________________
Lord Mahavira and the Anytirthankars
209
somewhat different nature : occasionally Mahâvîra does not interfere before his disciples (viz. Goyama himself in VII 101=323b and XVIII 82=754b, some unnamed thera bhagavanto in VIII 71=379 a, and a layman called Madduya in XVIII 74=750b) have been confronted with questions posed by the anyatirthikas, or have had to plead the Jaina cause against their accusations moreover, two of these texts supply the names of the heterodox interlocutors. These remarkable exceptions to the conventional style of the ordinary pannattis prove, I think, that the anyatirthika fragements have transmitted to us some genuine information about what Mahavira's teaching activity actually was like. Therefore they supplement the knowledge that we may gather, in this domain, from certain conversion stories in the Viy.5 as well as from other canonical works such as Suyagada etc.
Let us now consider the said texts from the content point of view. The topics under discussion prove to be of a great diversity, ranging say from the origin of a hot spring in the neighbourhood of Rajgir (II 57=141a)“ up to the essence of matter and soul VII 101= 323b). They pertain to knowledge and moral conduct, for Mahâvîra contends, against the anyatîrthikas, that the truly loyal man attaches equal importance to both of these (VIII 101=417a).
One can, of course, try to restore order to these scattered scraps of evidence. Schubring, for instance, was the first author to point out that what he called 'the simultaneity of actions and conditions' seems to play an important role in these controversies?: e.g. one cannot simultaneously effect I 94=98a) or experience (V31=214a) a quantity of life both in one's present state of existence and beyond that state; or, one cannot simultaneously perform an action on agreement with the correct monastic way of life and a profane or sinful action (I 102-106a). These fragments, though, need not therefore derive from one and the same context', I think. That they express seemingly kindred ideas may well be the effect of the extreme formalization that is characteristic of the pannatti style; and when we look at them closely, they indeed formulate tenets of a totally different nature. The first two texts referred to bear upon the theory of rebirth, which is itself, as clearly appears from VII 61=304 a, very much linked up with the notions suffering and happiness (VI 103=285b). As for the utterance on the incompatibility of the iriyavahiya and the samparaiya way of
