Chapter 13i - Jainism, Buddhism and other sects

The Jainas had nothing but contempt for those communities who had no objection to taking flesh and wine. In Yasastilaka VI, 10 the Veda and the Buddhist and the Saiva scriptures are described as favouring the use of honey, flesh and wine." The Buddhists are particularly decried for not observing any restrictions in regard to food and drink. In Yasastilaka VI. 2 Somadeva asks: How can the wise respect the Buddhist who is addicted to flesh and wine?" In another verse the Buddhist appears to be described as a votary of what is called advaita pure and simple. Somadeva seems to say that, excepting the Jaina doctrine, all other systems favour either 'the path of duality' (dvaita) or 'that of non-duality' (advaita); and he illustrates his remarks by saying that the Mantrin or the Saiva mystic follows the Vamamarga and the Daksinamarga, and the Brahmanical Scriptures lay stress on Karma and Jnana, while those of the Buddhists merely prescribe 1 'srutisakya sivamnayah ksaudramamsasavasrayah ' p. 296. 2 'katham manisibhirmanyastarasasavasaktadhih ' p. 276.

flesh-eating. In Yasastilaka VII. 24 the Buddhists are mentioned first among certain communities who recommend the eating of flesh." "In The quarrel of the Jainas and the Buddhists over the question of using flesh as an article of food goes back to very early times. the time of Buddha there was in Vaisali a wealthy general named Siha who was a convert to Buddhism. He became a liberal supporter of the Brethren and kept them constantly supplied with good flesh food. When it was noised abroad that the bhikshus were in the habit of eating such food specially provided for them the Tirthikas made the practice a matter of angry reproach." The Master thereupon announced to the Brethren "the law that they were not to eat the flesh of any animal which they had seen put to death for them, or about which they had been told that it had been killed for them, or about which they had reason to suspect that it had been slain for them. But he permitted to the Brethren as 'pure' (that is, lawful) food the flesh of animals the slaughter of which had not been seen by the bhikshus, not heard of by them, and not suspected by them to have been on their account. In the Pali and Ssu-fen Vinaya it was after a breakfast given by Siha to the Buddha and some of the Brethren, for which the carcase of a large ox was procured, that the Nirgranthas reviled the bhikshus and Buddha instituted this new rule The animal food declaring fish and flesh pure in the three conditions. " now permitted to the bhikshus ......... was tersely described as 'unseen, unheard, unsuspected' ......... Two more kinds of animal food were later "declared lawful for the Brethren, viz. the flesh of animals which had died a natural death, and that of animals which had been killed by a bird of prey or other savage creature."3 This was the Hinayanist position 1 jainamekam matam muktva dvaitadvaitasamasrayau | magaum samasritah sarve sarvabhyupagamagamah || vamadaksinamargastho matri- tarasamasrayah | karmajnanagato jneyah sambhusakyadvijagamah || The Ms. A remarks matrena sarvan vasikaroti saivah | mamsamasayati bauddhah | jivahomadikriyajnanaprapto viprah | 2 ' tacchakyasamkhyacarvaka ' eto. A little further on, Somadeva says that a king named Saurasena, although he had taken a vow to abstain from flesh-eating, became addicted to it, being misled by the doctrines of the Veda, medical lore and the Advaita doctrine (a). The Advaitamata obviously refers to the Buddhist view of flesh-eating. 3 Watters: On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India 629-645 A. D., Vol. I, p. 55. Manichaeism, which prohibited the slaughter of animals, permitted the Hearers, as distinguished from the Elect, to eat flesh food when it had been slain by others. Cf. Wand: A History of the Early Church, p. 141. The Manichaean Elect and Hearers corresponded pretty well to monks and seculars. Babylon was the birth-place of Manichaeism, and Manes, the founder of the new religion about the middle of the third century, was brought up in the sect of the Mugthasila, who laid special stress on abstinence from flesh, wine and women. Kidd: A History of the Church, Vol. I, p. 506.

13. JAINISM AND OTHER FAITHS in regard to the use of flesh as an article of food. 373 The Mahayanist a rule, on the other hand, prohibited "the use of flesh of any kind as food by the 'sons of Buddha'", and "some Mahayanists were strict in abstaining, not only from all kinds of flesh food, but also from milk and its products."¹ In Yuan Chwang's time, for instance, there were three Buddhist monasteries in Karnasuvarna (in Bengal) "in which in accordance with the teaching of Devadatta milk products were not taken as food."" any distinction So far as Jaina criticism is concerned, the writers do not make between Hinayanists and Mahayanists and condemn the Buddhists as That there was considerable laxity in class for partaking of animal food. matters of food and drink among the Buddhists in the tenth century and thereabouts seems extremely probable, and charges of soft living were Devasena , who wrote about in fact occasionally levelled against them. twentyfive years earlier than Somadeva, severely criticizes Buddhist doctrine, in his Bhavasamgraha, and remarks that the Buddhist regards whatever falls into his begging bowl as pure, eats flesh and shamelessly drinks wine, but if it were possible to go to heaven by eating flesh and drinking wine, it is the drunkards and the huntsmen that would go thither. Similarly, Udayana, who wrote a few decades after Somadeva, says that the absence of any restrictions in the matter of food and drink, eating at all hours of the day, and lightness of religious duties are among the causes that Hemacandra says in his commentary induce men to become Buddhists.4 on his Yogasastra 4. 102 that the practice of austerities is impossible for the Buddhists who eat day and night, and make no distinction between lawful and forbidden food. Further, he remarks in an interesting verse that the religion of the Buddha is excellent indeed, its essentials being a soft bed, rice-gruel in the morning, boiled rice at noon, drinking bouts in The Buddhists, on the whole , the evening, and sugarcandy at night.5 gave offence to the Jainas by their indulgence in food and drink which the latter abhorred. In Yasastilaka VIII. 43 Somadeva advises his co-religionists to have nothing to do with the Buddhists, the Nastikas, the Adepts in sacrifices, the Jatilas (that is, the Saivas) and the Ajivakas, There is no doubt that a 1 Watters (op. cit.), p. 57. 2 Watters, Vol. II, p. 191. 3 pattapadiyam na dusai khai palam piyai majju nillajjo | icchai saggaggamagam mokkhaggamanam ca pavena || asiuna mamsagasa majjam piviuna gammae saggam | jai evam to sumdaya paraddhiya caiva gacchamti || Verses 68-9 4 'sambhavanti caite hetavo bauddhadyagamaparigrahe | tathahi bhuyastatra karmalaghavamityalatah |bhaksadyaniyama iti raginah | ........... : Nyayakusumanjali, chap. 2. 5 divase ca rajanyam ca mukhamaprcchaya bhaksatam | bhaksyabhaksyavivekanam saugatanam kutastapah || mrdvi sayya pratah peya madhye bhaktam sayam panam | draksakhandam ratrermadhye sakyopajnah sadhurdharmah || Verses 9 and 10. 6 sakyanastikayagasajatilajivakadibhih | sahavasam sahalabham tatsevam ca vivarjayet ||

certain amount of communal hatred existed between the Jainas and the Buddhists, and mutual recriminations are occasionally found in the religious literature of both the communities. The Jainas contended that since the Buddhists denied the existence of the Self, all their talk of compassion and philanthrophy was meaningless. The Buddha is accordingly called 'ferocious and merciless' (!) in Jatasimhanandi's Varangacarita 25. 84. On similar grounds Akalanka accuses the Buddha of criminal propensities such as injury to others, falsehood, theft and unchastity! 2 The Buddhists are likewise in the habit of giving expression to their contempt for the Jainas and their habits and customs. The celebrated Mahayana work Saddharma-pundarika (earlier than the third century) says, for instance, that the Bodhisattva 'must avoid such monks as follow the precepts of the Arhat, and immoral men (chap. XIII)'.³ The practice of nudity (nagnabhava) mentioned in the Lalitavistara (chap. XVII) among the stupid customs followed by the adherents of the non-Buddhist systems obviously refers to the Digambara monks. In the first half of the seventh century, the great Chinese traveller Hsuan-tsang (the name is variously spelt), a philosopher of Mahayana Buddhism, ridicules Jainism as a sort of caricature of the Buddhist religion. "These sectarians", writes Hsuan-tsang, "give themselves up to extreme austerities. Day and night they display the most ardent zeal without a moment's respite. The law expounded by their founder (Mahavira) has been largely stolen from the books of Buddha, and on this he guided himself when laying down his precepts and rules. In their religious observances and exercises, they follow almost entirely the rule of the Buddhist monks. The statue of 4 their teacher, by a kind of impertinent imitation, resembles that of Buddha." Here is a picture of the Digambara monks drawn by the Chinese pilgrim: "The Jainas think they gain distinction by leaving their bodies entirely Their skin is naked, and they make a virtue of tearing out their hair. all broken, and their feet are horny and cracked; they are like those rotten trees that are found close to a river. In similar but less dignified language, certain Digambara practices are held up to ridicule in the Dohakosa of Sarojavajra (Saraha) written in an Apabhramsa dialect sometime between the eighth and twelfth ceuturies." Saraha, who was a Buddhist Tantric writer, says that if it were possible to attain salvation by going about naked, the dogs and the jackals would surely attain it. As 1 'buddhastu raudro niranugrahasca ' | 2 siddhahimsanrta steyabrahmacaryapravrttitah | sa pratyastamitasesadoso neti pratiyate || Nyayaviniscaya, verse 390, Trans. Kern, p. 265 (S. B. E.) 3 4 Grousset: In the footsteps of the Buddha, pp. 197-8. 5 Ed H. P. Sastri in at eater, Introduction, p. 6.

regards the practice of plucking out the hair, he says something positively indecent. Then he says that if the carrying of peacock's feathers led to salvation, the horses and the elephants who are decorated with them were bound to obtain it!¹ Recriminations of this type point to theological hatred, but there is no reason to suppose that there was any deep-seated hostility between the Jainas and the Buddhists. As pointed out by S. C. Vidyabhusan, 'there was no bitter rivalry' between the two communities. According to the same scholar, the Jaina writers Rabhasa Nandi (circa 850 A. D.) and Kalyanacandra (about 1000 A. D.) appear to have written commentaries on the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti's Sambandha-pariksa and Pramana-vartika respectively; while the Jaina Mallavadin (about 962 A. D.) wrote a commentary on Nyaya-bindu-tika of Dharmottara.³ The Ajivakas whom Somadeva mentions among the communities to be shunned by the Jainas were an ancient sect founded by Mankhaliputra Gosalaka, a contemporary of Mahavira, and the present reference to them shows that members of this sect were still to be found in the tenth century. The Jainas disliked the Ajivakas, as their founder Gosalaka was a bitter rival and opponent of Mahavira, and the former is, as a matter of fact, 8 Nor represented as something of an impostor in early Jaina literature. were the Ajivakas liked by the Buddhists. Just as Somadeva asks the Jainas to keep aloof from Ajivakas, Buddhists, Nastikas and others, similarly the Saddharma-pundarika (Chap. XIII) declares that the Bodhisattva never associates with Carakas, Parivrajakas, Ajivakas and Nirgranthas (Jainas). The Ajivakas had certain peculiar doctrines, e. g. the Niyativada, an extreme form of fatalism propounded by Gosalaka, and seem to have flourished in South India for centuries after the age of Mahavira, as their doctrines are included among the contemporary philosophical systems described in detail in the Tamil epic Manimekhalai, assigned to the early centuries of the Christian era. In another Tamil epic of the same age, the S'ilappadikaram, the father of the heroine Kannaki is said to have distributed his wealth among the Ajivaka friars. "This is a very important 1 ja‍ namna via hoi mutti ta, ta sunaha sialaha, lomoppattane accha siddhia, ta juvai nityamvaha, picchigane dittha mokkha, ta kariha turangaha | 2 A History of Indian Logic, pp. 194, 198. 3 See Gopani: Ajivika sect-A new interpretation in Bharatiya Vidya, Vol II, part II. 4 Trans. Kern, p. 263 (S. B. E.). In ancient Buddhist texts the Ajivakas are regarded as the worst of the sophists. 'As the sect is thrice mentioned in the Asoka Edicts as receiving royal gifts, it is certain that it retained an important position for several centuries at least.' Rhys Davids: Dialogues of the Buddha, Part I, p. 71.

reference inasmuch as the religion of the Ajivakas, if it could be so described, It should be noted was undoubtedly practised in South India at the time"." in this connection that Somadeva, contrary to his usual practice, does not mention any doctrines of the sect so that we cannot tell how far any welldefined Ajivaka system prevailed in his time. All that the reference to the Ajivaks in Yasastilaka proves is the existence of the sect in the tenth century . In Yasastilaka VII. 24 Somadeva seems to refer to another sect, although it is not explicitly mentioned. He says that such is the peculiarity of things that the cow's milk is pure but not the flesh , just as the gem supposed to be on the hood of a snake counteracts poison, while snake -poison itself causes death. Again, milk may be taken, but not the cow's flesh; just as the leaves of a poisonous plant may be taken for the cure of disease, while its roots are sure to cause death." Somadeva seems here to reply to an argument no reason why one that if it was permissible to take milk there was should not take beef. Exactly this opinion is put in the mouth of the leader of the Rahamana sect in the Jaina allegorical play Moharaja-Parajaya written about two centuries later, wherein he declares that just as one takes cow's milk, similarly one may take also cow's flesh without incurring sin. Rahamana says further that according to Dhanika , Dharma consists in We do not know anything about this the killing of Brahmana ascetics." Rahamana who appears in the play along with the Kaula and the Kapalika, but the views attributed to him might very well represent those of the Muslims. It is not clear whether Somadeva had in mind the views of any particular sect or community while making the statements cited above , but it was not impossible for him to have been acquainted with Muslim customs, since the contact between Indian and Muslim cultures goes back to a date at least two centuries earlier than the composition of his Yasastilaka . age. The conflict of religions in the Deccan in the tenth century should not blind us to the general spirit of toleration prevailing in the Much important evidence has been adduced by scholars to prove the existence of concord and harmony in the sphere of religion , and we have referred elsewhere to isolated attempts at a synthesis of divergent philosophical and religious views in the century. 1 Aiyangar: Manimekhalai in its historical setting, pp. 57, 193. 2 suddham dugdham na gormasam vastuvaicitryamidrsam | visasnam ratnamaheyam visam ca vipade yatah || athava, heyam palam payah peyam same satyapi karane | visadrorayuse patram mulam tu mrtaye matam || ____3 rahamanah - ( satopam ) jaha pijjai gocchiram palasane taha ya natthi so doso | ittha ya ligithavahane dhammo di tti dhaniena || 4. 24. 4 See Chap. IX.