Jain Journal 1997 04

SR No.: 520126
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publication Year: 1997
Total Pages: 50
Language: English
Classification: Magazine, India_Jain Journal, & India
File Size: 4 MB

Page 22

HOERNLE: THE DOCTRINE OF GOSĀLA MANKHALIPUTTA
The term sixty-two modes of conduct (dvaṭṭhi paṭipadā) he uses with the ordinary meaning. By the term sixty-two subordinate periods
pancha-shata-sahasrani Accordingly I have so translated it above. But Abhayadeva himself admits that he does not understand the doctrine, and a comparison with Buddhaghosa's statement seems to me to suggest a different construction and interpretation of the passage. Pancha should be connected, not with sayasahassāïm, but with kammani, and the latter word may be Skr. karmani or, perhaps, is a misreading for kammāņi (acc. plur., Skr. karmani). The meaning of the passage would them be: 'they have to rid themselves of the five (kinds of) actions, and of the hundred thousands and the sixty thousands and the six hundred (of births), and of the three kinds of actions.' Thus interpreted, the passage has a much closer agreement with Buddhaghosa's statement, especially if the word chudasa 'fourteen', which seems inconsistent with his context, be omitted from it, and his satthi satani be amended to satthi sahassani, as the corresponding passage in the Dulva (Rokhill, ibid. p. 103) has it in agreement with the Bhagavati. In that case, both authorities speak of the 5 kinds and the 3 kinds of actions, and also of the 100,000 and 60,000 and 600 births. I believe the addition of chudasa in the statements of both, Buddhaghosa (14 x 100,000) and Dulva (14 x 1000), is capable of being in a general way harmonised with the Jain account. Buddhaghosa explains that the term 'hundred thousands' refers 'to the principal births'; and as of such principal births' there are 'fourteen', there must be altogether fourteen hundred thousands' (of principal births). By the 'principal births,' I imagine, are meant births as devas and births as men. Now later on (see pp. 25, 26) it is stated by Buddhaghosa, that Gosāla believed in 'seven (kinds of) devas', and 'seven (kinds of) men.' He also believed in 'seven kinds of pisachas.' and 'seven kinds of sentient beings. Any two of these classes would together give 'fourteen principal births.' Now with this may be compared the Jain account (see Rokhill, ibid., p. 254), according to which living beings pass through a series of fourteen alternate births as devas and as sentient beings. There is, therefore, clearly here some kind of general agreement between the Buddhist and Jain authorities. The number 14,000 in the Dulva, unless it be a mere misprint in Rokhill, I take to be an error for 1,400,000, as given in the Digha Nikaya. The Jain account itself requires a word of explanation of a seeming inconsistency in it. According to it (see the passage at the beginning of this note) all beings must pass through a series of births, seven of which are devas, seven sanjūhas (of uncertain meaning, but according to the commentator 'some kind of embodiment') and seven sentients, and finally they pass through seven re-animations. This would seem to give a total of 21 births and 7 re-animations. In the detailed application, however, of this theory to Gosala's own case, the Jain account (see Bhagavati, Calc. ed., pp. 1239-1241, translated in Rokhill, ibid., p. 254 says, that after endless embodiments (sanjūha) a being passes through a series of fourteen births, alternating between an embodiment (sanjuha) as a deva and a birth as a sentient (sannigabbha),
119