Jaina Sutras, Part I (SBE22): Introduction
INTRODUCTION.
THE origin and development of the Gaina 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 Gainas are old, avowedly older than the Sanskrit literature which we are accustomed 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 successfully 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 Gainas 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 Gaina 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 Gainism 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
have grown out of, or branched off from the other. This â 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 Gainas to which they are entitled. We begin our discussion with an inquiry about Mahâvîra, the founder or, at least, the last prophet of the Gaina 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 Gainas, both Svetâmbaras and Digambaras, state that Mahâvîra was the son of king Siddhârtha of Kundapura or Kundagrâma. They would have us believe that Kundagrâma was a large town, and Siddhârtha 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 Suddhodana. For Kundagrâma is called in the Âkârâṅga Sûtra 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 (Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 15, § 17). Yet by combining occasional hints in the Bauddha and Gaina scriptures we can, with sufficient accuracy, point out where the birthplace of Mahâvîra was situated; for in the Mahâvagga of the Buddhists 1 we read that Buddha, while sojourning at Kotiggâma, was visited by the courtezan Ambapâli and the Likkhavis of the neighbouring capital Vesâli. From Kotiggâma he went to where the Ñâtikas 2 (lived). There he lodged in the Ñâtika Brick-hall 2, in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan
that Siddhârtha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya--his wife Trisalâ is, so far as I remember, never styled Devî, queen, but always Kshatriyânî. Whenever the Gñâtrika Kshatriyas are mentioned, they are never spoken of as Siddhârtha's Sâmantas or dependents, but are treated as his equals. From all this it appears that Siddhârtha 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 landowners, 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 Trisalâ was sister to Ketaka, king of Vaisâlî 1. She is called Vaidehî or Videhadattâ 2, because she belonged to the reigning line of Videha.
Buddhist works do not mention, for aught I know, Ketaka, king of Vaisâlî; but they tell us that the government of Vesâli 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 3. In Gaina books we still have traces of this curious government of the Likkhavis; for in the Nirayâvalî Sûtrâ 4 it is related that king Ketaka, whom Kûnika, al. Agâtasatru, king of Kampâ, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kâsî and Kosala, the Likkhavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kûnika's demands or go to war with him. Again, on the death of Mahâvîra the eighteen confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival to be held in memory of that event 5, but no separate mention is made of Ketaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that Ketaka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the
constitution of Vesâli. 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 Gainas cherished the memory of the maternal uncle and patron of their prophet, to whose influence we must attribute the fact, that Vaisâlî used to be a stronghold of Gainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.
We have traced the connection of Mahâvira'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 Mahâvîra came to obtain his success. By birth he as well as Buddha was a member of a feudal aristocracy similar to that of the Yâdavas in the legends about Krishna, or that of the Râjpoots of the present day. In feudal societies family ties are very strong and long remembered 1. Now we know for certain that Buddha at least addressed himself chiefly to the members of the aristocracy, that the Gainas originally preferred the Kshatriyas to the Brâhmans 2. It is evident that both Mahâvîra 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 connection with the chief families of the country.
Through his mother Mahâvîra was related to the ruling dynasty in Magadha; for Ketaka's daughter Kellanâ 3 was married to Seniya Bimbhisâra 4 or Bimbisâra, king of Magadha, and residing in Râgagriha. He is praised by the Gainas and Buddhists, as the friend and patron of both
The following table gives the names of the relations of Mahâvîra, or, as we should call him when not speaking of
him as a prophet of the Gainas, Vardhamâna or Gñâtriputra 1:--
I do not intend to write a full life of Mahâvîra, 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. Vardhamâna was, like his father, a Kâsyapa. 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 Râdhâ. After the first year he went about naked 2. From the end of these twelve years of preparatory self-mortification dates Vardhamâna's Kevaliship. Since that time he was recognised as omniscient, as a prophet of the Gainas, or a Tîrthakara, and had the titles Gina, Mahâvîra, &c., which were also given to Sâkyamuni. 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 countenanced chiefly by those princes with whom he was related through his mother, viz. Ketaka, Srenika, and Kûnika, the
kings of Videha, Magadha, and Aṅga. In the towns which lay in these parts he spent almost all the rainy seasons during his spiritual career 1, though he extended his travels as far west and north as Srâvastî and the foot of the Himalaya. The names of his chief disciples, the eleven Ganadharas or apostles of the Gainas, as detailed in the Kalpa Sûtra (List of Sthaviras, § 1), are given without any variation by both divisions of the church, the Svetâmbaras and Digambaras. Of the details of Mahâvîra's life, mentioned in the canonical books, his rivalry with, and victory over Gosâla, the son of Makkhali, and lastly, the place of his death, the small town Pâpâ, 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 testimony of the Buddhists also, in whose writings Mahâvîra is mentioned under his well-known name Nâtaputta, as the head of the Niganthas or Gaina monks and a rival of Buddha. They only misstated his Gotra as that of Agnivaisyâyana; 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. Mahâvîra being a contemporary of Buddha, they both had the same contemporaries, viz. Bimbisâra and his sons, Abhayakumâra and Agâtasatru, the Likkhavis and Mallas, Gosâla Makkhaliputra, whom we accordingly meet with in the sacred books of either sect. From the Buddhist Pitakas it appears, as we have seen above, that Mahâvîra's followers were very numerous in Vaisâlî, 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 Niganthas, e. g. the Kiriyavâda and the belief that water is inhabited by souls, are mentioned in the sacred books of the Buddhists, in perfect accordance with
the Gaina creed. Lastly, the Buddhists are correct in assuming the town Pâpâ as the scene of Nâtaputta's death.
Comparing this outline of Mahâvîra'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 Mahâvîra's relations are similar to those of Buddha's: the former's wife was Yasodâ, the latter's Yasodharâ; 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 Mahâvîra'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 1. Nor is it to be wondered at that two Kshatriyas should have founded sects in opposition, or at least in disregard to the authority of the Brâhmans. For, as I shall try to prove in the sequel, the Kshatriyas were the most likely of all to become what the Brâhmans would call 'untrue ascetics.'
We shall now put side by side the principal events of Buddha's and Mahâvîra's lives, in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Mahâvîra in a village near Vaisâlî; Buddha's mother died after his birth, Mahâvîra's parents lived to see him a grown-up man; Buddha turned ascetic during the lifetime and against the will of his father, Mahâvîra 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, Mahâvîra for twelve; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahâvîra was convinced of the necessity of his
penances 1, and persevered in some of them even after becoming a Tîrthakara. Amongst Buddha's opponents Gosâla Makkhaliputra is by no means so prominent as amongst Mahâvira's, nor among the former do we meet Gamâli, who caused the first schism in the Gaina church. All the disciples of Buddha bear other names than those of Mahâvîra. To finish this enumeration of differences, Buddha died in Kusinagara, whereas Mahâvira died in Pâpâ, avowedly before the former.
I have dwelt so long on the subject of Mahâvira'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 Mahâvira 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 Gainas 2, says that he still regards 'the Gainas 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 Sâkyamuni; nay, even of one whose name is frequently mentioned in Buddhist legends as one of Buddha's contemporary opponents. This rather suggests to me that the Gainas 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
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 existence, or starts a new one. In the first case the previous existence of the Gaina 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 Niganthas and Nâtaputta which they were able to hunt up in their ancient scriptures, inventing new facts, and fabricating documents of their own, which to all, not in the secret, would seem just as trustworthy as those of their opponents. Indeed the Buddhistical and Gaina traditions about Mahâvîra, 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 Gainism which has struck so many writers on this topic and greatly influenced their opinion regarding their mutual relation. Professor Lassen 1 adduces four points of coincidence which, according to his opinion, prove that the Gainas 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: Gina, Arhat, Mahâvîra, Sarvagña, Sugata, Tathâgata, Siddha, Buddha, Sambuddha, Parinivrita, 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
of Gina, and perhaps Sramana, the preference is given to some set of titles by one sect, and to another set by the rival sect; e. g. Buddha, Tathâgata, Sugata, and Sambuddha are common titles of Sâkyamuni, and are only occasionally used as epithets of Mahâvîra. The case is exactly reverse with regard to Vîra and Mahâvîra, the usual titles of Vardhamâna. More marked still is the difference with regard to Tîrthakara, meaning prophet with the Gainas, 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 Gainas 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 appropriated by heterodox sects as a title for their highest authority. Thus the etymological meaning of Tîrthakara is founder of a religion, prophet, and accordingly this title was adopted by the Gainas 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 Tîrthakara 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 Gaina 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
their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versâ.
Lassen, as a second argument in favour of the priority of Buddhism, adduces the fact that both sects worship mortal men, their prophets, like gods, and erect statues of them in their temples. As Buddhism and Gainism excepted none of the many sects, the founders of which pretended, like Buddha or Mahâvîra, to omniscience and absolute perfection. have continued long enough to come within the reach of our knowledge--and all or many of them may, for aught we know, have given the same divine honours to their saints, as the Buddhists and Gainas did to their own prophets--it cannot be alleged that the practice of the Buddhists rather than of any other sect was imitated by the Gainas, or vice versâ. On the contrary, there is nothing in the notion of Buddha that could have favoured the erecting of statues and temples for his followers to worship them, but rather much that is inconsistent with this kind of adoration. while the Gainas commit no inconsistency in worshipping Mahâvîra in his apotheosis. But I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or Gainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay community, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, and when the religious development of India found in the Bhakti the supreme means of salvation. Therefore instead of seeing in the Buddhists the originals, and in the Gainas the imitators, with regard to the erection of temples and worship of statues, we assume that both sects were, independently from each other, brought to adopt this practice by the perpetual and irresistible influence of the religious development of the people in India.
The third point of resemblance between both sects, the stress which is laid on the ahimsâ or not killing of living beings, will be treated more fully in the sequel. For this reason I quickly pass over to Professor Lassen's fourth argument, viz. that the Buddhists and Gainas measure the history of the world by those enormous periods of time which bewilder and awe even the most imaginative fancy.
The Ten Precepts for the Buddhist ascetics are the following 3:
2. I take the vow not to steal.
3. I take the vow to abstain from impurity.
4. I take the vow not to lie.
5. I take the vow to abstain from intoxicating drinks which hinder progress and virtue.
6. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times.
7. I take the vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays.
8. I take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
10. I take the vow not to receive gold or silver.
The Buddhists have also Eight Precepts (atthaṅgasîla), of which the first five (pañkasîla) are binding, on every Buddhist, while the rest are only recommended to pious laymen 1:
2. One should not take that which is not given.
3. One should not tell lies.
4. One should not become a drinker of intoxicating drinks.
5. One should refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse--an ignoble thing.
6. One should not eat unseasonable food at nights.
7. One should not wear garlands or use perfumes.
8. One should sleep on a mat spread on the ground.
The five Buddhist vows nearly agree with those of the Gaina ascetics, viz.:
2. Not to lie (sûnrita).
3. Not to take that which is not given (asteya).
4. To abstain from sexual intercourse (brahmakarya).
5. To renounce all interest in worldly things, especially to call nothing one's own (aparigraha).
The fifth precept of the Gainas is much more comprehensive than the corresponding one of the Buddhists, but the other precepts are the same, in a different order, as Nos. 1-4 of the Buddhists. The agreement is indeed so striking that it would seem hard to avoid the conclusion that one sect borrowed their precepts from the other. Yet the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas were the borrowers, would still remain an open one. It can be shown, however, that neither the Buddhists nor the Gainas have in this regard any claim to originality, but that both have only adopted the five vows of the Brahmanic ascetics (samnyâsin). The latter must keep the following five vows 2:
2. Truthfulness.
3. Abstention from appropriating the property of others.
4. Continence.
5. Liberality.
And five minor vows:
7. Obedience towards the Guru.
8. Avoidance of rashness.
9. Cleanliness.
10. Purity in eating.
The first four great vows of the Samnyâsin agree with those of the Gaina Bhikshu, and are enumerated in the same order. It is therefore probable that the Gainas have borrowed their own vows from the Brâhmans, not from the Buddhists, because the latter have changed the order of the vows, making truthfulness either the third or fourth cardinal virtue instead of giving it the second place. Besides it is highly improbable that they should have imitated the Buddhists, when they had in the Brahmanic ascetics much older and more respected models.
It is worth remarking that the fifth great vow or precept is peculiar to each of the three religious systems, probably because the Brahmanic fifth vow, viz. liberality, could not be enjoined on mendicants such as the monks of the Buddhists and Gainas were. The Gainas previous to Mahâvîra's time had only four great vows, since the fourth was included in the fifth. But Mahâvîra brought the number of the vows again up to five, a number which seems to have been regarded as solemn, since the Buddhists have adopted it likewise in their moral code.
Our foregoing inquiry suggests where we have to look for the originals of the monastic orders of the Gainas and Buddhists. The Brahmanic ascetic was their model, from which they borrowed many important practices and institutions of ascetic life. This observation is not an entirely new one. Professor Max Müller has already, in his Hibbert Lectures (p. 351), started a similar opinion; likewise Professor Bühler, in his translation of the Baudhâyana Sûtra
11. An ascetic shall not possess (any) store 2.' The Gaina and Buddhist monks are also forbidden to have anything which they could call their own. See the fifth vow of the Gainas (aparigraha). Even those things which the Gaina monk always carries about himself, as clothes, alms-bowl, broom, &c., are not regarded as his property, but as things necessary for the exercise of religious duties (dharmopakarana).
12. (He must be) chaste.' This is the fourth great vow of the Gainas and in Baudhâyana, the fifth of the Buddhists.
13. 'He must not change his residence during the rainy season 3.' Bühler remarks in a note: 'This rule shows that the Vasso of the Bauddhas and Gainas is also derived from a Brahmanic source.'
14. 'He shall enter a village only in order to beg.' The Gainas are not so strict in this respect, as they allow a monk to sleep in a village or town. However he must not stay too long 4. Mahâvîra did not stay longer than one night in a village or five nights in a town 5.
15. 'He shall beg late (after people have finished their meals), without returning twice 6.' The Gaina monks collect food in the morning or at noon, probably to avoid meeting with their rivals. They generally but once in a day go out begging; but one who has fasted for more than one day may go a begging twice a day 7.
16. 'Abandoning all desires (for sweet food).' The same is prescribed in the fourth clause of the fifth great vow of the Gainas 1, and is, besides, the apparent motive in many rules for the acceptance or rejection of alms.
17. 'He shall restrain his speech, his eyes, (and) his actions.' This nearly agrees with the three Guptis of the Gainas, or the restraining of the mind, speech, and body 2.
18. 'He shall wear a cloth to cover his nakedness 3.' The Gaina rules about dress are not so simple; for they allow a Gaina to go naked or to wear one, two, or three garments, but a young, strong monk should as a rule wear but one robe 4. Mahâvîra went about naked 5, and so did the Ginakalpikas, or those who tried to imitate him as much as possible. But they also were allowed to cover their nakedness 6.
19. 'Some (declare that he shall wear) an old rag after having washed it.' Baudhâyana 7 says: 'He shall wear a dress dyed yellowish-red.' This rule agrees more with the practice of the Buddhists than that of the Gainas. The latter are forbidden to wash or dye their clothes, but they must wear them in the same condition in which they are given 8. However, the Gainas have only carried into the extreme the original intention of the Brahmanic rule, viz. that the dress of ascetics should be as simple and mean as possible. For they seem to take a sort of pride in outdoing their Brahmanic rivals as regards rigorous conduct, mistaking nastiness and filthiness for the highest pitch of ascetic virtue 9, while on the other hand the Buddhists studied to bring their conduct in accordance with the dictates of humanity.
20. 'He shall not take parts of plants and trees except such as have become detached (spontaneously).' The Gainas have the same precept, but they go still farther
in allowing a Gaina to eat only such vegetables, fruits, &c. as have no trace of life left 1.
21. 'Out of season he shall not dwell a second night in (the same) village.' We have seen above that Mahâvîra carried out this precept whatever may have been the practice of the monks in general.
22. 'He may either shave or wear a lock on the crown of the head.' The Gainas have improved on this rule as they make baldness binding for all monks. According to Baudhâyana 2 a Brâhman on becoming an ascetic had to cause 'the hair of his head, his beard, the hair on his body, and his nails to be cut.' The same practice, at least as regards the cutting of the hair, was observed by the Gainas on the same occasion. Hence the phrase: 'becoming bald (or tearing out one's hair) to leave the house and enter the state of houselessness 3.'
23. 'He shall avoid the destruction of seeds.' The reader will observe, in many passages of the second book of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra, how careful Gaina monks should be of avoiding to injure eggs, living beings, seeds, sprouts, &c. It seems therefore that the Gainas have only generalised the above rule in applying it to all small beings of the animal and vegetable world.
24. (He shall be) indifferent towards (all) creatures, whether they do him an injury or a kindness.'
25. 'He shall not undertake (anything for his temporal or spiritual welfare).'
The last two rules could just as well be taken from a sacred book of the Gainas, for they are in full. accordance with the drift of their religion. Mahâvîra strictly carried them out. 'More than four months many sorts of living beings gathered on his body, crawled about it, and caused there pain 4.' 'Always well guarded, he bore the pains (caused by) grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats; manifold pains 5.' 'He with equanimity bore, underwent, and suffered all pleasant
or unpleasant occurrences, arising from divine powers, men, or animals 1.' It is frequently said of the ascetic in the last stage of his spiritual career that 'he does desire neither life nor death 2.'
There are some more precepts in Baudhâyana which bear a close resemblance to such of the Gainas. 'With the three means of punishment, (viz.) words, thoughts, and acts, he shall not injure created beings 3.' This is only an amplification of the first great vow (see above). 'Means of punishment' is what the Gainas call weapon (sastra 4).
'He shall carry a cloth for straining water for the sake of purification.' 'He shall perform the necessary purifications with water which has been taken out (of a well or a tank) and has been strained 5.' These rules are strictly observed by the Gaina monks. They also carry a cloth for straining water. The commentator Govinda explains pavitra, a cloth for straining water,' by 'a bunch of Kusa grass for removing insects from the road 6: If Govinda be right, and had the authority of a really old tradition, which I do not doubt, we have here the Brahmanic counterpart of the broom (ragoharana or pâdaproñkhana) with which the Gaina monks sweep the road and the place where they walk or sit down, for removing insects.
The outfit of a Brahmanic ascetic consists in sticks, a rope, a cloth for straining water, a water vessel, and an almsbowl 7: The Gaina monks also carry sticks, at least now-a-days, though I remember no passage in the Pitakas expressly allowing the use of a stick. They have also a rope belonging to the alms-bowl 8, an alms-bowl, and a water vessel 9. Of the cloth for straining water, and the broom, we have already spoken. The filter for the mouth (mukhavastrika) remains as the only article exclusively used
by the Gainas. On the whole, therefore, the Gainas were outfitted very much like their Brahmanic models, the Samnyâsins or Bhikshus.
'Let him eat food, given without asking, regarding which nothing has been settled beforehand, and which has reached him accidentally, so much only as is sufficient to sustain life 1.' The reader will find on perusing the Gaina 'rules for begging 2' that only that food is considered pure and acceptable' which has been obtained under exactly the same circumstances as have been laid down in the above rule of Baudhâyana for Brahmanic ascetics. The Buddhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invitations for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them.
From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Samnyâsin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Samnyâsin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Gainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Ginas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former.
There remains another possibility, but a still more improbable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more improbable, because, firstly, the Samnyâsin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Âsramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were
confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Samnyâsins; thirdly, Gautama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism. For Professor Bühler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Âpastamba Sara must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.C. 1 Baudhâyana is older than Âpastamba; according to Bühler 2, the distance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudhâyana 3. Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhâyana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brahmanic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Bühler should be wrong in his estimation of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries. Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brâhmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brâhmans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Brâhmana as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brâhmans.
It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brâhmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg 4. For
On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brâhmans were entitled to enter the fourth Âsrama, and as a
proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Bühler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sûdra through one of the four Âsramas 1.
From all this it becomes probable that the non-Brahmanic ascetics even in early times were regarded as an order separate and distinguished from the Brahmanic ascetics. We can understand that this position of non-Brahmanic ascetics led to the formation of sects inclining to dissent. That the untrue ascetics had such an origin, may be collected from a remark of Vasishtha. It is known that the performance of religious ceremonies was discontinued by the ascetics, but some went beyond this and discontinued the recitation of the Veda. Against transgressors of this kind Vasishtha 2 has the following quotation: 'Let him discontinue the performance of all religious ceremonies, but let him never discontinue the recitation of the Veda. By neglecting the Veda he becomes a Sûdra; therefore he shall not neglect it.' An inhibition pronounced so emphatically presupposes the real occurrence of the practices forbidden. If therefore some ascetics already had ceased to recite the Veda, we may conclude that others began to disregard it as revelation and the highest authority. That those who were regarded as a sort of inferior ascetics, the non-Brahmanic ascetics, were most likely to make this step, is easy to imagine. We see thus that the germs of dissenting sects like those of the Buddhists and the Gainas were contained in the institute of the fourth Âsrama, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects; therefore Buddhism and Gainism must be regarded as religions developed out of Brahmanism not by a sudden reformation, but prepared by a religious movement going on for a long time.
We have seen that neither the Gaina legends about their last prophet, nor the ascetic life ordained for Gaina monks, nor any other religious practices adhered to by the faithful, warrant our assuming that the Gaina sect has developed, in one way or other, out of the Buddhistical church. It remains for me to show that the difference of both creeds as regards the principal tenets is such as not to admit a common origin. Whatever Buddha may have taught and thought about the state of Nirvâna, whether he went the length to identify it with absolute non-existence, or imagined it to be a sort of existence different from all we know or can conceive, it is beyond doubt, and a striking feature of Buddha's philosophy, that he combated the Brahmanic theory of the Âtman, as being the absolute and permanent soul, according to the pantheist as well as the monadic point of view. But the Gainas fully concur in the Brahmanic theory of the Âtman, with only this difference, that they ascribe to the Âtmans a limited space, while the Brâhmans of the Sâṅkhya, Nyâya, and Vaiseshika schools contend that the Âtmans are co-extensive with the universe. On the other hand, the Buddhistical theory of the five Skandhas with their numerous subdivisions have no counterpart in the psychology of the Gainas. A characteristic dogma of the Gainas which pervades their whole philosophical system and code of morals, is the hylozoistic theory that not only animals and plants, but also the smallest particles of the elements, earth, fire, water, and wind, are endowed with souls (gîva). No such dogma, on the other hand, is contained in the philosophy of the Buddhists. To Indian philosophers the various degrees of knowledge up to omniscience are matters of great moment. The Gainas have a theory of their own on this head, and a terminology which differs from that of the Brahmanic philosophers and of the Buddhists. Right knowledge, they say, is fivefold: (1) mati, right perception; (2) sruta, clear knowledge based on mati; (3) avadhi, a sort of supernatural knowledge; (4) manahparyâya, clear knowledge of the thoughts of others; (5) kevala, the highest degree of knowledge, consisting in omniscience. This psychological theory is a fundamental
one of the Gainas, as it is always before the mind of the authors of the sacred books when describing the spiritual career of the saints. But we search in vain for something analogous in the Buddhist scriptures. We could multiply the instances of difference between the fundamental tenets of both sects, but we abstain from it, fearing to tire the reader's patience with an enumeration of all such cases. Such tenets as the Gainas share with the Buddhists, both sects have in common with the Brahmanic philosophers, e. g. the belief in the regeneration of souls, the theory of the Karman, or merit and demerit resulting from former actions, which must take effect in this or another birth, the belief that by perfect knowledge and good conduct man can avoid the necessity of being born again and again, &c. Even the theory that from time immemorial prophets (Buddhas or Tîrthakaras) have proclaimed the same dogmas and renewed the sinking faith, has its Brahmanic counterpart in the Avatâras of Vishnu. Besides, such a theory is a necessary consequence both of the Buddhistical and Gaina creed. For what Buddha or Mahâvîra had revealed was, of course, regarded by the followers of either as truth and the only truth; this truth must have existed from the beginning of time, like the Veda of the Brâhmans; but could the truth have remained unknown during the infinite space of time elapsed before the appearance of the prophet? No, would answer the pious believer in Buddhism or Gainism, that was impossible; but the true faith was revealed in different periods by numberless prophets, and so it will be in the time to come. The theory of former prophets seems, therefore, to be a natural consequence of both religions; besides, it was not wholly unfounded on facts, at least as regards the Gainas. For the Nirgranthas are never spoken of in the Buddhist writings as a newly risen sect, nor Nâtaputta as their founder. Accordingly the Nirgranthas were probably an old sect at the time of Buddha, and Nâtaputta only the reformer of the Gaina church, which may have been founded by the twenty-third Tîrthakara, Pârsva. But what seems astonishing is the fact that the Gainas and Bauddhas have hit on nearly the
same number of prophets believed to have risen since the creation of the present order of things, the former worshipping twenty-four Tîrthakaras, the latter twenty-five Buddhas. I do not deny that in developing this theory one sect was influenced by the other; but I firmly believe that it cannot be made out which of the two sects first invented, or borrowed from the Brâhmans, this theory. For if the twenty-five Buddhas were worshipped by the Buddhists of the first centuries after the Nirvâna, the belief in twenty-four Tîrthakaras is equally old, as it is common to the Digambaras and Svetâmbaras, who separated probably in the second century after the Nirvâna. However the decision of the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas originally invented the theory of the succession of prophets, matters little; it cannot influence the result to which the previous discussion has led us, viz. (1) that Gainism had an origin independent from Buddhism, that it had a development of its own, and did not largely borrow from the rival sect; (a) that both Gainism and Buddhism owed to the Brâhmans, especially the Samnyâsins, the groundwork of their philosophy, ethics, and cosmogony.
Our discussion has as yet been conducted on the supposition that the tradition of the Gainas as contained in their sacred books may on the whole be credited. But the intrinsic value of this tradition has been called into question by a scholar of wide views and cautious judgment. Mr. Barth, in the Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, vol. iii, p. 90, admits that an historical personage is hidden under Nâtaputta, but he doubts that valid inferences may be drawn from the sacred books of the Gainas which, avowedly, have been reduced to writing in the fifth century A.D., or nearly a thousand years after the foundation of the sect. For, in his opinion, 'the self-conscient and continuous existence of the sect since that remote epoch, i.e. the direct tradition of peculiar doctrines and records, has not yet been demonstrated. During many centuries,' he says, 'the Gainas had not become distinct from the numerous groups of ascetics who could not boast of more than an obscure floating
existence.' The tradition of the Gainas appears to Mr. Barth to have been formed of vague recollections in imitation of the Buddhist tradition.
Mr. Barth seems to base his theory on the assumption that the Gainas must have been careless in handing down their sacred lore, since they formed, for many centuries, but a small and unimportant sect. I cannot see the force of this argument of Mr. Barth's. Is it more likely that a sect of which the not very numerous followers are scattered over a large country, or a church which has to satisfy the religious wants of a great multitude, will better preserve its original tenets and traditions? It is impossible to decide this question on à priori grounds. The Jews and the Parsis may be adduced as instances in favour of the former view, the Roman Catholic church as one in favour of the latter. But we are not obliged to rely on such generalities in order to decide the question at issue with regard to the Gainas, for they were so far from having only dim notions of their own doctrines that they pronounced as founders of schisms those who differed from the great bulk of the faithful in comparatively unimportant details of belief. This fact is proved by the tradition about the seven sects of the Svetâmbaras made known by Dr. Leumann 1. The Digambaras also, who separated from the Svetâmbaras probably in the second or third century after the Nirvâna, differ from their rivals but little with regard to philosophical tenets; yet they were nevertheless stigmatised by the latter as heretics on account of their rules of conduct. All these facts show that the Gainas, even previous to the redaction of their sacred books, had not a confused and undefined creed, which would have been liable to become altered and defiled by doctrines adopted from widely different religions, but one in which even the minutest details of belief were fixed.
What has been said about the religious doctrines of the Gainas can also be proved of their historical traditions. For the detailed lists of teachers handed down in the several Gakkhas 2, and those incorporated in their sacred
books, show that the Gainas did possess an interest in the history of their church. I do not deny that a list of teachers may be invented, or an incomplete one filled up or made pakka, as the Hindus would say; the necessity of proving itself to be legitimately descended from a recognised authority may induce a sect to invent the names of a line of teachers. But what could have caused the Gainas to fabricate such a detailed list of teachers, Ganas, and Sâkhâs as that in the Kalpa Sûtra? Of most of the details the Gainas of later times knew nothing beyond what they found in the Kalpa Sûtra itself,--and that is unfortunately very little,--nor did they pretend to anything more. For all practical purposes the short list of Sthaviras, as it stands in the Kalpa Sûtra, would have been sufficient; the preservation of the detailed list, containing so many bare names, proves that they must have had an interest for the members of the early church, though the more accurate knowledge of the times and events chronicled in that list was lost after some centuries.
However, it is not enough to have proved that the Gainas, even before the redaction of their sacred books, possessed the qualities necessary for continuing their creed and tradition, and preserving them from corruptions caused by large borrowings from other religious systems; we must also show that they did do what they were qualified to do. This leads us to a discussion of the age of the extant Gaina literature. For if we succeed in proving that the Gaina literature or at least some of its oldest works were composed many centuries before they were reduced to writing, we shall have reduced, if not closed, the gap separating the prophet of the Gainas from their oldest records.
The redaction of the Gaina canon or the Siddhânta took place, according to the unanimous tradition, on the council of Valabhi, under the presidency of Devarddhi. The date of this event, 980 (or 993) AV., corresponding to 454 (or 467) A.D. 1, is incorporated in the Kalpa Sûtra (§ 148). Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddhânta in
danger of becoming extinct, caused it to be written in books. Before that time teachers made no use of written books when teaching the Siddhânta to novices, but after that time they did use books. The latter part of this statement is evidently true. For in olden times books were not used, it being the custom of the Brâhmans to rely rather on the memory than on the MSS., and in this they were, almost without doubt, followed by the Gainas and Buddhists. But now-a-days Yatis use MSS. when teaching the sacred lore to their novices. There is no reason why we should not credit the tradition that this change in the method of instruction was brought about by Devarddhi Ganin; for the event was of too great importance not to be remembered. To provide every teacher or at least every Upâsraya with copies of the sacred books, Devarddhi Ganin must have issued a large edition of the Siddhânta. This is probably the meaning of the traditional record that Devarddhi caused the Siddhânta to be written in books, for it is hardly credible that the Gaina monks should never before have attempted to write down what they had to commit to memory; the Brâhmans also have MSS. of their sacred books, though they do not use them in handing down the Veda. These MSS. were intended for private use, to aid the memory of the teacher. I make no doubt that the same practice was observed by the Gaina monks, the more so as they were not, like the Brâhmans, influenced by any theory of their own not to trust to MSS., but were induced merely by the force of the prevalent custom to hand down their sacred lore by word of mouth. I do not maintain that the sacred books of the Gainas were originally written in books, for the same argument which has been brought forward to prove that the Buddhist monks could have had no MSS., as they are never mentioned in their sacred books, in which 'every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to 1,' the same argument, I say, holds good with regard to the Gainas as long as the
monks led a wandering life; but when the monks were settled in Upâsrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do now-a-days.
Devarddhi's position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instruction. Devarddhi's edition of the Siddhânta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of the Siddhânta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhânta, did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved only by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS.
On this premise we now proceed to inquire into the date of the composition of the sacred books of the Gainas. Their own dogmatical theory that all sacred books were revealed by the first Tîrthakara, shall only be noticed to be dismissed. We must try to discover better grounds for fixing the age when the chief works of the Siddhânta were composed.
As single passages may have crept into the text at any time, we can draw no valid inferences from them, even if they be sanctioned by Devarddhi's receiving them into his revised text. I attach therefore no great weight to the lists of barbarous or un-Aryan tribes 1, nor to the mention of all seven schisms, the last of which occurred 584 AV. 2 Nothing is more common than that such details should be
added as a gloss, or be incorporated even in the text, by those who transmitted it either in writing or in instructing their pupils. But an argument of more weight is the fact that in the Siddhânta we find no traces of Greek astronomy. In fact the Gaina astronomy is a system of incredible absurdity, which would have been impossible, if its author had had the least knowledge of the Greek science. As the latter appears to have been introduced in India about the third or fourth century A.D., it follows that the sacred books of the Gainas were composed before that time.
Another argument which offers itself for fixing the period of the composition of the sacred books, is the language in which they are written. But, unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether the sacred books have been handed down in that language in which they were composed, or in that in which they were pronounced, and transcribed in later generations, according to the then current idiom, till Devarddhi's edition put an end to the modernising of the language of the sacred books. I am inclined to believe the latter view to be correct, and look upon the absence of a self-consistent orthography of the Gaina Prâkrit as the effect of the gradual change of the vernacular language in which the sacred books were recited. In all MSS. of Gaina texts, the same word is not always spelt in the same way. The differences of spelling refer chiefly to the retention, omission, or attenuation of single consonants between vowels, and the retention of the vowels e, o, before two consonants, or their change in i, u. It is hardly possible that the different spellings of a word should all correctly represent the pronunciation of that word at any given time, eg. bhûta, bhûya; udaga, udaya, uaya; lobha, loha 1, &c.; but probably we must regard these methods of spelling as historical spellings, that is to say, that all different spellings presented in the MSS. which formed the materials for Devarddhi's edition of the Siddhânta, were looked upon as authentical and were preserved in all later copies of the sacred texts. If this assumption is correct, we
must regard the most archaic spellings as representing the pronunciation at or shortly after the epoch of the composition of the sacred books, and the most modern one as representing the pronunciation at or shortly before the redaction of the Siddhânta 1. Now on comparing the Gaina Prâkrit especially in the oldest form attainable with the Pâli on one side, and the Prâkrit of Hâla, Setubandha, &c. on the other, it will appear to approach more the Pâli than the later Prâkrit. We may therefore conclude that chronologically also the sacred books of the Gainas stand nearer those of the Southern Buddhists than the works of later Prâkrit writers.
But we can fix the date of the Gaina literature between still narrower limits by means of the metres employed in the sacred books. I am of opinion that the first book of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra and that of the Sûtrakritâṅga Sûtra may be reckoned among the most ancient parts of the Siddhânta; the style of both works appears to me to prove the correctness of this assumption. Now a whole lesson of the Sûtrakritâṅga Sûtra is written in the Vaitâlîya metre. The same metre is used in the Dhammapadam and other sacred books of the Southern Buddhists. But the Pâli verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitâlîya than those in the Sûtrakritâṅga, as I shall prove in a paper on the post-Vedic metres soon to be published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Compared with the common Vaitâlîya verses of Sanskrit literature, a small number of which occur already in the Lalita Vistara, the Vaitâlîya of the Sûtrakritâṅga must be considered to represent an earlier form of the metre. Again, ancient Pâli works seem to contain no verses in the Âryâ metre; at least there is none in the Dhammapadam, nor have I found one in other works. But both the Âkârâṅga and Sûtrakritâṅga
contain each a whole lecture in Âryâ verses of a form which is decidedly older than, and probably the parent of the common Âryâ. The latter is found in the younger parts of the Siddhânta, in the Brahmanical literature, both in Prâkrit and in Sanskrit, and in the works of the Northern Buddhists, e. g. the Lalita Vistara, &c. The form of the Trishtubh metre in ancient Gaina works is younger than that in the Pâli literature and older than that in the Lalita Vistara. Finally the great variety of artificial metres in which the greater number of the Gâthâs in the Lalita Vistara, &c., is composed and which are wanting in the Gaina Siddhânta, seems to prove that the literary taste of the Gainas was fixed before the composition of the latter works. From all these facts we must conclude that the chronological position of the oldest parts of the Gaina literature is intermediate between the Pâli literature and the composition of the Lalita Vistara. Now the Pâli Pitakas were written in books in the time of Vatta Gâmani, who began to reign 88 B.C. But they were in existence already some centuries before that time. Professor Max Müller sums up his discussion on that point by saying: 'We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see, at present with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.C. 1' Additions and alterations may have been made in the sacred texts after that time; but as our argument is not based on a single passage, or even a part of the Dhammapada, but on the metrical laws of a variety of metres in this and other Pâli books, the admission of alterations and additions in these books will not materially influence our conclusion, viz. that the whole of the Gaina Siddhânta was composed after the fourth century B.C.
We have seen that the oldest works in the Gaina canon are older than the Gâthâs in the Lalita Vistara. As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about
the distance in time of the questionable date from either limit by the greater or less resemblance of the oldest Gaina works in verse with such of the Southern and Northern Buddhists as regards metrical or stylistic peculiarities, we should place the beginning of the Gaina literature nearer the time of the Pâli literature, rather than that of the Northern Buddhists. This result agrees pretty well with a tradition of the Svetâmbaras. For they say 1 that after the twelve years’ famine, while Bhadrabâhu was the head of the church, the Aṅgas were brought together by the Saṅgha of Pâtaliputra. Now Bhadrabâhu's death is placed 170 AV. by the Svetâmbaras, and 162 AV. by the Digambaras; he lived therefore, according to the former, under Kandragupta, who is said to have ascended the throne 155 AV. Professor Max Müller assigns to Kandragupta the dates 315-291 B.C.; Westergaard prefers 320 B.C. as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and so does Kern 2. However this difference matters little: the date of the collection or, perhaps more correctly, the composition of the Gaina canon would fall somewhere about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C. It is worth noticing, that according to the above-cited tradition, the Saṅgha of Pâtaliputra collected the eleven Aṅgas without the assistance of Bhadrabâhu. As the latter is claimed by the Digambaras for one of their teachers, and as the Svetâmbaras, though doing the same, still continue the list of Sthaviras from Sambhûtavigaya, Bhadrabâhu's fellow Sthavira, not from Bhadrabâhu himself, it seems to follow that the Aṅgas, brought together by the Saṅgha of Pâtaliputra, formed the canon of the Svetâmbaras only, not that of the whole Gaina church. In that case we should not go wrong in placing the date of the canon somewhat later, under the patriarchate of Sthûlabhadra, i.e. in the first part of the third century B.C.
If the result of our preceding inquiry deserves credit--and I see no counter arguments entitling us to mistrust our conclusion--the origin of the extant Gaina literature cannot be placed earlier than about 300 B.C., or two centuries after
the origin of the sect. But we are not from this fact obliged to assume that the Gainas in the time intermediate between their last prophet and the composition of their canon had to rely on nothing more solid than a religious and legendary tradition, never brought into a fixed form. In that case, Mr. Barth's objections to the trustworthiness of the Gaina tradition would, it is true, not be without ground. However, we are told by the Svetâmbaras, as well as the Digambaras, that besides the Aṅgas, there existed other and probably older works, called Pûrvas, of which there were originally fourteen. The knowledge of these Pûrvas was gradually lost, till at last it became totally extinct. The tradition of the Svetâmbaras about the fourteen Pûrvas is this: the fourteen Pûrvas had been incorporated in the twelfth Aṅga, the Drishtivâda, which was lost before 1000 AV. But a detailed table of contents of it, and consequently of the Pûrvas, has survived in the fourth Aṅga, the Samavâyâṅga, and in the Nandî Sûtra 1. Whether the Pûrvas, contained in the Drishtivâda, were the original ones, or, as I am inclined to believe, only abstracts of them, we cannot decide; at all events there has been a more detailed tradition about what they contained.
Now we should as a rule be careful in crediting any tradition about some lost book or books of great antiquity, because such a tradition is frequently invented by an author to furnish his doctrines with an authority from which they may be derived. But in our case, there are no grounds for suspecting the correctness of so general and old a tradition as that about the Pûrvas. For the Aṅgas do not derive their authority from the Pûrvas, but are believed to be coeval with the creation of the world. As a fraud, the tradition about the Pûrvas would therefore be unintelligible; but accepted as truth, it well falls in with our views about the development of the Gaina literature. The name itself testifies to the fact that the Pûrvas were superseded by a new canon, for pûrva means former,
earlier 1; and it is assuredly not by accident that the knowledge of the Pûrvas is said to have commenced to fade away at the same time when the Aṅgas were collected by the Saṅgha of Pâtaliputra. For after Bhadrabâhu, only ten out of the fourteen Pûrvas were known.
This then is the most natural interpretation we can place on the tradition about the fourteen Pûrvas, that they were the oldest sacred books, which however were superseded by a new canon. But as regards the cause of the abolition of the old canon and the composition of a new one, we are left to conjecture, and only as such I shall give my opinion. We know that the Drishtivâda, which included the fourteen Pûrvas, dealt chiefly with the drishtis or philosophical opinions of the Gainas and other sects. It may be thence inferred that the Pûrvas related controversies held between Mahâvîra and rival teachers. The title pravâda, which is added to the name of each Pûrva, seems to affirm this view. Besides, if Mahâvîra was not the founder of a new sect, but as I have tried to prove, the reformer of an old one, it is very likely that he should vigorously have combated the opinions of his opponents, and defended those he had accepted or improved. The founder of a religion has to establish his own system, he is not so much in danger to become a mere controversialist as a reformer. Now if the discourses of Mahâvîra, remembered and handed down by his disciples, were chiefly controversies, they must have lost their interest when the opponents of Mahâvîra had died and the sects headed by them had become extinct. Could such contentions about philosophical questions which were no more of any practical importance, and bickerings of divines all but forgotten, though these things were of paramount interest to the contemporary world, serve as a canon for later generations who lived in thoroughly changed circumstances? The want of a canon suiting the condition of the
community must have made itself felt, and it led, in my opinion, to the composition of a new canon and the neglect of the old one.
Professor A. Weber 1 assigns as the probable cause of the Drishtivâda being lost, that the development of the Svetâmbara sect had arrived at a point where the diversity of its tenets from those embodied in that book became too visible to be passed over. Therefore the Drishtivâda, which contained the Pûrvas, fell into neglect. I cannot concur in Professor Weber's opinion, seeing that the Digambaras also have lost the Pûrvas, and the Aṅgas to boot. It is not probable that the development of Gainism during the two first centuries after the Nirvâna should have gone on at so rapid a pace that its two principal sects should have been brought to the necessity of discarding their old canon. For, as stated above, after the splitting of the church in these two sects the philosophical system of the Gainas remained stationary, since it is nearly the same with both sects. As regards ethics, both sects, it is true, differ more. But as the extant canon of the Svetâmbaras is not falling into neglect, though many practices enjoined in it have long since been abandoned, it is not more probable that they should have been more sensible on the same score at the time when the Pûrvas formed their canon. Besides, some of the Pûrvas are said to have continued to be extant long after the time which we have assigned for the formation of the new canon. At last they disappeared, not by an intentional neglect, I presume, but because the new canon set into clearer light the Gaina doctrines, and put them forward more systematically than had been done in the controversial literature of the Pûrvas.
Our discussion, which we here close, has, I hope, proved that the development of the Gaina church has not been, at any time, violently interrupted by some very extraordinary events; that we can follow this development from its true beginning through its different stages, and that Gainism is as much independent from other sects, especially from
It remains for me to add a few remarks about the two works which have been translated in this book.
The Âkârâṅga Sûtra, or, as it is sometimes called, the Sâmâyika 1, is the first of the eleven Aṅgas. It treats of the âkâra, or conduct, which falls under the last of the four heads, or anuyogas, into which the sacred lore is divided, viz. Dharmakathâ, Ganita, Dravya, and Karanakarana. The Âkârâṅga Sûtra contains two books, or Srutaskandhas, very different from each other in style and in the manner in which the subject is treated. The subdivisions of the second book being called Kûlâs, or appendices, it follows that only the first book is really old. That it was considered so even in later times, is apparent from a remark of Sîlâṅka, who wrote the commentary, which is the oldest one extant 2. For speaking of the maṅgala or auspicious sentence which, according to a current theory, must occur at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of each work, Sîlâṅka points out as such the first sentence of the first lesson of the first lecture, the first sentence of the fifth lesson of the fifth lecture, and the latter half of the 16th verse in the fourth lesson of the eighth lecture of the first book. It is evident that he regarded the Âkârâṅga Sûtra as ending with the last-named passage, which is the last but one of the first book.
The first book, then, is the oldest part of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra; it is probably the old Âkârâṅga Sûtra itself to which other treatises have been added. For it is complete in
itself; it describes in rather enigmatical language the progress of the faithful towards the highest perfection. The last lecture, a sort of popular ballad on the glorious suffering of the prophet, was perhaps added in later times, but as it stands now it serves well to illustrate and to set a high example of the true ascetic's life. But the greater part of the book is in prose of the most bewildering kind. Frequently we meet with fragments only of sentences, or with sentences which it is impossible to construe. This reminds us of the style of the Brahmanical Sûtras; but there is this difference, that in the last-named works the single aphorisms are the necessary links in the logical concatenation of ideas, while in our book the single sentences or parts of sentences do not seem to be connected with one another in order to carry on the illustration of an idea. They do not read like a logical discussion, but like a sermon made up by quotations from some then well-known sacred books. In fact the fragments of verses and whole verses which are liberally interspersed in the prose text go far to prove the correctness of my conjecture; for many of these 'disjecta membra' are very similar to verses or Pâdas of verses occurring in the Sûtrakritâṅga, Uttarâdhyayana, and Dasavaikâlika Sûtras. They must therefore be taken as allusions to standard authorities. The same must be assumed of at least some prose sentences, especially those which are incomplete in themselves. Other passages again seem to be added to those quotations in order to explain or to complete them. I shall give a few specimens. I, 4, 1, 3 we read, aho ya râo gatamânĕ dhîre; this is a Pâda of a Trishtubh, and accordingly a quotation. The words which follow, sayâ âgayapannane, explain the meaning of that quotation, aho ya râo = sayâ, gatamâne dhîre = âgayapannâne. The text continues pamatte bahiyâ pâsa. This is probably a Pâda of a Sloka; the rest of the sentence, appamatte sayâ parakkameggâ, is the moral application of the preceding one. We should therefore translate: 'Day and night exerting himself and steadfast,' i.e. always having ready wisdom. 'Look, the careless stand outside,' (therefore)
being careful he should always exert himself. The commentator however does not separate the quotations from the glosses, but takes all these passages as parts of one sentence, which he interprets in the way that it has been rendered in the text of my translation, p. 37.
In this as in many other cases I have preferred to give in my translation the meaning which Sîlâṅka has given in his commentary. For it is sometimes extremely difficult to separate the quotations from the remaining text. I have never dared to do so when they could not be proved to be parts of verses. I had therefore to leave unnoticed all such passages which, as the one quoted above, might be taken as a Pâda of a Sloka; for in every prose work such passages occur, though they never were meant for verse. They may, therefore, only accidentally resemble parts of a Sloka in our book too, though the great number of such passages is rather suspicious. The greatest difficulty however we should incur if we were to point out the prose quotations, though there are certainly such, e. g. I, 3, 1, 1, suttâ amunî, munino satatam gâgaranti. Such phrases differ in style from the rest of the prose part; but it would be impossible to draw the line between them and the work of the real author. From what has been said, it will appear how difficult it is to do justice to such a work as the first book of the Âkârâṅga in the first attempt to translate it. In most cases I have contented myself with rendering the text according to the interpretation of the commentator. It must be left to future labours to come nearer the meaning of the author than it has been preserved by the tradition of the scholiasts.
Formerly the first book contained nine lectures instead of eight, one lecture, the Mahâparinnâ, being now lost. It was, according to some authorities, Samavâyâṅga, Nandî, Âvasyaka Niryukti, and Vidhiprabhâ 1, the ninth lecture; but according to the Niryukti of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra, which contains a systematic exposition of the subjects treated in the single lectures and lessons of the Âkârâṅga itself, and
to Sîlâṅka and the other commentators, it was the eighth lecture. It contained seven lessons, and treated of some details of ascetic life 1. The fact that the same subjects were treated in the second book probably occasioned the loss of the Mahâparinnâ, 'because it was superfluous 2.'
The second book consists of four parts (Kûlâ) or appendices. There were originally five Kûlâs, but the fifth, the Nisîhiyagghana, is now reckoned as a separate work. The first and second parts lay down rules for conduct. Their style is very different from that of the first book, being rather cumbrous, and not at all aphoristical. The greatest difficulty in translating these parts is caused by the numerous technical terms, some of which remain obscure, notwithstanding the explanation of the commentary; others again are simply transcribed into Sanskrit by the scholiast, and seem to require no definition to be understood by the modern Gainas. But it is different with us, who are frequently reduced to guessing at the meaning of technicalities which a Yati could explain at once. It is therefore to be hoped that some scholars in India, who can avail themselves of the instruction of a Yati, will turn their attention to this subject, and get an authentic explanation of the many technical terms the meaning of which cannot be ascertained by a European scholar by the means of Gaina works only.
The third and fourth Kûlâs have, according to the Parisishta Parvan IX, been revealed to the eldest sister of Sthûlabhadra by Sîmandhara, a Gina living in Pûrvavideha, a mythical continent. This tradition is very remarkable, as it assigns what we should call the composition of the two last parts of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra to the same time when the Kalpa Sûtra, which treats of a similar subject, was composed.
The third part is of great interest, as it contains the materials from which the Life of Mahâvîra in the Kalpa Sûtra has been worked out. In fact most of the prose paragraphs occur with but small alterations in the Kalpa
1. Tîkâ of Sîlâṅka, also called Tattvâditya, said to have been finished in the Saka year 798 or 876 A.D., with the help of Vâhari Sâdhu.
2. Dîpikâ of Ginahamsa Sûri, a teacher of the Brihat Kharatara Gakkha. The Dîpikâ is almost verbally copied from the Tîkâ, which it pretends to reduce to a smaller compass. But the reduction consists almost entirely in the omission of Sîlâṅka's comments on the Niryukti verses, which form his introduction to every lecture and lesson.
3. Pârsvakandra's Bâlâvabodha or Gugerati Gloss. In some parts of the second book, which are not explained in the older commentaries, this gloss was the only help I had. It generally closely follows the explanation of the older commentaries, more especially that of the Dîpikâ.
About the Kalpa Sûtra I have spoken at some length in
the introduction to my edition of that work 1, to which I refer the reader for further particulars. Since that time Professor Weber has taken up the subject in his treatise on the Sacred Books of the Gainas and corrected some mistakes of mine. He ascertained that the whole Kalpa Sûtra is incorporated as the eighth lecture in the Dasâsrutaskandha, the fourth Kheda Sûtra. Professor Weber concurs in my opinion that the 'Rules for Yatis' may be the work of Bhadrabâhu 2, and that the List of Sthaviras' probably has been added by Devarddhi, the editor of the Siddhânta. I do not think, however, that Devarddhi was the author of the Life of Mahâvîra also, as Professor Weber suggests. For if it were the work of so well known a man, tradition would certainly not have allowed such a fact to become forgotten. It was a different thing with the List of Sthaviras, which consists of four or five distinct treatises only put together and added to the Lives of the Ginas by the editor of the work. We cannot argue from the style of the Lives of the Ginas that that part must be younger than the Rules for Yatis; for the same difference of style occasioned by the diversity of the matter exists between the third Kûlâ of the Âkârâṅga Sûtra and the two preceding ones. Nor can the meagreness of the contents be adduced as an argument against the antiquity of the Lives of the Ginas, since they were probably not intended for biographical treatises, but served a liturgical purpose; for when the images of the Tîrthakaras are worshipped in the temples they are addressed with hymns, one of which sums up the Kalyânakas or auspicious moments 3. It is
with these Kalyânakas that the Lives of the Ginas are chiefly concerned, and this fact seems to prove that the custom of mentioning the Kalyânakas in the worship of the Tîrthakaras is a very old one; for otherwise it would be impossible to conceive what could have induced an author to treat so largely of so barren a subject as has been done in the Kalpa Sûtra. But whatever may be the age of the several parts of the Kalpa Sûtra, it is certain that this work has been held in high esteem by the Gainas for more than a thousand years. It therefore deserves a place in this collection of translations from the Sacred Books of the East. I could only have wished to make my translation more worthy of the place where it is to make its appearance; but if I have somewhat fallen short in my performance, I hope it will be accepted as an excuse that I had to translate into a language which is not my own, works of a literature which, notwithstanding all that has been done for it, still is all but virgin soil to us.
HERMANN JACOBI.
MÜNSTER, WESTPHALIA,
June, 1884.
Footnotes
x:1 See Oldenberg's edition, pp. 231, 232; the translation, p. 104 seq., of the second part, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii.
x:2 The passages in which the Ñâtikas occur seem to have been misunderstood by the commentator and the modern translators. Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mahâparinibbâna-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says in a note, p. 24:. At first Nâdika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number; but then, 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 Ñâtikâ denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Giñgakâvasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahâparinibbâna-Sutta and in the Mahâvagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nâdika is used in the singular. I think the form Nâdika is wrong, and Ñâtika, the spelling of the Mahâvagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation: 'Nâdika, near Patna.' It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahâvagga that the place in question, as well as Kotiggâma, was near Vesâli.
xi:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262.
xii:1 See Kalpa Sûtra, my edition, p. 113. Ketaka is called the maternal uncle of Mahâvîra.
xii:2 See Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § no; Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 15, § 15.
xii:3 Turnour in the Journal of the Royal As. Soc. of Bengal, VII, p. 992.
xii:4 Ed. Warren, p. 27.
xii:5 See Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas.
xiii:1 The Gainas are very particular in stating the names and gotras of Mahâvîra's relations, of whom they have recorded little else. Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 109.
xiii:2 See Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, §§ 17 and 18.
xiii:3 See Nirayâvalî Sûtra, ed. Warren, p. 22. She is commonly called by the Buddhists Vaidehî; in a Thibetan life of Buddha her name is Srîbhadrâ, which. reminds us of the name of Ketaka's wife Subhadrâ. See Schiefner in Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale de St. Pétersbourg, tome iv, p. 253.
xiii:4 He is usually called only Seniya or Srenika; the full name is given in the Dasâsrutaskandha, Weber, Ind. Stud. XVI, p. 469.
xiv:1 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 Udâyin or Udayibhaddaka, the founder of Pâtaliputra in the records of the Gainas and Brahmans.
xiv:2 The story is told with the same details by the Buddhists; see Kern, Der Buddhismus and seine Geschichte in Indien, I, p. 249 (p. 195 of the original), and the Gainas in the Nirayâvalî Sûtra.
xiv:3 See above.
xiv:4 Mahâparinibbâna-Sutta I, 26, and Mahâvagga VI, 28, 7 seq.
xv:1 Nâtaputta in Pâli and Prâkrit. The Buddhists call him Nigantha Nâtaputta, i.e. Gñâtriputra the Nirgrantha or Gaina monk.
xv:2 This period of his life is the subject of a sort of ballad incorporated in the Âkârâṅga Sûtra (I, 8).
xvi:1 See Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 122; Kampâ, 3; Vaisâlî, 12; Mithilâ, 6; Râgagriha, 14; Bhadrikâ, 2; Âlabhikâ, 1; Panitabhûmi, 1; Srâvastî, 1; Pâpâ, 1. All these towns, with the exception of Panitabhûmi, Srâvastî, and perhaps Âlabhikâ, lay within the limits of the three kingdoms mentioned in the text.
xvii:1 See Petersburg Dictionary, ss. vv.
xviii:1 These twelve years of penance were indeed always thought 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 Nirvâna, has to undergo a similar course of preparatory penance, which lasts twelve years.
xviii:2 Indische Studien, XVI, 210.
xix:1 Indische Alterthumskunde, IV, p. 763 seq.
xxii:1 Fragment der Bhagavatî, II, pp. x75, 187.
xxii:2 Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, XXVIII, p. 222, note.
xxii:3 Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p. 16e.
xxiii:1 Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p.139.
xxiii:2 Baudhâyana II, to, 18; see Bühler's translation, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 275.
xxv:1 See Bühler's translation, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. 191, 192. The numbers in the text refer to the paragraphs in Gautama's third book. The similar passages of Baudhâyana are referred to in the notes.
xxv:2 Compare Baudhâyana II, 6, 11, s6.
xxv:3 Baudhâyana II, 6, 11, 20.
xxv:4 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 2, 2, § 6.
xxv:5 Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 119.
xxv:6 Baudhâyana II, 6, 12, 22.
xxv:7 Kalpa Sûtra, Rules for Yatis, § 20.
xxvi:1 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 15, v, § 15,
xxvi:2 Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 118.
xxvi:3 Baudhâyana, l.c.;16.
xxvi:4 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 5, 1, § 1.
xxvi:5 Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 117.
xxvi:6 Âkârâṅga Sûtra I, 7, 7, 1.
xxvi:7 L.c. § 21.
xxvi:8 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 5, 2, I, and I, 7, 5, 2.
xxvi:9 Compare Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 2, 2, 1.
xxvii:1 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, I, 7, 6, and 8th Lesson.
xxvii:2 Baudhâyana II, 10, 17, 10.
xxvii:3 Mumde bhavittâ agârâo anagâriyam pavvaie.
xxvii:4 Âkârâṅga Sûtra I, 8, 1, 2.
xxvii:5 Âkârâṅga Sûtra I, 8, 3, 1.
xxviii:1 Kalpa Sûtra, Lives of the Ginas, § 117, towards the end.
xxviii:2 E. g. Kalpa Sûtra, Rules for Yatis, § 51.
xxviii:3 Baudhâyana II, 6, 11, 23.
xxviii:4 Âkârâṅga Sûtra, p. 1, note 2.
xxviii:5 Baudhâyana II, 6, 11, 24, 25.
xxviii:6 See Professor Bühler's translation, p. 260, note.
xxviii:7 Baudhâyana II, 10, 17, 11.
xxviii:8 Âkârâṅga Sûtra, p. 67, note 3.
xxviii:9 Though a monk is allowed to carry a water vessel besides his alms-bowl, still it is thought more meritorious to have but one bowl.
xxix:1 Baudhâyana II, 10, 18, 13.
xxix:2 Âkârâṅga Sûtra II, 1.
xxx:1 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, part i, introduction, p. xliii.
xxx:2 L.c. p. xxii.
xxx:3 L.c. p. xlix.
xxx:4 Buddha, sein Leben, &c., p. 557 seq.
xxxi:1 Mahâvagga I, 6, 12.
xxxi:2 This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the Svetâmbaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Âkârâṅga, the Kalpa Sûtra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. I assume that Siddhârtha had two wives, the Brâhmanî Devânandâ, the real mother of Mahâvîra, and the Kshatriyânî Trisalâ; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, because its Prâkrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not to a Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that Rishabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devânandâ with another husband. Now Siddhârtha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisalâ. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahâvîra was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisalâ, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahâvîra's parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Purânic story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devakî to that of Rohinî. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tîrthakara, Arishtanemi, who was a famous Yâdava.
xxxii:1 Max Müller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343.
xxxii:2 Chapter x, 4. Bühler's translation.
xxxvi:1 See Indische Studien, XVI.
xxxvi:2 See Dr. Klatt, Ind. Ant. XI.
xxxvii:1 It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (527) A.D.; see Kalpa Sûtra, introduction, p. 15.
xxxviii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii.
xxxix:1 Among the latter Ârava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians.
xxxix:2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237.
xl:1 I do not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that r early every word should have existed in two or three forms.
xli:1 It might be objected that archaic spellings are due to the influence of the knowledge of Sanskrit; but the Gainas must always have been so well acquainted with Prâkrit that they needed not any help from the Sanskrit to understand their sacred books. On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prâkrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, eg. dâraga for dâraya, the Sanskrit prototype being dâraka.
xlii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii.
xliii:1 Parisishta Parvan IX, 55 seqq.
xliii:2 Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note.
xliv:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 341 seqq.
xlv:1 The Gainas explain the meaning of the word pûrva in the following way. The Tîrthakara himself taught the Pûrvas to his disciples, the Ganadharas. The Ganadharas then composed the Aṅgas. There is evidently some truth in this tradition, as it does not agree with the dogma of the Aṅgas, being taught already by the first Tîrthakara. See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 353.
xlvi:1 Indische Studien, XVI, p. 248.
xlvii:1 See Professor Weber's remarks on the possible bearing of this name in the treatise I had so often occasion to quote, p. 243 seqq.
xlvii:2 It was not, however, the first commentary, for Sîlâṅka mentions one by Gandhahastin.
xlix:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 251 seq.
l:1 See Calcutta edition, I, p. 435 seq., vv. 251-268.
l:2 Sâisayattanena, Weber, l.c.
li:1 The Âyârâmga Sutta of the Çvetâmbara Jains, London, 1882.
lii:1 The Kalpa Sûtra of Bhadrabâhu, Leipzig, 1879. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII, 1.
lii:2 That the 'Rules for Yatis' must have been composed at least six generations after Mahâvîra is evident from §§ 3-8, but probably the work is still younger. For in § 6 the Sthaviras, who come immediately after the disciples of the Ganadharas, are spoken of in some contrast to the 'Sramanas Nirgranthas of the present time.' Yet the work cannot be comparatively young, because it appears from §§ 28-30 that the Ginakalpa had not yet fallen into disuse, as it had done in later times.
lii:3 The rites are described and the hymns given in a modern work called Katurvimsatitîrthaṅkarânâm pûgâ, a MS. of which belongs to the Deccan College.
