An
analysis of the doctrinal or philosophical tenets of the non-Vedic sects shows
that the number of such teachers or thinkers and their schools was very large.
The Jaina sutras mention as many as 363, while according to the Buddhist sutras
the number is 62 or 63. The Jainas group their 363 schools broadly into four,
namely, the Kriyavada, the Akriyavada, the Ajnanavada and the Vinayavada.
Mahavira being shown as the champion of Kriyavada. The principal tenets of the
Kriyavada school are that misery is the result of one’s own acts, and is not
caused by anything else; that release from samsara can be secured by knowledge
of the highest truth and by good conduct. The doctrine admits the existence of
soul or self, this world and the next, the eternal and non-eternal elements in
the constituents of the physical world, birth, death, heavens and hells; and
holds that there are causes of misery which can be controlled. According to Jaina
sources, Ajita Kesakambalin is the champion of the Akriyavada which roughly
corresponds to the Lokayatika or the Carvaka school. Accordine to this school,
there is no sin in killing, and there is nothing wrong in enjoying the
pleasures of the world. The champion of Ajfianavada may be Sanjaya whom the
Buddhists called Viksepavadin, or one who did not adhere to any view
categorically. No specific mention of any teacher who believed in the doctrine
of Vinayavada is found in Jaina sources, possibly because there were too many to
be named. Buddhist sources condemn the doctrine of Vinaya which they seem to
have called Silabbataparamasa, the doctrine of liberation through monastic vows
and conduct. Buddhists also point to the dangers of this doctrine, namely, that
it might lead either to pleasure-seeking, or to rigidity in religious
exercises. They also refer to many unanswerable and unanswered problems. Even
if these are discussed or settled, one is no nearer the truth; on the contrary,
the danger of going astray cannot altogether be ruled out. Sanjaya seemed to
have avoided answering these questions out of fear or ignorance, while the
Jainas answered them boldly by their doctrine of many possibilities or
Anekanta.
There
are frequent references in Buddhist literature to some six senior
contemporaries of the Buddha, for instance, in the Digha-nikaya (the
Samannaphala-sutta and its counterpart in Sanskrit). The six heretical teachers
were the Following:
1. Ajita Kesakambalī: (a materialist who
did not believe in morality)
2. Makkhali Gosāla : (inclined to
materialism; completely denied personal effort and action (kiriyavāda and
viriyavāda)
3. Pakudha kaccāyana: (inclined to
materialism)
4. Pūrana Kassapa: (inclined to
materialism)
5. Sañjaya Belatthiputta: (a sceptic)
6. Nigantha Nāthaputta: (an extremist who
preached non-violence and kamma determinism)
It
appears from the context of these references that Ajatasatru, the king of
Magadha. met a number of these teachers and asked them each separately to state
in clear and unambiguous terms the result of their ascetic practices.
All of them were
well known in the country as founders of religious schools with a large
following. Their names and the special doctrines they held are briefly stated
in the text. It is possible, however, that the information supplied is
prejudiced as it emanates from their opponents; in fact, the misstatements they
make are partly due to design and partly to ignorance. All the same, it is
interesting to study their views in order to understand correctly as well as to
appreciate the views of the founder of Buddhism.
Of
these six thinkers, Nigantha Nataputta,
who is no other than Mahavira, the
founder, or, according to the Jaina tradition, the last prophet of the present
world cycle, seems to have been slightly older than the Buddha. He preached
ethical doctrines without apparently knowing that similar ideas had been held
by an incomparably senior ascetic, Parsva. The latter is now acknowledged to be
Mahavira’s predecessor and is believed to have lived 250 years before Mahavira.
Parsva's ethical code consisted of four rules, whereas that of Mahavira
consisted of five. Of these, the first three, viz.,
1.
not to kill living things,
2.
not to take articles of use unless they
are given,
3.
not to tell a lie, are common to the
schools of both Parsva and Mahavira.
4.
The fourth rule in Parsva’s teaching,
that of aparigraha, not to have any worldly possessions including a wife, was
split up into two by Mahavira to make up his code of five. Not to take a wife
or to lead a celibate life, which is the fourth rule in Mahavira’s code,
5.
and not to have worldly possessions
except clothes, which is the fifth rule in Mahāvira’s code, seem to constitute
jointly the fourth rule of Parsva.
The
main difference in the practical or external aspects of Parsva’s and Mahāvira’s
code of conduct thus seems to have been that while ParSva and his followers
were acelakas or naked. Mahavira and his followers wore white garments, but
refused to have any other paraphernalia. In other words, the Jaina faith as
preached by Mahavira is the same as Parsva's, but somewhat more modern. It was
natural therefore that these two schools should have become one as they
actually did some 250 years after the death of Parsva, when the disciples of
ParSva and those of Mahavira met at Sravasti and brought about the Union.
Later, the Jainas explained this fusion of schools differently by adding
twenty-two prophets to precede Parsva, thereby making Parsva the twenty-third
and Mahavira the twenty-fourth of their prophets. It would, however, be quite
correct to hold that Parsva and Mahavira independently evolved a philosophy and
religious system which had identical tenets.
In the
Samannaphala-sutta, Nigantha Nataputta is mentioned as having held the doctrine
of fourfold restraint: restraint from the use of cold water as it contains
life, and from sinful activities such as killing and sexual intercourse. He was
free from all sins and had purified himself. In the Udumbarika-sihanada-sutta' the restraints ascribed to him are different, but identical with the four vows
of Parsva. According to Jaina sources, however. Jainism is not a purely ethical
system, but also a philosophy based on the doctrine of many possibilities,
known as Anekanta or Syadvada. The
doctrine looks at two aspects of everything, the eternal and the non-eternal.
The soul undergoes migration according to good or bad deeds. As Jainism regards
the existence of jiva in everything, it enjoins such behaviour as does not
cause injury to any jiva. The soul becomes impure and is engulfed by saipsara
if it is subjected to the influence of sense objects. In order to keep the soul
pure from their contamination, and to sccure its release, it is necessary to practise
restraint. To achieve this one must resort to or acquire right knowledge, faith
and conduct. Buddhist sources, for instance, the Anguttara, and the
seventy-fourth sutta of the TTkSnipata, ridicule the Jaina doctrine,
particularly its idea of overcoming sin, its restraint on movements and its
insistence on certain .types of clothing.
The
next important contemporary of the Buddha was Makkhali Gosala. He belonged to the sect of the Acelakas or Naked
Ones, and, as the first part of his name indicates, carried a staff of bamboo
(maskarin). It is said that he was for some time a disciple of Mahavira, but
later broke away from him. Afterwards, he probably founded an independent
school known as the Ajivika school. Later writers mention two predecessors,
Nanda Vaccha and Kisa Samkicca, thus giving this school three prophets. This
sect is now extinct, but seems to have enjoyed popularity and even royal
patronage. The doctrine advocated by Gosala is styled sarnsara-visuddhi or the
doctrine of attaining purity only by passing through all kinds of existence.
Gosala did not believe that there was any special cause for either the misery
of human beings or for their deliverance. He did not believe in human effort,
and held that all creatures were helpless against destiny. He maintained that
all creatures, whether wise or foolish, were destined to pass through samsara.
and that their misery would come to an end at the completion of the cycle. No
human effort would reduce or lengthen this period. Like a ball of thread,
samsara had a fixed term, through which every being must pass.
The remaining
four teachers, who are mentioned as contemporaries of the Buddha, did not leave
their mark on posterity as did Mahavira and, to a lesser degree, Gosala. Of these
four, Purana Kassapa" held the doctrine of Akriya or non-action. He
maintained that a man did not incur sin through actions which were popularly
known as bad, e.g., killing, committing theft, taking another man’s
wife, or telling a lie. Even if a man killed all the creatures on earth and raised
a heap of skulls, he incurred no sin. Similarly, he did not earn merit through
a good act, or by staying on the northern or southern bank of the Ganga;
similarly, self control, gifts, and truthfulness did not earn for him any credit.
The doctrine that Kassapa preached resembles the doctrine of the
Carvakas in many respects. Ajita Kesakambalin was another contemporary of the Buddha. He did
not believe in the utility of gifts, in sacrifice, the fruits of good and bad
acts, the existence of heavenly worlds or persons possessing higher or
supernatural powers. He held that the body consisted of four elements, into
which it dissolved after death. He also held that it was useless to talk of the
next world; that both the wise and the ignorant die and have no further life
after death.' His views are similar to those of the Carvakas, and his doctrine
may be styled Ucchedavada.
Pakudha
Kaccayana is probably Kakuda Katyayana as mentioned in the
Prasnupanisad. He and his views are also referred to in the Suyagada, the
Second Book of the Svetambara Jaina Canon. His doctrine may be called
Asasvatavada. According to him, there are seven elements which are immutable, and
do not in any way contribute to pleasure or pain. The body is ultimately
dissolved into these seven eternal elements.
The last among
these teachers is Sanjaya Belatthiputta.
Ajatasatru calls him the most foolish and the most ignorantof all the teachers
he had met. His doctrine is known as Viksepavada, or a doctrine which diverts
the mind from the right track. According to the Samanfiaphala-sutta, he always declined
to give categorical answers to problems facing the human mind. There are ten
unexplained and unanswered questions, that have always exercised the mind of man
and have frequently been mentioned in Buddhist literature, which Sanjaya never
even attempted to answer. It may be noted that these questions were also put to
the Buddha on several occasions and he. too, declined to answer them; but his
attitude towards them was altogether different. He said that it was
useless to waste time on these idle quests as they were not conducive to human
progress. Having taken stock of the trends of philosophical speculations before
the coming of the Buddha, it will now be clear why he thought of a new faith
which at once caught the imagination of the people and was accepted by
millions. Teachers like Pakudha Kaccayana and Ajita Kesakambalin advocated a
theory of the universe, according to which it was either eternal or non-eternal
as represented by their respective formulae: sabham mthi and sabbam
natthi, or better still, by
doctrines known as Sasvatavada and Ucchedavada.
Gosala thought
that the characteristics of all things were predetermined, and that there was
no cause or condition which predetermined them, as represented by the formulae:
sabbam pubbekatahelu and sabbam ahetu-apaccayu. Another view was
that happiness and sorrow were due to one’s own deeds or that they were due to
some other cause, as represented by the formulae: sukhadukkham sayamkatam
and sukhadukkham-parakatam. Yet another belief was that the aims or
values of human life were realized by the enjoyment of worldly pleasures, or by
self-mortification, as represented by the formulae: kamesU‘kama-sukhallikdnuyof:o
and attakilamathdnuyoyo. If the history of the philosophical thought
currents at the time were
surveyed, it would be clear that both Mahavira and the Buddha had to face
thinkers who held extreme views of the four types mentioned above, and each of
them had their own answer to them. Mahavira answered the problems in terms of
his Anckantavada or Syiidvada. While the Buddha’s answer was based on his
Paticca-samuppada. While Mahavira clung to the doctrine of Attakilamatha or self-mortification,
as against Kassapa, Ajita, Gosala and Sanjaya, the Buddha preached the
Majjhima-patipada or the Middle Path.
