________________
574
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
to maintain that the Jainas did not borrow the story from the Buddhists or vice versa. Thus, both versions probably go back to some common source, the core of which might perhaps date to, or even predate, missionary activities of Mahāvīra and the historical beginnings Buddhism in the fifth century BCE, viz. the times of the formation period of both religions.
In the Buddhist version, maintaining that 'there is no hereafter, there is no being born spontaneously (viz. no divinte being and no inhabitant of hell), neither good nor bad deeds have any consequence' (iti pi n'atthi para-loko, n'atthi sattā opapātikā, n' atthi sukața-dukkațānaṁ kammānam phalam vipako ti), Pāyāsi provokes monk Kassapa to engage in a longer dispute, in the course of which the monk attempts to refute the materialist thesis by citing a number of contrary evidence; clearly, his main point differs from that of Paesi (vide supra). Pāyāsi's thesis echoes verbatim that of Ajita Kesakambala (Skt.: Ajita Kesakambalin) known from (Samanna-phalasutta 23 (Dĩgha-nikaya 2.23: no atthi sukata-dukkatanam kammãnam phalaṁ vipāko, ... n'atthiparo loko, ... n'atthi sattā opapātikā).
We have no information as regards the historical authenticity and identity of Paesi, occurring in the Jaina legend. Due to dearth of any counter-argument, it is hard to either reject or fully accept his historicity. He may have been a district governor or a local administrator around the times of Mahāvīra. Occasionally, and the first to suggest it was WEBER (1883-85: 382 ff.), he has been identified with Pasenadi (Skt.: Prasenajit), the ruler of Kosala, or with Pasenadi's vassal Pāyāsi, mentioned in the Pāli Canon. The suggestion does not seem implausible, however solid grounds for its acceptance are still missing.
BOLLÉE (e.g. p. 8, 22) expresses his doubt whether indeed Pkt. ‘Paesi' and the name of his Pāli counterpart 'Pāyāsi' have genuine Skt. equivalents, being probably deśī words. Indeed, it may be extremely difficult to find a common etymological denominator for both Paesi and Pāyāsi, despite apparent similarity. Whereas a genuine Sanskrit equivalent for ‘Pāyāsi' seems unlikely, I see no real reason to reject the sanskritised version "Pradesin’. What might perhaps be problematic can be its accurate original meaning. Following the interpretation of Malayagiri-sūri's RPT 115b.5, TRIPATHI (1936: 56) and BOLLÉE (p. 22) render it as ‘king of a province', 'ruler and 'prince' respectively, which would make perfect sense provided we took pradeśa to mean ‘province' or 'district' of a kingdom.
