Chapter 3

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_ [Footnote: The _Mahâparinibbâṇa Sutta_, in _S.B.E_. Vol. XI, p. 106.] 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. [Footnote: Jacobi, _Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morg. Ges._ Bd. XXXIV, S. 187; _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. IX, p. 159.] 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. [Footnote: Jacobi, _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. IX, p. 159.]

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. [Footnote: Jacobi, _loc. cit._. p. 160, and Leumann, _Actes du Vlième Congrès Int. des Or_. Sect. Ary. p. 505. As the Jaina accounts of the teaching of Pârśva and the existence of communities of his disciples, sound trustworthy, we may perhaps accept, with Jacobi, that they rest on a historical foundation.]

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. [Footnote: Jacobi _loc. cit._. p. 159-160.]

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. [Footnote: See for example the account in the _Chullavagga_, in _S.B.E_. Vol. XX. p. 78-79; _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. VIII, p. 313.] 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. [Footnote: Spence Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, p. 225.] 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. [Footnote: _S.B.E_. Vol. XVII, pp. 108-117.]

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." [Footnote: The passage is given in the original by Oldenberg, _Leitsch. der D. Morg. Ges_. Bd. XXXIV, S. 749. Its significance in connection with the Jaina tradition as to their schisms has been overlooked until now. It has also been unnoticed that the assertion, that Vardhamâna died during Buddha's lifetime, proves that the latest account of this occurrence given by traditions 467 B.C. is false: Later Buddhist legends (Spence Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, pp. 266-271) treat of Nâtaputta's death in more detail. In a lengthy account they give as the cause of the same the apostacy of one of his disciples, Upâli who was converted by Buddha. After going over to Buddhism, Upâli treated his former master with scorn, and presumed to relate a parable which should prove the foolishness of those who believed in false doctrines. Thereupon the Nigaṇṭha fell into despair. He declared his alms-vessel was broken, his existence destroyed, went to Pâva, and died there. Naturally no importance is to be given to this account and its details. They are apparently the outcome of sect-hatred.] 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. [Footnote: According to Jacobi's supposition, _S.B.E_. Vol. XXII, p. xvi, the error was caused, by the only disciple of Vardhamâna, who outlived his master, Sudharman being an Âgniveśyâyana.] 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. [Footnote: See for the history of Sîha related above, Spence Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, pp. 226, 266, and Jacobi, _Ind. Antiq._ Vol. VIII, p. 161]

This agrees with several remarks in the Buddhist chronicles, which assert the existence of the Jainas in different districts of India during the first century after Buddha's death. In the memoirs of the Chinese Buddhist and pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang, who visited India in the beginning of the seventh century of our era, is to be found an extract from the ancient annals of Magadha, which proves the existence of the Nirgrantha or Jainas in their original home from a very early time. [Footnote: Beal, _Si-yu-ki._ Vol. II, p. 168.] This extract relates to the building of the great monastry at Nâlandâ, the high school of Buddhism in eastern India, which was founded shortly after Buddha's _Nirvâṇa_, and mentions incidentally that a Nirgrantha who was a great astrologer and prophet had prophesied the future success of the new building. At almost as early a period the _Mahâvan̄sa_, composed in the fifth century A.D., fixes the appearance of the Nirgrantha in the island of Ceylon. It is said that the king Paṇḍukâbhaya, who ruled in the beginning of the second century after Buddha, from 367-307 B.C. built a temple and a monastery for two Nirgranthas. The monastery is again mentioned in the same work in the account of the reign of a later king Vaṭṭâgâmini, cir. 38-10 B.C. It is related that Vaṭṭâgâmini being offended by the inhabitants, caused it to be destroyed after it had existed during the reigns of twenty one kings, and erected a Buddhist Saṅghârâma in its place. The latter piece of information is found also in the _Dîpavan̄sa_ of more than a century earlier. [Footnote: Turnour, _Mahâvaṅsa_, pp. 66-67 and p. 203, 206: _Dîpavan̄sa_ XIX 14; comp. also Kern, _Buddhismus_, Bd. I, S. 422. In the first passage in the _Mahâvaṅ sa_, three Nighaṇṭas are introduced by name, Jotiya, Giri, and Kumbhaṇḍa. The translation incorrectly makes the first a Brâhmaṇ and chief engineer.]

None of these works can indeed be looked upon as a truly historical source. There are, even in those paragraphs which treat of the oldest history after Buddha's death, proofs enough that they simply hand down a faulty historical tradition. In spite of this, their statements on the Nirgrantha, cannot be denied a certain weight, because they are closely connected on the one side with the Buddhist canon, and on the other they agree with the indisputable sources of history, which relate to a slightly later period.

The first authentic information on Vardhamâna's sect is given by our oldest inscriptions, the religious edicts of the Maurya king Aśoka, who, according to tradition was anointed in the year 219 after Buddha's death, and—as the reference to his Grecian contemporaries, Antiochos, Magas, Alexander, Ptolemaeus and Antigonas confirms,—ruled, during the second half of the third century B.C. over the whole of India with the exception of the Dekhan. This prince interested himself not only in Buddhism, which he professed in his later years, but he took care, in a fatherly way, as he repeatedly relates, of all other religious sects in his vast kingdom. In the fourteenth year of his reign, he appointed officials, called law-superintendents, whose duty it was to watch over the life of the different communities, to settle their quarrels, to control the distribution of their legacies and pious gifts. He says of them in the second part of the seventh 'pillar' edict, which he issued in the twenty-ninth year of his reign, "My superintendents are occupied with various charitable matters, they are also engaged with all sects of ascetics and householders; I have so arranged that they will also be occupied with the affairs of the _Saṁgha_; likewise I have arranged that they will be occupied with the Âjîvika Brâhmaṇs; I have arranged it that they will also be occupied with the Nigaṇṭha". [Footnote: See Senart, _Inscriptions de Piyadasi_, tom. II, p. 82. Ed. VIII, l. 4. My translation differs from Senart's in some points especially in relation to the construction. Conf. _Epigraphia Indiea_, vol. II, pp. 272f.] The word _Saṁgha_ serves here as usual for the Buddhist monks. The Âjívikas, whose name completely disappears later, are often named in the sacred writings of the Buddhists and the Jainas as an influential sect. They enjoyed the special favour of Aśoka, who, as other inscriptions testify, caused several caves at Baràbar to be made into dwellings for their ascetics. [Footnote: See _Ind. Antiquary_, vol. XX, pp. 361 ff.] As in the still older writings of the Buddhist canon, the name Nigaṇṭha here can refer only to the followers of Vardhamâna. As they are here, along with the other two favourites, counted worthy of special mention, we may certainly conclude that they were of no small importance at the time. Had they been without influence and of small numbers Aśoka would hardly have known of them, or at least would not have singled them out from the other numerous nameless sects of which he often speaks. It may also be supposed that they were specially numerous in their old home, as Aśoka's capital Pâṭaliputra lay in this land. Whether they spread far over these boundaries, cannot be ascertained.

On the other hand we possess two documents from the middle of the next century which prove that they advanced into south-eastern India as far as Kaliṅga. These are the inscriptions at Khaṇḍagiri in Orissa, of the great King Khâravela and his first wife, who governed the east coast of India from the year 152 to 165 of the Maurya era that is, in the first half of second century B.C.

The larger inscription, unfortunately very much disfigured, contains an account of the life of Khâravela from his childhood till the thirteenth year of his reign. It begins with an appeal to the Arhat and Siddha, which corresponds to the beginning of the five-fold form of homage still used among the Jainas, and mentions the building of temples in honour of the Arhat as well as an image of the first Jina, which was taken away by a hostile king. The second and smaller inscription asserts that Khâravela's wife caused a cave to be prepared for the ascetics of Kalinga, "who believed on the Arhat." [Footnote: The meaning of these inscriptions, which were formerly believed to be Buddhist, was first made clear by Dr. Bhangvânlâl's Indrâji's careful discussion in the _Actes du Vlième Congrès Internat. des Orientalistes_ Sect. Ary. pp. 135-159. H; first recognised the true names of the King Khâravela and his predecessors and shewed that Khâravela and his wife were patrons of the Jainas. We have to thank him for the information that the inscription contains a date in the Maurya Era. I have thoroughly discussed his excellent article in the _Oesterreichischen Monatsschrift_, Bd. X, S. 231 ff. and have there given my reasons for differing from him on an important point, namely, the date of the beginning of the Maurya Era, which, according to his view begins with the conquest of Kaliṅga by Aśoka about 255 B. C. Even yet I find it impossible to accept that the expression, "in the hundred and sixty fifth year of the era of the Maurya Kings", can mean anything else than that 164 years have passed between the thirteenth year of the rule of Khâravela and the anointing of the first Maurya King Chandrugupta. Unfortunately it is impossible to fix the year of the latter occurrence, or to say more than that it took place between the years 322 and 312 B.C. The date given in Khâravela's inscription cannot therefore be more closely fixed than that it lies between 156 and 147 B.C. I now add to my former remarks—that appeals to the Arhat and Siddha appear also in Jaina inscriptions from Mathurâ and may be taken as a certain mark of the sect. Thus it is worthy of note that even in Hiuen Tsiang's time, (Beal, _Si-yu-ki_, Vol. II, p. 205) Kalinga was one of the chief seats of the Jainas.]

From a somewhat later period, as the characters show, from the first century B.C. comes a dedicatory inscription which has been found far to the west of the original home of the Jainas, in Mathurà on the Jamnâ. It tells of the erection of a small temple in honour of the Arhat Vardhamâna, also of the dedication of seats for the teachers, a cistern, and a stone table. The little temple, it says, stood beside the temple of the guild of tradesmen, and this remark proves, that Mathurâ, which, according to the tradition of the Jainas, was one of the chief scats of their religion, possessed a community of Jainas even before the time of this inscription. [Footnote: This inscription also was first made known by Dr Bhagwanlal Indiaji, _loc. cit_. p. 143.]