________________
130
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JULY, 1914.
That the Jains designate their spiritual masters by the title arhat is well known, and this title occurs already in the Edict of Khâravela, as far as I can see it in the expression : To samano vâ brahmaro va araha (ov. V.8, 1),47 must mean a Jain. Moreover, it should be noticed that the Pali Canon gives to Nataputta and the other five heretical teachers the titles ganin, ganacariya, ganassa satthà (Samy Nik. I., 66) and titthakara, which are never, as far as I know, attributed to Buddha, 48 but are quite suitable for the Jain prophet; for gana seems to have denoted in old times the sections of the Jain community, and to have been identical with the more modern gaccha, and tirthakara is the most common title of Mahavira, which was claimed by Gosala too. One might perhaps doubt a little, whether this really proves anything, since the same titles are used for all these teachers. But we must remember that Gosâla, the most important of all after Mahavira, was himself a former disciple of the latter, and had claimed himself to have already before his teacher attained to saintship. Moreover, these two are mentioned together with Pakudha Kaccâyana and Püraņa Kassapa in a verse, which seems to be really old, in Samy Nik., II., 3, 10, 6, a circumstance perhaps of some weight. And Buddhaghosa asserts expressly in the Sum. Vilâs. I, 144, that Pakudha was sitůdakapatikhitto, i. e., forbade the use of cold water (like Mahâvîra), and deemed it a sin to cross a river or even a pool on the road (nadim va maggodakam va atikkamma silam me bhinnan-ti); another point of his doctrine has been discussed by Professor Jacobi in SBE. XLV, p. XXIV sq. As for Pôrana Kassapa, nis doctrines, as expounded in DN. I., 52 sq., do not show any resemblance at all with Jainism; but it is perhaps nevertheless worth notice, that two circumstances seem to hint at a somewhat closer connexion between Parana and Gosâla : in Sum. Vilas. I., 142 is told a story explaining the reasou, why Paraṇa was a naked ascetic, and this story is undoubtedly similar to the legend concerning Gosala, ib. p. 14450 ; and the well-known division of mankind into six classes (Jati), the black, the blue, etc.,01 by Gosála is ascribed in Ang. Nik. III, 383 to Púraņa, which is perhaps no mistake, but indicates that he really shared the opinion of Gosala. Moreover, Gosala denied the very existence of karman (n'atthi kammam etc., DN.), and Půraņa seems to do much the same, as he asserts, that a man could commit murder and slaughter without running into any sin, and likewise do meritorious works without storing up good karman. His leading maxim seems to be included in the words: násti pâpam nästi punyam. So it seems at least probable, that there was some degree of connexion between these four teachers, Mahâvîra, Gosâla, Pakudha and Parapa, however they may have differed on some points of doctrine, and their adherents may well have been divided into ganas as were those of the Jains.52
47 The title arhat is extremely rare as a designation of heretics in the Buddhist scriptures; cf. Rhys Davids in Hastings' Encyclopaedia I, 774.
48 Observe the difference in the Samannaphalasutta (D. N. I, 47 sq.) between the attributes of the horetical teachers and of Buddha, which are here seen in close connexion with each other.
19 Cp. Hoernle in Hastings' Encyclopædia I, 261 concerning the relations between Pakudha and Gosala.
50 This legend is givon by Dr. Hoernle Uvds. App. II, p. 29; Of. Spence Hardy Manual p. 301.
51 Cf. Sum. Vilis, 1, 162; Hoornle in Hastings' Encyclopædia I. 262. I have treated of this theory and the lesyd doctrine of the Jains in a paper, called the Leéy theory of the Jains and Ajivikas' printed in 'Sertum philologicum C. F. Johansson oblatum,'Upsala 1910, p. 19 ff.
52 I cannot account for the two others viz., Ajita Kesakambala and Sanjaya Belatthiputta. Ajita seems to have been a mere materialist, denying not only the existence of & soul but also every thought on another life. The assertion in the Dulva (Rock:ll Life of Buddha p. 103), that he shared the doctrine of Gosala is not worth much compared with the passage of the Digha Nikaya. As for Sanjaya, I think he is
in Mahav. I, 23-24 as the teacher of Sariputta and Moggal. låne. If this is right, he was undoubtedly & Brahman; to judge from the D.N. I., 58 sq., he seems to have boon & sophist, mostly trying to display his rhetorical skill.
8. the pariurdiala
