Part 7 - Religious Conditions of ancient India

During the Buddha’s times there were several religious beliefs, but the main ideas and practices which before we study the Buddha’s ideas on religious and social reform it is better to know the beliefs prevalent before him and the contemporary ideas of his times. It would help us know the social factors because religion has a close relation to society. Many social regulations, norms, laws, orders traditions, ideologies, and modes of life are derived from religious tenets. It is also a vital source of thought in which people can seek answers to the doubts which may arise in their minds. In many cases, social structures, social stratification and social mobilization are defined by religious teachings. The religious man not only performed sacrificial functions but also acted as a social advisor and also played educational and political roles. In short, it can be said wherever there is a group of men, the requirement of religion arises. The form and essence of each religion differs according to social conditions and the environment but each religion encourages a moral life and makes people feel strong and peaceful. Thus, a study of society through religion will reflect the essence of human life.^[1]

In this way religion can be divided into three categories:^[2]

1. There was the sacrificial cult of the hereditary priestly class, the Brāhmaṇas.

2. There were various kinds of ideas and practices expounded by various non-Brahmanical teachers who were commonly known as Śramaṇas.

3. There were popular cults and beliefs of the ordinary people, mostly villagers, who are the majority of the population.

Rhys Davids refers^[3] to: 

“The Buddha as a teacher of a new religion. It is pre-eminently ethical, anti-ritualistic and even anti philosophical. The Buddha discovered and taught a new religion which pointed to a reality that everyone could experience through contemplation. It is not concerned with sacrifices to god through a priest. The Buddha’s teaching is thus opposite to the Vedic religion which stressed metaphysics supported by blind faith without any reasonable criticism of the phenomena. This standpoint which contradicts the traditional religion makes the Buddha a reformer”. 

Trevorling, another Western scholar of comparative religion considers:

‘The Buddha as an opponent or critic of religion. According to his opinion, the Buddha had no intention of founding yet another example of what he criticized. He criticized the old forms of sacrifice’^[4]. 

He did not destroy or transform the traditional belief radically but he tried to point out peaceful coexistence among men and animals. It contributed both to social and economic reform. It is said that the way which the Buddha indicated aimed at individual development in the first stage, and economic and social development to follow this process. Economically, man was improved because he had not to spend money on sacrifice. Socially, he would improve because of developing virtues and having right knowledge and understanding.

The definition of the term ‘reformer’ given in the Encyclopaedia of Social Science^{[5] [6]} may be accepted as the criterion for considering and deciding whether the Buddha is a reformer. 

According to encyclopaedia of Social Science,

‘A reformer is a man who rationalizes reformism.He can be in his attitude either conservative or liberal but he is not an exponent of reformism unless he offers some limited and specific rectification or betterment or restoration of a social structure or associative relation until he brings about a general improvement of society. The reformer operates on parts whereas the revolutionist operates on wholes. The reformer seeks modifications harmonious with existing trends and consistent with prevailing principles and movements. He seeks the construction of the right forms for each situation.’^[7]

“Having considered the Buddha’s intention before and after enlightenment, with the above criterion in mind, we notice that before he renounced the worldly life to be a homeless wanderer, he had no intention to reform society but intended to seek the truth once. He told this to king Bimbisāra, saying he was not seeking for sensual pleasure but for the delights of the mind”^[8]. 

It was precisely this that led to renunciation of the worldly life by the Buddha.

“After the Buddha’s enlightenment, although he had attained what he had wanted to attain, the extinction of suffering, he had no intention to make religion the instrument of social change. He was aware that the attainment of the supreme thing, the extinction of suffering, is the main aim of a human being. His intention was to improve social welfare without discrimination of race, caste, class etc. He rejected the concept of social status determined by birth, colour, or wealth. He, on the contrary determined the qualities of human beings on the basis of their actions or conduct. The Buddha cannot be called a reformer or revolutionist according to the modern ideas because he had no idea of religious or social transformation. On the contrary he wanted to reform the conduct of individuals by instructing the Dhamma. He wanted to change them from bad to good men.”^[9]

‘With much hesitation we enter into that mystic and all pervading world, the world of religious believes and superstitions,which has alwaya baffled the most acute mind in grasping and analysing its true character. On the theoretical side, the Jātakas presentebefore us more or less the same Buddhistic religious thought which we find in other recognised Buddhist canonical works, specially the Nikāyas. Our main interest lies on the other side, viz. the practical one. And, in so far as the stories give us a realistic picture of the religious ideas and believes, manners and customs prevalent among the folk, of the pre-buddhistic days. 

In those days these agents may be classified into two categories: 

i) the beneficent elements
ii) the malevolent agents’^[10].

To the former category belonged the various godes, the devas. The Gods were many, but the most prominent among them was Sakka. Sakka is called Sujāmpati, Maghavā. His character as the rain-god (pajjunna) waws still retained. And the other gods were–the god of Sun (suriya deva), the god of moon (canda deva), the wind-god (Māluta), the fire-god(aggi deva), the god of water (varuṇa), the god of earth (vasudeva), the tree-god (rukkhadevatā), the god of Nāga (naga deva), etc.

If wonder or gratitude impelled man to venerate or worship the various deities mentioned before, fear made him dread the spirits of evil which infested the world. Of all the evil spirites, the Yakkhas and Yakkhiṇīs is were the most commonly dreaded, and people were in perpetual fear of them. And the other evil spirits were–the Asura, the Dānava-rākkhasa, the Vijjādharas (the wizards flying invisibly and endowed with all sorts of spells and magic), the man-eating pisāca, the Bheravas, the kumbhaṇḍas etc. People had to take recourse to various arts and artifices to counteract these evils, to what we call spell, charms or magic which still survive. However, the dread of the evil sprits was hard to kill. The simpler mind looked to easier ways of delivarence, other than sacrifice and prayer to gods. Innumerable superstitions and charms grew up. Magic and witch-craft were prominant. And for all these, hina vijjā like Lakkhaṇapātha, aṅggavijjā, supinapāthavijjā, nemittika, nakkhattavijjā, bhūtavijjā, had already arised at that time. In the ideas realting to cosmology, the explanation of the doctrines of kamma and of transmigration of soul modified the old ideas; yet people continued to believe in the exsistence of Heaven as the place of rewards for the good done in life, and of hell as the abode of punishment. 

And in this way this religion of the people, beliefs and superstitions of the people, the simple folk, naturally gave rise to a questioning spirit that would take nothing for granted.

‘In spite of that when we come nearer to Mahāvīra and the Buddha, we feel the whole atmosphere surcharged with philosophic mood. It was a time ‘seeting with speculative ferment’. 

Several Jātakas give us a glimpse of some of the speculations that were going on at this time. They are given just to show their uselessness and wrongfulness in the eyes of others, like the Buddhists, who considered these as false doctrines (micchāvādaṃ). 

The Mahābodhi Jātaka (No.528), for instance, presents before us five thinkers of five different philosophical doctrins, viz.,

i) Ahetu-vādī (the fortuitous originits)—they denied the existence of cause or non-causation (ime sattā samsārasuddhikā),

ii) Issarakāraṇa-vādī (the theist)—they believed that everything was the act of a supreme being (ayaṃ loko issaranimmito),

iii) Pubbekata-vādī (the fatalist)—they professed the doctrine of previous actions, i.e. kamma: sorrow and Joy (sattānam sukham vā dukkham vā pubbekatin eva uppajati),

iv) Uccheda-vādī, (the annihilations)—they believed no one passes hence to another world, but this world is annihilated (ito paralokagatā nāma n’atthi, ayaṃ loko ucchijjati),

v) Khattavijjā-vādī (the militarist)—they professed the Militarist doctrin, according to which a man ought to seek his own advantage even at the cost of killing one’s parents (mātāpitaro pi māretvā attano va attho kāmetabbo).’^[11]

The most pronounced antagonism that the Jātaka stories seem to show is towards the Ājīvikas^[12]. It was one of the heterodox (nastik) schools of Indian philosophy. They formed a stubborn sect, under Makkhali Gosāla^[13], in the time of the Buddha. The Buddha was always opposed to this particular sect. The Ājīvika creed became popular for its anti-Brahmanical stand. It was, in fact, a third heretical sect, beside those of Buddhism and Jainism, with both of which its relations seem to have been often far from cordial. This sect believed that all embracing rule of the principal of order, Niyati, which ultimately controlled every action and all phenomena, and left no room for human volition, which was completely ineffectual. The Lomohaṃsa Jātaka (No.94) portrayed an interesting life story of Ājīvikas. They were unclothed (Acelakā) and covered with dust. They remained solitary (ekavihari), their food kasapa whose views remarkably agree with those of Makkhali Gosāla. 

The Doctrine of Guṇa kasapa, the ājīva, which is also termed ucchedavādo, annihilation, is clear by this: 

‘There is no door to heaven (sugati): only wait on destiny (niyati). Whatever thy lot be happiness or misery, it is only gained through destiny: all will at last reach deliverance from transmigration (saṃsārasuddhi); be not eager for the future’^[14].

We also found in this story another great sage Nārada kassapa refuted this view and established the popular Indian belief that ‘action has its reward and retribution (kammaphala), and that heaven and hell are the inevitable consequence hereafter of merits and demerits of this life, and preaches righteousness with the famous simile of cheriot’^[15] The Sarabhaṅga Jātaka (No.522), in which the chief character bear name suggesting a hypothetical Ājīvika arhanta. In this story, the Bodhisattva is born as Sarabhaṅga, also referred to as Jotipāla and Koṇḍañña. He is a famous hermit in the Kaviṭṭha forest, on the banks of the Godāvarī. Among hischief pupils is one Kisā Vaccha, whose name appears to be a telescoped version of those of the two Ājīvika arhantas. Kisā is said to have left the hermitage with permission of his teacher, and to have moved to the city of Kumbhavatī, whose king was Daṇḍaki. Here he obtained the reputation of a scapegoat (kālakaṇṇi), who would remove ill luck when spat upon, and as a result was shamed and insulted by the populace. After some time he was recalled by this teacher Sarabhaṅga, and the king and his kingdom were destroyed by the gods in punishment for the ignominies borne by the saint. Soon after this Kisā Vaccha is said to have died; innumerable ascetics attended his cremation, and the ceremony was marked by a rain of heavenly flowers.

In spite of that Asetic practices are found in very early stages of Indian society. The ascetic ideal more slowly but steadily permeate through the whole mass of people in those days. 

There are two groups of asceitcs:—

i) The Brāhmaṇas (the hermits)
ii) The Sramaṇas (the recluse philosophers)

The institute of Hermits (risi, tāpasa) is of course very old. In spite of that a new order of religion was formd, who called themselves Brāhmaṇas. They all still maintained the Vedic tradition. They recited the Vedic hymns and earned their livelihood by officiating as priest in the sacrifices. They were patronised by the kings as well as a section of people. On the other hand another class of wandering teachers were Paribrājakas. Their main objective was to enter into discussion with other religious teachers, on matters of ethics, philosophy, nature lore and mysticism. There were in those days in important villages and towns, public halls where these Paribrājakas were open alike to Brahmins and non-brahmins. The Paribrājakas formed an important part of the religious and philosophical movement of ancient India. In this period many mighty thinkers pursued the views of their predecessors and worked out of new trends of thoughts. This period is, therefore, of great importance in the history of the religion. India was in a maze of inter-acting philosophic and religious views, when Buddhism originated. The cult of sacrifice so much advocated by the Vedic Indian for a happy life in this world as also in the next, could not really secure for the performer the objects for which the sacrifices were performed. Merits achieved through them were efficacious only for a short time. They could not give eternal peace. Thus people gradually lost their faith in the efficacies of the Vedic rituals. A new mood of life was found out. It was a life of renunciation as against the life devoted to the pleasures of senses. In that period we have seen that gradually the Samaṇa culture, the newly risen ascetic order, broke away from past traditions, revolted against the older Vedic system of sacrifice and self-mortification. “Samaṇa literally meaning is ‘labourers in spiritual life’ . The name had within the community itself, as well as outside, an honorific nuance. Among the Samaṇas, there were men of superior intellectual attainments who had distinguished themselves as teachers of religion, and, as a class, they seem to have been looked upon with the same honour and reverence as the Brāhmaṇas used to enjoy in society. But the Brāhmaṇas represented a caste and their position was exclusive; on the other hand anyone in the castles wanderers‘ community could, as it seems, rise by virtue of his qualities and accomplishments to the status of a Samaṇa, one of equality with a Brāhmaṇa. The recognized equality of status between a Brāhmaṇa in Brāhmaṇical society and a Samaṇa from the community of almsmen is indicated by the compound designation used in the legends to denote the elite in the religious life: it is “Samaṇa-Brāhmaṇa”. The name Samaṇa conveyed honor, and appellative Mahā-Samaṇa is often applied to the Buddha himself, and his followers in the wanderers‘community have from lay people the respectful designation, Sākyaputtiya Samaṇas.

Besides the Buddha, the Mahā-Samaṇa, 

“There were in his time six Samaṇas in the puratthima of outstanding position in the community: their names are well-known from the legends—Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, Ajita Kesakambalī, Sañjaya Belatthiputta. Each of these leading Samaṇas had his own batch of followers in the community, adherents of the Dhamma propounded by him. The followers formed sects, but these were more or less fluctuant groups, for it was not uncommon for members of one sect to merge into another, if the latter’s dhamma found preference in their eyes. The leader tried to prevent disruption, for it meant loss of prestige for him; he also tried to gain strength for his own sect by proselytizing, so that sects waxed and wadded, divided or coalesced and remained constantly in a fluctuating state in the community.”^[16]

The Jātakas show particular hatred against austerities and false practices, many of which are enumerated. The Buddhist Samaṇas played a very important role moulding the materials as well as spiritual life of the people. They shaved their head clean and begged their food, instead of feeding like the tāpasas, on potherbs and fruits. They became known as Bhikkhu because of their practice of begging. The outer appearance of a Samaṇa or Bhikkhu was also distinctive. He did not kept hair and beard, he wore three yellow robes (kāsāyavattha: one as under dress, the other a upper, and the third he wrapped round his shoulders. He had to stitch his own robe. He also kept with him a razor (vāsi), a needle (sūci), a strainer (bandhanaṃ), a zone (parissavana), and an alms bowl with which he gathered his food (piṇḍapāto). They lived in the Monasteries (Saṅghas). The Buddha allowed even small boys to be ordained as novices (Samaṇas). After a novice had received sufficient training and was at least 20 years of age, he could take his full ordination (upasampadā) and become a monk (Bhikkhu). To do this, he would have to approach an assembly of ten monks or more of at least ten years standing who were respected for their learning and virtue. 

The candidate would then be asked eleven questions to determine his suitability, his motives and his readiness. 

(1) Are you free from disease?
(2) Are you a human being?
(3) Are you a man?
(4) Are you a free man?
(5) Are you free from debt?
(6) Do you have any obligations to the king?
(7) Do you have your parents' permission?
(8) Are you at least twenty years of age?
(9) Do you have your bowl and robe?
(10) What is your name?
(11) What is your teacher's name?

If the candidate answered these questions satisfactorily, he then requested higher ordination three times and if no one raised any objections, he was considered a monk.

We get another community of Buddhist Saṅgha which was cultivated by the Āraññaka Samaṇa. In its early days in India when Buddhist monks had developed a cenobitical life and organisation of the monasteries,-there had existed in the monkhood a class of monks who preferred an eremitical way of life to the cenobitism of the monasteries.

The two classes of monks–

i) Forest-dwelling (āraññavāsī/vanavāsī)
ii) Convent-dwelling^[17] (gāmavāsī/nagaravāsī).

Āraññaka, monks who preferred their life outside the monastery. They are belonging to solitude or forest, sequestered, fond of speculation and living as hermits (Bhikkhu).^[18] These were monks known as Āraññaka for their forest-dwelling habits. They were also called Pāṃsukulika because of their vow were only rag-robes, the more extreme of these ascetic taking their rags from cremation grounds. The system of living a forest life, therefore, came into vogue in the early days of Buddhism and so there are in the Vinay special rules for the Āraññaka Samaṇas. The Āraññaka Samaṇa were required to attend the fortnightly Pātimokkha assemblies, but they were exempted from many formalities.^[19] The Buddha praised those ascetics, who took the Dhūtāṅga precepts^[20]. He yielded to the strong tendency of those disciples, who believed in the efficacy of austerities and could not be satisfied with a religion barren of such practices.

The non-canonical literature Milinad Pañha enumerates twenty-eight special qualities in the Dhūtāṅgaguṇā—^[21]

1) Dutaṅgaṃsuddhājivaṃ—an ascetic practice is pure means of live hood;
2) Sukhaphalaṃ—It’s fruit is happy;
3) Anavajjaṃ—It is blameless;
4) Na paradukkhāpana—It does not bring anguish to others;
5) Abhayaṃ—It has no fear;
6) Asampilanaṃ—It is trouble free;
7) Ekantavaḍḍhi-taṃ—It is exclusively for growth;
8) Aparihāniyaṃ—It is not for declining;
9) Amāyaṃ—It is not a deception;
10) Arakkha—It is a protection;
11) Patthitadadaṃ—It is given of what is longed for;
12) Sabba-sattadamanaṃ—It is taming for all creatures;
13) Samvarahitaṃ—It is of benefit to (self) control;
14) Paṭirūpaṃ—It is seemly;
15) Anissitaṃ—Independent;
16) Vippamuttaṃ—Liberated;
17) Rāgakkhayaṃ—It is for the destruction of attachment;
18) Dosakkhayaṃ—The destruction of aversion;
19) Mohakkhayaṃ—The destruction of delusion;
20) Mānappahānaṃ—For the getting rid of pride;
21) Kuvitakkacchedanaṃ—The cutting of wrong thought;
22) Kaṅkhāvitaraṇaṃ—Removal of doubts;
23) Kosajjaviddhaṃsanaṃ—The suppression of idleness;
24) Aratippahānaṃ—The getting rid of discontent;
25) Khamanaṃ—It is increasing patience;
26) Atulaṃ—Beyond compare;
27) Appamānaṃ—Immeasurale;
28) Sabbadukkhakhayagamanaṃ—Leading to the destruction of all anguish;

The Milinada Pañha moreover states that persons who rightly pursue the qualities of asceticism (Dhūtāṅgaguṇa upasevanti) become endowed with 18 special qualities—

1) Ācāro tesaṃ suvisuddho hoti—Their behaviour is thoroughly purified;
2) Paṭipadā supuritā hoti—The course well fulfilled;
3) Kāyikaṃvācikaṃsurokkhitaṃ hoti—Body and speech well guarded;
4) Manosamācāro suvisuddho hoti—The conduct of the mind thoroughly purified;
5) Viriyaṃ supagahitaṃ—Energy well exerted;
6) Bhayaṃ vupasammati—Fear allayed;
7) Attānudiṭṭhi vyagato uparato—False view of self gone to destruction;
8) Mettā upaṭṭhitā—Amity is established;
9) Āhāro pariññāto—Nutriment is fully comprehended;
10) Sabbasattānaṃgarukato hoti—There is esteem by all being;
11) Sabbasuttānaṃ gārukato hoti—There is esteem by all beings;
12) Bhojone mattaññu hoti—There is moderation in eating;
13) Jāgariyamanuyutta hoti—Intentness on watchfulness;
14) Aniketo hoti—There is the homeless state;
15) Ythā phāsu tattha vihāro hoti—There is abiding there where there is comfort;
16) Pāpajeguccho hoti—There is abhorrence of evil;
17) Vivekārāmo hoti—Delight in aloofness;
18) Satatamappamatto hoti—Constant diligence;

This text also mentioned ten kinds of persons are fit to observe Dhūtāṅgaguṇa practice–

1) Saddho—One who is faithful;
2) Hirimā—One who is conscientious;
3) Dhitimā—One who is steadfast;
4) Akuho—One who is trustworthy;
5) Atthavaso—One who is pursuing the goal;
6) Alolo—One who is not greedy;
7) Sikkhākāmi—One who is desirous for training;
8) Daḷho samādāno—One who is firm in resolution;
9) Anujjhānabahulo—One who is meditative;
10) Mettāvihārī—One who is an abider in amity.

Religion has always had a greater impact and influence on the lives of the Indian people, their culture and Indian art. Throughout the centuries, religions have inspired various artists to come up with unique and beautiful art pieces. Buddhism is one of the primary religions that have had a clear impact on the country’s history as well as artist’s creations. The primary purpose of paintings with religious influences was to convey the message and preaching of that particular religion.

The Jātakas had attained popularity among the masses of religion and culture on account of their contents, apart from furnishing important information on the social, political and religious life of the people in ancient India. These stories give details of great convincing power the entire view of ancient Indian life, laden with states of passion and compassion, wickedness and benevolence, reward and punishment, life and death. A watchful study of these stories shows that the stories are extremely informative and have various purposes to serve at the end of every story there is a brief summary in which the Buddha identifies the different persons in the story. Thus Bodhisttva (a lay being on the path of the enlightenment, in the form of a human being, animal, bird, tree-spirit etc.) as depicted was an aspirant after knowledge who wanted to rise through a chain of good deeds and virtuous status of Buddha-hood. 

The original concepts of the Jātakas support the belief in rebirth and the principle of Kamma. These stories exercised a great moral influence on the people, establishing a firm conviction that merit would result from performing various virtuous acts. Despite their Buddhist affiliation, the genesis of the Jātakas is shrouded in obscurity. The Stories were reduced to writing at a much later time after passing away of the Buddha, but they seem to have been a part of India’s archaic oral tradition which was presented in a Buddhist context with necessary modifications in the early historical periods. This evidence preserved in early Buddhist art of India and other sites shows that by about the 2^nd century B.C.E. The Jātaka stories in Indian art inscribed captions probably with a view to educate those Buddhist worshippers who were visiting the sacred sites, urging them to follow the righteous path. There is also a fluent sculpturing of the Jataka tales for the complete delight of story-telling which has indeed emigrated from India far byond her boundaries to enliven and enrich the art and culture of the country that adopted it. The Jātaka stories became a favourite subject with artists in ancient India and other Buddhist countries.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The Buddha’s Socio-Political Ideas, Dr.Phramahachanya Khongchinda,pp.218 ff.

[2]:

The Buddha, Trevor Ling, p. 66.

[3]:

Sacred Books of the East, F. Max Muller (ed.), Vol. XIII, trans., T.W. Rhys Davids and H. Oldenberg (Motilal Banarsidass, 1982), p. 124.

[4]:

The Buddha, Trevor Ling. p. 86.

[5]:

Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, R.A. Seligman Edwin and Johnson Alvin (ed.), Vol. XIIIXIV, pp.

[6]:

-195.

[7]:

Ibid.

[8]:

Secred Books of the East Vol. X, trans., Max Muller and V. Fausboll (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1968), pp. 68-69.

[9]:

The Buddha’s Socio-Political Ideas, Dr.Dhramahachanya Khongchinda,p.234.

[10]:

Pre-Buddhist India, p. 321.

[11]:

Ibid., p. 332.

[12]:

Ajivika (Ājīvika, Sanskrit: आजीविक) is derived from the root Ajiva (Ājīva, आजीि) which literally means—“livelihood, lifelong, mode of life”. The term Ajivika means "those following special rules with regard to Iivelihood", sometimes connoting "religious mendicants" in ancient Sanskrit and Pali texts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ājīvika.

[13]:

The Sāmaññaphala Suttanta proved the teachers of such heretical doctrines were the contemporaries of the Buddha–
1) Pūraṇa Kassapa–doctrine of non-action (akiriyavāda);
2) Makkhali Gosāla -doctrine of fatalism (niyatisaṅgativāda);
3) Ajita Kesakambalī -doctrine of annihilation (ucchedavāda);
4) Pakudha Kaccāyana -doctrine of eternalism (sassatavāda);
5) Sañjaya Belatthiputta -doctrine of eel-wrigglers (amaravikkhepikāvāda);
6) Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta-doctrine of four-fold restraint (cāturyāmasaṃvaravāda);
The Brahmajāla Suttanta also enumerates a list of sixty-two forms of philosophical thought about the soul.
They are known as the sixty-two heresies in the Buddhist literature–
1) Four kinds of Sassatavāda (those who hold that soul and universe are eternal);
2) Four kinds of Ekaccasassatavāda (those who hold that self and universe are eternal i some respect and in some not);
3) Four kinds of Antānatika (those who hold that universe is finite as well as infinite);
4) Four kinds of Amarāvikkhepika (those who equivocate about good and evil);
5) Two kinds of Adhiccasamuppanika (those who hold that soul and the world originate without a cause);
6) Sixteen kinds of Uddhamāghātanikasaññivāda (those who hold that soul is conscious after death);
7) Eight kinds of Uddhamāghātanika-āsaññivāda (those who hold that soul is unconscious after death);
8) Eight kinds of Uddhamāghātanika-nevasaññināsaññivāda (those who hold that soul is neither conscious nor unconscious after death);
9) Seven kinds of Ucchedavāda (those who hold that soul is extinct after death);
10) Five kinds of Diṭṭhdhammanibbānavāda (those who hold that nibbāna can be attained in this life).

[14]:

Pre-Buddhist India, p. 336.

[15]:

Ibid., p.337

[16]:

Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India, S. Dutt, pp. 48-49.

[17]:

They were formally distinguished in Ceylon: some time there were fierce disputes over points of Vinay between the two which threatened to impair the saṅgha unity. In the reign of Vijaybāhu III of Ceylon (13^th century C.E.), the king summoned a convocation to consider the points of dispute. Buddhism in South-East Asia, Sukumar Dutt, p.80.

[18]:

They are variously listed as twelve or thirteen, although some texts further reduce or expand the list as follows: i) piṇḍapātika: one who subsists only on alms and relinquishes accepting invitations to aet in lay households. ii) sāvadānapiṇḍapātika: one who goeson alms rounds systematically, without showing preference for some houses over others. iii) ekāsanika: one who eats in one sitting only. iv) Khalupaścādbhaktika: one who does not eat after the appropriate time (i.e., midday). v) traicīvarika: one who wears only the three monastic robes. vi) nāmatika: one who wears woollen garment. vii) pāṃsukūlika: one who wears refuse-rag robes, that is, does not accept donations of cloth from patrons. viii) āraṇyaka: one who dwells in the wilderness. ix) vṛkṣamūlika: one who lives at the foot of tree. x) ābhyavakāśika: one who dwells in the open air, that is, without roof or cover. xi) śmāśānika: one who dwells in the cremation grounds. xii) naiṣadika: one who remains in the sitting posture without lying down. xiii) yathāsaṃstarika: one who accepts whatever seat is offered. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahayana, Daniel Boucher, p. 43.

[19]:

Buddhist sects in India, N. Dutt, p. 50; From the Sukhothai to the ayodhiya period, there was a slow transfer to authorityin the monk order from “forest-dwelling” to “town-dwelling” monks. The head of the “towndwelling” monks had in Saim the title pf Phar Vanarat: it is in him that the duties of the chief Executiv of the holy order came to vest. Buddhism in South-East asia, Sukumar Dutt, p.81.

[20]:

Dhūtāṅga precepts: dhū to be in turbulent motion. Dhūtadhamma manes a scrupulous way of life, first for Bhikkhu, then for a layman. Pali English Dictionary (T. W. Rhys Davids and William Stede), p. 342; The compound term dhūtāṅga consists of two words, namely, “Dhūta” means fixed, rigid, steadfast, shaken off and defilement or obstacles to spiritual progress and ‗aṅga” means limb, constituent, parts or ways. The composite term dhūtāṅga literally means shaking off defilement or mental impurities, suggestively the way of purification or ascetic practices for purification. Dictionary of Buddhist Doctrinal and Technical Terms (Binayaendranath Chaudhury), p. 225; They are beneficial for all those who are able to put them into practice. A dhūtāṅga is not an extreme practice; it is a mere practice that enables the mind to be rapidly and easily purified, absolute prerequisite to the development of attention and concentration. It reduces useless impediments such as excessive food, numerous clothes to look after, the agitation of inhabited areas, very various attachments. Provided it is conveniently adopted, no dhutaṅga does cause to arise any kind of tiredness or oppression of the body or the mind. If a dhūtāṅga nvolves a great difficulty or a difficult effort to an individual, he shouldn't practice it, as it would become a practice extreme for himself.[en.dhammadana.org> samgaha]. A limpse into this new phase of coexistence as well as into the role of the “layman” in the great Vehicle is offered by Gṛhapatiugraparipricchā-sūtra.The sutra revolves the question of the householder Ugra concerning the way renunciant the path. The Buddha exposes the evils of the householder’s life, compared with poison, etc. He utters a long eulogy on the vertues of becoming monk, the ten ascetic practice (dhutaguṇa) and dwelling in the forest. Buddhism, Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, “ A Preliminary study on Meditation and Beginnings of Mahāyāna Buddhism” , Florin Deleanu, p. 52.

[21]:

Dictionary of Buddhist Doctrinal and Technical Terms (Binayaendranath Chaudhury), p. 225 f.