Some Jaina Canonical Sutras c19.4

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.