________________
On Mahâvîra and His Predecessors
115
in the Sâmaññaphala sutta has been so differently translated by M. Burnouf and by M. Gogerly as to suspend decision. According to the former Sanjay's doctrine, which is called anattamanavâchâ, would coincide with the Syadvada of the Jainas; but according to the latter it denotes no more than perfect indifference to all transcendental problems, not the compatibility of one solution, with its contrary. All depends on the interpretation of the two words me no in the text, about which it is impossible to form a correct opinion without the help of a commentary.
It appears from the preceding remarks that Jaina ideas and practices must have been current at the time of Mahâvîra and independently of him. This, combined with the other arguments which we have adduced, leads us to the opinion that the Nirgranthas were really in existence long before Mahâvîra, who was the reformer of the already existing sect. This granted, it is not difficult to form a tolerably correct idea of the relation between Buddhism and Jainism. The former is not an offshoot of the latter; for Buddha rejected the principal dogmas and practices of the Nirgranthas; it is rather a protest against it. All that has been said to maintain that Buddhism stands in a closer connection with Jainism, is to no effect from lack of proof. The proposed identification of Mahâvîra's disciple, the Gautama Indrabhûti with the Gautama Sâkyamuni, because both belonged to the gotra of Gotama, has been refuted by Profs. Wilson, Weber and others. it can only be maintained on the principles of Fluellen's logic: "There is a river in Macedon; and there is also, moreover, a river in Monmouth. It is called Wye at Monmouth, but is out of my brains what is the name of the other river. But' tis all one : it is so like as my fingers to my fingers; and there is salmons in both."
""
Little better is the second argument, that there were twentyfour Buddhas who immediately preceded Gautama Buddha. These twenty-four Buddhas have been compared with the twentyfour Tirthankaras of the Jainas, though their names have little in common. As Buddhas rejected the last Tîrthankara at least as an heretic he could only have recognised twenty-three. The only inference which can be made from the twenty-four Tîrthankaras and twenty-five Buddhas in texts of recognised authority is that the fiction in question is an old one. Whether there be any foundation for this Buddhistical theory, it is not for me to decide;
