No More Learning

For the date of the epoch of the Brāhmaṇas we are again thrown
back on those considerations of literary and social development which we
have found to be the sole trustworthy criteria for the dating of the epoch
of the Rigveda. The lower limit is given by the fact that Buddhism accepts
from the Upanishads the doctrines of transmigration and pessimism, the
latter of which had been developed as a doctrine of obvious validity from
the facts of transmigration. Other indications, such as the want of any
trace of the knowledge of writing, show that we cannot legitimately carry
the Upanishads of the older type later than 550 or perhaps more probably
600 B. c. The fixing of the language which is posterior to the Brāhmaṇas
may be dated at latest at 300 B. C. ; and the earlier Sūtras probably go
back to at least 400 B. C. and very possibly earlier. These are important
See Oldenberg, Z. D. M. G. , vol. XXXVII, pp. 67 sq. ; Sacred Bcoks of the East,
vol. XXX, pp. XXXV sq. ; G. 1909 pp. 219 sq. ; Hopkins, Great Epic of India,
pp. 194 sq. ; Jacobi, Indische Studien, vol. XVII, pp. 442 sq. ; Keith, J. R. A. S. , 1906,
pp. 1-10 ; 1912, pp. 757 sq.
1


## p. 132 (#166) ############################################

132
[CH.
LATER SAMHITĀS, BRĀHMANAS, ETC.
considerations and their cumulative effect is harmonious and practically
decisive of an early date for the civilisation which has been described.
On considerations of probable development, the beginning of the Brāhmaṇa
period may fairly be put back to 800 B. C.
As with the Rigveda, attempts have been made to show that these
dates are much too low and that astronomical data enable us to carry the
Brāhmaṇas much further back. The lists of the Nakshatraz all begin with
Kſittikās, and we know that in the sixth century A. D. the constellation
which then headed the Nakshatras was chosen because the vernal equinox
took place when the sun was in conjunction with that Nakshatra. From
the precession of the equinoxes, we are enabled to arrive at the conclusion
that the position of Krittikās at the vernal equinox must have taken place
in the third millennium B. C. This has been supported by a passage in the
Çata patha Brābmaņa where it is said that Kțittikās did not more from the
eastern quarter at that time. But we have no evidence whatever to connect
the sun and the Nakshatras at this period, and the notice regarding the
position of Krittikās cannot be taken seriously in a work which shows so little
power of scientific observation of facts as the Çatapatha. Moreover if,
as it is probable, the Nakshatra system was borrowed ready made, we can-
not even conjecture for what reason Kſittikas was placed first. More
promising is a definite notice contained in the Kaushitaki Brāhamna and
repeated in the Jyotisha, a late Vedic work on astronomy, if indeed it can
be dignified with this title, that the winter solstice took place at the new
moon in Magbās. From this datum results varying from 1391-1181 B. C.
were early deduced by different investigators ; but these conclusions can
claim no scientific value, as they rest on assumptions as to the exact mean-
ing of the passage which cannot be justified. The possible margin of error
in the calculations is at least five hundred years; and we are therefore
reduced to the view that this evidence only indicates that the observation
which is recorded was made some centuries B. C. The same conclusion can
be drawn from the fact that in quite a number of places the month
Phālguna is called the beginning of the year. In the view of Jacobi, this
shows that the year began with the winter solstice at full moon in Phalguni,
and thus would correspond with his view that in the Rigveda the sun at
the summer solstice was in Uttara-Phalguni. But, in this case also, the
result is unacceptable ; for it is nowhere stated that the beginning of the
year was dated from the winter solstice. The most probable explanation
is that the full moon in Phalguni was deemed to be the beginning of the
year, because it marked, at the time when it was so termed, the beginning
of spring. Since the new moon in Maghā was at the winter solstice, the
full moon in Phalguni would fall about a month and a half later in the first
week of February, which is compatible with Feb. 7, the Veris initium in the
Reman calendar, and which is a perfectly possible date for about 800 B. C. ,


## p. 133 (#167) ############################################

V]
ASTRONOMICAL EVIDENCE
133
especially when it is remembered that the division of the year into three
periods of four months was always a rough one, and the beginning of spring
had to be placed early so as to allow of the rains, which are definitely
marked out by the fall of the first rain, to fill the period from about June 7
to October 7. With this explanation the theory, that the mention of the
full moon in Phalguni as the beginning of the year records an observation
of the fourth millennium B. C. , disappears, and still more the theory that the
mention of the month Chaitra as the beginning of the year carries us back
to the sixth nuillennium. Nor can any more trust be put in the argument
that the mention in the late marriage ritual of the Dhruva, a fixed star
shown to the bride and bridegroom as a symbol of constancy, points to an
observation made at a period when there was a real fixed pole star, i. e. in
the third millennium B. C. We do not even know whether this part of the
rite goes back to the period of the Brāhmaṇas ; and, even if it did, for so
little scientific a purpose there was no need of anything save a fairly bright
star not too distant from the pole. Ingenious therefore as all these argu-
ments are, they must be dismissed as affording no real certainty of correct-
ness. The most that can be said is that they tend to support the period
800-600 B. C. as a reasonable date for the period of the civilisation of the
Brāhmaṇas. 1
1 The main supporters of the astronomical arguments are Jacobi, Z. D. M. G. ,
vol. XLIX, pp. 218 sq. ; L, pp. 69 sq. ; J. R. A. S. , 1909 ; pp, 721-6 ; 1910, pp. 460. 4 ;
Tilak, Orion, Bombay, 1893 ; The Arctic Home in the Vedas, Bombay, 1903. On the
other side, see Oldenberg Z. D. M. G. , vol. XLVIII, pp. 629 sq. ; XLIX, pp. 470, sq. ;
L, pp. 450 sq. ; J. R. A. S. 1909, pp. 1095 sq. ; Thibaut, Indian Antiquary, vol. XXIV,
pp. 85 sq. ; Whitney, J. A. 0. 5, vol. XVI; pp. Ixxxii sq. ; Keith, J. R. A. S. , 1909,
pp, 1100 sq. ; 1910, pp 464-6. On the origin of the Nakshatras, see de Saussure,
T’oung Pao, ! 909, pp. 121 sq. , 225 sp. ; Oldenberg, G. G. N. , 1909, pp. 544 sq.
:
>


## p. 134 (#168) ############################################

CHAPTER VI
THE HISTORY OF THE JAINS
The later half of the sixth century B. C. seems to have been unusually
fertile in giving rise to new religious movements in India. An old text
amongst the sacred lore of the Buddhists' mentions sixty-three different
philosophy schools, probably all of them non-Brāhman-existing at the
time of Buddha, and there are passages in Jain literature exhibiting a far
larger number of such heretical doctrines. Although these statements may
have been influenced by the tendency to exaggerate wbich is visible in most
Hindu works, and although many of these sects may have been distin-
guished only by very subtle differences in matters of doctrine and practice,
we are still bound to believe that there was an extraordinary impulse shown
in the rise and development of new theological and philosophical ideas at
that time. It is beyond our power of investigation to determine whether
some of these schools may not have owed their origin to a time far more
remote than that of Buddha. In the few cases where we were in some degree
able to form an opinion on such points, and the history of the Jain
doctrine gives us some hints in this direction-it seems most probable that
this may have leen the case. It is certainly difficult to believe that all these
sects should bave originated at the same time. We may therefore suggest
that revolts against the Brāhman doctrines date from a much more remote
age than the time of Gautama Buddha, the founder of one of the most
important religions of the world, and Vardhamana Mahāvira, the founder
or rather reformer of the Jain church. Not only these two religious
teachers but also a num ber of others, of whom we know little or nothing
more than the rame, preached in a spirit of most conscientious and deter-
mined contradi tion against the sanctity of the Vedic lore, the sacrificial
pr scriptions of the ritualists, and the claims of spiritual superiority asserted
by the Brāhmans ; but it is a strange characteristic of these sects, so far as
we know them, that they adopted in their ascetic practices and in their
1 Cp. S. B. E. , vol. X ; 2, p. 93.
134


## p. 135 (#169) ############################################

VI]
BRAHMANS AND JAINS
135
whole mode of life the rules which had been already fixed by their Brāhman
antagonists.
In the later law books the life of a Hindu is theoretically divided into
four successive stages, viz. those of brahmachárin or student of the sacred
lore, grihasthi or householder, vīnaprastha or anchorite, and parivrājaka
or wandering mendicant. Now there are no express statements in Vedic,
or pre-Bud thist, texts, concerning the existence of this theory in older
times ; but from certain passages in the principal Upanishads we may infer
that at least the germs of this ins'itution existed at a comparatively early
period, as in them we find the knower of the ātman or 'Supreme Soul,' that
is to say, parivrājaka or Brāhman ascetic contrasted with students, sacrificers
and anchorites'. However, the order of the different stages – with the
exception of that of a brahmacharin, which is always the first-seems not at
that time to huve been a fixed one, and it may be doubted if this theory was
ever on a great scale adopted in real life in India. But this question is for
us of no importance, as we have here only to take notice of the fourth
stage, that of the Brāhman ascetic whose life was, no doubt, the standard
for the rules of discipline laid down by Mahāvīra for his followers.
The Árlhacāstra or ‘Manual of Politics' which may possibly be the
real work of Chāṇakya or Kauțilya, and therefore written about 300 B. C. ? ,
describes in the following words the life of a parivrājaka : '(the duties) of
an ascetic (consist in) subduing his senses, withdrawal from worldly things
and from communication with people, begging for alms, living in the forests,
but not in the same place, cleanliness external and internal, abstinence from
injury to living beings, and in sincerity, purity, freedom from envy, in kind-
ness and in patience? These general rules could - perhaps with one slight
alteration—as well be found in any Jain work, and in fact we do find them
in many passages of the Jain canon, although perhaps not exactly in the
same words. But the similarity between the life of a Brāhman and a Jain
ascetic goes much further, and often extends to the most triflling rules of
discipline as has been shown by Professor Jacobi from a comparison of the
rules laid down for Jain monks and for Brāhman mendicants"Evidently
there is not the slightest reason for regarding either the Jains or the
Buddhists as innovators in these matters ; and the following pages will
show that it was in doctrine rather than in life, in the attempt to abolish
the authority of the Brāhman scriptures and the rites of sacrifice rather
than in any effort to change the social institutions and conditions of his
time, that Mahāvīra differed more widely from his Brāhman predecessors.
And when both he had his great rival, Buddha, state that a man is not
1 Cp. Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index of Nimes and Subjects, vol. I, pp. 68 sq.
See Chapter XIX.
3 Kauțilya, Artha-āstra, p. 8.
Cp. S. B. E. vol. XXII, pp.
xxii sq.


## p. 136 (#170) ############################################

136
THE HISTORY OF THE JAINS
[Ch.
are
>
merely born a Brāhman, but becomes a Brāhman through his meritorious
actions, they seem not even here to be real innovators ; for we
immediately reminded of the legend of Satyakāma Jābala and other
similar instances', that seem to prove that birth was not always regarded
as the true keynote of sanctity even in orthodox circles. Jainism, as
well as Buddhism, is certainly to be viewed only in close connexion with
the Brāhman institutions existing at the time of its rise ; and from this
standpoint we may now enter upon a closer investigation of the subject
of this chapter, the origin and first development of the Jain church.
For a considerable time European scholars were unable to form a
clear opinion on the rise and growth of Jainism owing to the absence of
original texts which were then scarcely available in Europe. Thus the older
generations of Sanskrit scholars may be said to have shared principally two
different opinions on these matters. Colebrooke, Prinsep, Stevenson,
E. Thomas, and others thought Jainism to be older than Buddhism - an
opinion to which we may now willingly subscribe--mainly from the reason,
that a disciple of Mahāvira called Indrabhūti Gautama was held to be the
same person as Gautama the Buddha. On the other hand, other dis-
tinguished Orientalists such as H. H. Wilson, Lassen, and even Weber, were
of the opinion that Jainism was only one of the many different sects into
which Buddhism was divided at an earlier or later date after the death of
Buddha. Such a view might easily be held on the basis of certain some-
what striking resemblances which are found in the Buddhist and Jain
records of which at that time only a comparatively small number had found
their way to Europe. This latter hypothesis has now been thoroughly
refuted by the works of two eminent German scholars, Bühler and Jacobi,
who have laid down a sure foundation for knowledge of Jainism by a
thorough investigation of its old canonical texts and a comparison of these
with the scriptures of the Biddhists and Brāhmans. Starting therefore from
the standard work on Jainism published by Professor Jacobi, and making
use of the materials, which have been collected and examined by other
scholars, we are now able to obtain a fairly clear view of the early history
of Jainism.
Mahāvīra is usually regarded as the real founder of the Jain religion ;
and, as we have very scanty information about the only one of his alleged
predecessors, who may possibly have had a real existence, we are, in our
investigation, almost forced to adopt this point of view. But the Jains
themselves claim for their religion a far more venerable antiquity : they tell
us that before Mahāvīra there lived not less than 23 tirthankaras or ‘pro-
phets,' who appearing at certain intervals preached the only true religion
for the salvation of the world. The first of these prophets was king
Rishabha, who after laying down his royal power and transferring the realm
Cp. Vedic Index, vol. II, pp. 84 sq.
1


## p. 137 (#171) ############################################

VI]
PĀRÇ VA
137
to his son Bharata, the first universal monarch (chakravartin), became a
holy man and a tirthankara. As the opinions of the Jains about time and the
ages of the world are absurdly exaggerated, it is almost impossible to
express in numbers the time at which he is thought to have lived; it may be
enough to say that his lifetime is supposed to have lasted for several billions
of years and his height to have been about two miles.
From such state-
ments and for the flowery descriptions of the blissful state of the world in
its first ages, it is evident that the Jains, as indeed, all Hindus, attributed to
the first race of men a longer life, a greater strength, and more happiness
than fall to the share of their offspring in the present age. As we know,
the Greeks and Romans held similar opinions. But, of course, the world
grew worse and worse and the life of man shorter and shorter, so that the
23rd tirthankara, Pārçva, the immediate predecessor of Mahāvīra, is said to
have lived only for a hundred years, and to have died only 250 years before
his more celebrated successor.
This Pārçva is assumed, on the authority of Professor Jacobi and
others, to have been an historical personage and the real founder of Jain
religion. As he is said to have died 250 years before the death of
Mahāvīra, he may probably have lived in the eighth century B. c. Professor
Jacobi seems to regard this date as not improbable, since some centuries
must have elapsed between his time and the appearance of the last Jain
prophet'. But, as we have not a single certain date in Indian history before
the time of Buddha, it is evidently impossible to prove this. Almost as
scanty is our knowledge of the life and teaching of Pārçva, in spite of the
large body of literature which has clustered around his name. In the well-
known Kalpasūtra of the Jains, which is stated to have been written by the
pontiff Bhadrabāhu (perhaps somewhat before 300 B. C. ), we have in the
chapter called 'The life of the Jinas' a short account of the life of Pārçva ;
but, as it is written in a purely formal style and bears too such resemblance
to other records of the same sort, its value as an historical document is
somewhat doubtful. However, it states that Pārçva, like all tirthankarus,
was a Kshatriya, a member of the second caste, that of the warriors or
nobility according to Brāhman law, and son of king Acvasena of Benares
and his wife Vāmā. No such person as Açvasena is known from Brāhman
records to have existed : the only individual of that name mentioned in the
epic literature was a king of the snakes (nāga), and he cannot in any way
be connected with the father of the Jain prophet. Pārçva who is always
titled purisādāṇīya, which may mean either 'the people's favourite' or 'the
man of high birth,' lived for thirty years in great splendour and happiness
Upon this subject consult Jacobi and Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics, vol. I. p. 202.
2 Cp. S. B. E. , vol. XLV, p. 122, n. 3.
Cp. S. B. E. , vol. XXII, p. 271.
>
:
1
3


## p. 138 (#172) ############################################

138
(ch.
THE HISTORY OF THE JAINS
as a householder, and then, leaving all his wealth, became an ascetic. After
84 days of intense meditation he reached the perfect knowledge of a
prophet, and from that time he lived for about 70 years in the state of
most exalted perfection and saintship and reached his final liberation,
nirvāṇa, on the top of mount Sammeta surrounded by his followers.
In regard to the teaching of Pārçva we are better informed : it was
probably essentially the same as that of Mahāvira and his followers,
But
we have no exact knowledge, except on two principal points, as to how far
this creed was due to Pārçva, or what innovations may have been intro-
duced by his successor. We are told that Pārçva enjoined on his followers
four great vow3, viz. not to injure life, to be truthful, not to steal, and to
possess no property,' while Mahāvīra added a fifth requisition, viz. that of
chastity. Further we know that Pārçva allowed his disciples to wear an
upper and an under garment. Mahāvira, on his part, followed the more
rigid rule which obliged the ascetic to be completely naked. These seem
to have been, in fact, the most important differences in doctrine between
the founder and the reformer of Jainism ; for an old canonical textº tells us
about a meeting between Gautama, the pupil of Mahāvira, and Keçin, a
follower of Pārçva, in which they tried successfully to solve those questions
on which a difference of opinion existed among the religious ; and in that
account the four vows and the wearing or not wearing of clothes form the
main points of discussion. From this text we venture to draw the
conclusion that followers of Pārçva, who did not, perhaps, fully recognise
Mahāvīra as their spiritual head, existed during the lifetime of the latter,
and that a sort of compromise was effected between the two sections of the
church. Indeed it seems to remain a somewhat unsettled question if
followers of Pārçva and of Mahāvīra are not to be found even at the pre-
sent day as the Cvetām baras, or 'monks in white clothes', and the
Digambaras, ‘sky-clad or naked ascetics. ' However, this hypothesis is
denied by most authorities; and as a matter of fact the old records place
the divison of the church into these two main sects at a time much later
than Mahāvīra, as we shall see subsequently.
Nothing is known about the followers of Parçva until the time of the
appearance of the last prophet of the Jains, Mahāvīra. As he is not only
the most famous propagator of the Jain religion, but also after Buddha the
best known of the non-Brāhman teachers of ancient India, we shall have to
dwell a little longer upon the records of his life, and in the first place we
must examine such chronological data as exist for the determination of his
period.
1 Cp. S. B. E. , vol. XLV, p. 121, and Dr. Hoernle in Hastings' Encyclopaedia,
vol. I, p. 261.
2 Cp, S. B. E. vol. XLV, pp. 119 sq.


## p. 139 (#173) ############################################

VI]
TRADITIONAL DATE OF MAHAVIRA
139
2
The Jains themselves have preserved chronological records concerning
Mabāvīra and the succeeding pontiffs of the Jain church which may have
been begun at a comparatively early date. But it seems quite clear that,
at the time when these lists were put into their present form, the real date
of Mahāvīra had already either been forgotten or was at least doubtful.
The traditional date of Mahāvīra's death on which the Jains base their
chronological calculations corresponds to the year 470 before the founda-
tion of the Vikrama era in 58 B. C. ; i. e. , 528 B. c. 1 This reckoning is based
mainly on a list of kings and dynasties, who are supposed to have reigned
between 528 and 58 B. C. ; but the list is absolutely valueless, as it confuses
rulers of Ujjain, Magadha, and other kingdoms; and some of these may
perhaps have been contemporary, and not successive as they are represent-
ed. Moreover, if we adopt the year 528 B. C. it would exclude every
possibility of Mahāvīra having preached his doctrine at the same time as
Buddha, as the Buddhist texts assert ; for there is now a general agreement
among scholars that Buddha died within a few years of 480 B. C. ? ; and
therefore some fifty years would have elapsed between the decease of the
two prophets. But we are told that Buddha was 80 years old at his death,
and that he did not begin preaching before his 36th year, that is to say, at a
time when Mahāvīra, according to the traditional date, was already dead.
Finally, both Mahāvīra and Buddha were contemporaries with a king of
Magadha, whom the Jains call Kūņika, and the Buddhists Ajātçatru ; and
he began his reign only eight years before Buddha's death. Therefore, if
Mahāvisa died in 528 B. C. , he could not have lived in the reign of Kūņika.
So we must, no doubt, wholly reject this date and instead of it adopt
another which was long ago suggested by Professor Jacobi' on the authority
of the Jain author Hemachandra (d. 1172 A. D. ), viz. 468 (467) B. C.
The dynastic list of the Jains mentioned above tells that Chandragupta,
the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, began his reign 255 years before the
Vikrama era, or in 313 B. C. , a date that cannot be far wrong. And
Hemachandra states that at this time 155 years had elapsed since the death
of Mahāvīra, which would thus have occurred in 468 B. c. This date agrees
very well with other calculations and is only contradicted by a passage in
the Buddhist Digha Nikaya' which tells us that Nigaộtha Nātaputta-the
>
-
a
1 Or 527 B. C. according to those authorities who regard 57 B. C. as the starting
point of the Vikrama era. Dates are here given on the assumption that Vikrama era
began in 58 B. C.
2 In 483 B. C. according to the system of chronology adopted in this work ; or
in 478 (477) B. C. as appears more probable to the present writer. For a full discussion
the dates of Mahāvīra and Buddha, on the assumption that the Vikrama era began in
57 B. C. , eee Charrentier, Ind. Ant. , 1914, pp. 118 ff, 125 ff; 167 ff.
3 Kalpasutra, pp. 8 ff.
4 V, Inf. , p. 146-47.
5 D. N. , III, pp. 117, 209. Also Majjhima Nikāya, II, pp. 273 ff. Cp. Chalmers,
J. R. A. S. , 1895, pp, 665 f.
2


## p. 140 (#174) ############################################

140
[CH.
THE HISTORY OF THE JAINS
name by which the Buddhists denote Mahāvira-died before Buddha. This
assertion, is however, in contradiction with other contemporaneous state-
ments, and forms no real obstacle to the assumption of the date 468 B. C.
We may therefore adopt this year as our basis for calculating the various
dates in Mahāvira's life.
To give a sketch of Mahāvīra's life is a somewhat difficult task as
the oldest existing biography, included in the chapter of the Kalpasūtra to
which we have referred, is fanciful and exaggerated, bearing in these
respects a certain resemblance to the tales in the Lalita-vistara and Nidāna-
kathā concerning the early life of Buddha. If this biography is really the
work of Bhadrabāhu, it may be expected to contain notices of great value,
even although its statements cannot always be accepted as strictly accurate.
There are, moreover, in several old canonical works passages which give
information on various events in Mahāvīra's life; and the Buddhist
scriptures also give us some valuable hints.
The capital of Videha, Vesāli or Vaicāli', was without doubt one of
the most flourishing towns of India about 500 years before the beginning
of our era. The government, which was republican, or perhaps rather
oligarchical, was entrusted to the princely family of the Licchavis, who are
often mentioned in Buddhist and Jain writings, and who were certainly
mightier at that time than at a later date, when an author remarks that they
lived by assuming the title of king (rājan). ' Just outside Vaicāli lay the
suburb Kundagrāma-probably surviving in the modern village of Basu-
kund-and here lived a wealthy nobleman, Siddhārtha, head of a certain
warrior-clan called the Jñātrikas. This Siddhārtha was married to the
princess Triçalā, sister of Chețaka, the most eminent amongst the Licebavi
princes, and ruler of Vaicāli. To them were born, according to the
tradition, one daughter and two sons, the younger of whom was called
Vardhamāna, the future Mahā vīra. Through the Licchavis Siddhārtha
became the relative of a very powerful monarch ; for king Bimbisāra or
Creņika of Magadha, the patron of Buddha and the mightiest ruler of
Eastern India, had married Chellanā, daughter of Chetaka , and she was
mother of Ajātaçatru or Kuņika, who murdered his father eight years
before the death of Buddha, and ascended the blood-stained throne of
Magadha.
This is what we learn from the Kalpasūtra concerning Mahāvīra's
pedigree ; and there is no reason to doubt this information. But the birth
of great men- and especially religious teachers- has often afterwards been
made a theme for the most fanciful and supernatural legends. And so the
Kalpasūtra tells us that Mahāvīra, when he descended from the heavenly
1 The site and surroundings of Vaicāli are indicated by Vincent A. Smith,
J. R. A. S. 1902, pp. 267 ff.
2 The Arthaçāstra of Kautilya, p. 376.
I
>
1
1


## p. 141 (#175) ############################################

VI ).
MAHĀVĪRA
141
)
palace of Pushpottara where he had led his previous existence, was at first
conceived in the womb of Devānandā, wife of the Brāhman Rishabhadatta.
This couple, too, lived in the suburb of Kundagrāma. However, it had
never happened in the innumerable cycles of previous world-periods that a
prophet had been born in a Brāhman family ; and consequently the god
Çakra (Indra) had the embryo removed from the womb of Devānandā to
that of Triçalā. We must observe, however, that this tale is only believed
by the Çvetāmbaras, and constitutes one of the four main points rejected
by the Digambaras, who seem here to hold the more sensible opinion.
Just like the mother of Buddha, the princess Triçalā had auspicious
dreams in the very night of conception ; and the interpreters foretold that
the child would become either a universal monarch or a prophet possessing
all-comprising knowledge. So the boy, whose birth was celebrated alike
by gods and men, was received by his parents with the most lofty expecta-
tions, and was educated to the highest perfection in all branches of
knowledge and art. In due time he was married to a lady, named Yaçodā,
and had by her a daughter, who became the wife of Jamāli, a future disciple
of his father-in-law, and the propagator of the first schism in the Jain
church. However, Mahāvīra's mind was not turned towards secular
things ; and in his thirtieth year, after the decease of his parents, he left
his home with the permission of his elder brother, Nandivardhana, and set
out for the life of a homeless monk.
The first book of the Jain canon, the Āchārānga-sūtra, has preserved
a sort of religious ballad1 giving an account of the years during which
Mahāvīra led a life of the hardest asceticism, thus preparing himself for the
attainment of the highest spiritual knowledge, that of a prophet. During
the first thirteen months he never changed his robe, but let 'all sorts of
living beings' – as the text euphemistically says-crawl about on his body,
but after this time he laid aside every kind of garment and went about as
a naked ascetic. By uninterrupted meditation, unbroken chastity, and the
most scrupulous observations of the rules concerning eating and drinking,
he fully subdued his senses ; nor did he ever in the slightest degree hurt or
cause offence to any living being. Roaming about in countries inhabited
by savage tribes, rarely having a shelter in which to rest for the night, he
had to endure the most painful and injurious treatment from the barbarous
inhabitants. However, he never lost his patience, and never indulged in
feelings of hatred or revenge against his persecutors. His wanderings seem
to have covered a wide area and on occasions ho visited Rajagriha, the
capital of Magadha, and other towns where the utmost honour was shown
him by pious householders.
It was during one of these visits to Nālandā, a suburb of Bājagriha
famous in the sacred history of the Buddhists, that he met with Gosāla
Translated in S. B E. , vol. XXII, pp. 79 ff.
>
1


## p. 142 (#176) ############################################

142
. (CH.
THE HISTORY OF THE JAINS
Mamkhaliputta, a mendicant friar, who attached himself to Mahāvīra for
some years. The consequences of this meeting were certainly disastrous for
both the teacher and the disciple. For six years they lived together practis-
ing the most austere asceticism ; but after that time, on account of a dispute
which arose out of a mere trifle, Gosāla separated himself from Mahāvīra,
and set up a religious system of his own, soon afterwards proclaiming that
he had attained to the highest stage of saintship, that of a tirthakara. This
claim was put forth two years before Mahāvīra himself had reached his
perfect enlightenment. The doctrines and views of Gosāla are known to us
only from notices scattered throughout the Jain and Buddhist writings and
his followers, the Ājīvika sect, have left no written documents ; but from
the intolerant and bitter sayings of the Jains concerning Gosāla whom they
stigmatise as merely a treacherous imposter, we may well conclude that the
cause of dissension between him and his former teacher was deep-rooted,
and that this quarrel must have been a severe blow to the rising influence
of Mahăvira and the establishment of the new religious community.
Gozāla took up his head-quarters in a potter's shop belonging to a woman
named Hālāhalā at Çrāvastī, and seems to have gained considerable repu-
tation in that town. We shall hear something about him at a later stage;
but for the present we must return to Mahāvīra himself.
Twelve years spent in self-penance and meditation were not fruitless;
for in the thirteenth year Mahāvira at last reached supreme knowledge and
final deliverance from the bonds of pleasure and pain. The ipsissimi verba
of an old text will perhaps best show us how the Jains themselves have
described this the most important moment of the prophet's life: during the
thirteenth year, in the second month of summer, in the fourth fortnight, the
light (fortnight) of Vaicākha, on its tenth day, called Suvrata, while the
moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttara-Phalguni, when the
shadow had turned towards the east, and the first wake was over, outside
of the town Jřimbhikagrāma, on the northern bank of the river Rijupālikā,
in the field of the householder Sāmāga, in a north-eastern direction from
an old temple, not far from a Sāl tree, in a squatting position with joined
heels exposing himself to the heat of the sun, with the knees high and the
head low, in deep meditation, in the midst of abstract meditation, he
reached nirvana, the complete and full, the unobstructed, unimpeded, in-
finite and supreme, best knowledge and intuition, called kevala (total).
When the venerable one had become an Arhat and Jina, he was a kevalin,
omniscient and comprehending all objects, he knew all conditions of the
world, of gods, men, and demons; whence they come, where they go,
whether they are born as men or animals, or become gods or hell-beings;
their food, drink, doings, desires, and the thoughts of their minds ; he saw


## p. 143 (#177) ############################################

VI
MAHĀVIRA
143
1
and knew all conditions in the whole world of all living beings. ?
At this time Vardhamāna, henceforth styled Mahāvira (the great hero)
or Jina (the conqueror), was 42 years old ; and from this age he entered
upon a new stage of life, that of a religious teacher and the head of a sect
called the nirgranthas 'free from fetters,' a designation nowadays obsolete,
and superseded by the term Jainas 'followers of the Jina. '
His parents
had, according to a tradition which seems trustworthy, been followers of
Pārçva, the previous tirhankara : as has already been pointed out, the
doctrine of Mahāvīra was scarcely anything else than a modified or reno-
vated form of Pārçva's creed. As he was a nirgrantha monk, and a scion
of the Jnātại clan, his opponents, the Buddhists, call him Nigganha
Nāt (h)aputta (in Sanskrit Nigrantho Jñātriputra? ). We owe to Professor
Jacobi the suggestion, which is undoubtedly correct, that the teacher, who
is thus styled in the sacred books of the Buddhists, is identical with
Mahāvīra, and that consequently he was a contemporary of Buddha.