication of the direction in which the sect was moving. The characteristics of the atoms, as described in this text, are substantially the same as those mentioned in Maṇimēkalai.

c24.s1.40

¹ V. supra, p. 203.

c24.s1.41

The two later texts, Nīlakēci and Civañāṉa-cittiyār, put forward arguments to refute the atomic theories of the Ājīvikas. Nīlakēci attacks Ājīvika atomism, as she does the theory of Niyati, with appeals to experience and common sense. The arguments of Civañāṉa-cittiyār are somewhat subtler. If atoms have tendencies to move in different directions ² they must be mutually repulsive, and cannot hold together. If they do not join or interpenetrate, interstices must exist between them, and therefore they should fall apart.³ The Ājīvika apparently had his answers to these two objections; the elements, including the atom of life, are held together by wind or air (vaḷi), whose atoms move horizontally, and thus tend to counteract the upward tendency of fire and the downward tendencies of earth and water; the elements are united by "eternal action" (nīta-viṉai), which seems to be a synonym of Niyati.⁴ This term viṉai (Skt. karma) is used in the commentary to refer to what is called ūḻi (Skt. Niyati) in the statement of doctrine,⁵ thus giving yet another indication of the gradual merging of the Ājīvika Niyati theory with the orthodox doctrine of karma.

Linked texts (7)

Petavatthu — Pāli
Jātaka — Pāli
Maṇimēkalai — Cīttalaic Cāttaṉār, Tamil
Nīlakēci — Tamil
Sāmaññaphalasutta — Pāli
சிவஞானசித்தியார் — Aruḷnanti Civācāriyār, Tamil
Dīghanikāya — Pāli