History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c24.s2: Ājīvika Atomism in Relation to Other Indian Atomic Doctrines

History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c24.s2

Language: English

Ājīvika Atomism in Relation to Other Indian Atomic Doctrines

c24.s2.1

If we compare Ājīvika atomism with other Indian atomic theories we find significant agreements and differences. With the Jainas the atom (*paramāṇu*) is not differentiated according to elements; it is permanent and unchanging in its substance, but liable to change in its qualities. Atoms are susceptible to taste, smell, colour, and touch, and combine into aggregates or molecules (*skandha*). The atom is the minutest separable portion of the ultimate undifferentiated matter (*pudgala*), of which the universe is formed, and its classification by elements is not fundamental.¹ While differing from Ājīvika atomism in this very important respect, Jaina theory agrees in its tendency to conceive categories as material which by other sects are thought of as abstract or spiritual. Thus both *dharma* and *karma* are looked on by the Jainas as atomic.² But with the Jainas *jīva*, the soul, is not *paudgalika*, or material, and thus Ājīvikism goes further than Jainism in its materialism. For the Jaina *jīva* is *amūrta* and *arūpa*³; the Ājīvikas of the sect described in *Nīlakēci* certainly thought otherwise,⁴ and the inclusion of *jīva* as one of the elements in both Pakudha’s doctrine in the *Sāmañña-phala Sutta* and in all three Tamil sources indicates that it was generally looked on as material by all Ājīvikas.

c24.s2.2

¹ Jacobi, in *ERE*, ii, pp. 199-200. Cf. also his *Jainas*, pp. 88 ff.

c24.s2.3

² *ERE*, ii, loc. cit. Schubring, op. cit., p. 12 13. Cf. Guérinot, *La Religion Djaïna*, pp. 142-5.

c24.s2.4

³ Guérinot, op. cit., p. 117.

c24.s2.5

⁴ V. infra, pp. 270 ff.

c24.s2.6

The atomism of the orthodox Vaiśeṣika school differs from both that of the Ājīvikas and that of the Jainas. The claim of the Jainas to have first formulated an Indian atomic theory may be found in their attribution of the foundation of Vaiśeṣika physics to the schismatic Rohagupta, the leader of the Trairāśika school, with which the Ājīvikas held their logic in common.⁵ This claim is not made until the late *Avaśyaka Sūtra*, and while the doctrine there attributed to Rohagupta contains the nine substances, seventeen qualities, five forms of motion, and other elements of Vaiśeṣika theory,¹ it is nowhere stated that the *aṇus* are divided into categories according to the elements. From the point of view of the text the atom of Rohagupta is still the undifferentiated atom of the Jainas, and not that of the Vaiśeṣika.

c24.s2.7

⁵ *Avaśyaka Sūtra*, niryukti, 2490 ff., quoted *Abh. Rāj.* s.v. Terāsiya. V. supra, pp. 174 ff.

c24.s2.8

¹ V. Keith, *Indian Logic and Atomism*, p. 14. Jacobi, Introduction to *SBE*. xlv, p. xxxv f.

c24.s2.9

The Vaiśeṣika atoms have specific qualities according to the elemental categories to which they belong,² and in this respect they resemble those of the Ājīvikas. The Vaiśeṣika classification is more complete and thorough than that of the Ājīvikas. The attributes of the four material elements are distributed as follows : earth possesses odour, savour, colour, touch or temperature, gravity, velocity, and fluidity; in water odour is replaced by viscosity; fire has temperature, colour, fluidity, and velocity; and air, touch and velocity.³ This classification is much more detailed than that of the Ājīvikas; but it is to be noted that *Nīlakēci*'s version of the Ājīvika atomic theory states that "earth has all sense qualities except sound" ⁴; this gives promise of a detailed classification such as that of the Vaiśeṣika, with an immaterial *ākāśa* to be the vehicle of sound, but the promise is not fulfilled, and the remaining elements are in no way related to the senses. Vaiśeṣika agrees with Ājīvikism in stating that the qualities of the atoms can only be discerned in aggregates; in the isolated atom qualities and characteristics are potential, only emerging on juxtaposition.⁵

c24.s2.10

² Keith, op. cit., p. 212.

c24.s2.11

³ Ibid., p. 220.

c24.s2.12

⁴ V. S. Aiyar, p. 285.

c24.s2.13

⁵ *Ibid.*

c24.s2.14

A third Indian atomic theory is that of the Sarvâstivādin school of Buddhism. In this the four elements are given qualities and functions on principles rather different from those of the Vaiśeṣika :—

c24.s2.15

c24.s2.16

⁶ Stcherbatsky, *Buddhist Philosophy*, vol. i, p. 115.

c24.s2.17

The atom of Buddhism is not eternal, as in the other three systems, since Buddhism dogmatically asserts the impermanence of all things. It is conceived as " flashing into being ; its essential feature is action or function and therefore it may be compared to a focus of energy ".¹ The atoms constitute molecules (*saṃghāta*, *paramāṇu*, *kalāpa*), which must include at least one atom of all four elements, and which acquire their characteristics according to the atoms predominantly composing them. As well as atoms of the four elements, the molecules also contain atoms of a special type related to the five senses, which are responsible for their perception by the sense organs. They cohere by virtue of the atoms of water in each.²

c24.s2.18

¹ K. N. Jayatilleke, *op. cit.*, 161.

c24.s2.19

² *Ibid.*

c24.s2.20

It will be seen that the qualities of atoms in Buddhism are more like those of the Ājīvika atomic system than those of the Vaiśeṣika and closely correspond to the system described in *Maṇimēkalai*, which is, however, silent on the functions of the atoms. The doctrine of *Maṇimēkalai*, that atoms combine in fixed proportions, with its apparent corollary that no element may exist in its pure state, is similar to that of the Buddhists. Buddhist atomic theory also agrees with that of the Ājīvikas in attributing the function of cohesion to one element only, although in the former system this is water, and in the latter air.

c24.s2.21

Of all the theories so far discussed that of Pakudha Kaccāyana seems to be the most primitive, the parent of the theories of later times, unless indeed the theory outlined in the *Sāmaññaphala Sutta* is itself the refinement of an earlier theory which admitted only four elements.³ Pakudha's atomic system was preserved in its purest form by the Ājīvikas, who at all periods of their history seem to have maintained the material nature of the soul, and who are more than once referred to in the Pāli Scriptures as holding Pakudha's theory. It has been suggested that Jaina, Vaiśeṣika, and Buddhist theories all look back to Pakudha,⁴ and hence to Ājīvikism. This view is probably correct. The subtleties and refinements are the work of the philosophers of the respective sects; but the conception of the world as divided into an enormous number of indivisible entities is the heritage of Pakudha, and of other nameless contemporaries and predecessors of the Buddha, who were loosely called Ājīvikas, and whose spiritual descendants merged with the school of Makkhali Gosāla.

c24.s2.22

³ *Ibid.*

c24.s2.23

⁴ *Ibid.*, Keith, op. cit., p. 161.

Linked texts (4)

Maṇimēkalai — Cīttalaic Cāttaṉār, Tamil
Nīlakēci — Tamil
Sāmaññaphalasutta — Pāli
Āvassaya — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit