The Buddha’s Contemporary Thinkers and their Philosophical Ideas

     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.