w nS PAGE Introduction.ix A^ArAnga sCtra.
FIRST BOOK.
Lecture 1.
Knowledge of the Weapon I » 2.
Conquest of the World 15 yy Hot and Cold...28 yy Righteousness...yy Essence of the World.
yy 6.
The Pillow of Righteousness 79 SECOND BOOK.
First Part.
Lecture 1.
Begging of Food 88 yy 2.
Begging for a Couch yy Walking...yy Modes of Speech yy 6.
Begging of Clothes.
yy 6.
Begging for a Bowl.
yy Regulation of Possession.
Second Part.
Lecture 8.
yy yy yy yy yy yy vm CONTENTS.
Third Part.
PAGE Lecture 15. The Clauses...189 Fourth Part.
Lecture 16. The Liberation...211 KALPA sOTRA.
Lives of the (tinas Life of MahdvJra Lecture 1.
Life of Parjva Life of Arish/anemi Epochs of the intermediate Life of i?fshabha List of the Sthaviras Rules for Yatis.
Index Tirthakaras Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East. 321-324 INTRODUCTION.
The origin and development of the C'aina sect is a subject on which some scholars still think it safe to speak with a sceptical caution, though this seems little warranted by the present state of the whole question; for a large and ancient literature has been made accessible, and furnishes ample materials for the early history of the sect to all who are willing to collect them. Nor is the nature of these materials such as to make us distrust them. We know that the sacred books of the 6'ainas are old, avowedly older than the Sanskrit literature which we are accus¬ tomed to call classical. Regarding their antiquity, many of those books can vie with the oldest books of the northern Buddhists. As the latter works have success¬ fully been used as materials for the history of Buddha and Buddhism, we can find no reason why we should distrust the sacred books of the G^ainas as an authentic source of their history. If they were full of contradictory statements, or the dates contained in them would lead to contradictory conclusions, we should be justified in viewing all theories based on such materials with suspicion. But the character of the Gaina literature differs little in this respect also from the Buddhistical, at least from that of the northern Buddhists. How is it then that so many writers are inclined to accord a different age and origin to the Gama, sect from what can be deduced from their own literature? The obvious reason is the similarity, real or apparent, which European scholars have discovered between Cainism and Buddhism. Two sects which have so much in common could not, it was thought, have been independent from each other, but one sect must needs X GAINA s6tRAS.
have grown out of, or branched pff from the other. This a priori opinion has prejudiced the discernment of many critics, and still does so. In the following pages I shall try to destroy this prejudice, and to vindicate that authority and credit of the sacred books of the 6^ainas to which they are entitled. We begin our discussion with an inquiry about Mahivira, the founder or, at least, the last prophet of the (jaina church. It will be seen that enough is known of him to invalidate the suspicion that he is a sort of mystical person, invented or set up by a younger sect some centuries after the pretended age of their assumed founder.
The <9ainas, both 6'vetdmbaras and Digambaras, state that Mahavira was the son of king Siddhdrtha of Ku«(/a- pura or Ku;2^fagr4ma. They would have us believe that Ku«^/agrama was a large town, and Siddh^lrtha a powerful monarch. But they have misrepresented the matter in overrating the real state of things, just as the Buddhists did with regard to Kapilavastu and ^uddhodana. For Ku/^^/agrama is called in the AMrMga Sutra a samnivesa, a term which the commentator interprets as denoting a halting-place of caravans or processions. It must therefore have been an insignificant place, of which tradition has only recorded that it lay in Videha (Ay^dringa Sutra II, J5> § 17)- Yet by combining occasional hints in the Baud- dha and (Jaina scriptures we can, with sufficient accuracy, point out where the birthplace of Mahavira was situated; for in the Mahivagga of the Buddhists^ we read that Buddha, while sojourning at Koriggama, was visited by the courtezan Ambapali and the Li^Mavis of the neigh¬ bouring capital Vesali. From Kodggama he went to where the Witikas^ (lived). There he lodged in the Watika Brick- halP, in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan ^ See Oldenberg’s edition, pp. ‘231, 232; the translation, p. 104 seq., of the second part, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii.
* The passages in which the iVatikas occur seem to have been misunderstood by the commentator and the modem translators. Rhys Davids in his transla¬ tion of the Mahdparinibb^na-Sutta (Sacred Books of the Easl^ vol. xi) says in a note, p. 24: ‘ At first NMika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number; but then, INTRODUCTION.
XI Ambapili possessed a park, Ambapalivana, which she bequeathed on Buddha and the community. From there he went to Ves^li, where he converted the general-in-chief (of the Li^Mavis), a lay-disciple of the Nirgranthas (or fraina monks). Now it is highly probable that the Kodg- g^ma of the Buddhists is identical with the Kuw^aggama of the 6 ^ainas. Apart from the similarity of the names, the mentioning of the A'^tikas, apparently identical with the 6^n4trfka Kshatriyas to whose clan Mah^vtra belonged, and of Slha, the Gaina, point to the same direction. Kuw^a- gr^ma, therefore, was probably one of the suburbs ofVabill, the capital of Videha. This conjecture is borne out by the name Vesilie, i. e. Vai^alika given to Mahavira in the Shtra- kntahga I, 3 The commentator explains the passage in question in two different ways, and at another place a third explanation is given. This inconsistency of opinion proves that there was no distinct tradition as to the real meaning of VaMlika, and so we are justified in entirely ignoring the arti¬ ficial explanations of the later 6 ^ainas. Vaijilika apparently means a native ofVau^h: and Mahdvira could rightly be called that when Kuw^fagrima was a suburb of VaMlt, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner. If then Ku«i/agrama was scarcely more than an outlying village ofVaL^li, it is evident that the sovereign of that village could at best have been only a petty chief. Indeed, though the frainas fondly imagine Siddh^rtha to have been a powerful monarch and depict his royal state in glowing, but typical colours, yet their statements, if stripped of all rhetorical ornaments, bring out the fact thirdly, in the last clause, in the singular. Buddhaghosa explains this by saying that there were two villages of the same name on the shore of the same piece of water.’ The plural iVdtikd denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Giwgakdvasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahdparinibbftna-Sutta and in the Mahdvagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nddika is used in the singular. I think the form Nddika is wrong, and Adtika, the spelling of the Mahavagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his trans¬ lation: ‘ Nddika, near Patna.’ It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahd- vagga that the place in question, as well as Kofiggdma, was near Vesdli.
* See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262.
GAINA sOtRAS.
xii that Siddhirtha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya — his wife Trijald is, so far as I remember, never styled Devi, queen, but always Kshatriyclwi. Whenever the Gnatrika Kshatriyas are men¬ tioned, they are never spoken of as Siddhartha’s Samantas or dependents, but are treated as his equals. From all this it appears that Siddhartha was no king, nor even the head of his clan, but in all probability only exercised the degree of authority which in the East usually falls to the share of land- owners, especially of those belonging to the recognised aristocracy of the country. Still he may have enjoyed a greater influence than many of his fellow-chiefs; for he is recorded to have been highly connected by marriage. His wife Trijala was sister to We^aka, king of Vaijalik She is called Vaidehi or Videhadatta*, because she belonged to the reigning line of Videha.
Buddhist works do not mention, for aught I know, Ketaka, king of Vaijali; but they tell us that the government of Vesili was vested in a senate composed of the nobility and presided over by a king, who shared the power with a viceroy and a general-in-chief®. In Gaana books we still have traces of this curious government of the Uikkkavis; for in the Nirayavali Shtr4* it is related that king K&tak.a, whom Kunika, al. A^ata^atru, king of Wampi, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kiji and Kojala, the 'L.ikkhavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kuni- ka’s demands or go to war with him. Again, on the death of Mahdvira the eighteen confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival to be held in memory of that event®, but no separate mention is made of Ketaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that We/’aka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the * See Kalpa S(itra, my edition, p. 113. Xe(aka is called the maternal uncle of MahdvSra.
^ See Kalpa Sfltra, Lives of the Ginas, §110; Aidrdnga Sutra II, 15, § 15.
® Tumour in the Journal of the Royal As. Soc. of Bengal, VII, p. 992.
® See Kalpa Sdtra, Lives of the Ginas.
INTRODUCTION.
Xlll constitution of Ves^li. So we are enabled to understand why the Buddhists took no notice of him, as his influence was not very great, and, besides, was used in the interest of their rivals. But the (Fainas cherished the memory of the maternal uncle and patron of their prophet, to whose influence we must attribute the fact, that Vaudli used to be a stronghold of (Jainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.
We have traced the connection of Mah^vira’s family not out of mere curiosity, which indiscriminately collects all historical facts however insignificant in themselves, but for the reason that the knowledge of this connection enables us to understand how Mahdvira came to obtain his success. By birth he as well as Buddha was a member of a feudal aristocracy similar to that of the Yadavas in the legends about Knsh^a, or that of the Rajpoots of the present day. In feudal societies family ties are very strong and long remembered k Now we know for certain that Buddha at least addressed himself chiefly to the members of the aris¬ tocracy, that the (Fainas originally preferred the Kshatriyas to the Brdhmans^. It is evident that both Mahavira and Buddha have made use of the interest and support of their families to propagate their order. Their prevalence over other rivals was certainly due in some degree to their con¬ nection with the chief families of the country.
Through his mother Mahivira was related to the ruling dynasty in Magadha; for iTe^aka’s daughter iTellan^® was married to Seniya. Bimbhisara^ or Bimbisira, king of Magadha, and residing in Ra^agrfha. He is praised by the (Fainas and Buddhists, as the friend and patron of both * The Gainas are very particular in stating the names and gotras of Mah^vlra’s relations, of whom they have recorded little else. Kalpa Shtra, Lives of the Ginas, “ See Kalpa Sdtra, Lives of the Ginas, §§17 and 18.
® See NiraySvali Shtra, ed. Warren, p. 22. She is commonly called by the Buddhists Vaidehi; in a Thibetan life of Buddha her name is 5'rlbhadrS, which reminds us of the name of Xe/aka’s wife Subhadr^. See Schiefner in Memoires de I’Academie Imperiale de St. Petersbourg, tome iv, p. 253.
‘ He is usually called only Se«iya or Ahereika; the full name is given in the Dasasrutaskandha, Weber, Ind. Stud. XVI, p. 469.
XIV GAINA SUTRAS.
Mahivira and Buddha. But Kunika or, as the Buddhists call him, A^Ata^atru^ his son by iTelland, the Videhan lady, showed no favour to the Buddhists in the earlier part of his reign; only eight years before Buddha’s death he became his patron. We should go wrong in believing him to have sincerely been converted. For a man who avowedly murdered his father^, and waged war against his grand¬ father®, is not likely to have cared much about theology. His real motive in changing his religious policy we may easily guess. He planned to add Videha to his dominions, just as his father had added Ahga to his kingdom of Maga- dha; he therefore built the fort at Pd/aligrama *, in order not to repel but subdue the Va^^ians or Wrigis, a tribe of Videha, and at last fixed a quarrel on the king of VaudlJ, his grandfather. As the latter was the maternal uncle of Mahavtra, A^itajatru, by attacking this patron of the Cainas, lost in some degree their sympathy. Now he resolved on siding with their rivals, the Buddhists, whom he formerly had persecuted as friends of his father’s, whom, as has been said above, he finally put to death. We know that A^^tajatru succeeded in conquering Vaijdli, and that he laid the foundation of the empire of the Nandas and Mauryas. With the extension of the limits of the empire of Magadha a new field was opened to both religions, over which they spread with great rapidity. It was probably this auspicious political conjuncture to which (Fainism and Buddhism chiefly owed their success, while many similar sects attained only a local and temporal importance.
The following table gives the names of the relations of Mahdvira, or, as we should call him when not speaking of ' That the same person is intended by both names is evident from the fact that according to Buddhist and Gaina writers he is the father of Udayin or Udayibhaddaka, the founder of Pataliputra in the records of the Gainas and Brahmans.
2 The story is told with the same details by the Buddhists; see Kern, Der Buddhismus und seine Geschichte in Indien, I, p. 249 (p. 19s of the original), and the Gainas in the Nirayavali Sutra.
® See above.
INTRODUCTION.
XV him as a prophet of the 6^ainas, Vardhamana or Gnk- tr/putra^:— Suparsva SiddMrtha Trisala or ^Te/aka Subhadra I Videhadatta king ofVaisali I Nandivardhana VardhamSna SudarsanS Bimbisara iTellani married to kmg of Magadha I Yasoda I Anoggk m. to Kunika or Agitasatru Gamfili | I Udayin, founder of I do not intend to write a full life of Mahivira, but to collect only such details which show him at once a distinct historical person, and as different from Buddha in the most important particulars. Vardhamana was, like his father, a Kdjyapa. He seems to have lived in the house of his parents till they died, and his elder brother, Nandivardhana, succeeded to what principality they had. Then, at the age of twenty-eight, he, with the consent of those in power, entered the spiritual career, which in India, just as the church in Roman Catholic countries, seems to have offered a field for the ambition of younger sons. For twelve years he led a life of austerities, visiting even the wild tribes of the country called 'R.&dhk. After the first year he went about naked From the end of these twelve years of pre¬ paratory self-mortification dates VardhamAna’s Kevaliship. Since that time he was recognised as omniscient, as a prophet of the ( 7 ainas, or a Ttrthakara, and had the titles Gina, MahAvira, &c., which were also given to S'akyamuni. The last thirty years of his life he passed in teaching his religious system and organising his order of ascetics, which, as we have seen above, was patronised or at least counte¬ nanced chiefly by those princes with whom he was related through his mother, viz. Ketaka, Srenika, and Kunika, the * Nataputta in Pali and Prikrit. The Buddhists call him Nigantta N^taputta, i. e. GKatriputra the Nirgrantha or Gaina monk.
“ This period of his life is the subject of a sort of ballad incorporated in the AlSrShga Sutra (I, 8).
XVI GAINA sOtRAS.
kings of Videha, Magadha, and Anga. In the towns which lay in these parts he spent almost all the rainy seasons during his spiritual career \ though he extended his travels as far west and north as 5r4vasti and the foot of the Hima¬ laya. The names of his chief disciples, the eleven Ga«a- dharas or apostles of the Gainas, as detailed in the Kalpa Shtra (List of Sthaviras, § i), are given without any varia¬ tion by both divisions of the church, the.Svetambaras and Digambaras. Of the details of Mahivira’s life, men¬ tioned in the canonical books, his rivalry with, and victory over Gojala, the son of Makkhali, and lastly, the place of his death, the small town P4p4, deserve to be noticed. Nor are we by any means forced to rely on the tradition of the Gainas only, since for some particulars we have the testi¬ mony of the Buddhists also, in whose writings Mah^vtra is mentioned under his well-known name Nataputta, as the head of the Niga; 2 /^as or Gaina monks and a rival of Buddha. They only misstated his Gotra as that of Agni- vaijyiyana; in this particular they confounded him with his chief apostle Sudharman, the only one of all the apostles who survived him and took the lead in the church after his teacher’s death. Mah4vira being a contemporary of Buddha, they both had the same contemporaries, viz. Bimbisira and his sons, Abhayakum4ra and A^tajatru, the Liy^’Mavis and Mallas, Gordla Makkhaliputra, whom we accordingly meet with in the sacred books of either sect. From the Buddhist Pi^akas it appears, as we have seen above, that Mahivlra’s followers were very numerous in Vaijali, a fact that is in perfect accordance with what the Gainas relate about his birth in the vicinity of that town, and which at the same time well agrees with his connection with the chief magistrate of the place. In addition to this, some tenets of the Niga;? 2 '^as, e.g. the Kiriyavada and the belief that water is inhabited by souls, are mentioned in the sacred books of the Buddhists, in perfect accordance with ^ See Kalpa Sfitra, Lives oftlieGinas,§i22;Kampa,3; VaUali, 12; Mithila,6; Rag'agnha,; BhadrikS, 2; Alabhik^, i; Pa«itabMmi, i;.Sr^vastl, i; P^p^, i. All these towns, with the exception of Pa«itabhumi,.Sravastt, and perhaps Alabhika, lay within the limits of the three kingdoms mentioned in the text.
INTRODUCTION.
XVll the 6^aina creed. Lastly, the Buddhists are correct in assuming the town Papa as the scene of Nataputta’s death.
Comparing this outline of Mahavira’s life with that of Buddha’s, we can detect little or nothing in the former which can be suspected as having been formed after the latter by tradition. The general resemblance between the lives of both is due to their being lives of ascetics, which from the nature of the things must present some uniformity, which certainly will appear greater to the mind of a European historian of our times than to that of an ancient Hindu. Some names of Mahdvira’s relations are similar to those of Buddha’s; the former’s wife was Yajoda, the latter’s Yam- dhara; the former’s elder brother was Nandivardhana, the latter’s step-brother Nanda; Buddha’s name as a prince was Siddhartha, which was the name of Mahavira’s father. But if the similarity of these names proves anything, it proves no more than that names of this description were much used then among the Kshatriyas, as surely they were at all times Nor is it to be wondered at that two Ksha¬ triyas should have founded sects in opposition, or at least in disregard to the authority of the Brahmans. For, as I shall try to prove in the sequel, the Kshatriyas were the most likely of all to become what the Brahmans would call ‘ untrue ascetics.’
We shall now put side by side the principal events of Buddha’s and Mahavira’s lives, in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Mahd- vira in a village near Vai^dll; Buddha’s mother died after his birth, Mahavira’s parents lived to see him a grown-up man; Buddha turned ascetic during the lifetime and against the will of his father, Mahdvira did so after the death of his parents and with the consent of those in power; Buddha led a life of austerities for six years, Mahavlra for twelve; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahivlra was convinced of the necessity of his * See Petersburg Dictionary, ss.vv.
b XVlll GAINA SUTRAS.
penances \ and persevered in some of them even after becoming a Ttrthakara. Amongst Buddha’s opponents Goj^la Makkhaliputra is by no means so prominent as amongst Mahdvira’s, nor among the former do we meet Gamkli, who caused the first schism in the Gama church. All the disciples of Buddha bear other names than those of Mahavira. To finish this enumeration of differences, Buddha died in Kusinagara, whereas Mahavira died in P4p4, avowedly before the former.
I have dwelt so long on the subject of Mahavira’s life in order to make the reader acquainted with facts which must decide the question whether the origin of Gainism was independent of Buddhism or not. Though most scholars do not go the length of denying that Mahavira and Buddha were different persons, yet some will not admit that this decides the question at issue. Professor Weber, in his learned treatise on the literature of the (Painas^, says that he still regards ‘the (7ainas merely as one of the oldest sects of Buddhism. According to my opinion,’ he writes, ‘this is not precluded by the tradition about the origin of its founder -having partly made use of another person than Buddha 5akyamuni; nay, even of one whose name is fre¬ quently mentioned in Buddhist legends as one of Buddha’s contemporary opponents. This rather suggests to me that the 6^ainas intentionally disowned Buddha, being driven to this extremity by the animosity of sect. The number and importance of coincidences in the tradition of either sect regarding their founders is, on the whole, overwhelming.’
Professor Weber’s last argument, the very one on which he seems to base his theory, has, according to my opinion, been fully refuted by our preceding inquiry. This theory, in itself, would require the strongest proof before we could admit it as even probable. Generally, heterodox sects claim to be the most authentic and correct interpreters of the words and * These twelve years of penance were indeed always thoaght essential for obtaining perfection, and every ascetic who endeavours to quit this life with the best claims to enter one of the highest heavens, or even Nirva«a, has to undergo a similar course of preparatory penance, which lasts twelve years.
^ Indische Studien, XVI, 210.
INTRODUCTION.
XIX INTRODUCTION.
XIX tenets of their founders. If a sect begins to recognise another authority than that of the original founder of the main church, it either adopts another faith already in exist¬ ence, or starts a new one. In the first case the previous existence of the Caina faith in some form or other has to be admitted; in the second we must suppose that the malcontent Buddhists searched in their scriptures for an opponent of Buddha, on whom they might foist their heretical theories, a course in which they were not followed by any other of the many sects of Buddhism. Now, granted for argument’s sake, that they really did what they are charged with, they must have proceeded with the utmost dexterity, making use of, and slightly altering all occasional hints about the 'Hig&nthzs and Nataputta which they were able to hunt up in their ancient scriptures, inventing new facts, and fabricating docu¬ ments of their own, which to all, not in the secret, would seem just as trustworthy as those of their opponents. Indeed the Buddhistical and Craina traditions about Mahavira, the circumstances in, and the people with whom he lived, so very well tally with, complete and correct each other that the most natural and plausible way to account for this fact, which our preceding inquiry has established, seems to be that both traditions are, in the main, independent of each other, and record what, at the time of their attaining a fixed form, was regarded as historical truth.
We shall now consider the resemblance between Buddhism and 6^ainism which has struck so many writers on this topic and greatly influenced their opinion regarding their mutual relation. Professor Lassen^ adduces four points of coinci¬ dence which, according to his opinion, prove that the (Jainas have branched off from the Bauddhas. We shall discuss them one after the other.
Both sects give the same titles or epithets to their prophets: (Jina, Arhat, Mahiyira, Sarva^«a, Sugata, Tathagata, Siddha, Buddha, Sambuddha, Parinivrfta, Mukta, &c. All these words occur more or less frequently in the writings of both sects; but there is this difference, that with the exception ‘ Indibche Altcrthumskunde, IV, p. 763 seq.
XX GAINA sOtRAS.
of Cina, and perhaps 5rama«a, the preference is given to some set of titles by one sect, and to another set by the rival sect; e.g. Buddha, Tathigata, Sugata, and Sam- buddha are common titles of 6‘4kyamuni, and are only occasionally used as epithets of Mahdvira. The case is exactly reverse with regard to Vira and Mahavira, the usual titles of Vardhamdna. More marked still is the difference with regard to Tirthakara, meaning prophet with the tfainas, but founder of an heretical sect with the Bauddhas. What then may be safely inferred from the peculiar choice which either sect made from these epithets and titles? That the tfainas borrowed them from the older Buddhists? I think not. For if these words had once been fixed as titles, or gained some special meaning beyond the one warranted by etymology, they could only have been adopted or rejected. But it was not possible that a word which had acquired some special meaning should have been adopted, but used in the original sense by those who borrowed it from the Buddhists. The most natural construction we can put on the facts is, that there was and is at all times a number of honorific adjectives and substantives applicable to persons of exalted virtue. These words were used as epithets in their original meaning by all sects; but some were selected as titles for their prophets, a choice in which they were directed either by the fitness of the word itself, or by the fact that such or such a word was already appro¬ priated by heterodox sects as a title for their highest authority. Thus the etymological meaning of Tirthakara is founder of a religion, prophet, and accordingly this title was adopted by the tfainas and other sects, whereas the Buddhists did not adopt it in this sense, but in that of an heterodox or heretical teacher, showing thereby their enmity towards those who used Tirthakara as an honorific title. Again, Buddha is commonly used in about the same sense as mukta, that is a liberated soul, and in this meaning it is still employed in tfaina writings, whilst with the Buddhists the word has become a title of their prophet. The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed