________________
JULY, 1914
THE DATE OF MAHAVIRA
129
contemporaries, and has drawn from this the conclusion that the Buddhists were of no great importance at the time of Mahavira. However, I cannot fully subscribe to this conclusion, the premise not being quite correct; for the Buddhists are undoubtedly mentioned amongst other sects in some places of the Siddhanta.11 Moreover, this may be partly due to the composition of the Jain Canon itself. Undoubtedly Buddha was a rival of Mahavira, and a dangerous one, too, but he never played in regard to him the same part of a treacherous and hated enemy as did Gosala Mamkhaliputta, who went straight away from Mahavira and founded a new sect of his own, and, moreover, proclaimed himself to have reached the stage of a prophet (tirthakara) two years before his former teacher. To a religious congregation still in its infanthood this may have proved a most fearful blow, and so we must not wonder at all the imprecations which the Jain Canon lavishes upon this philosopher, 12 whom even Buddha is said to have stigmatised as the worst of all evil-minded hereticg43. So Gosala may have been to the Jains of early time a far more important person than even Buddha. Moreover, the Jain canonical scriptures themselves, brought undoubtedly into their present shape at a much later time than the Pâli Canon, 44 are wholly out of comparison with the sacred lore of the Buddhists. Far it be from me to suggest that any earlier stories about Buddha and his doctrine have been cancelled by the redactors-an hypothesis by no means to be upheld. But I desire to call attention to two facts, offering perhaps to some degree an explanation of what is remarked by Professor Jacobi :
(1) The Dretivada is lost, and it may have contained-I cannot absolutely say that it didsomething concerning the Buddhists, as it is clear already from its name that it dealt with other doctrines.45
(2) The schematistical style of the present Siddhanta itself excludes to a great extent the possibility of finding in it such statements as the one required, it being in my opinion only fragments-in some parts, to be sure, to a large extent worked out in a most abominable style--and register-like versus memorials detached or perhaps better preserved from what was the original canon.
I cannot dwell further here upon this topic, which I hope to treat more fully elsewhere.16 I have merely wished to draw attention to some facts, which may perhaps account to a certain degree for what is remarked by Professor Jacobi. I shall presently refer to some instances from the Buddhist scriptures showing the rather intimate knowledge which they seem to possess concerning the Jains. Most such passages—mainly dealing with matters of doctrine-have already been collected by Professor Jacobi ; some few dealing with rather trifling things may be added as giving further proof, if needed, of the well-established fact, that Buddhists and Jains must have lived in close contact with each other during the first growth of both churchog, i.e., in the lifetime of their founders.
41 Of.e.g. Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 333, 381 and Sätrakrtanga II, 6, 26 sq. (S.B.E. XLV, p. 414 sq.). 42 Cf. Bhagavati book XV summarised by Dr. Hoernle in his Uvisa gadasao, App. I. 43 Vide Ang. Nik. I., 33, 286.
4 The previous existence of the fourteen parvas, the circumstance that the angas are incomplete, the D stivada being lost, and the blank denial amongst the Digambaras of the authority of the present Svetám. bara Canon are all facts pointing to the rather late origin of the Siddhanta, as it is handed down to us.
45 To Professor Jacobl (S.B.E. XXII, p. X! V ff.) the main reason for the loss of the 14 yarvas--which constituted the main part of the Drivdda—is that they dealt with the doctrines of Mahavira's opponente, but I do not think this suggestion quite acceptable. Another less credible explanation is offered by Weber Ind. Stud. XVI, 248; cf. also Leumann Actes du VIe Congrès des Orient, III, 559.
46 In the introduction to an edition of the Uttaradhyayanastra, which is in preparation.
