Jain Journal 1974 04

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 70

208
6
thing. These general metaphysical principles, however, are worked out on different lines by the Sankhyas and Jainas, the difference being still more accentuated by the different origins of these systems. For the Sankhyas, owing allegiance to the Brahmanas, have adopted Brahmanical ideas and modes of thought,5 while the Jainas, being distinctly non-Brahmanical, have worked upon popular notions of a more primitive and cruder character, e.g., animistic ideas. But the metaphysical principles of Buddhism are of an entirely different character, being moulded by the fundamental principle of Buddhism, viz., that there is no absolute and permenent Being, or, in other words, that all things are transitory. Notwithstanding the radical difference in their philosophical notions, Jainism and Buddhism, being originally both orders of monks outside the pale of Brahmanism, present some resemblance in outward appearance, so that even Indian writers occasionally have confounded them. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that some European scholars who became acquainted with Jainism through inadequate samples of Jaina literature easily persuaded themselves that it was an offshoot of Buddhism.7 But it has since been proved beyond doubt that their theory is wrong, and that Jainism is at least as old as Buddhism. For the canonical books of the Buddhists frequently mention the Jainas as a rival sect, under their old name Nigantha (Skr. Nirgrantha, common Prakrit Niggantha) and their leader in Buddha's time, Nataputta (Nata or Natiputta being an epithet of the last prophet of the Jainas, Vardhamana Mahavira), and they name the place of the latter's death Pava, in agreement with Jaina tradition. On the other hand, the canonical books of the Jainas mention as contemporaries of Mahavira the same kings as reigned during Buddha's career, and one of the latter's rivals. Thus it is established that Mahavira was a contemporary of Buddha, and
4 The Sankhyas endeavour to explain, from their dualistic principles, purusa and prakrti, the development of the material world as well as that of living beings; the Jainas, however, are almost exclusively concerned with the latter, and declare that the cause of the material world and of the structure of the universe is lokasthiti, 'primeval disposition' (Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, iii, 6 com.). Sankhya, probably based on cosmogonic theories contained in the Upanisads, was intended as a philosophic system which in the course of time became the theoretical foundation of popular religion. But Jainism was, in the first place, a religion, and developed a philosophy of its own in order to make this religion, a self-consistent system.
JAIN JOURNAL
5 e.g., the Sankhya principle mahan means mahan atma; the three gunas are suggested by the trivrtkarana of Chandogya Upanisad, vi, 3 f.; and prakrti by the cosmical Brahma of the earlier Upanisad doctrine, wherefore in the Gaudapada Bhasya on Karika 22 Brahma is given as a synonym of prakrti, etc.
The fundamental theories of Jainism, e.g., the syadvada, their division of living beings, especially the elementary lives, are not found in Buddhism.
7 See SBE, xlv (1895), Introd., pp. xviii ff.
6