On the Indian Sect of the Jainas

by Georg Bühler

The extent of his sphere of influence almost corresponds with that of the kingdoms of Srâvastî or Kosala, Vidcha, Magadha, and Aṅga,--the modern Oudh, and the provinces of Tirhut and Bihâr in Western Bengal. Very frequently he spent the rainy season in his native place Vaiśâlî and in Râjagṛiha. Among his contemporaries were, a rival teacher Gosâla the son of Maṁkhali--whom he defeated in a dispute, the King of Videha--Bhambhasâra or Bibbhisâra called Sreṇika, and his sons Abhayakumâra and the parricide Ajátaśatru or Kûṇika, who protected him or accepted his doctrine, and also the nobles of the Lichchhavi and Mallaki races. The town of Pâpâ or Pâvâ, the modern Padraona [[23]] is given as the place of his death, where he dwelt during the rainy season of the last year of his life, in the house of the scribe of king Hastipâla. Immediately after his death, a second split took place in his community. [[24]]

On consideration of this information, it immediately strikes one, that the scene of Vardhamâna's activity is laid in the same part of India as Buddha laboured in, and that several of the personalities which play a part in the history of Buddha also appear in the Jaina legend. It is through the kingdoms of Kosala, Videha and Magadha, that Buddha is said to have wandered preaching, and their capitals Śrâvastî and Râjagṛiha are just the places named, where he founded the largest communities. It is also told of the inhabitants of Vaiśâlî that many turned to his doctrine. Many legends are told of his intercourse and friendship with Bimbisâra or Śreṇika, king of Videha, also of the murder of the latter by his son Ajâtaśatru, who, tortured with remorse, afterwards approached Buddha; mention is also made of his brother Abhayakumâra, likewise Makkhali Gosâla is mentioned among Buddha's opponents and rivals. It is thus clear that the oldest Jaina legend makes Vardhamâna a fellow countryman and contemporary of Buddha, and search might be suggested in the writings of the Buddhists for confirmation of these assumptions. Such indeed are to be found in no small number.

Even the oldest works of the Singalese Canon,--which date apparently from the beginning of the second century after Buddha's death, or the fourth century B.C., and which at any rate had their final edition in the third,--frequently mention an opposing sect of ascetics, the Nigaṇṭha, which the northern texts, written in Sanskrit, recognise among the opponents of Buddha, under the name Nirgrantha, whom an old Sûtra [[25]] describes as "heads of companies of disciples and students, teachers of students, well known, renowned, founders of schools of doctrine, esteemed as good men by the multitude". Their leader is also named; he is called in Pâli Nâtaputta, in Sanskrit Jñâtiputra, that is the son of Jñâti or Nâta. The similarity between these words and the names of the family Jñâti, Jñâta or Naya, to which Vardhamâna belonged is apparent. Now since in older Buddhist literature, the title 'the son of the man of the family N. N.' is very often used instead of the individual's name, as for example, 'the son of the Sâkiya' is put for Buddha-Sâkiyaputta, so that it is difficult not to suppose that Nâtaputta or Jñâtiputra, the leader of the Nigaṇṭha or Nirgrantha sect, is the same person as Vardhamâna, the descendant of the Jñâti family and founder of the Nirgrantha or Jaina sect. If we follow up this idea, and gather together the different remarks of the Buddhists about the opponents of Buddha, then it is apparent that his identity with Vardhamâna is certain. A number of rules of doctrine are ascribed to him, which are also found among the Jainas, and some events in his life, which we have already found in the accounts of the life of Vardhamâna, are related.

In one place in the oldest part of the Singalese canon, the assertion is put into the mouth of Nigaṇṭha Nâtaputta, that the Kiriyâvâda--the doctrine of activity, separates his system from Buddha's teaching. We shall certainly recognise in this doctrine, the rule of the Kiriyâ, the activity of souls, upon which Jainism places so great importance. [[26]] Two other rules from the doctrine of souls are quoted in a later work, not canonical: there it is stated, in a collection of false doctrines which Buddha's rivals taught, that Nigaṇṭha asserts that cold water was living. Little drops of water contained small souls, large drops, large souls. Therefore he forbade his followers, the use of cold water. It is not difficult, in these curious rules to recognise the Jaina dogma, which asserts the existence of souls, even in the mass of lifeless elements of earth, water, fire, and wind. This also proves, that the Nigaṇṭha admitted the classification of souls, so often ridiculed by the Brâhmaṇs, which distinguishes between great and small. This work, like others, ascribes to Nigaṇṭha the assertion, that the so-called three daṇḍa--the three instruments by which man can cause injury to creatures--thought, word, and body, are separate active causes of sin. The Jaina doctrine agrees also in this case, which always specially represents the three and prescribes for each a special control. [[27]]

Besides these rules, which perfectly agree with one another, there are still two doctrines of the Nigaṇṭha to be referred to which seem to, or really do, contradict the Jainas; namely, it is stated that Nâtaputta demanded from his disciples the taking of four, not as in Vardhamâna's case, of five great vows. Although this difficulty may seem very important at first glance, it is, however, set aside by an oft repeated assertion in the Jaina works. They repeatedly say that Pàrśva, the twenty-third Jina only recognised four vows, and Vardhamâna added the fifth. The Buddhists have therefore handed down a dogma which Jainism recognises. The question is merely whether they or the Jainas are the more to be trusted. If the latter, and it is accepted that Vardhamâna was merely the reformer of an old religion, then the Buddhists must be taxed with an easily possible confusion between the earlier and later teachers. If, on the other hand, the Jaina accounts of their twenty-third prophet are regarded as mythical, and Vardhamâna is looked upon as the true founder of the sect,--then the doctrine of the four vows must be ascribed to the latter, and we must accept as a fact that he had changed his views on this point. In any case, however, the Buddhist statement speaks for, rather than against, the identity of Nigaṇṭha with Jina. [[28]]

Vardhamâna's system, on the other hand, is quite irreconcilable with Nâtaputta's assertion that virtue as well as sin, happiness as well as unhappiness is unalterably fixed for men by fate, and nothing in their destiny can be altered by the carrying out of the holy law. It is, however, just as irreconcilable with the other Buddhist accounts of the teaching of their opponent; because it is absolutely unimaginable, that the same man, who lays vows upon his followers, the object of which is to avoid sin, could nevertheless make virtue and sin purely dependent upon the disposition of fate, and preach the uselessness of carrying out the law. The accusation that Nâtaputta embraced fatalism must therefore be regarded as an invention and an outcome of sect hatred as well as of the wish to throw discredit on their opponents. [[29]]

The Buddhist remarks on the personality and life of Nâtaputta are still more remarkable. They say repeatedly that he laid claim to the dignity of an Arhat and to omniscience which the Jainas also claim for their prophet, whom they prefer simply to call 'the Arhat' and who possesses the universe-embracing 'Kevala' knowledge. [[30]] A history of conversions, tells us further that Nâtaputta and his disciples disdained to cover their bodies; we are told just the same of Vardhamâna. [[31]] A story in the oldest part of the Singalese canon gives an interesting and important instance of his activity in teaching. Buddha, so the legend runs, once came to the town Vaiśâlî, the seat of the Kshatriya of the Lichchhavi race. His name, his law, his community were highly praised by the nobles of the Lichchhavi in the senate-house. Sîha, their general, who was a follower of the Nigaṇṭha, became anxious to know the great teacher. He went to his master Nâtaputta, who happened to be staying in Vaiśâlî just then, and asked permission to pay the visit. Twice Nâtaputta refused him. Then Sîha determined to disobey him. He sought Buddha out, heard his teaching and was converted by him. In order to show his attachment to his new teacher he invited Buddha and his disciples to eat with him. On the acceptance of the invitation, Sîha commanded his servants to provide flesh in honour of the occasion. This fact came to the ears of the followers of the Nigaṇṭha. Glad to have found an occasion to damage Buddha, they hurried in great numbers through the town, crying out, that Sîha had caused a great ox to be killed for Buddha's entertainment; that Buddha had eaten of the flesh of the animal although he knew it had been killed on his account, and was, therefore guilty of the death of the animal. The accusation was brought to Siha's notice and was declared by him to be a calumny. Buddha, however preached a sermon after the meal, in which he forbade his disciples to partake of the flesh of such animals as had been killed on their account. The legend also corroborates the account in the Jaina works, according to which Vardhamâna often resided in Vaiśâlî and had a strong following in that town. It is probably related to show that his sect was stricter, as regards the eating of flesh, than the Buddhists, a point, which again agrees with the statutes of the Jainas. [[32]]

The account of Nâtaputta's death is still more important. "Thus I heard it", says an old book of the Singalese canon, the Sâmagâma Sutta, "once the Venerable one lived in Sâmagâma in the land of the Sâkya. At that time, however, certainly the Nigaṇṭha Nâtaputta had died in Pâvâ. After his death the Nigaṇṭha wandered about disunited, separate, quarrelling, fighting, wounding each other with words." [[33]] Here we have complete confirmation of the statement of the Jaina canon as to the place where Vardhamâna entered Nirvâṇa, as well as of the statement that a schism occurred immediately after his death.

The harmony between the Buddhist and Jaina tradition, as to the person of the head of the Nirgrantha is meanwhile imperfect. It is disturbed by the description of Nâtaputta as a member of the Brâhmanic sect of the Âgniveśyâyana, whilst Vardhamâna belonged to the Kâśyapa. The point is however so insignificant, that an error on the part of the Buddhists is easily possible. [[34]] It is quite to be understood that perfect exactness is not to be expected among the Buddhists or any other sect in describing the person of a hated enemy. Enmity and scorn, always present, forbid that. The most that one can expect is that the majority and most important of the facts given may agree.

This condition is undoubtedly fulfilled in the case on hand. It cannot, therefore be denied, that, in spite of this difference, in spite also of the absurdity of one article of the creed ascribed to him, Vardhamâna Jñâtiputra, the founder of the Nirgrantha--or Jaina community is none other than Buddha's rival. From Buddhist accounts in their canonical works as well as in other books, it may be seen that this rival was a dangerous and influential one, and that even in Buddha's time his teaching had spread considerably. Their legends about conversions from other sects very often make mention of Nirgrantha sectarians, whom Buddha's teaching or that of his disciples had alienated from their faith. Also they say in their descriptions of other rivals of Buddha, that these, in order to gain esteem, copied the Nirgrantha and went unclothed, or that they were looked upon by the people as Nirgrantha holy ones, because they happened to have lost their clothes. Such expressions would be inexplicable if Vardhamâna's community had not become of great importance. [[35]]