Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Some Jaina Canonical Sutras c19: Chapter XIV: Rājapraśnīya Sūtra (Rāyapasenaiya Sūya)

Some Jaina Canonical Sūtras c19

Language
English

Chapter XIV: Rājapraśnīya Sūtra (Rāyapasenaiya Sūya)

c19.2

The *Rāyapasenaiya* or *Rāyapasenaijja* or *Rājapraśnīya sūtra*¹ is counted as the second *upāṅga*. Malayagiri Sūri, who was a contemporary of Kumārapāla, wrote a commentary on it. As its title implies it is a dialogue in which a king is the interlocutor. The kingly interlocutor is called Paesī (Sanskritized as Pradeśī) of Setavyā, a town which is placed in the half of the kingdom of Kekaya. Keśī, a follower of Pārśva, is represented as the gifted Jain recluse who answered the questions put to him by Pradeśī, met the arguments put forward by the latter, while discussing the important problem of future life and rebirth according to the law of Karma. Pradeśī is in the rôle of a typical *akriyāvādin* of the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga* and in that of a veritable *nāstika* denying the existence of soul as an entity apart from the body. This philosophical dialogue is contained in the second part of the *sūtra*, while the first part is concerned with the description of a grand worship of Mahāvīra by Pradeśī reborn as the god known as Sūryābhadeva. The turning point in the progressive career of Sūryābhadeva (which is to say that of Pradeśī) begins as usual from his interview with Mahāvīra. The Pāli counterpart of this Jain *sūtra* is undoubtedly the dialogue known as the *Pāyāsi suttanta* in the *Dīgha Nikāya*. In the Pāli *suttanta* the dialogue is put in the mouth of the Buddhist recluse, Kumārakassapa, the Flower-Talker (*citrakathī*) and the chieftain Pāyāsi of Setavyā, a town within the kingdom of Pasenadi of Kośala, and a halting place on the southern road. Thus the scene of action is laid in both the texts in the town of Setavyā situated not far from Sāvatthī the capital of Kośala.

c19.3

¹ *Rāyapasenaiya Suttam* edited by Pandit Vecaradāsa Jivarāja Doshī. This text has also been edited with Malayagiri’s commentary by the Āgamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1925, *vide* also Weber, *Ind Stud*, 16, 382ff; Leumann, *Transactions of International Congresses of Orientalists*, VI, Leiden, 1883, III, 2, 490ff. H B Gandhi translated and annotated it in 1938

c19.4

The philosophical discussion contained in the Pāli dialogue took place after the Buddha’s demise, and it must have taken place almost immediately after the Buddha’s *parinibbāna*, for we have a Serissakavimāna story, which, in the body of the text, is said to have been narrated a century after the Buddha’s demise. In this story the *nāstika* chieftain is represented as a god who became a dweller in the Serīssaka mansion and functioned as the protector of the caravan merchants in their journey across the desert of Rajputana. In the Pāli dialogue Pāyāsi is represented as reborn immediately after his death as a god in a lower and lonely heavenly mansion, while his disciple Uttara is placed as a god in a higher and happier mansion. Both of them were visited from the earth by the thera Gavampati In the Jain account the Serīssaka god of the later Vimāna story appears as the Suriābhadeva. But in the Jaina treatment the philosophical discussion took place between Pradeśī and Keśī, the latter being a follower of Pārśva who is represented in the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra as the contemporary of Mahāvīra and Gautama Indrabhūti. It is through Keśī that the followers of Pārśva accepted also the discipleship of Mahāvīra. If the god Suriābha had waited on Mahāvīra, the first heavenly rebirth of Pradeśī took place prior to the Buddha’s demise. Evidently the Jaina account is a later literary manipulation bearing a peculiar stamp of originality. In the Buddhist account there is no attempt to magnify the greatness of the Buddha. Here the historical motive is more dominant than either literary or theological. The theological motive is not, however, altogether absent in the Buddhist narrative, but it does not go beyond proving that Pāyāsi’s first rebirth in a lower and lonely mansion, and his disciple’s rebirth in a higher and happier mansion, were due to the fact that the former lacked reverence in offering a meal to the thera Kumārakassapa and his retinue, while his disciple was not wanting in it in offering the food on behalf of his teacher. The point of agreement in both the accounts is that although in the beginning of the philosophical discussion Pāyāsi or Pradeśī was not inclined to be convinced of the existence of an after-life, in the end he confessed that he was a believer. The arguments advanced by Pāyāsi or Pradeśī were all logical, relevant, and philosophical. while both Kumārakassapa and Keśī used some popular ghost stories by way of philosophical argument. Nevertheless the victory is claimed for the Buddhist thera and the Jain recluse. The inference to be drawn from both the accounts is that nāstikya as known at the time of Mahāvīra and the Buddha was neither the creed of Jainism nor that of Buddhism. Crass materialism was taken as something contrary to progressive life.

c19.5

In the first part we have excellent literary descriptions of the city of Āmalakalpā, the āmrasālavana shrine, the Aśoka tree, the Prithvīśilāpaṭṭa, king Sveta and queen Dhāriṇī of Āmalakalpā, physical characteristics, and mental and moral qualities of Mahāvīra, the celestial mansion of Sūryābhadeva, its beautiful pillars and opera-hall and pavilion, its maṇipīṭha, throne, Bhadrāsana and vehicles and conveyances The grandeur of the worship is heightened by songs, dances, and instrumental music and enlivened by 32 varieties of dramatic representations (abhinayas). These are described as Caṇḍrāvatī, Sūryāvatī, the rise of the moon, the rise of the sun, and the like. The technical significance of them is not quite clear. In the Nemicandra Sūri's commentary on Uttarajjhayana (XIII) there is mention of a nātyavidhi known as Mahuyarīgīya. Names of some of the musical instruments are given in this sūtra (sec. 23).¹ A list of nine materials associated with writing is also given (sec 43)² How far this mode of worship was consistent with the Jaina conception of austere religious life is not discussed. But the whole affair is described as a matter which concerned the celestial world. The details given of architectural varieties and decorations along with the divya-nātyavidhis are important as bearing upon the development of the śilpa and nātyaśāstras Corresponding to such a description we have pictures of various celestial mansions in the Pāli Vimānavatthu, but the Pāli descriptions pale into insignificance as compared with the Jaina narration. The Buddhist stories seem to belong to a much earlier stage of the Indian literary art and they are utilized only to encourage the practice of piety among the people and not as a means of heightening the glory of the Buddha in particular.

c19.6

¹ Saṅkha, siṅga, saṅkhuyā, kharamuhī, peyā, panava, bherī, vallakī, cittavīṇā, sughosā, tūṇā, tumbavīṇā, halasīyā, veḷu, magariyā, laṭṭhiyā, vamsa, etc

c19.7

² Paṭṭaga (leaves), kambiyā (wooden board), dora (thread), lehaṇī (pen), masī (ink), lippāsana (inkpot), akkhara (letters), potthaya (book), saṅkalā (chain) (vide J C Jain, Life in Ancient India as depicted in the Jain Canons, p 175)

c19.8

This text is of great importance as a literary piece of work. No doubt it begins with a long and tedious story in the style of the Purāṇas but the nucleus of the work as pointed out by Winternitz is really the dialogue between the king and the monk ending in the conversion of the former (Rāja-praśnīya Sūtra, 65-79). According to Winternitz it is a splendid and lively dialogue in which the monk endeavours to prove to the king that there is a soul (jīva) independent of the body (deha), whilst the king thinks that he has proved the contrary by means of experiment. The king says that he has caught hold of a thief who has been cut up and hacked to pieces, but no trace of any soul has been found, whilst the monk retorts that he is even simpler than some people who wanted to make a fire and chopped up the fire-sticks (Winternitz, *History of Indian Literature*, Vol. II, pp. 455-6). Dr. Barua in his *Pre-Buddhistie Indian Philosophy* (p 295) has made this point clear by saying that it is not possible to separate the soul from the body, pointing out that this is the soul and that is the body. It is possible in the case of a sword and its scabbard.

c19.9

According to Winternitz the Sanskrit translation of the title *Rājapraśnīya* is probably erroneous. Presumably the work originally treated of king Prasenajit of Kośala in whose place Pāyasi was inserted. Winternitz evidently bases his contention on the supposition that the title of the *upāṅga*, *Rāyapasenaijja*, as given in some of the *aṅgas*, is derived from Rājā Pasenaji (Pāli, Pasenadi; Barhut, Pasenaji). But it is difficult to derive grammatically Pasenaijja from Pasenaji. Had it been derived from Pasenaji, the title would have been simply Pasenajja instead of Pasenaijja. The Pāli dialogue definitely proves that the philosophical discussion took place between a thera and the ruler of Setavyā, and king Pasenadi is kept altogether out of the picture, although Pāyasi happened to be a chieftain under him.

Linked texts (4)