________________
ŚRAMANA OR NON-BRĀHMAŅICAL SECTS
teacher (tirthakara) leading a religious body. He was, most probably, born in a Brāhmaṇa family, as his name indicates. The name Pūraṇa (= Pūrṇa) shows that he was fully enlightened and perfect in wisdom. It is reported that King Ajätasatru once visited him, on which occasion the latter expounded his views thus: To him who acts or causes another to act, mutilates or causes another to mutilate, punishes or causes another to punish, causes grief or torment, trembles or causes another to tremble, kills other creatures, takes what is not given, breaks into houses, commits dacoity or robbery or tells lies, to him thus acting, there is no guilt no increase of guilt would ensue. ... In giving alms, in offering sacrifices, in self-mastery, in control of senses, and in speaking truth, there is neither merit nor increase of merit." This is called an exposition of 'nonaction' theory (Akriyāvāda).
3
Jaina Sūtras also attribute similar views to him. This, probably, may not represent the correct view of Kassapa, for no system of thought in India, except the materialistic Cārvāka, is known to deny any merit or demerit to actions. Most probably, he was, as Barua states, an advocate of the theory that the soul was passive (niskriya), no action could affect it, and it was beyond good and bad-a view which many previous Vedic thinkers have enunciated. There must be some truth when Silanka, a Jaina commentator, identifies Kassapa's doctrine with the Särkhya view.5
It is further reported, in the words of the Buddha, that no hetu (cause) and no paccaya (condition) are accepted by Pūraṇa Kassapa for one's becoming either defiled or purified.6 Abhaya, again, says that Kassapa accepts no cause for ñāṇa (knowledge) and dassana (insight).' These passages tend to point out that Kassapa was an upholder of Ahetuvada (no-cause theory). Hence Barua tries to bring
4. Rhys Davids, op. cit., I. pp. 69-70 (as abridged by H. Ui in his Vaiseşika Philosophy, p.21).
5. B.M. Barua, A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy (Calcutta University, 1921), p.279.
6. Samyutta Nikaya, III. p.69. 7. Ibid., V. p.69.