________________
22
Some Aspects of Indian Culture
the commentators themselves, na nely, Abhayadeva, 50 Hemacandra51 and others, regard. ing the meaning of Mankhali. Under such circumstances the derivation of the word Mankha from the Skt. word 52 arrived at by Hoernle appears to me more appealing. There was, as he says, on the authority of Panini, Patanjali, Varahamihir and Bhattotpala (the last depending on the Pkt. gatha of one Kalakacarya) a organized sect of monks who carried a bamboo-staff with them. So originally they would have got their name from this symbol but as time went on they would have either dropped the system of carrying it in their hands or some other stronger symbol (e.g. one of employing specific means to maintain) in the form of showing pictures would have superseded the former. The Jaina commentators have a mess here that they identified the practice of showing pictures with the word Maikhali and thus tried to deduce the original meaning of the word Mankha from the profession of showing the pictures which they all followed alike. So my interpretation is that Gojalaka belonged to a sect of Ajivikas whose prototypes were the original Ekadandins And, as is quite possible in the history of names, these Ekadanḍins came later on to be called Ajivikas because they adopted certain specific means to eke out their livelihood. Gosǎlaka who was the prominent leader and a vehement propagandist of the Ajrvika school was thus identified with the class (fa) and came to be known as Mankhaliputra just as Mahavira who is also ideatified with his and is equally known as ga. So this explanation is quite plausible because it reasonably reconciles both the traditions the Jaina and the Buddhistic.
(2) The Jaina account which accepts Gojalaka only as the acknowledged founder of the Ajivika sect is not tenable because a statement to the effect that the Ajivikas53 outnumbered the followers of a well-honoured spiritual leader like Mahavira, and another statement in the Budhistic canonical works to the effect that there were other leaders of the Ajivika sect, namely Nanda Vaccha and Kisa Samkicca, indicate that there existed this very sect though under a different name as that of Ekadanḍins in Pre-Buddhistic days. Moreover, it can be argued that it would have taken at least some centuries to gain so much popularity as it did in the days of Mahavira.
(3) An attempt to connect the Ekadaṇḍins or the prototypes of the Ajivikas with the Jaina monks of Parsvanatha's times as well as an attempt to trace the origin of the Digambara sect to that of the Ajivikas of Mahavira's times just as was done by HOERNLES4 is bound to meet with our disapproval because the fundamental doctrines of the Ajivika sect are so much diametrically opposed to those of the Jaina school of Parsvanatha's times and also to those of the Digambara Jaina school that such a comparison seems to be ridiculous. There is no doubt similarity between them bat such similarities are found as a matter of fact between several sects. No doubt Dr. HOERNLE has a solid support, in this connection, of no less renowned commentator as Silaak 1,55 and also of Halayadha.56 Halayudha of course has evidently depended on Silanka who is somewhat inconsistent..
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
