jaina akaranga sutra

The Akaranga Sutra

Gaina Sutras

Principle author: Mahavira

Translated from Prakrit by Hermann Jacobi

Edited by F. Max Muller

introduction

THE origin and development of the Gaina sect is a subject on which some scholars still think it safe to speak with a sceptical caution, though this seems little warranted by the present state of the whole question; for a large and ancient literature has been made accessible, and furnishes ample materials for the early history of the sect to all who are willing to collect them. Nor is the nature of these materials such as to make us distrust them. We know that the sacred books of the Gainas are old, avowedly older than the Sanskrit literature which we are accustomed to call classical. Regarding their antiquity, many of those books can vie with the oldest books of the northern Buddhists.

As the latter works have successfully been used as materials for the history of Buddha and Buddhism, we can find no reason why we should distrust the sacred books of the Gainas as an authentic source of their history. If they were full of contradictory statements, or the dates contained in them would lead to contradictory conclusions, we should be justified in viewing all theories based on such materials with suspicion. But the character of the Gaina literature differs little in this respect also from the Buddhistical, at least from that of the northern Buddhists.

How is it then that so many writers are inclined to accord a different age and origin to the Gaina sect from what can be deduced from their own literature? The obvious reason is the similarity, real or apparent, which European scholars have discovered between Gainism and Buddhism. Two sects which have so much in common could not, it was thought, have been independent from each other, but one sect must needs have grown out of, or branched off from the other.

This a priori opinion has prejudiced the discernment of many critics, and still does so. In the following pages I shall try to destroy this prejudice, and to vindicate that authority and credit of the sacred books of the Gainas to which they are entitled. We begin our discussion with an inquiry about Mahavira, the founder or, at least, the last prophet of the Gaina church. It will be seen that enough is known of him to invalidate the suspicion that he is a sort of mystical person, invented or set up by a younger sect some centuries after the pretended age of their assumed founder.

The Gainas, both Svetambaras and Digambaras, state that Mahavira was the son of king Siddhartha of Kundapura or Kundagrama. They would have us believe that Kundagrama was a large town, and Siddhartha a powerful monarch. But they have misrepresented the matter in overrating the real state of things, just as the Buddhists did with regard to Kapilavastu and Suddhodana. For Kundagrama is called in the Akaranga Sutra a samnivesa, a term which the commentator interprets as denoting a halting-place of caravans or processions.

It must therefore have been an insignificant place, of which tradition has only recorded that it lay in Videha (Akaranga Sutra II, 15, section 17). Yet by combining occasional hints in the Bauddha and Gaina scriptures we can, with sufficient accuracy, point out where the birthplace of Mahavira was situated; for in the Mahavagga of the Buddhists [1] we read that Buddha, while sojourning at Kotiggama, was visited by the courtezan Ambapali and the Likkhavis of the neighbouring capital Vesali. From Kotiggama he went to where the Natikas [2] (lived). There he lodged in the Natika Brick-hall [2], in the neighbourhood of which place the courtezan that Siddhartha was but a baron; for he is frequently called merely Kshatriya–his wife Trisala is, so far as I remember, never styled Devi, queen, but always Kshatriyani.

Whenever the Gnatrika Kshatriyas are mentioned, they are never spoken of as Siddhartha's Samantas or dependents, but are treated as his equals. From all this it appears that Siddhartha was no king, nor even the head of his clan, but in all probability only exercised the degree of authority which in the East usually falls to the share of landowners, especially of those belonging to the recognised aristocracy of the country. Still he may have enjoyed a greater influence than many of his fellow-chiefs; for he is recorded to have been highly connected by marriage. His wife Trisala was sister to Ketaka, king of Vaisali [1]. She is called Vaidehi or Videhadatta [2], because she belonged to the reigning line of Videha.

Buddhist works do not mention, for aught I know, Ketaka, king of Vaisali; but they tell us that the government of Vesali was vested in a senate composed of the nobility and presided over by a king, who shared the power with a viceroy and a general-in-chief [3]. In Gaina books we still have traces of this curious government of the Likkhavis; for in the Nirayavali Sutra [4] it is related that king Ketaka, whom Kunika, al. Agatasatru, king of Kampa, prepared to attack with a strong army, called together the eighteen confederate kings of Kasi and Kosala, the Likkhavis and Mallakis, and asked them whether they would satisfy Kunika's demands or go to war with him.

Again, on the death of Mahavira the eighteen confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival to be held in memory of that event [5], but no separate mention is made of Ketaka, their pretended sovereign. It is therefore probable that Ketaka was simply one of these confederate kings and of equal power with them. In addition to this, his power was checked by the constitution of Vesali. So we are enabled to understand why the Buddhists took no notice of him, as his influence was not very great, and, besides, was used in the interest of their rivals. But the Gainas cherished the memory of the maternal uncle and patron of their prophet, to whose influence we must attribute the fact, that Vaisali used to be a stronghold of Gainism, while being looked upon by the Buddhists as a seminary of heresies and dissent.

We have traced the connection of Mahavira's family not out of mere curiosity, which indiscriminately collects all historical facts however insignificant in themselves, but for the reason that the knowledge of this connection enables us to understand how Mahavira came to obtain his success. By birth he as well as Buddha was a member of a feudal aristocracy similar to that of the Yadavas in the legends about Krishna, or that of the Rajpoots of the present day. In feudal societies family ties are very strong and long remembered [1].

Now we know for certain that Buddha at least addressed himself chiefly to the members of the aristocracy, that the Gainas originally preferred the Kshatriyas to the Brahmans [2]. It is evident that both Mahavira and Buddha have made use of the interest and support of their families to propagate their order. Their prevalence over other rivals was certainly due in some degree to their connection with the chief families of the country.

Through his mother Mahavira was related to the ruling dynasty in Magadha; for Ketaka's daughter Kellana [3] was married to Seniya Bimbhisara [4] or Bimbisara, king of Magadha, and residing in Ragagriha. He is praised by the Gainas and Buddhists, as the friend and patron of both

The following table gives the names of the relations of Mahavira, or, as we should call him when not speaking of him as a prophet of the Gainas, Vardhamana or Gnatriputra [1]:–

I do not intend to write a full life of Mahavira, but to collect only such details which show him at once a distinct historical person, and as different from Buddha in the most important particulars. Vardhamana was, like his father, a Kasyapa. He seems to have lived in the house of his parents till they died, and his elder brother, Nandivardhana, succeeded to what principality they had. Then, at the age of twenty-eight, he, with the consent of those in power, entered the spiritual career, which in India, just as the church in Roman Catholic countries, seems to have offered a field for the ambition of younger sons. For twelve years he led a life of austerities, visiting even the wild tribes of the country called Radha. After the first year he went about naked [2].

From the end of these twelve years of preparatory self-mortification dates Vardhamana's Kevaliship. Since that time he was recognised as omniscient, as a prophet of the Gainas, or a Tirthakara, and had the titles Gina, Mahavira, which were also given to Sakyamuni. The last thirty years of his life he passed in teaching his religious system and organising his order of ascetics, which, as we have seen above, was patronised or at least countenanced chiefly by those princes with whom he was related through his mother, viz. Ketaka, Srenika, and Kunika, the kings of Videha, Magadha, and Anga. In the towns which lay in these parts he spent almost all the rainy seasons during his spiritual career [1], though he extended his travels as far west and north as Sravasti and the foot of the Himalaya. The names of his chief disciples, the eleven Ganadharas or apostles of the Gainas, as detailed in the Kalpa Sutra (List of Sthaviras, section 1), are given without any variation by both divisions of the church, the Svetambaras and Digambaras.

Of the details of Mahavira's life, mentioned in the canonical books, his rivalry with, and victory over Gosala, the son of Makkhali, and lastly, the place of his death, the small town Papa, deserve to be noticed. Nor are we by any means forced to rely on the tradition of the Gainas only, since for some particulars we have the testimony of the Buddhists also, in whose writings Mahavira is mentioned under his well-known name Nataputta, as the head of the Niganthas or Gaina monks and a rival of Buddha. They only misstated his Gotra as that of Agnivaisyayana; in this particular they confounded him with his chief apostle Sudharman, the only one of all the apostles who survived him and took the lead in the church after his teacher's death. Mahavira being a contemporary of Buddha, they both had the same contemporaries, viz. Bimbisara and his sons, Abhayakumara and Agatasatru, the Likkhavis and Mallas, Gosala Makkhaliputra, whom we accordingly meet with in the sacred books of either sect.

From the Buddhist Pitakas it appears, as we have seen above, that Mahavira's followers were very numerous in Vaisali, a fact that is in perfect accordance with what the Gainas relate about his birth in the vicinity of that town, and which at the same time well agrees with his connection with the chief magistrate of the place. In addition to this, some tenets of the Niganthas, e. g. the Kiriyavada and the belief that water is inhabited by souls, are mentioned in the sacred books of the Buddhists, in perfect accordance with the Gaina creed. Lastly, the Buddhists are correct in assuming the town Papa as the scene of Nataputta's death.

Comparing this outline of Mahavira's life with that of Buddha's, we can detect little or nothing in the former which can be suspected as having been formed after the latter by tradition. The general resemblance between the lives of both is due to their being lives of ascetics, which from the nature of the things must present some uniformity, which certainly will appear greater to the mind of a European historian of our times than to that of an ancient Hindu. Some names of Mahavira's relations are similar to those of Buddha's: the former's wife was Yasoda, the latter's Yasodhara; the former's elder brother was Nandivardhana, the latter's step-brother Nanda; Buddha's name as a prince was Siddhartha, which was the name of Mahavira's father. But if the similarity of these names proves anything, it proves no more than that names of this description were much used then among the Kshatriyas, as surely they were at all times [1]. Nor is it to be wondered at that two Kshatriyas should have founded sects in opposition, or at least in disregard to the authority of the Brahmans. For, as I shall try to prove in the sequel, the Kshatriyas were the most likely of all to become what the Brahmans would call 'untrue ascetics.'

We shall now put side by side the principal events of Buddha's and Mahavira's lives, in order to demonstrate their difference. Buddha was born in Kapilavastu, Mahavira in a village near Vaisali; Buddha's mother died after his birth, Mahavira's parents lived to see him a grown-up man; Buddha turned ascetic during the lifetime and against the will of his father, Mahavira did so after the death of his parents and with the consent of those in power; Buddha led a life of austerities for six years, Mahavira for twelve; Buddha thought these years wasted time, and that all his penances were useless for attaining his end, Mahavira was convinced of the necessity of his penances [1], and persevered in some of them even after becoming a Tirthakara.

Amongst Buddha's opponents Gosala Makkhaliputra is by no means so prominent as amongst Mahavira's, nor among the former do we meet Gamali, who caused the first schism in the Gaina church. All the disciples of Buddha bear other names than those of Mahavira. To finish this enumeration of differences, Buddha died in Kusinagara, whereas Mahavira died in Papa, avowedly before the former.

I have dwelt so long on the subject of Mahavira's life in order to make the reader acquainted with facts which must decide the question whether the origin of Gainism was independent of Buddhism or not. Though most scholars do not go the length of denying that Mahavira and Buddha were different persons, yet some will not admit that this decides the question at issue. Professor Weber, in his learned treatise on the literature of the Gainas [2], says that he still regards 'the Gainas merely as one of the oldest sects of Buddhism. According to my opinion,' he writes, 'this is not precluded by the tradition about the origin of its founder having partly made use of another person than Buddha Sakyamuni; nay, even of one whose name is frequently mentioned in Buddhist legends as one of Buddha's contemporary opponents. This rather suggests to me that the Gainas intentionally disowned Buddha, being driven to this extremity by the animosity of sect. The number and importance of coincidences in the tradition of either sect regarding their founders is, on the whole, overwhelming.'

Professor Weber's last argument, the very one on which he seems to base his theory, has, according to my opinion, been fully refuted by our preceding inquiry. This theory, in itself, would require the strongest proof before we could admit it as even probable. Generally, heterodox sects claim to be the most authentic and correct interpreters of the words and tenets of their founders. If a sect begins to recognise another authority than that of the original founder of the main church, it either adopts another faith already in existence, or starts a new one. In the first case the previous existence of the Gaina faith in some form or other has to be admitted; in the second we must suppose that the malcontent Buddhists searched in their scriptures for an opponent of Buddha, on whom they might foist their heretical theories, a course in which they were not followed by any other of the many sects of Buddhism.

Now, granted for argument's sake, that they really did what they are charged with, they must have proceeded with the utmost dexterity, making use of, and slightly altering all occasional hints about the Niganthas and Nataputta which they were able to hunt up in their ancient scriptures, inventing new facts, and fabricating documents of their own, which to all, not in the secret, would seem just as trustworthy as those of their opponents. Indeed the Buddhistical and Gaina traditions about Mahavira, the circumstances in, and the people with whom he lived, so very well tally with, complete and correct each other that the most natural and plausible way to account for this fact, which our preceding inquiry has established, seems to be that both traditions are, in the main, independent of each other, and record what, at the time of their attaining a fixed form, was regarded as historical truth.

We shall now consider the resemblance between Buddhism and Gainism which has struck so many writers on this topic and greatly influenced their opinion regarding their mutual relation. Professor Lassen [1] adduces four points of coincidence which, according to his opinion, prove that the Gainas have branched off from the Bauddhas. We shall discuss them one after the other.

Both sects give the same titles or epithets to their prophets: Gina, Arhat, Mahavira, Sarvagna, Sugata, Tathagata, Siddha, Buddha, Sambuddha, Parinivrita, Mukta, All these words occur more or less frequently in the writings of both sects; but there is this difference, that with the exception of Gina, and perhaps Sramana, the preference is given to some set of titles by one sect, and to another set by the rival sect; e. g. Buddha, Tathagata, Sugata, and Sambuddha are common titles of Sakyamuni, and are only occasionally used as epithets of Mahavira.

The case is exactly reverse with regard to Vira and Mahavira, the usual titles of Vardhamana. More marked still is the difference with regard to Tirthakara, meaning prophet with the Gainas, but founder of an heretical sect with the Bauddhas. What then may be safely inferred from the peculiar choice which either sect made from these epithets and titles? That the Gainas borrowed them from the older Buddhists? I think not. For if these words had once been fixed as titles, or gained some special meaning beyond the one warranted by etymology, they could only have been adopted or rejected. But it was not possible that a word which had acquired some special meaning should have been adopted, but used in the original sense by those who borrowed it from the Buddhists.

The most natural construction we can put on the facts is, that there was and is at all times a number of honorific adjectives and substantives applicable to persons of exalted virtue. These words were used as epithets in their original meaning by all sects; but some were selected as titles for their prophets, a choice in which they were directed either by the fitness of the word itself, or by the fact that such or such a word was already appropriated by heterodox sects as a title for their highest authority. Thus the etymological meaning of Tirthakara is founder of a religion, prophet, and accordingly this title was adopted by the Gainas and other sects, whereas the Buddhists did not adopt it in this sense, but in that of an heterodox or heretical teacher, showing thereby their enmity towards those who used Tirthakara as an honorific title.

Again, Buddha is commonly used in about the same sense as mukta, that is a liberated soul, and in this meaning it is still employed in Gaina writings, whilst with the Buddhists the word has become a title of their prophet. The only conclusion which might be forced from these facts is, that the Buddhists at the time when they formed their terminology were opponents of the Gainas, but not vice versa.

Lassen, as a second argument in favour of the priority of Buddhism, adduces the fact that both sects worship mortal men, their prophets, like gods, and erect statues of them in their temples. As Buddhism and Gainism excepted none of the many sects, the founders of which pretended, like Buddha or Mahavira, to omniscience and absolute perfection have continued long enough to come within the reach of our knowledge–and all or many of them may, for aught we know, have given the same divine honours to their saints, as the Buddhists and Gainas did to their own prophets–it cannot be alleged that the practice of the Buddhists rather than of any other sect was imitated by the Gainas, or vice versa.

On the contrary, there is nothing in the notion of Buddha that could have favoured the erecting of statues and temples for his followers to worship them, but rather much that is inconsistent with this kind of adoration. While the Gainas commit no inconsistency in worshipping Mahavira in his apotheosis. But I believe that this worship had nothing to do with original Buddhism or Gainism, that it did not originate with the monks, but with the lay community, when the people in general felt the want of a higher cult than that of their rude deities and demons, and when the religious development of India found in the Bhakti the supreme means of salvation.

Therefore instead of seeing in the Buddhists the originals, and in the Gainas the imitators, with regard to the erection of temples and worship of statues, we assume that both sects were, independently from each other, brought to adopt this practice by the perpetual and irresistible influence of the religious development of the people in India.

The third point of resemblance between both sects, the stress which is laid on the ahimsa or not killing of living beings, will be treated more fully in the sequel. For this reason I quickly pass over to Professor Lassen's fourth argument, viz. that the Buddhists and Gainas measure the history of the world by those enormous periods of time which bewilder and awe even the most imaginative fancy.

We have postponed the discussion of Professor Lassen's third argument, the ahimsa, because it will be better treated together with the other moral precepts of both sects. Professor Weber [1] has pointed out the near relation existing between the five great vows of the Gainas and the five cardinal sins and virtues of the Buddhists; and Professor Windisch [2] has compared the Gaina vows (mahavrata) with the ten obligations of the Buddhists (dasasil).

The Ten Precepts for the Buddhist ascetics are the following [3]:

  1. I take the vow not to destroy life.
  2. I take the vow not to steal.
  3. I take the vow to abstain from impurity.
  4. I take the vow not to lie.
  5. I take the vow to abstain from intoxicating drinks which hinder progress and virtue.
  6. I take the vow not to eat at forbidden times.
  7. I take the vow to abstain from dancing, singing, music, and stage plays.
  8. I take the vow not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments.
  9. I take the vow not to use a high or broad bed.
  10. I take the vow not to receive gold or silver.

The Buddhists have also Eight Precepts (atthangasila), of which the first five (pankasila) are binding, on every Buddhist, while the rest are only recommended to pious laymen [1]:

  1. One should not destroy life.
  2. One should not take that which is not given.
  3. One should not tell lies.
  4. One should not become a drinker of intoxicating drinks.
  5. One should refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse–an ignoble thing.
  6. One should not eat unseasonable food at nights.
  7. One should not wear garlands or use perfumes.
  8. One should sleep on a mat spread on the ground.

The five Buddhist vows nearly agree with those of the Gaina ascetics, viz.:

  1. Not to destroy life (ahimsa).
  2. Not to lie (sunrita).
  3. Not to take that which is not given (asteya).
  4. To abstain from sexual intercourse (brahmakarya).
  5. To renounce all interest in worldly things, especially to call nothing one's own (aparigraha).

The fifth precept of the Gainas is much more comprehensive than the corresponding one of the Buddhists, but the other precepts are the same, in a different order, as Nos. 1-4 of the Buddhists. The agreement is indeed so striking that it would seem hard to avoid the conclusion that one sect borrowed their precepts from the other. Yet the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas were the borrowers, would still remain an open one. It can be shown, however, that neither the Buddhists nor the Gainas have in this regard any claim to originality, but that both have only adopted the five vows of the Brahmanic ascetics (samnyasin). The latter must keep the following five vows [2]:

  1. Abstention from injuring living beings.
  2. Truthfulness.
  3. Abstention from appropriating the property of others.
  4. Continence.
  5. Liberality.

And five minor vows:

  1. Abstention from anger.
  2. Obedience towards the Guru.
  3. Avoidance of rashness.
  4. Cleanliness.
  5. Purity in eating.

The first four great vows of the Samnyasin agree with those of the Gaina Bhikshu, and are enumerated in the same order. It is therefore probable that the Gainas have borrowed their own vows from the Brahmans, not from the Buddhists, because the latter have changed the order of the vows, making truthfulness either the third or fourth cardinal virtue instead of giving it the second place. Besides it is highly improbable that they should have imitated the Buddhists, when they had in the Brahmanic ascetics much older and more respected models.

It is worth remarking that the fifth great vow or precept is peculiar to each of the three religious systems, probably because the Brahmanic fifth vow, viz. liberality, could not be enjoined on mendicants such as the monks of the Buddhists and Gainas were. The Gainas previous to Mahavira's time had only four great vows, since the fourth was included in the fifth. But Mahavira brought the number of the vows again up to five, a number which seems to have been regarded as solemn, since the Buddhists have adopted it likewise in their moral code.

Our foregoing inquiry suggests where we have to look for the originals of the monastic orders of the Gainas and Buddhists. The Brahmanic ascetic was their model, from which they borrowed many important practices and institutions of ascetic life. This observation is not an entirely new one. Professor Max Muller has already, in his Hibbert Lectures (p. 351), started a similar opinion; likewise Professor Buhler, in his translation of the Baudhayana Sutra:

11. An ascetic shall not possess (any) store [2].' The Gaina and Buddhist monks are also forbidden to have anything which they could call their own. See the fifth vow of the Gainas (aparigraha). Even those things which the Gaina monk always carries about himself, as clothes, alms-bowl, broom, are not regarded as his property, but as things necessary for the exercise of religious duties (dharmopakarana).

12. (He must be) chaste.' This is the fourth great vow of the Gainas and in Baudhayana, the fifth of the Buddhists.

13. 'He must not change his residence during the rainy season [3].' Buhler remarks in a note: 'This rule shows that the Vasso of the Bauddhas and Gainas is also derived from a Brahmanic source.'

14. 'He shall enter a village only in order to beg.' The Gainas are not so strict in this respect, as they allow a monk to sleep in a village or town. However he must not stay too long [4]. Mahavira did not stay longer than one night in a village or five nights in a town [5].

15. 'He shall beg late (after people have finished their meals), without returning twice [6].' The Gaina monks collect food in the morning or at noon, probably to avoid meeting with their rivals. They generally but once in a day go out begging; but one who has fasted for more than one day may go a begging twice a day [7].

16. 'Abandoning all desires (for sweet food).' The same is prescribed in the fourth clause of the fifth great vow of the Gainas [1], and is, besides, the apparent motive in many rules for the acceptance or rejection of alms.

17. 'He shall restrain his speech, his eyes, (and) his actions.' This nearly agrees with the three Guptis of the Gainas, or the restraining of the mind, speech, and body [2].

18. 'He shall wear a cloth to cover his nakedness [3].' The Gaina rules about dress are not so simple; for they allow a Gaina to go naked or to wear one, two, or three garments, but a young, strong monk should as a rule wear but one robe [4]. Mahavira went about naked [5], and so did the Ginakalpikas, or those who tried to imitate him as much as possible. But they also were allowed to cover their nakedness [6].

19. 'Some (declare that he shall wear) an old rag after having washed it.' Baudhayana [7] says: 'He shall wear a dress dyed yellowish-red.' This rule agrees more with the practice of the Buddhists than that of the Gainas. The latter are forbidden to wash or dye their clothes, but they must wear them in the same condition in which they are given [8]. However, the Gainas have only carried into the extreme the original intention of the Brahmanic rule, viz. that the dress of ascetics should be as simple and mean as possible. For they seem to take a sort of pride in outdoing their Brahmanic rivals as regards rigorous conduct, mistaking nastiness and filthiness for the highest pitch of ascetic virtue [9], while on the other hand the Buddhists studied to bring their conduct in accordance with the dictates of humanity.

20. 'He shall not take parts of plants and trees except such as have become detached (spontaneously).' The Gainas have the same precept, but they go still farther
in allowing a Gaina to eat only such vegetables, fruits, as have no trace of life left [1].

21. 'Out of season he shall not dwell a second night in (the same) village.' We have seen above that Mahavira carried out this precept whatever may have been the practice of the monks in general.

22. 'He may either shave or wear a lock on the crown of the head.' The Gainas have improved on this rule as they make baldness binding for all monks. According to Baudhayana [2] a Brahman on becoming an ascetic had to cause 'the hair of his head, his beard, the hair on his body, and his nails to be cut.' The same practice, at least as regards the cutting of the hair, was observed by the Gainas on the same occasion. Hence the phrase: 'becoming bald (or tearing out one's hair) to leave the house and enter the state of houselessness [3].'

23. 'He shall avoid the destruction of seeds.' The reader will observe, in many passages of the second book of the Akaranga Sutra, how careful Gaina monks should be of avoiding to injure eggs, living beings, seeds, sprouts, It seems therefore that the Gainas have only generalised the above rule in applying it to all small beings of the animal and vegetable world.

24. (He shall be) indifferent towards (all) creatures, whether they do him an injury or a kindness.'

25. 'He shall not undertake (anything for his temporal or spiritual welfare).'

The last two rules could just as well be taken from a sacred book of the Gainas, for they are in full. accordance with the drift of their religion. Mahavira strictly carried them out. 'More than four months many sorts of living beings gathered on his body, crawled about it, and caused there pain [4].' 'Always well guarded, he bore the pains (caused by) grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats; manifold pains [5].' 'He with equanimity bore, underwent, and suffered all pleasant or unpleasant occurrences, arising from divine powers, men, or animals [1].' It is frequently said of the ascetic in the last stage of his spiritual career that 'he does desire neither life nor death [2].'

There are some more precepts in Baudhayana which bear a close resemblance to such of the Gainas. 'With the three means of punishment, (viz.) words, thoughts, and acts, he shall not injure created beings [3].' This is only an amplification of the first great vow .

'He shall carry a cloth for straining water for the sake of purification.' 'He shall perform the necessary purifications with water which has been taken out (of a well or a tank) and has been strained [5].' These rules are strictly observed by the Gaina monks. They also carry a cloth for straining water. The commentator Govinda explains pavitra, a cloth for straining water,' by 'a bunch of Kusa grass for removing insects from the road [6]: If Govinda be right, and had the authority of a really old tradition, which I do not doubt, we have here the Brahmanic counterpart of the broom (ragoharana or padapronkhana) with which the Gaina monks sweep the road and the place where they walk or sit down, for removing insects.

The outfit of a Brahmanic ascetic consists in sticks, a rope, a cloth for straining water, a water vessel, and an almsbowl [7]: The Gaina monks also carry sticks, at least now-a-days, though I remember no passage in the Pitakas expressly allowing the use of a stick. They have also a rope belonging to the alms-bowl [8], an alms-bowl, and a water vessel [9]. Of the cloth for straining water, and the broom, we have already spoken. The filter for the mouth (mukhavastrika) remains as the only article exclusively used by the Gainas. On the whole, therefore, the Gainas were outfitted very much like their Brahmanic models, the Samnyasins or Bhikshus.

'Let him eat food, given without asking, regarding which nothing has been settled beforehand, and which has reached him accidentally, so much only as is sufficient to sustain life [1].' The reader will find on perusing the Gaina 'rules for begging [2]' that only that food is considered pure and acceptable' which has been obtained under exactly the same circumstances as have been laid down in the above rule of Baudhayana for Brahmanic ascetics. The Buddhists are not so strict in this regard, as they accept invitations for dinner, of course, prepared especially for them.

From the comparison which we have just instituted between the rules for the Brahmanic ascetic and those for the Gaina monk, it will be apparent that the latter is but a copy of the former. But now the question may be raised whether the Nirgrantha is a direct copy of the Samnyasin, or an indirect one. For it might be assumed that the Nirgrantha copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu, who himself was but a copy of the Samnyasin. As I have hinted above, this suggestion is not a probable one, for there being a model of higher antiquity and authority, the Gainas would probably have conformed rather to it than to the less respected and second-hand model of their rivals, the Buddhists. But besides this prima facie argument against the assumption in question, the adoption of certain Brahmanic rules, noticed above, by the Ginas, which were not followed by the Buddhists, proves that the latter were not the model of the former.

There remains another possibility, but a still more improbable one, viz. that the Brahmanic ascetic copied the Buddhist Bhikkhu or Gaina monk. I say still more improbable, because, firstly, the Samnyasin makes part of the system of the four stages, or Asramas, which if not so old as Brahmanism itself, is at least much older than both Buddhism and Gainism; secondly, the Brahmanic ascetics were scattered all over India, while the Buddhists were confined, at least in the first two centuries of their church, to a small part of the country, and therefore could not have been imitated by all the Samnyasins; thirdly, Gautama, the lawgiver, was certainly older than the rise of Buddhism.

For Professor Buhler thinks that the lower limit for the composition of the Apastamba Sara must be placed in the fourth or fifth century B.C. [1] Baudhayana is older than Apastamba; according to Buhler [2], the distance in years between them must be measured rather by centuries than by decades. Again, Gautama is older than Baudhayana [3]. Gautama, therefore, and perhaps Baudhayana, must have lived before the rise of Buddhism, and as the former teaches already the complete system of Brahmanic ascetism, he cannot have borrowed it from the Buddhists. But if Buhler should be wrong in his estimation of the time when those codes of sacred laws were composed, and if they should turn out to be younger than the rise of Buddhism, they certainly cannot be so by many centuries.

Even in that case, which is not a probable one, those lawgivers are not likely to have largely borrowed from the Buddhists whom the Brahmans at that time must have despised as false pretenders of a recent origin. They would certainly not have regarded laws as sacred which were evidently appropriated from heretics. On the other hand the Buddhists had no reason not to borrow from the Brahmans, because they greatly respected the latter for the sake of their intellectual and moral superiority. Hence the Gainas and Buddhists use the word Brahmana as an honorific title, applying it even to persons who did not belong to the caste of Brahmans.

It may be remarked that the monastical order of the Gainas and Buddhists though copied from the Brahmans were chiefly and originally intended for Kshatriyas. Buddha addressed himself in the first line to noble and rich men, as has been pointed out by Professor Oldenberg [4]. For

On the other hand it is probable that Brahmanic ascetics did not regard fellow-ascetics of other castes as quite their equals, though they were just as orthodox as themselves. For in later times the opinion prevailed that only Brahmans were entitled to enter the fourth Asrama, and as a proof for this theory a verse of Manu, VI, 97, as Professor Buhler informs me, was quoted. But not all commentators drew the same inference from that verse. Leaving aside this controverted point, it certainly became, in later times, the custom that a Brahman, as a rule, passed through four, a nobleman through three, a citizen through two, a Sudra through one of the four Asramas [1].

From all this it becomes probable that the non-Brahmanic ascetics even in early times were regarded as an order separate and distinguished from the Brahmanic ascetics. We can understand that this position of non-Brahmanic ascetics led to the formation of sects inclining to dissent. That the untrue ascetics had such an origin, may be collected from a remark of Vasishtha. It is known that the performance of religious ceremonies was discontinued by the ascetics, but some went beyond this and discontinued the recitation of the Veda. Against transgressors of this kind Vasishtha [2] has the following quotation: 'Let him discontinue the performance of all religious ceremonies, but let him never discontinue the recitation of the Veda.

By neglecting the Veda he becomes a Sudra; therefore he shall not neglect it.' An inhibition pronounced so emphatically presupposes the real occurrence of the practices forbidden. If therefore some ascetics already had ceased to recite the Veda, we may conclude that others began to disregard it as revelation and the highest authority. That those who were regarded as a sort of inferior ascetics, the non-Brahmanic ascetics, were most likely to make this step, is easy to imagine.

We see thus that the germs of dissenting sects like those of the Buddhists and the Gainas were contained in the institute of the fourth Asrama, and that the latter was the model of the heretical sects; therefore Buddhism and Gainism must be regarded as religions developed out of Brahmanism not by a sudden reformation, but prepared by a religious movement going on for a long time.

We have seen that neither the Gaina legends about their last prophet, nor the ascetic life ordained for Gaina monks, nor any other religious practices adhered to by the faithful, warrant our assuming that the Gaina sect has developed, in one way or other, out of the Buddhistical church. It remains for me to show that the difference of both creeds as regards the principal tenets is such as not to admit a common origin.

Whatever Buddha may have taught and thought about the state of Nirvana, whether he went the length to identify it with absolute non-existence, or imagined it to be a sort of existence different from all we know or can conceive, it is beyond doubt, and a striking feature of Buddha's philosophy, that he combated the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, as being the absolute and permanent soul, according to the pantheist as well as the monadic point of view. But the Gainas fully concur in the Brahmanic theory of the Atman, with only this difference, that they ascribe to the Atmans a limited space, while the Brahmans of the Sankhya, Nyaya, and Vaiseshika schools contend that the Atmans are co-extensive with the universe. On the other hand, the Buddhistical theory of the five Skandhas with their numerous subdivisions have no counterpart in the psychology of the Gainas.

A characteristic dogma of the Gainas which pervades their whole philosophical system and code of morals, is the hylozoistic theory that not only animals and plants, but also the smallest particles of the elements, earth, fire, water, and wind, are endowed with souls (giva). No such dogma, on the other hand, is contained in the philosophy of the Buddhists.

To Indian philosophers the various degrees of knowledge up to omniscience are matters of great moment. The Gainas have a theory of their own on this head, and a terminology which differs from that of the Brahmanic philosophers and of the Buddhists. Right knowledge, they say, is fivefold: mati, right perception; sruta, clear knowledge based on mati; avadhi, a sort of supernatural knowledge; manahparyaya, clear knowledge of the thoughts of others; kevala, the highest degree of knowledge, consisting in omniscience. This psychological theory is a fundamental one of the Gainas, as it is always before the mind of the authors of the sacred books when describing the spiritual career of the saints. But we search in vain for something analogous in the Buddhist scriptures.

We could multiply the instances of difference between the fundamental tenets of both sects, but we abstain from it, fearing to tire the reader's patience with an enumeration of all such cases. Such tenets as the Gainas share with the Buddhists, both sects have in common with the Brahmanic philosophers, e.g. the belief in the regeneration of souls, the theory of the Karman, or merit and demerit resulting from former actions, which must take effect in this or another birth, the belief that by perfect knowledge and good conduct man can avoid the necessity of being born again and again,

Even the theory that from time immemorial prophets (Buddhas or Tirthakaras) have proclaimed the same dogmas and renewed the sinking faith, has its Brahmanic counterpart in the Avataras of Vishnu. Besides, such a theory is a necessary consequence both of the Buddhistical and Gaina creed. For what Buddha or Mahavira had revealed was, of course, regarded by the followers of either as truth and the only truth; this truth must have existed from the beginning of time, like the Veda of the Brahmans; but could the truth have remained unknown during the infinite space of time elapsed before the appearance of the prophet? No, would answer the pious believer in Buddhism or Gainism, that was impossible; but the true faith was revealed in different periods by numberless prophets, and so it will be in the time to come.

The theory of former prophets seems, therefore, to be a natural consequence of both religions; besides, it was not wholly unfounded on facts, at least as regards the Gainas. For the Nirgranthas are never spoken of in the Buddhist writings as a newly risen sect, nor Nataputta as their founder. Accordingly the Nirgranthas were probably an old sect at the time of Buddha, and Nataputta only the reformer of the Gaina church, which may have been founded by the twenty-third Tirthakara, Parsva. But what seems astonishing is the fact that the Gainas and Bauddhas have hit on nearly the same number of prophets believed to have risen since the creation of the present order of things, the former worshipping twenty-four Tirthakaras, the latter twenty-five Buddhas.

I do not deny that in developing this theory one sect was influenced by the other; but I firmly believe that it cannot be made out which of the two sects first invented, or borrowed from the Brahmans, this theory. For if the twenty-five Buddhas were worshipped by the Buddhists of the first centuries after the Nirvana, the belief in twenty-four Tirthakaras is equally old, as it is common to the Digambaras and Svetambaras, who separated probably in the second century after the Nirvana. However the decision of the question whether the Buddhists or the Gainas originally invented the theory of the succession of prophets, matters little; it cannot influence the result to which the previous discussion has led us, viz. that Gainism had an origin independent from Buddhism, that it had a development of its own, and did not largely borrow from the rival sect; (a) that both Gainism and Buddhism owed to the Brahmans, especially the Samnyasins, the groundwork of their philosophy, ethics, and cosmogony.

Our discussion has as yet been conducted on the supposition that the tradition of the Gainas as contained in their sacred books may on the whole be credited. But the intrinsic value of this tradition has been called into question by a scholar of wide views and cautious judgment.

Mr. Barth, in the Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, vol. iii, p. 90, admits that an historical personage is hidden under Nataputta, but he doubts that valid inferences may be drawn from the sacred books of the Gainas which, avowedly, have been reduced to writing in the fifth century A.D., or nearly a thousand years after the foundation of the sect. For, in his opinion, 'the self-conscient and continuous existence of the sect since that remote epoch, i.e. the direct tradition of peculiar doctrines and records, has not yet been demonstrated. During many centuries,' he says, 'the Gainas had not become distinct from the numerous groups of ascetics who could not boast of more than an obscure floating existence.' The tradition of the Gainas appears to Mr. Barth to have been formed of vague recollections in imitation of the Buddhist tradition.

Mr. Barth seems to base his theory on the assumption that the Gainas must have been careless in handing down their sacred lore, since they formed, for many centuries, but a small and unimportant sect. I cannot see the force of this argument of Mr. Barth's. Is it more likely that a sect of which the not very numerous followers are scattered over a large country, or a church which has to satisfy the religious wants of a great multitude, will better preserve its original tenets and traditions? It is impossible to decide this question on a priori grounds.

The Jews and the Parsis may be adduced as instances in favour of the former view, the Roman Catholic church as one in favour of the latter. But we are not obliged to rely on such generalities in order to decide the question at issue with regard to the Gainas, for they were so far from having only dim notions of their own doctrines that they pronounced as founders of schisms those who differed from the great bulk of the faithful in comparatively unimportant details of belief.

This fact is proved by the tradition about the seven sects of the Svetambaras made known by Dr. Leumann [1]. The Digambaras also, who separated from the Svetambaras probably in the second or third century after the Nirvana, differ from their rivals but little with regard to philosophical tenets; yet they were nevertheless stigmatised by the latter as heretics on account of their rules of conduct.

All these facts show that the Gainas, even previous to the redaction of their sacred books, had not a confused and undefined creed, which would have been liable to become altered and defiled by doctrines adopted from widely different religions, but one in which even the minutest details of belief were fixed.

What has been said about the religious doctrines of the Gainas can also be proved of their historical traditions. For the detailed lists of teachers handed down in the several Gakkhas [2], and those incorporated in their sacred books, show that the Gainas did possess an interest in the history of their church.

I do not deny that a list of teachers may be invented, or an incomplete one filled up or made pakka, as the Hindus would say; the necessity of proving itself to be legitimately descended from a recognised authority may induce a sect to invent the names of a line of teachers. But what could have caused the Gainas to fabricate such a detailed list of teachers, Ganas, and Sakhas as that in the Kalpa Sutra? Of most of the details the Gainas of later times knew nothing beyond what they found in the Kalpa Sutra itself,–and that is unfortunately very little,–nor did they pretend to anything more.

For all practical purposes the short list of Sthaviras, as it stands in the Kalpa Sutra, would have been sufficient; the preservation of the detailed list, containing so many bare names, proves that they must have had an interest for the members of the early church, though the more accurate knowledge of the times and events chronicled in that list was lost after some centuries.

However, it is not enough to have proved that the Gainas, even before the redaction of their sacred books, possessed the qualities necessary for continuing their creed and tradition, and preserving them from corruptions caused by large borrowings from other religious systems; we must also show that they did do what they were qualified to do.

This leads us to a discussion of the age of the extant Gaina literature. For if we succeed in proving that the Gaina literature or at least some of its oldest works were composed many centuries before they were reduced to writing, we shall have reduced, if not closed, the gap separating the prophet of the Gainas from their oldest records.

The redaction of the Gaina canon or the Siddhanta took place, according to the unanimous tradition, on the council of Valabhi, under the presidency of Devarddhi. The date of this event, 980 (or 993) AV., corresponding to 454 (or 467) A.D. [1], is incorporated in the Kalpa Sutra ( section 148). Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddhanta in danger of becoming extinct, caused it to be written in books. Before that time teachers made no use of written books when teaching the Siddhanta to novices, but after that time they did use books. The latter part of this statement is evidently true.

For in olden times books were not used, it being the custom of the Brahmans to rely rather on the memory than on the MSS., and in this they were, almost without doubt, followed by the Gainas and Buddhists. But now-a-days Yatis use MSS. when teaching the sacred lore to their novices. There is no reason why we should not credit the tradition that this change in the method of instruction was brought about by Devarddhi Ganin; for the event was of too great importance not to be remembered. To provide every teacher or at least every Upasraya with copies of the sacred books, Devarddhi Ganin must have issued a large edition of the Siddhanta.

This is probably the meaning of the traditional record that Devarddhi caused the Siddhanta to be written in books, for it is hardly credible that the Gaina monks should never before have attempted to write down what they had to commit to memory; the Brahmans also have MSS. of their sacred books, though they do not use them in handing down the Veda. These MSS. were intended for private use, to aid the memory of the teacher. I make no doubt that the same practice was observed by the Gaina monks, the more so as they were not, like the Brahmans, influenced by any theory of their own not to trust to MSS., but were induced merely by the force of the prevalent custom to hand down their sacred lore by word of mouth.

I do not maintain that the sacred books of the Gainas were originally written in books, for the same argument which has been brought forward to prove that the Buddhist monks could have had no MSS., as they are never mentioned in their sacred books, in which 'every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to [1],' the same argument, I say, holds good with regard to the Gainas as long as the monks led a wandering life; but when the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do now-a-days.

Devarddhi's position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instruction.

Devarddhi's edition of the Siddhanta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of the Siddhanta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhanta, did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved only by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS.

On this premise we now proceed to inquire into the date of the composition of the sacred books of the Gainas. Their own dogmatical theory that all sacred books were revealed by the first Tirthakara, shall only be noticed to be dismissed. We must try to discover better grounds for fixing the age when the chief works of the Siddhanta were composed.

As single passages may have crept into the text at any time, we can draw no valid inferences from them, even if they be sanctioned by Devarddhi's receiving them into his revised text. I attach therefore no great weight to the lists of barbarous or un-Aryan tribes [1], nor to the mention of all seven schisms, the last of which occurred 584 AV. [2] Nothing is more common than that such details should be added as a gloss, or be incorporated even in the text, by those who transmitted it either in writing or in instructing their pupils. But an argument of more weight is the fact that in the Siddhanta we find no traces of Greek astronomy. In fact the Gaina astronomy is a system of incredible absurdity, which would have been impossible, if its author had had the least knowledge of the Greek science. As the latter appears to have been introduced in India about the third or fourth century A.D., it follows that the sacred books of the Gainas were composed before that time.

Another argument which offers itself for fixing the period of the composition of the sacred books, is the language in which they are written. But, unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether the sacred books have been handed down in that language in which they were composed, or in that in which they were pronounced, and transcribed in later generations, according to the then current idiom, till Devarddhi's edition put an end to the modernising of the language of the sacred books.

I am inclined to believe the latter view to be correct, and look upon the absence of a self-consistent orthography of the Gaina Prakrit as the effect of the gradual change of the vernacular language in which the sacred books were recited. In all MSS. of Gaina texts, the same word is not always spelt in the same way.

The differences of spelling refer chiefly to the retention, omission, or attenuation of single consonants between vowels, and the retention of the vowels e, o, before two consonants, or their change in i, u. It is hardly possible that the different spellings of a word should all correctly represent the pronunciation of that word at any given time, eg. bhuta, bhuya; udaga, udaya, uaya; lobha, loha [1], ; but probably we must regard these methods of spelling as historical spellings, that is to say, that all different spellings presented in the MSS. which formed the materials for Devarddhi's edition of the Siddhanta, were looked upon as authentical and were preserved in all later copies of the sacred texts. If this assumption is correct, we must regard the most archaic spellings as representing the pronunciation at or shortly after the epoch of the composition of the sacred books, and the most modern one as representing the pronunciation at or shortly before the redaction of the Siddhanta [1].

Now on comparing the Gaina Prakrit especially in the oldest form attainable with the Pali on one side, and the Prakrit of Hala, Setubandha, on the other, it will appear to approach more the Pali than the later Prakrit. We may therefore conclude that chronologically also the sacred books of the Gainas stand nearer those of the Southern Buddhists than the works of later Prakrit writers.

But we can fix the date of the Gaina literature between still narrower limits by means of the metres employed in the sacred books. I am of opinion that the first book of the Akaranga Sutra and that of the Sutrakritanga Sutra may be reckoned among the most ancient parts of the Siddhanta; the style of both works appears to me to prove the correctness of this assumption.

Now a whole lesson of the Sutrakritanga Sutra is written in the Vaitaliya metre. The same metre is used in the Dhammapadam and other sacred books of the Southern Buddhists. But the Pali verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitaliya than those in the Sutrakritanga, as I shall prove in a paper on the post-Vedic metres soon to be published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Compared with the common Vaitaliya verses of Sanskrit literature, a small number of which occur already in the Lalita Vistara, the Vaitaliya of the Sutrakritanga must be considered to represent an earlier form of the metre. Again, ancient Pali works seem to contain no verses in the Arya metre; at least there is none in the Dhammapadam, nor have I found one in other works. But both the Akaranga and Sutrakritanga contain each a whole lecture in Arya verses of a form which is decidedly older than, and probably the parent of the common Arya. The latter is found in the younger parts of the Siddhanta, in the Brahmanical literature, both in Prakrit and in Sanskrit, and in the works of the Northern Buddhists, e. g. the Lalita Vistara, The form of the Trishtubh metre in ancient Gaina works is younger than that in the Pali literature and older than that in the Lalita Vistara.

Finally the great variety of artificial metres in which the greater number of the Gathas in the Lalita Vistara, is composed and which are wanting in the Gaina Siddhanta, seems to prove that the literary taste of the Gainas was fixed before the composition of the latter works.

From all these facts we must conclude that the chronological position of the oldest parts of the Gaina literature is intermediate between the Pali literature and the composition of the Lalita Vistara. Now the Pali Pitakas were written in books in the time of Vatta Gamani, who began to reign 88 B.C. But they were in existence already some centuries before that time. Professor Max Muller sums up his discussion on that point by saying: 'We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see, at present with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.C. [1]' Additions and alterations may have been made in the sacred texts after that time; but as our argument is not based on a single passage, or even a part of the Dhammapada, but on the metrical laws of a variety of metres in this and other Pali books, the admission of alterations and additions in these books will not materially influence our conclusion, viz. that the whole of the Gaina Siddhanta was composed after the fourth century B.C.

We have seen that the oldest works in the Gaina canon are older than the Gathas in the Lalita Vistara. As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about the distance in time of the questionable date from either limit by the greater or less resemblance of the oldest Gaina works in verse with such of the Southern and Northern Buddhists as regards metrical or stylistic peculiarities, we should place the beginning of the Gaina literature nearer the time of the Pali literature, rather than that of the Northern Buddhists.

This result agrees pretty well with a tradition of the Svetambaras. For they say [1] that after the twelve years' famine, while Bhadrabahu was the head of the church, the Angas were brought together by the Sangha of Pataliputra. Now Bhadrabahu's death is placed 170 AV. by the Svetambaras, and 162 AV. by the Digambaras; he lived therefore, according to the former, under Kandragupta, who is said to have ascended the throne 155 AV. Professor Max Muller assigns to Kandragupta the dates 315-291 B.C.; Westergaard prefers 320 B.C. as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and so does Kern [2]. However this difference matters little: the date of the collection or, perhaps more correctly, the composition of the Gaina canon would fall somewhere about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C.

It is worth noticing, that according to the above-cited tradition, the Sangha of Pataliputra collected the eleven Angas without the assistance of Bhadrabahu. As the latter is claimed by the Digambaras for one of their teachers, and as the Svetambaras, though doing the same, still continue the list of Sthaviras from Sambhutavigaya, Bhadrabahu's fellow Sthavira, not from Bhadrabahu himself, it seems to follow that the Angas, brought together by the Sangha of Pataliputra, formed the canon of the Svetambaras only, not that of the whole Gaina church. In that case we should not go wrong in placing the date of the canon somewhat later, under the patriarchate of Sthulabhadra, i.e. in the first part of the third century B.C.

If the result of our preceding inquiry deserves credit–and I see no counter arguments entitling us to mistrust our conclusion–the origin of the extant Gaina literature cannot be placed earlier than about 300 B.C., or two centuries after the origin of the sect. But we are not from this fact obliged to assume that the Gainas in the time intermediate between their last prophet and the composition of their canon had to rely on nothing more solid than a religious and legendary tradition, never brought into a fixed form. In that case, Mr. Barth's objections to the trustworthiness of the Gaina tradition would, it is true, not be without ground. However, we are told by the Svetambaras, as well as the Digambaras, that besides the Angas, there existed other and probably older works, called Purvas, of which there were originally fourteen.

The knowledge of these Purvas was gradually lost, till at last it became totally extinct. The tradition of the Svetambaras about the fourteen Purvas is this: the fourteen Purvas had been incorporated in the twelfth Anga, the Drishtivada, which was lost before 1000 AV. But a detailed table of contents of it, and consequently of the Purvas, has survived in the fourth Anga, the Samavayanga, and in the Nandi Sutra [1]. Whether the Purvas, contained in the Drishtivada, were the original ones, or, as I am inclined to believe, only abstracts of them, we cannot decide; at all events there has been a more detailed tradition about what they contained.

Now we should as a rule be careful in crediting any tradition about some lost book or books of great antiquity, because such a tradition is frequently invented by an author to furnish his doctrines with an authority from which they may be derived. But in our case, there are no grounds for suspecting the correctness of so general and old a tradition as that about the Purvas. For the Angas do not derive their authority from the Purvas, but are believed to be coeval with the creation of the world. As a fraud, the tradition about the Purvas would therefore be unintelligible; but accepted as truth, it well falls in with our views about the development of the Gaina literature. The name itself testifies to the fact that the Purvas were superseded by a new canon, for purva means former, earlier [1]; and it is assuredly not by accident that the knowledge of the Purvas is said to have commenced to fade away at the same time when the Angas were collected by the Sangha of Pataliputra. For after Bhadrabahu, only ten out of the fourteen Purvas were known.

This then is the most natural interpretation we can place on the tradition about the fourteen Purvas, that they were the oldest sacred books, which however were superseded by a new canon. But as regards the cause of the abolition of the old canon and the composition of a new one, we are left to conjecture, and only as such I shall give my opinion.

We know that the Drishtivada, which included the fourteen Purvas, dealt chiefly with the drishtis or philosophical opinions of the Gainas and other sects. It may be thence inferred that the Purvas related controversies held between Mahavira and rival teachers. The title pravada, which is added to the name of each Purva, seems to affirm this view. Besides, if Mahavira was not the founder of a new sect, but as I have tried to prove, the reformer of an old one, it is very likely that he should vigorously have combated the opinions of his opponents, and defended those he had accepted or improved. The founder of a religion has to establish his own system, he is not so much in danger to become a mere controversialist as a reformer.

Now if the discourses of Mahavira, remembered and handed down by his disciples, were chiefly controversies, they must have lost their interest when the opponents of Mahavira had died and the sects headed by them had become extinct. Could such contentions about philosophical questions which were no more of any practical importance, and bickerings of divines all but forgotten, though these things were of paramount interest to the contemporary world, serve as a canon for later generations who lived in thoroughly changed circumstances? The want of a canon suiting the condition of the community must have made itself felt, and it led, in my opinion, to the composition of a new canon and the neglect of the old one.

Professor A. Weber [1] assigns as the probable cause of the Drishtivada being lost, that the development of the Svetambara sect had arrived at a point where the diversity of its tenets from those embodied in that book became too visible to be passed over. Therefore the Drishtivada, which contained the Purvas, fell into neglect.

I cannot concur in Professor Weber's opinion, seeing that the Digambaras also have lost the Purvas, and the Angas to boot. It is not probable that the development of Gainism during the two first centuries after the Nirvana should have gone on at so rapid a pace that its two principal sects should have been brought to the necessity of discarding their old canon. For, as stated above, after the splitting of the church in these two sects the philosophical system of the Gainas remained stationary, since it is nearly the same with both sects.

As regards ethics, both sects, it is true, differ more. But as the extant canon of the Svetambaras is not falling into neglect, though many practices enjoined in it have long since been abandoned, it is not more probable that they should have been more sensible on the same score at the time when the Purvas formed their canon. Besides, some of the Purvas are said to have continued to be extant long after the time which we have assigned for the formation of the new canon. At last they disappeared, not by an intentional neglect, I presume, but because the new canon set into clearer light the Gaina doctrines, and put them forward more systematically than had been done in the controversial literature of the Purvas.

Our discussion, which we here close, has, I hope, proved that the development of the Gaina church has not been, at any time, violently interrupted by some very extraordinary events; that we can follow this development from its true beginning through its different stages, and that Gainism is as much independent from other sects, especially from

It remains for me to add a few remarks about the two works which have been translated in this book.

The Akaranga Sutra, or, as it is sometimes called, the Samayika [1], is the first of the eleven Angas. It treats of the akara, or conduct, which falls under the last of the four heads, or anuyogas, into which the sacred lore is divided, viz. Dharmakatha, Ganita, Dravya, and Karanakarana. The Akaranga Sutra contains two books, or Srutaskandhas, very different from each other in style and in the manner in which the subject is treated. The subdivisions of the second book being called Kulas, or appendices, it follows that only the first book is really old.

That it was considered so even in later times, is apparent from a remark of Silanka, who wrote the commentary, which is the oldest one extant [2]. For speaking of the mangala or auspicious sentence which, according to a current theory, must occur at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of each work, Silanka points out as such the first sentence of the first lesson of the first lecture, the first sentence of the fifth lesson of the fifth lecture, and the latter half of the 16th verse in the fourth lesson of the eighth lecture of the first book. It is evident that he regarded the Akaranga Sutra as ending with the last-named passage, which is the last but one of the first book.

The first book, then, is the oldest part of the Akaranga Sutra; it is probably the old Akaranga Sutra itself to which other treatises have been added. For it is complete in itself; it describes in rather enigmatical language the progress of the faithful towards the highest perfection. The last lecture, a sort of popular ballad on the glorious suffering of the prophet, was perhaps added in later times, but as it stands now it serves well to illustrate and to set a high example of the true ascetic's life. But the greater part of the book is in prose of the most bewildering kind.

Frequently we meet with fragments only of sentences, or with sentences which it is impossible to construe. This reminds us of the style of the Brahmanical Sutras; but there is this difference, that in the last-named works the single aphorisms are the necessary links in the logical concatenation of ideas, while in our book the single sentences or parts of sentences do not seem to be connected with one another in order to carry on the illustration of an idea. They do not read like a logical discussion, but like a sermon made up by quotations from some then well-known sacred books.

In fact the fragments of verses and whole verses which are liberally interspersed in the prose text go far to prove the correctness of my conjecture; for many of these 'disjecta membra' are very similar to verses or Padas of verses occurring in the Sutrakritanga, Uttaradhyayana, and Dasavaikalika Sutras. They must therefore be taken as allusions to standard authorities.

The same must be assumed of at least some prose sentences, especially those which are incomplete in themselves. Other passages again seem to be added to those quotations in order to explain or to complete them. I shall give a few specimens. I, 4, 1, 3 we read, aho ya rao gatamane dhire; this is a Pada of a Trishtubh, and accordingly a quotation. The words which follow, saya agayapannane, explain the meaning of that quotation, aho ya rao = saya, gatamane dhire = agayapannane. The text continues pamatte bahiya pasa. This is probably a Pada of a Sloka; the rest of the sentence, appamatte saya parakkamegga, is the moral application of the preceding one. We should therefore translate: 'Day and night exerting himself and steadfast,' i.e. always having ready wisdom. 'Look, the careless stand outside,' (therefore) being careful he should always exert himself. The commentator however does not separate the quotations from the glosses, but takes all these passages as parts of one sentence, which he interprets in the way that it has been rendered in the text of my translation, <page 37>.

In this as in many other cases I have preferred to give in my translation the meaning which Silanka has given in his commentary. For it is sometimes extremely difficult to separate the quotations from the remaining text. I have never dared to do so when they could not be proved to be parts of verses. I had therefore to leave unnoticed all such passages which, as the one quoted above, might be taken as a Pada of a Sloka; for in every prose work such passages occur, though they never were meant for verse. They may, therefore, only accidentally resemble parts of a Sloka in our book too, though the great number of such passages is rather suspicious.

The greatest difficulty however we should incur if we were to point out the prose quotations, though there are certainly such, e. g. I, 3, 1, 1, sutta amuni, munino satatam gagaranti. Such phrases differ in style from the rest of the prose part; but it would be impossible to draw the line between them and the work of the real author. From what has been said, it will appear how difficult it is to do justice to such a work as the first book of the Akaranga in the first attempt to translate it. In most cases I have contented myself with rendering the text according to the interpretation of the commentator. It must be left to future labours to come nearer the meaning of the author than it has been preserved by the tradition of the scholiasts.

Formerly the first book contained nine lectures instead of eight, one lecture, the Mahaparinna, being now lost. It was, according to some authorities, Samavayanga, Nandi, Avasyaka Niryukti, and Vidhiprabha [1], the ninth lecture; but according to the Niryukti of the Akaranga Sutra, which contains a systematic exposition of the subjects treated in the single lectures and lessons of the Akaranga itself, and to Silanka and the other commentators, it was the eighth lecture. It contained seven lessons, and treated of some details of ascetic life [1]. The fact that the same subjects were treated in the second book probably occasioned the loss of the Mahaparinna, 'because it was superfluous [2].'

The second book consists of four parts (Kula) or appendices. There were originally five Kulas, but the fifth, the Nisihiyagghana, is now reckoned as a separate work. The first and second parts lay down rules for conduct. Their style is very different from that of the first book, being rather cumbrous, and not at all aphoristical. The greatest difficulty in translating these parts is caused by the numerous technical terms, some of which remain obscure, notwithstanding the explanation of the commentary; others again are simply transcribed into Sanskrit by the scholiast, and seem to require no definition to be understood by the modern Gainas. But it is different with us, who are frequently reduced to guessing at the meaning of technicalities which a Yati could explain at once. It is therefore to be hoped that some scholars in India, who can avail themselves of the instruction of a Yati, will turn their attention to this subject, and get an authentic explanation of the many technical terms the meaning of which cannot be ascertained by a European scholar by the means of Gaina works only.

The third and fourth Kulas have, according to the Parisishta Parvan IX, been revealed to the eldest sister of Sthulabhadra by Simandhara, a Gina living in Purvavideha, a mythical continent. This tradition is very remarkable, as it assigns what we should call the composition of the two last parts of the Akaranga Sutra to the same time when the Kalpa Sutra, which treats of a similar subject, was composed.

The third part is of great interest, as it contains the materials from which the Life of Mahavira in the Kalpa Sutra has been worked out. In fact most of the prose paragraphs occur with but small alterations in the Kalpa

The latter part of the third Kula, which treats of the five great vows, with their twenty-five clauses, calls for no further remark; nor is anything more to be said about the twelve verses which make up the fourth Kula, but that they are probably old, and have been added here for want of a better place.

The translation of the Akaranga Sutra is based on my edition of the text in the Pali Text Society [1], and the commentaries printed in the Calcutta edition of the Akaranga Sutra. They are

1. Tika of Silanka, also called Tattvaditya, said to have been finished in the Saka year 798 or 876 A.D., with the help of Vahari Sadhu.

2. Dipika of Ginahamsa Suri, a teacher of the Brihat Kharatara Gakkha. The Dipika is almost verbally copied from the Tika, which it pretends to reduce to a smaller compass. But the reduction consists almost entirely in the omission of Silanka's comments on the Niryukti verses, which form his introduction to every lecture and lesson.

3. Parsvakandra's Balavabodha or Gugerati Gloss. In some parts of the second book, which are not explained in the older commentaries, this gloss was the only help I had. It generally closely follows the explanation of the older commentaries, more especially that of the Dipika.

About the Kalpa Sutra I have spoken at some length in the introduction to my edition of that work [1], to which I refer the reader for further particulars. Since that time Professor Weber has taken up the subject in his treatise on the Sacred Books of the Gainas and corrected some mistakes of mine. He ascertained that the whole Kalpa Sutra is incorporated as the eighth lecture in the Dasasrutaskandha, the fourth Kheda Sutra. Professor Weber concurs in my opinion that the 'Rules for Yatis' may be the work of Bhadrabahu [2], and that the List of Sthaviras' probably has been added by Devarddhi, the editor of the Siddhanta.

I do not think, however, that Devarddhi was the author of the Life of Mahavira also, as Professor Weber suggests. For if it were the work of so well known a man, tradition would certainly not have allowed such a fact to become forgotten. It was a different thing with the List of Sthaviras, which consists of four or five distinct treatises only put together and added to the Lives of the Ginas by the editor of the work.

We cannot argue from the style of the Lives of the Ginas that that part must be younger than the Rules for Yatis; for the same difference of style occasioned by the diversity of the matter exists between the third Kula of the Akaranga Sutra and the two preceding ones.

Nor can the meagreness of the contents be adduced as an argument against the antiquity of the Lives of the Ginas, since they were probably not intended for biographical treatises, but served a liturgical purpose; for when the images of the Tirthakaras are worshipped in the temples they are addressed with hymns, one of which sums up the Kalyanakas or auspicious moments [3].

It is with these Kalyanakas that the Lives of the Ginas are chiefly concerned, and this fact seems to prove that the custom of mentioning the Kalyanakas in the worship of the Tirthakaras is a very old one; for otherwise it would be impossible to conceive what could have induced an author to treat so largely of so barren a subject as has been done in the Kalpa Sutra. But whatever may be the age of the several parts of the Kalpa Sutra, it is certain that this work has been held in high esteem by the Gainas for more than a thousand years.

It therefore deserves a place in this collection of translations from the Sacred Books of the East. I could only have wished to make my translation more worthy of the place where it is to make its appearance; but if I have somewhat fallen short in my performance, I hope it will be accepted as an excuse that I had to translate into a language which is not my own, works of a literature which, notwithstanding all that has been done for it, still is all but virgin soil to us.

HERMANN JACOBI.

Munster, Westphalia,

June, 1884.

footnotes

  • x:1 See Oldenberg's edition, pp. 231, 232; the translation, p. 104 seq., of the second part, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvii.
  • x:2 The passages in which the Natikas occur seem to have been misunderstood by the commentator and the modern translators. Rhys Davids in his translation of the Mahaparinibbana-Sutta (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi) says in a note, p. 24:. At first Nadika is (twice) spoken of in the plural number; but then, [p. xi] thirdly, in the last clause, in the singular. Buddhaghosa explains this by saying that there were two villages of the same name on the shore of the same piece of water.' The plural Natika denotes, in my opinion, the Kshatriyas, the singular is the adjective specifying Gingakavasatha, which occurs in the first mention of the place in the Mahaparinibbana-Sutta and in the Mahavagga VI, 30, 5, and must be supplied in the former book wherever Nadika is used in the singular. I think the form Nadika is wrong, and Natika, the spelling of the Mahavagga, is correct. Mr. Rhys Davids is also mistaken in saying in the index to his translation: 'Nadika, near Patna.' It is apparent from the narrative in the Mahavagga that the place in question, as well as Kotiggama, was near Vesali.
  • xi:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 262.
  • xii:1 See Kalpa Sutra, my edition, p. 113. Ketaka is called the maternal uncle of Mahavira.
  • xii:2 See Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section no; Akaranga Sutra II, 15, section 15.
  • xii:3 Turnour in the Journal of the Royal As. Soc. of Bengal, VII, p. 992.
  • xii:4 Ed. Warren, p. 27.
  • xii:5 See Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas.
  • xiii:1 The Gainas are very particular in stating the names and gotras of Mahavira's relations, of whom they have recorded little else. Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 109.
  • xiii:2 See Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section section 17 and 18.
  • xiii:3 See Nirayavali Sutra, ed. Warren, p. 22. She is commonly called by the Buddhists Vaidehi; in a Thibetan life of Buddha her name is Sribhadra, which. reminds us of the name of Ketaka's wife Subhadra. See Schiefner in Memoires de l'Academie Imperiale de St. Petersbourg, tome iv, p. 253.
  • xiii:4 He is usually called only Seniya or Srenika; the full name is given in the Dasasrutaskandha, Weber, Ind. Stud. XVI, p. 469.
  • xiv:1 That the same person is intended by both names is evident from the fact that according to Buddhist and Gaina writers he is the father of Udayin or Udayibhaddaka, the founder of Pataliputra in the records of the Gainas and Brahmans.
  • xiv:2 The story is told with the same details by the Buddhists; see Kern, Der Buddhismus and seine Geschichte in Indien, I, p. 249 (p. 195 of the original), and the Gainas in the Nirayavali Sutra.
  • xiv:3 See above.
  • xiv:4 Mahaparinibbana-Sutta I, 26, and Mahavagga VI, 28, 7 seq.
  • xv:1 Nataputta in Pali and Prakrit. The Buddhists call him Nigantha Nataputta, i.e. Gnatriputra the Nirgrantha or Gaina monk.
  • xv:2 This period of his life is the subject of a sort of ballad incorporated in the Akaranga Sutra (I, 8).
  • xvi:1 See Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 122; Kampa, 3; Vaisali, 12; Mithila, 6; Ragagriha, 14; Bhadrika, 2; Alabhika, 1; Panitabhumi, 1; Sravasti, 1; Papa, 1. All these towns, with the exception of Panitabhumi, Sravasti, and perhaps Alabhika, lay within the limits of the three kingdoms mentioned in the text.
  • xvii:1 See Petersburg Dictionary, ss. vv.
  • xviii:1 These twelve years of penance were indeed always thought essential for obtaining perfection, and every ascetic who endeavours to quit this life with the best claims to enter one of the highest heavens, or even Nirvana, has to undergo a similar course of preparatory penance, which lasts twelve years.
  • xviii:2 Indische Studien, XVI, 210.
  • xix:1 Indische Alterthumskunde, IV, p. 763 seq.
  • xxii:1 Fragment der Bhagavati, II, pp. x75, 187.
  • xxii:2 Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, XXVIII, p. 222, note.
  • xxii:3 Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p. 16e.
  • xxiii:1 Rhys Davids, Buddhism, p.139.
  • xxiii:2 Baudhayana II, to, 18; see Buhler's translation, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 275.
  • xxv:1 See Buhler's translation, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. 191, 192. The numbers in the text refer to the paragraphs in Gautama's third book. The similar passages of Baudhayana are referred to in the notes.
  • xxv:2 Compare Baudhayana II, 6, 11, s6.
  • xxv:3 Baudhayana II, 6, 11, 20.
  • xxv:4 Akaranga Sutra II, 2, 2, section 6.
  • xxv:5 Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 119.
  • xxv:6 Baudhayana II, 6, 12, 22.
  • xxv:7 Kalpa Sutra, Rules for Yatis, section 20.
  • xxvi:1 Akaranga Sutra II, 15, v, section 15,
  • xxvi:2 Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 118.
  • xxvi:3 Baudhayana, l.c.;16.
  • xxvi:4 Akaranga Sutra II, 5, 1, section 1.
  • xxvi:5 Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 117.
  • xxvi:6 Akaranga Sutra I, 7, 7, 1.
  • xxvi:7 L.c. section 21.
  • xxvi:8 Akaranga Sutra II, 5, 2, I, and I, 7, 5, 2.
  • xxvi:9 Compare Akaranga Sutra II, 2, 2, 1.
  • xxvii:1 Akaranga Sutra II, I, 7, 6, and 8th Lesson.
  • xxvii:2 Baudhayana II, 10, 17, 10.
  • xxvii:3 Mumde bhavitta agarao anagariyam pavvaie.
  • xxvii:4 Akaranga Sutra I, 8, 1, 2.
  • xxvii:5 Akaranga Sutra I, 8, 3, 1.
  • xxviii:1 Kalpa Sutra, Lives of the Ginas, section 117, towards the end.
  • xxviii:2 E. g. Kalpa Sutra, Rules for Yatis, section 51.
  • xxviii:3 Baudhayana II, 6, 11, 23.
  • xxviii:4 Akaranga Sutra, p. 1, note 2.
  • xxviii:5 Baudhayana II, 6, 11, 24, 25.
  • xxviii:6 See Professor Buhler's translation, p. 260, note.
  • xxviii:7 Baudhayana II, 10, 17, 11.
  • xxviii:8 Akaranga Sutra, p. 67, note 3.
  • xxviii:9 Though a monk is allowed to carry a water vessel besides his alms-bowl, still it is thought more meritorious to have but one bowl.
  • xxix:1 Baudhayana II, 10, 18, 13.
  • xxix:2 Akaranga Sutra II, 1.
  • xxx:1 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, part i, introduction, p. xliii.
  • xxx:2 L.c. p. xxii.
  • xxx:3 L.c. p. xlix.
  • xxx:4 Buddha, sein Leben, p. 557 seq.
  • xxxi:1 Mahavagga I, 6, 12.
  • xxxi:2 This legend is rejected as absurd by the Digambaras, but the Svetambaras staunchly uphold its truth. As it is found in the Akaranga, the Kalpa Sutra, and many other books, it cannot be doubted that it is very old. However, it is not at all clear for what reason so absurd a legend could have been invented and have gained currency. Yet I may be allowed to offer my opinion on this dark point. I assume that Siddhartha had two wives, the Brahmani Devananda, the real mother of Mahavira, and the Kshatriyani Trisala; for the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rishabhadatta, cannot be very old, because its Prakrit form would in that case probably be Usabhadinna instead of Usabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Gaina only, not to a Brahman. I therefore make no doubt that Rishabhadatta has been invented by the Gainas in order to provide Devananda with another husband. Now Siddhartha was connected with persons of high rank and great influence through his marriage with Trisala. It was, therefore, probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahavira was the son, and not merely the step-son of Trisala, for this reason, that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations. This story could all the more easily have gained credence as Mahavira's parents were dead many years when he came forward as a prophet. But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryos was invented. The latter idea was not an original conception of the Gainas, but it is evidently borrowed from the Puranic story of the transfer of the embryo of Krishna from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. The worship of Krishna seems to have been popular during the first centuries of the development of the Gaina creed; for the Gainas have reproduced the whole history of Krishna, with small alterations, in relating the life of the twenty-second Tirthakara, Arishtanemi, who was a famous Yadava.
  • xxxii:1 Max Muller, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 343.
  • xxxii:2 Chapter x, 4. Buhler's translation.
  • xxxvi:1 See Indische Studien, XVI.
  • xxxvi:2 See Dr. Klatt, Ind. Ant. XI.
  • xxxvii:1 It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 A.D.; see Kalpa Sutra, introduction, p. 15.
  • xxxviii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii.
  • xxxix:1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians.
  • xxxix:2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237.
  • xl:1 I do not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that r early every word should have existed in two or three forms.
  • xli:1 It might be objected that archaic spellings are due to the influence of the knowledge of Sanskrit; but the Gainas must always have been so well acquainted with Prakrit that they needed not any help from the Sanskrit to understand their sacred books. On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, eg. daraga for daraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka.
  • xlii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii.
  • xliii:1 Parisishta Parvan IX, 55 seqq.
  • xliii:2 Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note.
  • xliv:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 341 seqq.
  • xlv:1 The Gainas explain the meaning of the word purva in the following way. The Tirthakara himself taught the Purvas to his disciples, the Ganadharas. The Ganadharas then composed the Angas. There is evidently some truth in this tradition, as it does not agree with the dogma of the Angas, being taught already by the first Tirthakara. See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 353.
  • xlvi:1 Indische Studien, XVI, p. 248.
  • xlvii:1 See Professor Weber's remarks on the possible bearing of this name in the treatise I had so often occasion to quote, p. 243 seqq.
  • xlvii:2 It was not, however, the first commentary, for Silanka mentions one by Gandhahastin.
  • xlix:1 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 251 seq.
  • l:1 See Calcutta edition, I, p. 435 seq., vv. 251-268.
  • l:2 Saisayattanena, Weber, l.c.
  • li:1 The Ayaramga Sutta of the Cvetambara Jains, London, 1882.
  • lii:1 The Kalpa Sutra of Bhadrabahu, Leipzig, 1879. Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII, 1.
  • lii:2 That the 'Rules for Yatis' must have been composed at least six generations after Mahavira is evident from section section 3-8, but probably the work is still younger. For in section 6 the Sthaviras, who come immediately after the disciples of the Ganadharas, are spoken of in some contrast to the 'Sramanas Nirgranthas of the present time.' Yet the work cannot be comparatively young, because it appears from section section 28-30 that the Ginakalpa had not yet fallen into disuse, as it had done in later times.
  • lii:3 The rites are described and the hymns given in a modern work called Katurvimsatitirthankaranam puga, a MS. of which belongs to the Deccan College.

book 1

lecture 1.1: knowledge of the weapon

O long-lived (Gambusvamin [4])! I (Sudharman) have heard the following discourse from the venerable (Mahavira):

Here many do not remember whether they have descended in an eastern direction (when they were born in this world), or in a southern, or in a western, or in a northern direction, or in the direction from above, or in the direction from below, or in a direction intermediate (between the cardinal points), or in a direction intermediate between these (and the cardinal points). Similarly, some do not know whether their soul is born again and again or not; nor what they were formerly, nor what they will become after having died and left this world. Now this is what one should know, either by one's own knowledge or through the instruction of the highest (i.e. a Tirthakara), or having heard it from others: that he descended in an eastern direction, or in any other direction (particularised above). Similarly, some know that their soul is born again and again, that it arrives in this or that direction, whatever direction that may be. He believes in soul [1], believes in the world [2], believes in reward [3], believes in action (acknowledged to be our own doing in such judgments as these): 'I did it;' 'I shall cause another to do it;' 'I shall allow another to do it [4].' In the world, these are all the causes of sin [5], which must be comprehended and renounced. A man that does not comprehend and renounce the causes of sin, descends in a cardinal or intermediate direction, wanders to all cardinal or intermediate directions, is born again and again in manifold births, experiences all painful feelings. About this the Revered One has taught the truth (comprehension and renunciation). For the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, all these causes of sin are at work, which are to be comprehended and renounced in this world. He who, in the world, comprehends and renounces these causes of sin, is called a reward-knowing sage (muni). Thus I say [1].

footnotes

  • 1:1 Suyakkhamdha, srutaskandha.
  • 1:2 Agghayana, adhyayana. The first lecture is called sattha-parinna (sastra-parigna),'knowledge of the weapon.' Weapons are divided into material weapon and weapon consisting in a state (bhava). The latter is explained to be non-control (asamyama) or the wrong use of mind, speech, and body. Knowledge (parigna) is twofold: comprehension and renunciation. The subject of the first lecture is, therefore, the comprehension and renunciation of everything that hurts other beings.
  • 1:3 Uddesaya, uddesaka.
  • 1:4 Gambusvamin was the disciple of Sudharman, one of the eleven chief disciples (ganadhara) of Mahavira.
  • 2:1 I.e. in a permanent soul, different from the body. This is said against the Karvakas.
  • 2:2 I.e. the plurality of souls, not in one all-soul, as the Vedantins.
  • 2:3 Kamma (karma) is that which darkens our intellect, Its result is the suffering condition of men, its cause is action (kiriya, kriya).
  • 2:4 The different tenses employed in these sentences imply, according to the commentators, the acknowledgment of the reality of time, as past, present, future.
  • 2:5 Kamma-samarambha. Kamma has been explained above. Samarambha, a special action (kriya), is the engaging in something blamable (savadyanushthana).
  • 3:1 These words (tti bemi) stand at the end of every lesson. The commentators supply them also for the beginning of each lesson.

lecture 1.2

The (living) world is afflicted, miserable, difficult to instruct, and without discrimination. In this world full of pain, suffering by their different acts, see the benighted ones cause great pain. See! there are beings individually embodied (in earth; not one all-soul). See! there are men who control themselves, (whilst others only) pretend to be houseless (i.e. monks, such as the Bauddhas, whose conduct differs not from that of householders), because one destroys this (earth-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of earth, through his doing acts relating to earth. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards earth, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood or heard, either from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this [1] a man is longing when he destroys this (earth-body) by bad, injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of earth, through his doing acts relating to earth. Thus I say.

As somebody may cut or strike a blind man (who cannot see the wound), as somebody may cut or strike the foot, the ankle, the knee, the thigh, the hip, the navel, the belly, the flank, the back, the bosom, the heart, the breast, the neck, the arm, the finger, the nail, the eye, the brow, the forehead, the head, as some kill (openly), as some extirpate

He who injures these (earth-bodies) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards earth, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. H e who knows these causes of sin relating to earth, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 3:2 After the chief tenets of Gainism with regard to soul and actions have briefly been stated in the first lesson, the six remaining lessons of the first lecture treat of the actions which injure the six classes of lives or souls. The Gainas seem to have arrived at their concept of soul, not through the search after the Self, the self-existing unchangeable principle in the ever-changing world of phenomena, but through the perception of life. For the most general Gaina term for soul is life (giva), which is identical with self (aya, atman). There are numberless lives or souls, not only embodied in animals, men, gods, hell-beings (tasa, trasa), and plants (vanassai, vanaspati), but also in the four elements–earth, water, fire, wind. Earth, regarded as the abode of lives is called earth-body, These bodies are only perceptible when an infinite number of them is united in one place. The earth-lives, possess only one organ, that of feeling; they have undeveloped (avyakta)intellect and feelings (vedana), but no limbs, The doctrines about these elementary lives are laid down in Bhadrabahu's Niryukti of our Sutra, and are commented upon in Silanka's great commentary of it. They are very abstruse, and deal in the most minute distinctions, which baffle our comprehension.
  • 4:1 Ikk' attham. The commentators think this to be a reference to the sentence, For the sake of the splendour, It would be more natural to connect it with the foregoing sentence; the meaning is, For bondage, men commit violence, though they believe it to be for the happiness of this life.

lecture 1.3

(Thus I say): He who acts rightly, who does pious work, who practises no deceit, is called houseless. One should, conquering the world, persevere in that (vigour of) faith which one had on the entrance in the order; the heroes (of faith), humbly bent, (should retain their belief in) the illustrious road (to final liberation) and in the world (of water-bodies); having rightly comprehended them through the instruction (of Mahavira), (they should retain) that which causes no danger (i.e. self-control). Thus I say. A man should not (himself) deny the world of (water-bodies), nor should he deny the self. He who denies the world (of water-bodies), denies the self; and he who denies the self, denies the world of (water-bodies).

See! there are men who control themselves; others pretend only to be houseless; for one destroys this (water-body) by bad, injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of water, through his doing acts relating to water. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards water, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood and heard from the Revered One, or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this a man is longing when he destroys this (water-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of water, through his doing acts relating to water. Thus I say.

There are beings living in water, many lives; of a truth, to the monks water has been declared to be living matter. See! considering the injuries (done to water-bodies), those acts (which are injuries, but must be done before the use of water, eg. straining) have been distinctly declared. Moreover he (who uses water which is not strained) takes away what has not been given (i.e. the bodies of water-lives). (A Bauddha will object): 'We have permission, we have permission to drink it, or (to take it) for toilet purposes.' Thus they destroy by various injuries (the water-bodies). But in this their doctrine is of no authority.

He who injures these (water-bodies) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards water, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to water, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 5:1 The water-lives which are treated of in this lesson are, as is the case with all elementary lives, divided into three classes: the sentient, the senseless, and the mixed. Only that water which is the abode of senseless water-lives may be used. Therefore water is to be strained before use, because the senseless lives only are believed to remain in water after that process.

lecture 1.4

(Thus I say): A man should not, of his own accord, deny the world (of fire-bodies), nor should he deny the self. He who denies the world (of fire-bodies), denies the self; and he who denies the self, denies the world (of fire-bodies). He who knows that (viz. fire) through which injury is done to the long-living bodies (i.e. plants) [1], knows also that which does no injury (i.e. control); and he who knows that which does no injury, knows also that through which no injury is done to the long-living bodies. This has been seen by the heroes (of faith) who conquered ignorance; for they control themselves, always exert themselves, always mind their duty. He who is unmindful of duty, and desiring of the qualities (i.e. of the pleasure and profit which may be derived from the elements) is called the torment [2] (of living beings). Knowing this, a wise man (resolves): 'Now (I shall do) no more what I used to do wantonly before.' See! there are men who control themselves; others pretend only to be houseless; for one destroys this (fire-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of fire, through his doing acts relating to fire. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards fire, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood, or heard from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this a man is longing, when he destroys this (fire-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of fire, through his doing acts relating to fire. Thus I say.

There are beings living in the earth, living in grass, living on leaves, living in wood, living in cowdung, living in dust-heaps, jumping beings which coming near (fire) fall into it. Some, certainly, touched by fire, shrivel up; those which shrivel up there, lose their sense there; those which lose their sense there, die there.

He who injures these (fire-bodies) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards fire, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows the causes of sin relating to fire, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 7:1 The fire-bodies live not longer than three days.
  • 7:2 Damda.

lecture 1.5

'I shall not do (acts relating to plants) after having entered the order, having recognised (the truth about these acts), and having conceived that which is free from danger (i.e. control).'

He who does no acts (relating to plants), has ceased from works; he who has ceased from them is called 'houseless.' Quality is the whirlpool (avatta = samsara), and the whirlpool is quality. Looking up, down, aside, eastward, he sees colours, hearing he hears sounds; longing upwards, down, aside, eastward, he becomes attached to colours and sounds. That is called the world; not guarded against it, not obeying the law (of the Tirthakaras), relishing the qualities, conducting himself wrongly, he will wantonly live in a house (i.e. belong to the world).

See! there are men who control themselves; others pretend only to be houseless, for one destroys this (body of a plant) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of plants, through his doing acts relating to plants. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards plants, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood, or heard from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this a man is longing when he destroys this (body of a plant) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of plants, through his doing acts relating to plants. Thus I say.

As the nature of this (i.e. men) is to be born and to grow old, so is the nature of that (i.e. plants) to be born and to grow old; as this has reason, so that has reason [1]; as this falls sick when cut, so that falls sick when cut; as this needs food, so that needs food; as this will decay, so that will decay; as this is not eternal, so that is not eternal; as this takes increment, so that takes increment; as this is changing, so that is changing. He who injures these (plants) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards plants, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to plants, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 9:1 The discussion of the 'wind-bodies,' which should follow that of the fire-bodies, is postponed for two lessons in which the vegetable and animal world is treated of. The reason for this interruption of the line of exposition is, as the commentators state, that the nature of wind, because of its invisibleness, is open to doubts, whilst plants and animals are admitted by all to be living beings, and are, therefore, the best support of the hylozoistical theory. That wind was not readily admitted by the ancient Indians to be a peculiar substance may still be recognised in the philosophical Sutras of the Brahmans. For there it was thought necessary to discuss at length the proofs for the existence of a peculiar substance, wind. It should be remarked that wind was never identified with air, and that the Gainas had not yet separated air from space.
  • 10:1 The plants know the seasons, for they sprout at the proper time, the Asoka buds and blooms when touched by the foot of a well-attired girl, and the Vakula when watered with wine; the seed grows always upwards: all this would not happen if the plants had no knowledge of the circumstances about them. Such is the reasoning of the commentators.

lecture 1.6

Thus I say: There are beings called the animate, viz. those who are produced 1. from eggs (birds, ), 2. from a fetus (as elephants, ), 3. from a fetus with an enveloping membrane (as cows, buffaloes, ), 4. from fluids (as worms, ), 5. from sweat (as bugs, lice, ), 6. by coagulation (as locusts, ants, ), 7. from sprouts (as butterflies, wagtails, ), 8. by regeneration (men, gods, hell-beings). This is called the Samsara for the slow, for the ignorant. Having well considered it, having well looked at it, I say thus: all beings, those with two, three, four senses, plants, those with five senses, and the rest of creation, (experience) individually pleasure or displeasure, pain, great terror, and unhappiness. Beings are filled with alarm from all directions and in all directions. See! there the benighted ones cause great pain. See! there are beings individually embodied.

See! there are men who control themselves; others pretend only to be houseless, for one destroys this (body of an animal) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of animals, through his doing acts relating to animals. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards animals, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed, when he has understood, or heard from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this (i.e. injuring) to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this a man is longing, when he injures this (body of an animal) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of animals, through acts relating to animals. Thus I say.

Some slay (animals) for sacrificial purposes, some kill (animals) for the sake of their skin, some kill (them) for the sake of their flesh, some kill them for the sake of their blood; thus for the sake of their heart, their bile, the feathers of their tail, their tail, their big or small horns, their teeth, their tusks, their nails, their sinews, their bones [1]; with a purpose or without a purpose. Some kill animals because they have been wounded by them, or are wounded, or will be wounded.

He who injures these (animals) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards animals, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to animals, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 12:1 The word after bones (atthie) is atthimimgae, for which buffaloes, boars, are killed, as the commentator states. I do not know the meaning of this word which is rendered asthiminga.

lecture 1.7

He who is averse from (all actions relating to) wind, knows affliction. Knowing what is bad, he who knows it with regard to himself, knows it with regard to (the world) outside; and he who knows it with regard to (the world) outside, knows it with regard to himself: this reciprocity (between himself and) others (one should mind). Those who are appeased, who are free from passion, do not desire to live.

See! there are men who control themselves; others pretend only to be houseless, for one destroys this (wind-body) by bad and injurious doings, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of wind, through his doing acts relating to wind. About this the Revered One has taught the truth: for the sake of the splendour, honour, and glory of this life, for the sake of birth, death, and final liberation, for the removal of pain, man acts sinfully towards wind, or causes others to act so, or allows others to act so. This deprives him of happiness and perfect wisdom. About this he is informed when he has understood, or heard from the Revered One or from the monks, the faith to be coveted. There are some who, of a truth, know this to be the bondage, the delusion, the death, the hell. For this a man is longing when he destroys this (wind-body) by bad and injurious acts, and many other beings, besides, which he hurts by means of wind, through his doing acts relating to wind. Thus I say.

There are jumping beings which, coming near wind, fall into it. Some, certainly, touched by wind, shrivel up; those which shrivel up there, lose their sense there; those which lose their sense there, die there.

He who injures these (wind-bodies) does not comprehend and renounce the sinful acts; he who does not injure these, comprehends and renounces the sinful acts. Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards wind, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to wind, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

Be aware that about this (wind-body) too those are involved in sin who delight not in the right conduct, and, though doing acts, talk about religious discipline, who conducting themselves according to their own will, pursuing sensual pleasures, and engaging in acts, are addicted to worldliness. He who has the true knowledge about all things, will commit no sinful act, nor cause others to do so, Knowing them, a wise man should not act sinfully towards the aggregate of six (kinds of) lives, nor cause others to act so, nor allow others to act so. He who knows these causes of sin relating to the aggregate of the six (kinds of) lives, is called a reward-knowing sage. Thus I say.

lecture 2.1: conquest of the world

Quality is the seat of the root, and the seat of the root is quality [1]. He who longs for the qualities, is overcome by great pain, and he is careless [2]. (For he thinks) I have to provide for a mother, for a father, for a sister, for a wife, for sons, for daughters, for a daughter-in-law, for my friends, for near and remote relations, for my acquaintances [3], for different kinds of property, profit, meals, and clothes. Longing for these objects, people are careless, suffer day and night, work in the right and the wrong time, desire wealth and treasures, commit injuries and violent acts, direct the mind, again and again, upon these injurious doings (described in the preceding lecture). (Doing so), the life of some mortals (which by destiny would have been long) is shortened. For when with the deterioration of the perceptions of the ear, eye, organs of smelling, tasting, touching, a man becomes aware of the decline of life, they [4] after a time produce dotage. Or his kinsmen with whom he lives together will, after a time, first grumble at him, and he will afterwards grumble at them. They cannot help thee or protect thee, nor canst thou help them or protect them. He is not fit for hilarity, playing, pleasure, show. Therefore, ah! proceeding to pilgrimage, and thinking that the present moment is favourable (for such intentions [1]), he should be steadfast and not, even for an hour, carelessly conduct himself. His youth, his age, his life fade away.

A man who carelessly conducts himself; who killing, cutting, striking, destroying, chasing away, frightening (living beings) resolves to do what has not been done (by any one)–him his relations with whom he lived together, will first cherish, and he will afterwards cherish them. But they cannot help thee or protect thee, nor canst thou help them or protect them.

Or he heaps up treasures for the benefit of some spendthrifts, by pinching himself. Then, after a time, he falls in sickness; those with whom he lives together will first leave him, and he will afterwards leave them. They cannot help thee or protect thee, nor canst thou help them or protect them.

Knowing pain and pleasure in all their variety [2], and seeing his life not yet decline, a wise man should know that to be the proper moment (for entering a religious life); while the perceptions of his ear, eye, organs of smelling, tasting, touching are not yet deteriorated, while all these perceptions are not yet deteriorated, man should prosecute [1] the real end of his soul [2]. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 15:1 I.e. in the qualities of the external things lies the primary cause of the Samsara, viz. sin; the qualities produce sin, and sinfulness makes us apt to enjoy the qualities.
  • 15:2 I.e. gives way to love, hate,
  • 15:3 Samthuya. The commentators explain this word acquaintance or one who is recommended to me.
  • 15:4 I.e. these failing perceptions.
  • 16:1 I.e. his present life; for the birth in aryakshetra and in a noble family is difficult to obtain in this Samsara.
  • 16:2 Patteyam, singly, with regard to the living beings.
  • 17:1 Samanuvaseggasi (tti bemi) is taken by the commentators for the second person, which always occurs before tti bemi, but nowhere else. I think si belongs to tti bemi, and stands for se = asau.
  • 17:2 Viz. control.

lecture 2.2

A wise man should remove any aversion (to control [3]); he will be liberated in the proper time. Some, following wrong instruction, turn away (from control). They are dull, wrapped in delusion. While they imitate the life of monks, (saying), 'We shall be free from attachment,' they enjoy the pleasures that offer themselves [4]. Through wrong instruction the (would-be) sages trouble themselves (for pleasures); thus they sink deeper and deeper in delusion, (and cannot get) to this, nor to the opposite shore [5]. Those who are freed (from attachment to the world and its pleasures), reach the opposite shore [6]. Subduing desire by desirelessness, he does not enjoy the pleasures that offer themselves. Desireless, giving up the world, and ceasing to act, he knows, and sees, and has no wishes because of his discernment [7]; he is called houseless. (t)

(But on the contrary) he suffers day and night, works in the right and the wrong time, desires wealth and treasures, commits injuries and violent acts, again and again directs his mind upon these injurious doings [1]; for his own sake, to support or to be supported by his relations, friends, the ancestors, gods, the king, thieves, guests, paupers, Sramanas.

Thus violence is done by these various acts, deliberately, out of fear, because they think 'it is for the expiation of sins [2],' or for some other hope. Knowing this, a wise man should neither himself commit violence by such acts, nor order others to commit violence by such acts, nor consent to the violence done by somebody else.

This road (to happiness) has been declared by the noble ones, that a clever man should not be defiled (by sin). Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 17:3 Arati is usually dislike, auttai exercise; but, according to the commentators, these words here mean samyamarati and nivartayati.
  • 17:4 E. g. the Buddhists, Sakyadayah.
  • 17:5 I.e. they are neither householders nor houseless monks.
  • 17:6 I.e. moksha, final liberation.
  • 17:7 Viz. between good and had, or of the results of desire.
  • 18:1 See I, 2, 1, section 1.
  • 18:2 The sacrificial rites of the Brahmanas are meant.

lecture 2.3

'Frequently (I have been born) in a high family, frequently in a low one; I am not mean, nor noble, nor do I desire (social preferment).' Thus reflecting, who would brag about his family or about his glory, or for what should he long?

Therefore a wise man should neither be glad nor angry (about his lot): thou shouldst know and consider the happiness of living creatures. Carefully conducting himself, he should mind this: blindness, deafness, dumbness, one-eyedness, hunchbackedness [1], blackness, variety of colour (he will always experience); because of his carelessness he is born in many births, he experiences various feelings.

Not enlightened (about the cause of these ills) he is afflicted (by them), always turns round (in the whirl of) birth and death. Life is dear to many who own fields and houses. Having acquired dyed and coloured (clothes), jewels, earrings, gold, and women, they become attached to these things. And a fool who longs for life, and worldly-minded [2], laments that (for these worldly goods) penance, self-restraint, and control do not avail, will ignorantly come to grief.

Those who are of a steady conduct do not desire this (wealth). Knowing birth and death, one should firmly walk the path (i.e. right conduct), (and not wait for old age to commence a religious life),

For there is nothing inaccessible for death. All beings are fond of life [3], like pleasure, hate pain, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear [4].

Having acquired it (i.e. wealth), employing bipeds and quadrupeds, gathering riches in the three ways [5], whatever his portion will be, small or great, he will desire to enjoy it. Then at one time, his manifold savings are a large treasure. Then at another time, his heirs divide it, or those who are without a living steal it, or the king takes it away, or it is ruined in some way or other, or it is consumed by the conflagration of the house. Thus a fool doing cruel deeds which benefit another, will ignorantly come thereby to grief.

This certainly has been declared by the sage [1]. They do not cross the flood [2], nor can they cross it; they do not go to the next shore, nor can they go to it; they do not go to the opposite shore, nor can they go to it.

And though hearing the doctrine, he does not stand in the right place; but the clever one who adopts the true (faith), stands in the right place (i.e. control) [3].

He who sees by himself, needs no instruction. But the miserable, afflicted fool who delights in pleasures, and whose miseries do not cease, is turned round in the whirl of pains. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 19:1 Hereafter vadabhattam explained by vinirgataprithivi vadabha-lakshanam.
  • 19:2 Sampunnam = sampurnam, lit. complete, i.e. the complete end of human existence is enjoyment of the world.
  • 19:3 Another reading mentioned by the commentator is piyayaya, fond of themselves.
  • 19:4 The original of this paragraph reads partly metrical; after the verse marked in my edition there follow three final padas of a sloka.
  • 19:5 According to the commentators, the three modes of activity (yoga), action, order, consent, or the three organs of activity (karana), mind, speech, body, are meant.
  • 20:1 I.e. the Tirthakara.
  • 20:2 I.e. the Samsara, represented under the idea of a lake or slough, in the mud of which the worldly are sinking without being able to reach the shore.
  • 20:3 Ayaniggam ka adaya tammi thane na kitthai | avitaham pappa kheyanne tammi thanammi kitthai || These words form a regular sloka, which has not been noticed by any commentator. Silanka seems to have read vitaham pappa akheyanne, but I consider the reading of our MSS. better, for if we adopt it, thana retains the same meaning (viz. control) in both parts of the couplet, while if we adopt Silanka's reading, thana must in the one place denote the contrary of what it means in the other; adaniya, doctrine, lit. to be adopted.

lecture 2.4

Then, after a time, he falls in sickness: those with whom he lives together, first grumble at him, and he afterwards grumbles at them. But they cannot help thee or protect thee, nor canst thou help them or protect them.

Knowing pleasure and pain separately [1], they trouble themselves about the enjoyment (of the external objects). For some men in this world have (such a character that) they will desire to enjoy their portion, whether it be large or small, in the three ways [2]: Then, at one time, it will be sufficiently large, with many resources. Then, at another time, his heirs divide it, or those who have no living steal it, or the king takes it away, or it is ruined in some way or other, or it is consumed by the conflagration of the house. Thus a fool, doing cruel acts, comes ignorantly to grief.

Wisely reject hope and desire [3], and extracting that thorn (i.e. pleasure) thou (shouldst act rightly). People who are enveloped by delusion do not understand this: he who (gathers wealth) will, perhaps, not have the benefit of it.

The world is greatly troubled by women. They (viz. men) forsooth say, 'These are the vessels (of happiness).' But this leads them to pain, to delusion, to death, to hell, to birth as hell-beings or brute beasts. The fool never knows the law.

Thus spake the hero [1]: 'Be careful against this great delusion; the clever one should have done with carelessness by considering death in tranquillity, and that, the nature of which is decay (viz. the body); these (pleasures), look! will not satisfy (thee). Therefore have done with them! Sage, look! this is the great danger, it should overcome none whomsoever. He is called a hero who is not vexed by (the hardships caused) by control. He should not be angry because the (householder) gives him little. If turned off, he should go. Thou shouldst conform to the conduct of the sages.' Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 21:1 The meaning seems to be: If people do not know that pleasure and pain are the result of their own works,
  • 21:2 The commentators give no explanation of what is meant by 'the three ways,' yet cf. 3, section 5.
  • 21:3 The words asam ka khamdam ka vigimka dhire form a trishtubh pada.
  • 22:1 The MSS. have udahu dhire. The last word is a frequent mistake for vire, which is adopted by the commentators. They explain udahu by ud-aha = uktavan.

lecture 2.5

That for this (viz. pleasure) the wants of the world should be supplied by bad injurious doings: for one's own sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, kinsmen, nurses, kings, male and female slaves, male and female servants, for the sake of hospitality, of supper and breakfast, the accumulation of wealth is effected.

(This is) here for the enjoyment of some men. (But a wise man) exerting himself, houseless, noble, of noble intellect, of noble perception recognises the proper moment (for all actions). He should not accept, nor cause others to accept, or permit them to accept anything unclean [1]. Free from uncleanliness he should wander about.

Being not seen in buying and selling, he should not buy, nor cause others to buy, nor consent to the buying of others. This mendicant who knows the time, the strength (of himself), the measure (of all things), the practice [2], the occasion (for begging, ), the conduct, the religious precepts [3], the true condition (of the donor or hearer), who disowns all things not requisite for religious purposes [4], who is under no obligations, he proceeds securely (on the road to final liberation) after having cut off both (love and hate). Clothes, alms-bowls, blankets, brooms, property [5], straw mats, with regard to these things he should know (what is unclean). When he receives food he should know the quantity required. This has been declared by the Revered One: he should not rejoice in the receipt of a gift, nor be sorry when he gets nothing. Having got much, one should not store it away; one should abstain from things not requisite for religious purposes. With a mind different (from that of common people) a seer abandons (these things). This is the road taught by the noble ones, well acquainted with which one should not be defiled (by sin). Thus I say.

Pleasures are difficult to reject, life is difficult to prolong. That man, certainly, who loves pleasures, is afflicted (by their loss), is sorry in his heart, leaves his usual ways, is troubled, suffers pain. The farsighted one who knows the world, knows its inferior part (hell), its upper part (heaven), its side-long part (the state of brute beasts). He who knows the relation (of human affairs, viz.) that he who desires for the world is always turned round (in the samsara), is called among mortals a hero, who liberates those who are fettered.

As the interior (of the body is loathsome), so is the exterior; as the exterior, so is the interior. In the interior of the body he perceives the foul interior humours, he observes their several courses (or eruptions). A well-informed man knowing (and renouncing the body and pleasures), should not eat (his saliva [1]); he should not oppose himself to the (current of knowledge). Certainly, that man who engages in worldly affairs, who practises many tricks, who is bewildered by his own doings, acts again and again on that desire which increases his unrighteousness [2]. Hence the above has been said for the increase of this (life) [3]. (A man addicted to pleasures) acts as if immortal, and puts great faith (in pleasure); but when he perceives that this body sustains pains, he cries in his ignorance. Therefore keep in your mind what I say.

A heretic [1] professes to cure (the love of pleasure), while he kills, cuts, strikes, destroys, chases away, resolves to do what has not been done before. To whom he applies the cure–enough of that fool's affection [2]; or he who has (the cure) applied, is a fool. This does not apply to the houseless. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 23:1 Amagandha, unclean, is also a Buddhist term; see Rhys Davids' Buddhism, pp. rat, 181.
  • 23:2 Kheda = abhyasa, or the pain of worldly existence.
  • 23:3 Samaya.
  • 23:4 Pariggaha; it might also be translated, who disowns attachment.
  • 23:5 Oggaha = avagraha property eg. the ground or space which the householder allows the mendicant who stays in his house.
  • 24:1 I.e. what he has thrown away, vomited, as it were; pleasures.
  • 24:2 Veram vaddhei appano, apparently the close of a sloka; see I, 3, 2, 3.
  • 24:3 The commentators supply sarirasya, the body. For sinful acts injure the bodies of living beings; therefore they are increased by our abstaining from sin.
  • 25:1 Pamdite = panditammani, who believes or pretends to be a learned man.
  • 25:2 Alam balassa samgena, a pada of sloka; followed by the words in note [2], <page 24>, it forms the hemistich of verse 3 in the Second Lesson of the next Chapter.

lecture 2.6

He who perfectly understands (what has been said in the preceding lesson) and follows the (faith) to be coveted, should therefore do no sinful act, nor cause others to do one. Perchance he meditates a sin (by an act against only) one (of the six aggregates of lives); but he will be guilty (of sin against) every one of the six, Desiring happiness and bewailing much, he comes ignorantly to grief through his own misfortune. Through his own carelessness every one produces that phase of life in which the vital spirits are pained. Observing (the pain of mundane existence, one should) not (act) with violence. This is called the true knowledge (and renunciation). He who ceasing from acts relinquishes the idea of property, relinquishes property itself. That sage has seen the path (to final liberation) for whom there exists no property. Knowing this, a wise man, who knows the world and has cast off the idea of the world, should prudently conquer [1] the obstructions to righteousness. Thus I say.

The hero does not tolerate discontent,

The hero does not tolerate lust.

Because the hero is not careless,

The hero is not attached (to the objects of the senses).

Being indifferent against sounds (and the other) perceptions, detest the comfort of this life.

A sage adopting a life of wisdom, should treat his gross body roughly.

The heroes who have right intuition, use mean and rough food [2].

Such a man is said to have crossed the flood (of life), to be a sage, to have passed over (the samsara), to be liberated, to have ceased (from all activity). Thus I say.

A sage is called unfit who does not follow the law and fails in his office. (But on the contrary) he is praised as a hero, he overcomes the connection with the world, he is called the guide (or the right way). What has been declared to be here the unhappiness of mortals, of that unhappiness the clever ones propound the knowledge.

Thus understanding (and renouncing) acts, a man who recognises the truth, delights in nothing else; and he who delights only in the truth, recognises nothing else. As (the law) has been revealed for the full one, so for the empty one; as for the empty one, so for the full one [1]. But he (to whom the faith is preached) will perhaps disrespectfully beat (the preacher). Yet know, there is no good in this (indiscriminate preaching). (But ascertain before) what sort of man he is, and whom he worships. He is called a hero who liberates the bound, above, below, and in the sideward directions. He always conforms to all knowledge (and renunciation); the hero is not polluted by the sin of killing. He is a wise man who perfectly knows the non-killing [2], who searches after the liberation of the bound. The clever one is neither bound nor liberated; he should do or leave undone (what the hero does or does not do); he should not do what (the hero) leaves undone:

Knowing (and renouncing) murder of any kind and worldly ideas in all respects [3].

He who sees himself, needs no instruction. But the miserable and afflicted fool who delights in pleasures and whose miseries do not cease, is turned round in the whirl of pains [4]. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 26:1 See <page 17>, note .
  • 26:2 These words apparently form a sloka, though the third pada is too short by one syllable; but this fault can easily be corrected by inserting ka: pamtam luham ka sevanti. The commentators treat the passage as prose.
  • 27:1 The full and the empty designate those who adopt the true faith, and those who do not.
  • 27:2 Anugghayana. According to the commentator, the destruction of karman.
  • 27:3 This is again a stray half sloka. The text abounds in minor fragments of verses, trishtubhs, or slokas.
  • 27:4 See the end of the Third Lesson.

lecture 3.1: hot and cold

The unwise sleep, the sages always wake. Know, that in this world the (cause of) misery [1] brings forth evil consequences! Knowing the course of the world [2], one should cease from violent acts. He who correctly possesses [3] these (sensual perceptions), viz. sounds, and colours, and smells, and tastes, and touches , who self-possessed, wise, just, chaste, with right comprehension understands the world, he is to be called a sage, one who knows the law, and righteous. He knows the connection of the whirl (of births) and the current (of sensation with love and hate). Not minding heat and cold, equanimous against pleasure and pain, the Nirgrantha does not feel the austerity of penance. Waking and free from hostility, a wise man, thou liberatest (thyself and others) from the miseries.

But a man always benighted, subject to old age and death, does not know the law. Seeing living beings suffering, earnestly enter a religious life [4]. Considering this, O prudent one, look!

Knowing the misery that results from action,
 The deluded and careless one returns to life;
[paragraph continues] Disregarding sounds and colours, upright,
 Avoiding Mara one is liberated from death .

Carefully abstaining from pleasures and ceasing from bad works he is a hero, guarding himself, who is grounded in knowledge . He who knows the violence done for the sake of special objects, knows what is free from violence ; he who knows what is free from violence, knows the violence done for special objects. For him who is without karman, there is no appellation . The condition of living beings arises from karman.

Examining karman and the root of karman, viz. killing , examining (it) and adopting its contrary , he is not seen by both ends . Knowing this, a wise man who knows the world and has cast off the idea of the world, should prudently conquer the obstructions to righteousness . Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 28:1 I.e. ignorance and delusion.
  • 28:2 Regarding the evil-doer.
  • 28:3 And renounces.
  • 28:4 Again a half sloka, unnoticed as such by the commentators.

lecture 3.2

Look, Sir, at birth and old age here,
 Examine and know the happiness of the living,
 Thence the most learned, knowing (what is called) the highest good,
 He who has right intuition, commits no sin. 
[paragraph continues] Undo the bond with mortals here;
 He who lives by sins, is subject to both [1],
 Desirous of pleasures they heap up karman,
 Influenced by it they are born again. 
 Killing (animals) he thinks good sport, and derives mirth from it:
 Away with that fool's company, he increases his own unrighteousness. 
 Thence the most learned, knowing (what is called) the highest good,
 Aware of the punishment, commits no sin;
 Wisely avoid the top and the root [2]!
 Cutting them off, he knows himself free from karman. 

That man will be liberated from death; he is a sage who sees the danger [3], knowing the highest good in this world, leading a circumspect life, calm, guarded, endowed (with knowledge, ), always restrained, longing for death, he should lead a religious life. Manifold, indeed, appear sinful actions; therefore prove constant to truth! Delighting in it [4], a wise man destroys all karman.

Many, indeed, are the plans of this man (of the world); he will satisfy his desires; he (thereby causes) the slaughter of others, the pain of others, the punishment of others, the slaughter, the blame, the punishment of a whole province. Doing such things, some have exerted themselves [1].

Therefore the second (i.e. the wrong creed) is not adhered to. The knowing one seeing the vanity (of the world) [knowing the rise and fall of the souls [2]], the Brahman follows the unrivalled (control of the Gainas). He should not kill, nor cause others to kill, nor consent to the killing of others. 'Avoid gaiety, not delighting in creatures (i.e. women), having the highest intuition,' keeping off from sinful acts.

And the hero should conquer wrath and pride,
 Look at the great hell (as the place) for greed.
 Therefore the hero abstaining from killing,
 Should destroy sorrow, going the road of easiness [3].

Here now the hero, knowing the bondage,
 Knowing sorrow, should restrain himself.
 Having risen to birth among men,
 He should not take the life of living beings.

footnotes

  • 29:1 A trishtubh unnoticed by the commentators.
  • 29:2 Kheyanna = khedagna nipuna. I think the Sanskrit would rather be kshetragna.
  • 29:3 I.e. control.
  • 29:4 As man, god, hell-being, young, old,
  • 29:5 See <page 28>, note .
  • 29:6 Literally, the left side (savyam); control is intended.
  • 29:7 I.e. he is not touched by love and hate, which cause death.
  • 29:8 See I, 2, 6 .
  • 30:1 Literally, sees both, i.e. experiences bodily and mental (agonies), those of this world and of the next.
  • 30:2 The root means delusion, the top the rest of the sins.
  • 30:3 Arising from worldliness. The same words occur in 2, 6, section 2; but bhae (bhaya) stands here instead of pahe, road. Bhae occurs also in the former place in some MSS.
  • 30:4 Ettho 'varae is usually 'ceasing from it, i.e. activity.' But here the commentators explain it as translated above.
  • 31:1 Samutthiya is commonly used in the sense of right effort, and thus explained by the commentators in this place, though we should expect the contrary.
  • 31:2 The words in brackets [ ] are a gloss upon the preceding sentence. If we leave them out, the rest forms half a sloka.
  • 31:3 Laghubhuya, i.e. nirvana.

lecture 3.3

'Knowing the connection of the world, (carelessness is not for his benefit [4]).' 'Look at the exterior

Knowing the highest good, one should never be careless;
 Guarding one's self, always prudent, one should pass life on the right road.

'One should acquire disregard of sensual enjoyment, being with a great one (i.e. a god) or the small ones (men).' When one knows whence men come and where they go, and when both ends are out of sight [1], one is not cut, nor slit, nor burnt, nor struck [2] by any one in the whole world [3].

Some do not remember what preceded the present: 'what has been his past? what will be his future?' Some men here say: 'what has been his past, that will be his future [4].'

There is no past thing, nor is there a future one;
 So opine the Tathagatas.

He whose karman has ceased and conduct is right, who recognises the truth (stated above) and destroys sinfulness (thinks):

What is discontent and what is pleasure? not subject to either, one should live;

Giving up all gaiety, circumspect and restrained, one should lead a religious life.

Man! Thou art thy own friend; why wishest thou for a friend beyond thyself? Whom he knows as a dweller on high [1], him he should know as a dweller far (from sin) and whom he knows as a dweller far (from sin), him he should know as a dweller on high. Man! restraining thyself (from the outward world) 'thou wilt get free from pain.' Man, understand well the truth! exerting himself in the rule of truth a wise man overcomes Mara.

'The gifted man [2], following the law, sees well his true interest.' In a twofold way [3], for the sake of life's splendour, honour and glory (some men exert themselves), wherein they go astray. The gifted [2], touched by calamity, are not confounded. 'Mind this! the worthy one, in this world, gets out of the creation [4].' Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 31:4 This is a very difficult passage. Connection (sandhi) is explained in different ways, as karmavivara, samyaggnanavapti, and the state of the soul, which has only temporarily and not thoroughly come to rest. To complete the sentence the commentators add pramado na sreyase. As the words of the text form the pada of a sloka, it is probable that something like pamao neva seggase [p. 32] concluded the hemistich. The meaning is, 'Make good use of any opening to get out of worldly troubles.'
  • 32:1 See 1, lesson 4.
  • 32:2 The reading of the Nagarguniyas, according to the commentary, was, 'Knowing well and essentially the five (perceptions) in the object and the three degrees (i.e. good, middle, bad), in the twofold (i.e. what is to be avoided and to be adopted), one is not marred by either (love and hate).' These words form a sloka.
  • 32:3 The commentary connects these words with the preceding sentence, saying that the accusative stands for the instrumental, by any one.
  • 32:4 The words of the original read like a trishtubh in disorder; the same is the case with a different reading quoted by the commentator.
  • 33:1 There is apparently a pun in the text: ukkalaiyam is explained by ukkalayitaram = remover (of sins), but as contrasted with duralaiya it has the meaning we have adopted above.
  • 33:2 With knowledge,
  • 33:3 For the sake of love and hate, or worldly and heavenly bliss.
  • 33:4 If loyaloya is omitted, the last words form the half of a sloka.

lecture 3.4

That man (i.e. the liberated) conquers wrath, pride, deceit, and greed. This is the doctrine of the Seer who does not injure living beings and has put an end (to acts and to samsara). Preventing propensity to sin destroys former actions. He who knows one thing, knows all things; and he who knows all things, knows one thing [1]. He who is careless in all respects, is in danger [2]; he who is not careless in all respects, is free from danger.

He who conquers one (passion), conquers many; and he who conquers many, conquers one. 'Knowing the misery of the world' rejecting the connection with the world, 'the heroes go on the great journey,' they rise gradually; 'they do not desire life.'

He who avoids one (passion), avoids (them all) severally; and he who avoids them severally, avoids one. Faithful according to the commandment (of the Tirthakaras), wise, and understanding the world according to the commandment–such a man is without danger [2] from anywhere. There are degrees in injurious acts, but there are no degrees in control.

He who knows [3] wrath, knows pride; he who knows pride, knows deceit; he who knows deceit, knows greed; he who knows greed, knows love; he who knows love, knows hate; he who knows hate, knows delusion; he who knows delusion, knows conception; he who knows conception, knows birth; he who knows birth, knows death; he who knows death, knows hell; he who knows hell, knows animal existence; he who knows animal existence, knows pain.

Therefore, a wise man should avoid wrath, pride, deceit, greed, love, hate, delusion, conception, birth, death, hell, animal existence, and pain.

This is the doctrine of the Seer, who does not injure living beings and has put an end (to acts and to samsara). Preventing the propensity to sin destroys former actions. Is there any worldly weakness in the Seer? There exists none, there is none. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 34:1 Because true knowledge of one thing is inseparable from true knowledge of all things.
  • 34:2 I.e. he heaps up karman.
  • 34:3 And accordingly avoids wrath.

lecture 4.1: righteousness

The Arhats and Bhagavats of the past, present, and future, all say thus, speak thus, declare thus, explain thus: all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures [1] should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.

This is the pure, unchangeable, eternal law, which the clever ones, who understand the world, have declared: among the zealous and the not zealous, among the faithful and the not faithful, among the not cruel and the cruel, among those who have worldly weakness and those who have not, among those who like social bonds and those who do not: 'that is the truth, that is so, that is proclaimed in this (creed).'

Having adopted (the law), one should not hide it, nor forsake it. Correctly understanding the law, one should arrive at indifference for the impressions of the senses [2], and 'not act on the motives of the world.' 'He who is not of this mind [3], how should he come to the other [4]?'

What has been said here, has been seen (by the omniscient ones), heard (by the believers), acknowledged (by the faithful), and thoroughly understood by them. Those who acquiesce and indulge (in worldly pleasures), are born again and again. 'Day and night exerting thyself, steadfast,' always having ready wisdom, perceive that the careless (stand) outside (of salvation); if careful, thou wilt always conquer. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 36:1 Pana bhuya giva satta. In the sequel we translate these words, all sorts of living beings.
  • 36:2 Literally, what one sees.
  • 36:3 Who acts not on worldly motives.
  • 36:4 Sinfulness.

lecture 4.2

There are as many asravas [1] as there are parisravas, and there are as many parisravas as there are asravas. There are as many anasravas as there are aparisravas, and there are as many aparisravas as there are anasravas. He who well understands these words and regards the world according to the instruction (and understands), that which has been distinctly declared, that 'wise man proclaims (the truth) here to men,' who still belong to the samsara, who are awakened, and have reached discrimination.

'Those also who are afflicted and careless' (will be instructed). I say this as a truth. There is nothing secure from the mouth of death. Those who are led by their desires, who are the tabernacle of fraud, 'who seized by Time dwell in the heap (of karman),' are born again and again. [Many who are again and again (immersed) in delusion, (will often renew) their acquaintance with the places of pain; they experience the pains inherent in regeneration. He who often does cruel acts, often undergoes (punishment in hell, ) He who seldom does cruel acts, seldom undergoes (punishment).] [1]

Some say thus, also the wise ones; the wise ones say thus, also some others [2]. Many and several in this world, Brahmanas or Sramanas, raise this discussion: We have seen, heard, acknowledged, thoroughly understood, in the upper, nether, and sidelong directions, and in all ways examined it: all sorts of living beings may be slain, or treated with violence, or abused, or tormented, or driven away. Know about this: there is no wrong in it.

That is a doctrine of the unworthy. But those who are teachers, have said: You have wrongly seen, wrongly heard, wrongly acknowledged, wrongly understood, in the upper, nether, and sidelong directions, in all ways wrongly examined it, when you say thus, speak thus, declare thus, explain thus: All sorts of living beings may be slain, or treated with violence, or abused, or tormented, or driven away. Know about this: there is no wrong in it. That is a doctrine of the unworthy. But we say thus, speak thus, declare thus, explain thus:

First the persuasion of every one should be ascertained, and then we will ask them severally: Ye professors! is pain pleasant to you, or unpleasant? If they give the right answer, reply: For all sorts of living beings pain is unpleasant, disagreeable. and greatly feared. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 37:1 Asrava is that by means of which karman takes effect upon the soul, parisrava that (nirgara, ) by which the influence of karman is counteracted. Anasrava is that by which asrava is avoided (religious vows), and aparisrava that by which karman is acquired.
  • 38:1 The passage in brackets is introduced by the words pathantaram va, 'various reading.' It occurs in all MSS. I have consulted, and is commented upon by the commentaries as belonging to the text.
  • 38:2 By some is meant the highest class of sages. The meaning is that all professors, high or low, say the same, agree in the doctrine of ahimsa.

lecture 4.3

'Reflect and observe that whether you go to this world or to that beyond, in the whole world those who are discerning beings, who abstain from cruelty [1], relinquish karman. They are flesh-subduing, called duty-knowing, upright men, aware that pain results from actions.' Thus say those who have right intuition.

All the professors, conversant with pain, preach renunciation. Thus thoroughly knowing karman, observing the commandment, wise, unattached (to the world), recognising thy Self as one [2], subdue the body, chastise thyself, weaken thyself: 'just as fire consumes old wood!' Thus with a composed mind, unattached, 'unhesitatingly avoid wrath!' Considering the shortness of life 'know pain, or what will come [3];' one shall feel the several feelings; and perceive the world suffering under them.

Those who are free from sinful acts are called anidana [1]. Hence a very wise man should not be inflamed (by wrath). Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 39:1 Nikkhittadanda, literally, those who have laid down the rod.
  • 39:2 .I.e. as separate and different from the world.
  • 39:3 According to the commentators the present and future pains.
  • 40:1 If we read nivvuda pavakammehim aniyana viyahiya, we have a hemistich of a sloka.

lecture 4.4

One should mortify (one's flesh) in a low, high, and highest degree, quitting one's former connections, and entering tranquillity. Therefore a hero is careful, a person of pith [2], guarded, endowed (with knowledge, ), and always restrained. Difficult to go is the road of the heroes, who go whence there is no return (final liberation). Subdue blood and flesh.

That man is called a worthy one, a hero, one to be followed, who living in chastity [guarding his eyes] shakes off the aggregate [3].

He who desires the current of karman, is a fool who has not cut off the fetters of, nor conquered the connection with, (the world.) For such as dwell in darkness, and are without knowledge, there is no success in faith. Thus I say.

'Whence should he have it [4], who does not get it early, late, or in the middle of life?' But the discerning one is awakened, and ceases to act. See that it is good to be so! Cutting off that 'whence bondage, cruel death, and dreadful pain,' 'and the (desire for) external (objects) flow, he who among mortals knows freedom from acts,' 'seeing that acts will bear fruit, the knower of the sacred lore, parts from (karman).'

There are those who have established themselves in the truth, who (were, are, or will be) heroes, endowed (with knowledge), always exerting themselves, full of equanimity [1], valuing the world (as it deserves) in the east, west, south, north. We shall tell the knowledge of them who (were, ) heroes, endowed (with knowledge), always exerting themselves, full of equanimity, valuing the world (as it deserves).

Is there any worldly weakness in the Seer? There exists none, there is none. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 40:2 Sarae. The commentators translate it with svarata = su + a (a givanamaryadaya) + rata (samyamanushthane), for ever delighting in the exercise of control. I think the Sanskrit prototype of sarae is saraka.
  • 40:3 These words seem to have formed a sloka, which could easily be restored if we read: purise davie vire ayanigge viyahie | vasitta bambhakeramsi ge dhunai samussayam || The aggregate is either that of the constituent parts of the body, i, e. the body itself, or that of karman, i.e. the sum of karman.
  • 40:4 Success in faith.
  • 41:1 Samghadadamsino: nirantaradarsinah subhasubhasya.

lecture 5.1: essence of the world

Many entertain cruel thoughts against the world with a motive or without one; they entertain cruel thoughts against these (six classes of living beings). To him [1] pleasures are dear. Therefore he is near death. Because he is near death, he is far (from liberation). But he who is neither near (death) nor far (from liberation), considers the life of a slow and ignorant fool as similar to a dewdrop trembling on the sharp point of the blade of Kusa grass which falls down when shaken by the wind. A fool, doing cruel acts, comes thereby ignorantly to grief. Through delusion he is born, dies, ' Being conversant with the deliberation about this delusion, one is conversant with the samsara; being not conversant with that deliberation, one is not conversant with the samsara. He who is clever, should not seek after sexual intercourse. But having done so, (it would be) a second folly of the weak-minded not to own it. Repenting and excluding (from the mind) the begotten pleasures, one should instruct others to follow the commandment. Thus I say.

See! many who desire colours, are led around

Such a man has much wrath, much pride, much conceit, much greed; he delights in many (works), acts frequently like a stage-player or a rogue, forms many plans, gives way to his impulses, is influenced by his acts though he pretends to be awakened: (thinking) that nobody will see him. Through the influence of ignorance and carelessness the fool never knows the law. Men! unhappy creatures, world-wise are those who, not freeing themselves from ignorance, talk about final liberation: they turn round and round in the whirlpool (of births). Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 42:1 The change of number here and in the analogous passages at the beginning of the second and third lessons is one of the grammatical irregularities in which our text abounds.
  • 43:1 This interpretation of the scholiast can scarcely be correct. Probably the same ideas which are introduced in the last paragraph with the words, Being conversant with, are to be repeated here. For this passage is similar to the commencement of that in section 1, or identical if we adopt the pathantaram.
  • 43:2 This passage is perfectly analogous to that in the beginning of the lesson. But the scholiast explains the locatives which we have, according to his explanation in the former place, translated against the world, against these, here and in the similar passages which occur in this lecture, by, in the world, amongst these, viz. householders.

lecture 5.2

Many do not live by injurious deeds against the world, they do not live by injurious deeds against these (living beings). Ceasing from them, making an end of them, he perceives: this is a favourable opportunity [1]; he who searches for [2] the right moment for this body (should never be careless). This is the road taught by the noble ones.

When he has become zealous for the law, he should never be careless, knowing pain and pleasure in their various forms. Men act here on their own motives; it has been declared that they suffer for their own sins. Neither killing nor lying, he should (patiently) bear (all unpleasant) feelings when affected by them. That man is called a true monk.

Those who are not given to sinful acts are (nevertheless) attacked by calamities; but then the steadfast will bear them. (He has to bear) them afterwards as (he has done) before (his conversion). (The body) is of a fragile, decaying nature, (it is) unstable, transient, uneternal, increasing and decreasing, of a changeable nature. Perceive this as its true character. For him who well understands this, who delights in the unique refuge [3], for the liberated and inactive there is no passage (from birth to birth). Thus I say.

Many are attached to something in the world–be it little or much, small or great, sentient or nonsentient–they are attached to it (here) amongst these (householders). Thus some incur great danger. For him who contemplates the course of the world and does not acknowledge these attachments (there is no such danger). Knowing that that which is well understood is well practised, man! with thy eyes on the highest good, be victorious (in control). Among such men only is real Brahmanhood. Thus I say.

I have heard this, and it is in my innermost heart; and the freedom from bonds is in your innermost heart. He who has ceased (to have worldly attachments), the houseless, suffers with patience a long time.

The careless stand outside, the careful lead a religious life.

Maintain rightly this state of a sage. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 44:1 For adopting the right conduct.
  • 44:2 Annesi = anveshin. I think that annesi may be an aorist of gna, knew.
  • 44:3 Ayatana, i.e. the triad: right knowledge, right intuition, right conduct.

lecture 5.3

Many are not attached to something in this world, they are not attached to it among these (householders). He is a wise man who has heard and understood the word of the learned ones. Without partiality the law has been declared by the noble ones. As I have destroyed here [1] the connection with the world, so is the connection elsewhere difficult to destroy. Therefore I say: One should not abandon firmness. Some who early exert themselves, do not afterwards slide back; some who early exert themselves, afterwards slide back; those who do not early exert themselves, (can of course) not slide back. That man also is of this description [2], who knowing the world (as worthless nevertheless) follows its ways. 'Knowing this, it has been declared by the sage.' Here the follower of the commandment, the wise, the passionless, he who exerts himself before morning and after evening [1], always contemplating virtue [2] and hearing (the merit of it) will become free from love and delusion. 'Fight with this (your body)! why should you fight with anything else?' Difficult to attain is this (human body) which is worth the fight. For the clever ones have praised the discernment of wisdom; the fool who falls from it, is liable to birth, In this (religion of the Gainas the cause of the fool's fall) has been declared (to depend) on colour [3] and killing. But a sage who walks the beaten track (to liberation), regards the world in a different way. 'Knowing thus (the nature of) acts in all regards, he does not kill,' he controls himself, he is not overbearing.

Comprehending that pleasure (and pain) are individual, advising kindness, he will not engage in any work in the whole world: keeping before him the one (great aim, liberation), and not turning aside, 'living humbly, unattached to any creature.' The rich (in control) who with a mind endowed with all penetration (recognises) that a bad deed should not be done, will not go after it. What you acknowledge as righteousness, that you acknowledge as sagedom (mauna); what you acknowledge as sagedom, that you acknowledge as righteousness. It is inconsistent with weak, sinning, sensual, ill-conducted house-inhabiting men. 'A sage, acquiring sagedom, should subdue his body.' 'The heroes who look at everything with indifference, use mean and rough (food, )' Such a man is said to have crossed the flood (of life), to be a sage, to have passed over (the samsara), to be liberated, to have ceased (from acts). Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 45:1 'Here' and 'elsewhere' mean, in the church of Mahavira, and in that of the Tirthikas.
  • 45:2 Belongs to the last category, to which belong the Sakyas,
  • 46:1 Puvvavararayam, the first and the last wake (yama) of the night; the intermediate time is allowed for sleep.
  • 46:2 Sila is either samyama, control with its 18,000 subdivisions, or it consists of the five great vows, the three guptis, the restraint of the senses, the avoidance of sin (kashaya).
  • 46:3 Colour stands for all perceptions of the senses. Of course, the attachment to sensual pleasures is meant.

lecture 5.4

For a monk who has not yet reached discrimination [1], it is bad going and difficult proceeding when he wanders (alone) from village to village. Some men (when going wrong) will become angry when exhorted with speech. And a man with wary pride is embarrassed with great delusion [2]. There are many obstacles which are very difficult to overcome for the ignorant and the blinded. Let that not be your case! That is the doctrine of the clever one (Mahavira). Adopting the (akarya's) views, imitating his indifference (for the outer world), making him the guide and adviser (in all one's matters), sharing his abode, living carefully, acting according to his mind, examining one's way [3], not coming too near (the akarya), minding living beings, one should go (on one's business).

(A monk should according to the akarya's order) go and return, contract or stretch (his limbs), thoroughly clean (what ought to be cleaned). Sometimes, though a monk be endowed with virtue and walks in righteousness, living beings, coming in contact with his body, will be killed. (If this happens through mere carelessness) then he will get his punishment in this life; but if it was done contrary to the rules [1], he should repent of it and do penance for it [2]. Thus he who knows the sacred lore [3], recommends penance combined with carefulness.

(When a monk) with fully developed intuition and knowledge, calm, guarded, endowed (with knowledge), always restrained, perceives (a woman tempting him), he should consider within himself: what will this person do? The greatest temptation in this world are women. This has been declared by the sage.

When strongly vexed by the influence of the senses, he should eat bad food, mortify himself, stand upright, wander from village to village, take no food at all, withdraw his mind from women. First troubles, then pleasures; first pleasures, then troubles [4]: thus they are the cause of quarrels. Considering this and well understanding it, one should teach oneself not to cultivate (sensuality). Thus I say. He should not speak of women, nor look at them, nor converse with them, nor claim them as his own, nor do their work. Careful in his speech and guarding his mind, he should always avoid sin. He should maintain this sagedom. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 47:1 Avyakta, either with regard to sruta, sacred knowledge, or to his age.
  • 47:2 The result will be that he thinks himself above the admonition of the spiritual head (akarya) of the chapter (gakkha), and leaves the chapter, living as a gakkhanirgata.
  • 47:3 The monk must closely inspect everything with which he comes in contact in order to avoid killing animals; this holds good with regard to walking, sitting, sleeping, eating, drinking,
  • 48:1 Auttikammam = akuttikarman.
  • 48:2 Vivega = viveka, explained as prayaskittam.
  • 48:3 Vedavid.
  • 48:4 In order to attain pleasure, one has to work for the means; after the enjoyment of the pleasures one has to undergo punishment in hell,

lecture 5.5

Thus I say: a lake is full of water, it is in an even plain, it is free from dust, it harbours (many fish) [1]. Look! he (the teacher) stands in the stream (of knowledge) and is guarded in all directions. Look! there are great Seers in the world, wise, awakened, free from acts. Perceive the truth: from a desire of (a pious) end they chose a religious life. Thus I say.

He whose mind is always wavering, does not reach abstract contemplation [2]. Some, bound (by worldly ties), are followers (i.e. understand the truth); some who are not bound, are followers. How should he not despond who amongst followers is a non-follower? 'But that is truth beyond doubt, what has been declared by the Ginas.'

Whatever [3] a faithful, well-disposed man, on entering the order, thought to be true, that may afterwards appear to him true; what he thought to be true, that may afterwards appear to him untrue; what he thought to be untrue, that may afterwards appear to him true; what he thought to be untrue, that may afterwards appear to him true. What he thinks to be true, that may, on consideration, appear to him true, whether it be true or untrue. What he thinks to be untrue, that may, on consideration, appear to him untrue, whether it be true or untrue. But he who reflects should say unto him who does not reflect: Consider it to be true. Thus the connection (i.e. the continuity of sins) is broken.

Regard this as the course of the zealous one, who stands (in obedience to the spiritual guide). In this point do not show yourself a fool !

As it would be unto thee, so it is with him whom thou intendest to kill. As it would be unto thee, so it is with him whom thou intendest to tyrannise over. As it would be unto thee, so it is with him whom thou intendest to torment. I n the same way (it is with him) whom thou intendest to punish, and to drive away. The righteous man who lives up to these sentiments, does therefore neither kill nor cause others to kill (living beings). He should not intentionally cause the same punishment for himself .

The Self is the knower (or experiencer), and the knower is the Self. That through which one knows, is the Self. With regard to this (to know) it (the Self) is established . Such is he who maintains the right doctrine of Self. This subject has truly been explained. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 49:1 Like unto it is a teacher who is full of wisdom, who lives in a quiet country, is free from passion, and protects living beings.
  • 49:2 Samadhi, the means of a religious death.
  • 49:3 Any article of the Gaina faith.

lecture 5.6

Some not instructed (in the true law) make (only a show) of good conduct; some, though instructed, have no good conduct. Let that not be your case! That is the doctrine of the clever one. Adopting the (akarya's) views, imitating his indifference (for the outer world), making him the guide and adviser (in all one's matters), sharing his abode, conquering (sinfulness), one sees the truth; unconquered one should be one's own master, having no reliance on anything (in the world). He who is great and withdraws his mind from the outer world, should learn the teaching (of the Tirthakaras) through the teaching (of the akarya); by his own innate knowledge, or through the instruction of the highest [1], or having heard it from others. A wise man should not break the commandment. Examining all (wrong) doctrines from all sides and in all respects, one should clearly understand (and reject) them. 'Knowing the delight of this world [2], circumspect and restrained, one should lead the life of an ascetic.' Desiring liberation [3], a hero should, through the sacred lore, ever be victorious. Thus I say.

The current (of sin) [4] is said to come from above, from below, and from the sides; these have been declared to be the currents through which, look, there is sinfulness.

'Examining the whirlpool [5], a man, versed in the sacred lore, should keep off from it.' Leaving the world to avert the current (of sin), such a great man, free from acts, knows and sees the truth; examining (pleasures) he does not desire them. Knowing whence we come and whither we go, he leaves the road to birth and death, rejoicing in the glorious (liberation). 'All sounds recoil thence, where speculation has no room,' nor does the mind penetrate there [1]. The saint [2] knows well that which is without support [3].

(The liberated) is not long nor small nor round nor triangular nor quadrangular nor circular; he is not black nor blue nor red nor green nor white; neither of good nor bad smell; not bitter nor pungent nor astringent nor sweet; neither rough nor soft; neither heavy nor light; neither cold nor hot; neither harsh nor smooth; he is without body, without resurrection, without contact (of matter), he is not feminine nor masculine nor neuter; he perceives, he knows, but there is no analogy (whereby to know the nature of the liberated soul); its essence is without form; there is no condition of the unconditioned. There is no sound, no colour, no smell, no taste, no touch–nothing of that kind. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 50:1 Fool, bala; the scholiast explains bala as Sakya or Parsvastha, an outsider, or a follower of Parsva (?).
  • 50:2 For the same pain he has caused to others in this life, he will suffer in the life hereafter.
  • 50:3 This means that knowledge is a modification (parinama) of the Self, and therefore one with it, but not as a quality or action of the Self different from it.
  • 51:1 I.e. the Tirthakaras.
  • 51:2 I.e. self-control.
  • 51:3 The original has nitthiya = nishthita.
  • 51:4 It is called the door of asrava. The three directions mentioned in the text, are the three divisions of the universe. Objects of desire in each induce men to sin. The original is a sloka, noticed as such by the scholiast.
  • 51:5 Of worldly desires and their objects.
  • 52:1 It is impossible to express the nature of liberation in words, since it cannot be reached even by the mind.
  • 52:2 Oe = oga, he who is free from love and hate.
  • 52:3 I.e. liberation, or the state of the liberated. Support, patitthana, is the body or karman.

lecture 6.1: the cleaning

He who is awakened amongst men, preaches; the man to whom all these classes of lives are well known, preaches the unparalleled wisdom. He praises the road to liberation for those who well exert themselves, who have forsworn cruelty, are zealous and endowed with knowledge. Thus some great heroes are victorious; but, look, some others who are wanting in control do not understand (the welfare of) their souls. Thus I say.

As in a lake a greedy leaf-covered tortoise cannot rise up; as the trees do not leave their place (though shaken by storms, ): thus men, born in various families, cry bitterly because they are attached to the objects of the senses [2]; on account of their sinfulness they do not reach liberation [3].

Now look at those who are born in these families to reap the fruit of their own acts [4]:

Boils and leprosy, consumption, falling sickness, blindness and stiffness, lameness and humpbackedness, 1

Dropsy and dumbness, look! apoplexy(?) and eye-disease, trembling and crippledness, elephantiasis and diabetes, 2

These are the sixteen diseases enumerated in due order; besides them many illnesses and wounds occur. 3

Contemplating their (i.e. the creatures') death, knowing their births in higher and lower regions, contemplating the fruit (of their acts), hear about this according to truth. 4

There are said to be blind beings dwelling in darkness; once or frequently meeting this lot, they experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings. This has been declared by the awakened ones. There are beings endowed with voice, with taste, water-beings dwelling in water, beings living in the air: 'beings torment beings. See the great danger in this world [1];' many pains (are the lot) of the creatures. Men who are given to their lusts, come to destruction through their weak, frail body. 'The fool works hard, thinking' that the unhappy one suffers many pains. 'Knowing that these diseases are many, should the afflicted search after (remedies)?' See! they are of no avail, have done with them! Sage! see this great danger! Do not hurt anybody! Contemplate. Be attentive! I shall proclaim the doctrine of renunciation [2].

To reap the fruit of their acts they are born in these various families, they increase, are born, grow up, become awakened, and leave the world in due order as great sages. The lamenting parents say to them who proceed on the glorious road: 'Do not leave us!' Consulting their own pleasure, indulging their passions, 'making a noise [1], the parents cry:' No man who leaves his parents is (fit to become) a flood-crossing sage! (The ascetic) does not take refuge there (in his family); for what could attract him there?

He should always maintain this knowledge! Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 53:1 Dhuta, literally, shaken. Compare the dhutangas of the Buddhists. Childers' Pali Dict. s. v.
  • 53:2 Literally, the colours.
  • 53:3 This paragraph reads like prose mixed with parts of verses. But it is not possible to restore one complete verse.
  • 53:4 To reap the fruit of their own acts' is, according to the commentary, the meaning of ayattae = atmatvaya.
  • 54:1 The result of former acts.
  • 54:2 Dhutavada.
  • 55:1 The commentator explains this passage: 'We do your will, we depend on you (?),' so shouting they cry,

lecture 6.2

Though some know the misery of the world, have relinquished their former connections, have given up ease, live in chastity, and, whether monk or layman, thoroughly understand the law, they are not able (to persevere in a religious life). The ill-disposed, giving up the robe, alms-bowl, blanket, and broom, do not bear the continuous hardships that are difficult to bear. He who prefers pleasures will, now or after an hour [2], be deprived (of the body [3], not to recover it) for an infinite space of time. And thus they do not cross (the samsara), for the sake of these pleasures which entail evil consequences and are associated with others of their kind.

But some who embrace the law, will practise it, being careful about its outward signs; not giving way to worldliness, but being firm. Knowing (and renouncing) all lust, a devout man becomes a great sage when he breaks all bonds, thinking: Nothing belongs to me. A man who, thinking, I am I [1], exerts himself for this (creed), ceases (to act), is houseless, walks about bald-headed. The naked, fasting (monk), who combats the flesh, will be abused, or struck, or hurt [2]; he will be upbraided with his former trade, or reviled with untrue reproaches. Accounting (for this treatment) by his former sins, knowing pleasant and unpleasant occurrences, he should patiently wander about. Quitting all worldliness [3] one should bear all (disagreeable) feelings, being possessed of the right view [4].

Those are called naked, who in this world, never returning (to a worldly state), (follow) my religion according to the commandment. This highest doctrine has here been declared for men. Delighted with this, destroying that (i.e. the effect of works), he will successively [5] give up sinfulness [6], after having come to a knowledge of it. Here (in our religion) some live as single mendicants. Therefore a wise man should lead the life of an ascetic by collecting pure alms or any alms in all sorts of families. 'If (the food) be of good or bad smell, or if dreadful beasts inflict pain on (other) beings'– all that happens to you, you will firmly bear it. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 55:2 I.e. after a short time.
  • 55:3 The body with five organs, in which alone liberation can be realised.
  • 56:1 I have nothing to do with anybody else.
  • 56:2 Lusie. The commentator translates it by lunkita, to tear out the hair. This would be a rather difficult operation on the bald head of a Gaina monk. Lusiya is, of course, the Sanskrit lushita, hurt.
  • 56:3 Visottiyam. Sanskrit visrotasika (?) = sanka.
  • 56:4 Samiyadamsane. The commentator explains it by samitadarsana. I think it corresponds to samyagdarsana.
  • 56:5 Pariyaenam = paryaya. The commentator interprets it by sramanya.
  • 56:6 Adaniggam = adaniya. It means usually faith; but I have here translated it according to the commentary.

lecture 6.3

A sage who is well instructed in the law and leads a life of abstinence, is always a destroyer of the effects of works [1]. To a mendicant who is little clothed [2] and firm in control, it will not occur (to think): My clothes are torn, I shall beg for (new) clothes; I shall beg for thread; I shall beg for a needle; I shall mend (my clothes); I shall darn them; I shall repair them; I shall put them on; I shall wrap myself in them.

The unclothed one, who excels in this (abstinence), will often be molested by (sharp blades of) grass, by cold, heat, gnats, and mosquitoes. The unclothed one, who effects scarcity (of his wants or of his karman), bears these and various other hardships. He is fit for penance, as has been declared by the Revered One. Understanding this in all respects and with his whole mind, he should perfectly know righteousness. The great heroes (i.e. the Tirthakaras) who for a long time [3] walked in the former years [1], the worthy ones bore the troubles (mentioned above); endowed with perfect knowledge they had lean arms and very little flesh and blood. He who discontinues (to sin) and is enlightened, is said to have crossed (the samsara), to be liberated, and to have ceased (to act). Thus I say.

But can discontent lay hold of a mendicant, who has ceased to act and leads a religious life, for a long time controlling himself? He advances in his spiritual career and exerts himself. As an island which is never covered with water, so is the law taught by the noble ones (a safe refuge for those in danger). They are free from desires, free from murder, beloved, wise, learned. For their benefit has been the exertion of the Revered One; as birds (feed) their young ones, so are the disciples regularly to be instructed day and night. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 57:1 Adanam explained as implements which are not requisite for the law.
  • 57:2 Akela, literally, unclothed. But it has that meaning only when it is applied to a ginakalpika. A ginakalpika is a monk who wears no clothes and uses the hollow of the hand for an alms-bowl. The only implements he has are the broom (ragoharanam) and the piece of cloth which the monk places before the mouth while speaking, in order to prevent insects from getting into his mouth (mukhavastrika).
  • 57:3 Kirarata, literally, long night. Compare dirgharatra, which the Bauddhas and Gainas employ in the sense we have given to kiraratam in the text.
  • 58:1 Puvvaim vasaim, the former years are those long periods by which the length of the early Tirthakaras' life is measured. Walked means walked in righteousness.

lecture 6.4

The disciples are thus regularly instructed, day and night, by the knowledge-endowed great heroes, receiving knowledge from them. Some, being seduced from the calmness of the mind, adopt rough manners. Some, living in chastity, dispute the authority (of the teacher), others hear and understand his words; they intend to lead a godly life, but having left the world [2], they are not qualified (for a religious life). Others, being incensed by lusts, greedy, sensual, 'do not care for abstract meditation and religious instruction: these men speak harshly unto the teacher.' It is a second folly of the slow-minded to call virtuous, calm, religiously living men worthless.

Some, turning from (control), assign its difficulty as their reason (for doing so) [1]; others, falling from the pure knowledge and defiling the creed, though not without devotion, for the love of life change (their vows). 'When they feel the hardships (of a religious life) they slide back, for their love of life.' Their leaving the world is a bad leaving.

Those who deserve to be called fools, are born again and again. Standing low (in learning or control) they will exalt themselves (and say) in their pride: I am learned. They speak harshly unto the passionless; they upbraid them with their former trades, or revile them with untrue reproaches [2]. The wise, therefore, should know the law. Thou lovest unrighteousness, because thou art young, and lovest acts, and sayest: 'Kill beings;' thou killest them or consentest to their being killed by others. (Such a man) thinks contemptuously: A very severe religion has been proclaimed. Sinking in opposition to the law, he is called murderer. Thus I say.

Some think: What have I to do with this or that man? Thus they leave father and mother, kith and kin, like heroes exerting themselves, free from murder. Look! the pious and calm become desponding; the rising, cast down. Those troubled with sensuality, the cowardly men become perverters of the faith [1]. Therefore the reputation of some becomes bad. He is an apostate ascetic! He is an apostate ascetic!

Look! Some, though living with religious, pious, calm, and worthy (monks), are not religious, nor pious, nor calm, nor worthy. Knowing them, the learned, the wise, the steadfast hero will always be victorious through the right faith. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 58:2 Or obedience to their teacher?
  • 59:1 They do not upbraid their teachers, and hence are not guilty of the second folly.
  • 59:2 Compare second lesson, section 3. Paliya, which we have here as in the passage above translated former trade,' is here explained by anushthana, exertion.
  • 60:1 Or breakers of vows.

lecture 6.5

Staying in or between houses, in or between villages, in or between towns, in or between counties, a monk is attacked by murderers, or is subject to the hardships (of a mendicant's life). A hero should bear these hardships.

A saint [2], with right intuition, who cherishes compassion for the world, in the east, west, south, and north, should preach, spread, and praise (the faith), knowing the sacred lore [3]. He should proclaim it among those who exert themselves, and those who do not [4], among those who are willing to hear (the word).

Not neglecting tranquillity, indifference, patience, liberation, purity, uprightness, gentleness, and freedom from worldly cares [5], one should, with due consideration, preach the law of the mendicants to all sorts of creatures.

With due consideration preaching the law of the mendicants, one should do no injury to one's self, nor to anybody else, nor to any of the four kinds of living beings. But a great sage, neither injuring nor injured, becomes a shelter for all sorts of afflicted creatures, even as an island, which is never covered with water.

Thus a man who exerts himself, and is of a steady mind, without attachment, unmoved (by passion) but restless (in wandering about), having no worldly desires, should lead the life of an ascetic.

Having contemplated the beautiful law, the discerning one is liberated.

Therefore look at worldliness, ye men, fettered in fetters!

Those whom lust conquers, sink; therefore do not shrink from the hard (control)! He who knows (and renounces) perfectly and thoroughly these injurious acts, from whom the injurers do not shrink [1], 'who has shaken off wrath, pride,' delusion, and greed, 'he is called a removed one.' Thus I say.

On the decay of the body (he does not despond, but deserves) his appellation, 'the leader of the battle.' The sage who has reached the other side, unafflicted and unmoved like a beam, being in the power of death, desires death as the dissolution of the body. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 60:2 Oya, see note , <page 52>.
  • 60:3 Veyavi = vedavid.
  • 60:4 This is equivalent either to believers and heretics, or to clerical and lay men.
  • 60:5 Laghaviya, lightness, explained, freedom from bonds.
  • 61:1 One expects, who does not shrink from the injurers.

lecture 7.1: liberation

I say: To friendly or hostile (heretics) one should not give food, drink, dainties and spices, clothes, alms-bowls, and brooms; nor exhort these persons to give (such things), nor do them service, always showing the highest respect. Thus I say [1].

(A heretic may say): Know this for certain: having or not having received food, (down to) brooms, having or not having eaten (come to our house), even turning from your way or passing (other houses; we shall supply your wants). Confessing an individual creed, coming and going, he may give, or exhort to give, or do service (but one should not accept anything from him), showing not the slightest respect. Thus I say.

Some here are not well instructed as regards the subject of conduct; for desirous of acts, they say: 'Kill creatures;' they themselves kill or consent to the killing of others; or they take what has not been given; or they pronounce opinions, e. g. the world exists, the world does not exist, the world is unchangeable, the world is ever changing; the world has a beginning, the world has no beginning; the world has an end, the world has no end; (or with regard to the self and actions): this is well done, this is badly done; this is merit, this is demerit; he is a good man, he is not a good man; there is beatitude, there is no beatitude; there is a hell, there is no hell. When they thus differ (in their opinions) and profess their individual persuasion, know (that this is all) without reason [1]. Thus they are not well taught, not well instructed in the religion such as it has been declared by the Revered One, who knows and sees with quick discernment. (One should either instruct the opponent in the true faith) or observe abstinence as regards speech. Thus I say.

Everywhere [2] sins are admitted; but to avoid them is called my distinction. For ye who live in a village or in the forest, or not in a village and not in the forest, know the law as it has been declared. 'By the Brahman, the wise (Mahavira), three [3] vows have been enjoined.' Noble and tranquil men who are enlightened and exert themselves in these (precepts), are called free from sinful acts.

Knowing (and renouncing) severally and singly the actions against living beings, in the regions above, below, and on the surface, everywhere and in all ways–a wise man neither gives pain to these bodies, nor orders others to do so, nor assents to their doing so. Nay, we abhor those who give pain to these bodies. Knowing this, a wise man should not cause this or any other pain (to any creatures). Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 62:1 This and the following paragraph are extremely difficult to translate. I have translated the words according to the scholiast, and supplied what he supplies; but his interpretation can scarcely be reconciled with the text.
  • 63:1 The Gainas do not espouse one of the alternative solutions of the metaphysical and ethical questions; but they are enabled by the syadvada to believe in the co-existence of contrary qualities in one and the same thing.
  • 63:2 In all other religious sects.
  • 63:3 Gama = yama. These are, to kill no living being, to speak no untruth, to abstain from forbidden things (theft and sexual pleasures). Or the three ages of man are intended by gama, which we have rendered vows.

lecture 7.2

A mendicant may exert himself, or stand or sit or lie in a burying-place or in an empty house or in a mountain cave or in a potter's workshop. A householder may approach a mendicant who stays in any of these places, and say unto him: O long-lived Sramana! I shall give you what I have bought or stolen or taken, though it was not to be taken, nor given, but was taken by force, viz. food, drink, dainties and spices, clothes, an alms-bowl, a plaid, a broom–by acting sinfully against all sorts of living beings; or I shall prepare you snug lodgings; eat (the offered food), dwell (in the prepared house [1]).

O long-lived Sramana! A mendicant should thus refuse a householder of good sense and ripe age: O long-lived householder! I do not approve of thy words, I do not accept thy words, that, for my sake, thou givest unto me what thou hast bought or stolen or taken, though it was not to be taken, nor given, but was taken by force, viz. food, drink, dainties and spices, clothes, an alms-bowl, a plaid, a broom–by acting sinfully against all sorts of living beings; or that thou preparest pleasant lodgings for me. O long-lived householder! I have given up this, because it is not to be done. A mendicant may exert himself, (first sentence of section 1). A householder, without betraying his intention, may approach him who stays in some one of the above-mentioned places, and give unto him what has been taken, (all as above, down to) or prepare pleasant lodgings, and accommodate the mendicant with food (and lodging). A mendicant should know it by his own innate intelligence, or through the instruction of the highest (i.e. the Tirthakaras), or having heard it from others: This householder, forsooth, for my sake injures all sorts of living beings, to give me food, clothes, or to prepare pleasant lodgings. A mendicant should well observe and understand this, that he may order (the householder) not to show such obsequiousness. Thus I say.

Those who having, with or without the mendicant's knowledge, brought together fetters [1], become angry (on the monk's refusal) and will strike him, saying: Beat, kill, cut, burn, roast, tear, rob, despatch, torture him! But the hero, come to such a lot, will bravely bear it, or tell him the code of conduct, considering that he is of a different habit; or by guarding his speech he should in due order examine the subject, guarding himself.

This has been declared by the awakened ones: The faithful should not give to dissenters food, clothes, nor should they exhort them (to give), nor do them service, always showing the highest respect. Thus I say.

Know the law declared by the wise Brahmana one should give to one of the same faith food, clothes, and one should exhort him (to give) or do him service, always showing the highest respect. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 64:1 Later on in the commentary (beginning of the sixth lesson) this is called udgamotpadanaishana.
  • 65:1 The above-detailed benefactions.

lecture 7.3

Some are awakened as middle-aged men and exert themselves well, having, as clever men, heard and received the word of the learned [1]. The noble ones have impartially preached the law. Those who are awakened, should not wish for pleasure, nor do harm, nor desire (any forbidden things). A person who is without desires and does no harm unto any living beings in the whole world, is called by me 'unfettered.'

One free from passions understands perfectly the bright one [2], knowing birth in the upper and nether regions.

'Bodies increase through nourishment, they are frail in hardships.' See some whose organs are failing (give way to weakness).

A person who has no desires, cherishes pity. He who understands the doctrine of sin, is a mendicant who knows the time, the strength, the measure, the occasion, the conduct, the religious precept; he disowns all things not requisite for religious purposes, in time exerts himself, is under no obligations; he proceeds securely (on the road to final liberation) after having cut off both (love and hate) .

A householder approaching a mendicant whose limbs tremble for cold, may say:

O long-lived Sramana! are you not subject to the influences of your senses?

O long-lived householder! I am not subject to the influences of my senses. But I cannot sustain the feeling of cold. Yet it does not become me to kindle or light a fire , that I may warm or heat myself; nor (to procure that comfort) through the order of others.

Perhaps after the mendicant has spoken thus, the other kindles or lights a fire that he may warm or heat himself. But the mendicant should well observe and understand this, that he may order him to show no such obsequiousness. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 66:1 The scholiast says that there are three classes of the awakened: the Svayambuddha, the Pratyekabuddha, and the Buddhabodhita. The last only is treated of in the text.
  • 66:2 I.e. self-control.

lecture 7.4

A mendicant who is fitted out with three robes [3], and a bowl as fourth (article), will not think: I shall beg for a fourth robe. He should beg for (clothes) which he wants, and which are permitted by the religious code [1]; he should wear the clothes in the same state in which they are given him; he should neither wash nor dye them, nor should he wear washed or dyed clothes, nor (should he) hide (his garments when passing) through other villages, being careless of dress. This is the whole duty [2] of one who wears clothes. But know further, that, after winter is gone and the hot season has come, one should leave off the used-up (garment of the three), being clad with an upper and under garment, or with the undermost garment, or with one gown, or with no clothes–aspiring to freedom from bonds [3]. Penance suits him. Knowing what the Revered One has declared, one should thoroughly and in all respects conform to it.

When it occurs to a blessed [4] mendicant that he suffers pain, and cannot bear the influence of cold, he should not try to obviate these trials, but stand fast in his own self which is endowed with all knowledge [5]. 'For it is better for an ascetic that he should take poison.' Even thus he will in due time put an end to existence. This (way to escape trials) has been adopted by many who were free from delusion; it is good, wholesome, proper, beatifying, meritorious. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 67:1 The latter part of this paragraph is nearly identical with lecture 2, lesson 5, section 3, to which we refer the reader for the explanation of the dark phrases.
  • 67:2 The original has fire-body, which the faithful are enjoined not to injure; see lecture 2, lesson 4.
  • 67:3 The three robes allowed to a Gaina monk are two linen under garments (kshaumikakalpa) and one woollen upper garment (aurnikakalpa). Besides these (kalpatraya), the monk possesses, 2. an alms-bowl (patra) with six things belonging to it, 3. a broom (ragoharana), 4. a veil for the mouth (mukhavastrika). The alms-bowl and the articles belonging to it are specialised in the following gatha: pattam pattabamdho payatthavanam ka payakesariya | padalai rayattanam ka gokkhao payaniggogo ||
  • 68:1 Things, : this is the meaning of the technical term ahesanigga yathaishaniya, allowed objects of begging.
  • 68:2 Literally, outfit. Cf. II, 5, 2, section 1.
  • 68:3 I.e. freedom from worldly cares and interest.
  • 68:4 Vasumam: rich (in control).
  • 68:5 But he should not, in order to escape these trials, commit such suicide as is only permitted to ascetics who have reached the highest degree of perfection, when they are ripe for Nirvana. Suicide only puts off the last struggle for Nirvana; but it is better than breaking the vow.

lecture 7.5

A mendicant who is fitted out with two robes, and a bowl as third (article), will not think: I shall beg for a third robe. He should beg for robes which are allowed to be begged for; he should wear the clothes, [1] This is the whole outfit of one who wears clothes. But know further, that after the winter is gone and the hot season has come, one should leave off the used-up garments; having left off the used-up garments, (one should) be clad with the undermost garment, with a gown [2], or with no clothes at all–aspiring to freedom from bonds. Penance suits him. Knowing what the Revered One has declared, one should thoroughly and in all respects conform to it.

When the thought occurs to a mendicant that through illness he is too weak, and not able to beg from house to house–and on his thus complaining a householder brings food, obtained (without injuring life [3]), and gives it him–then he should, after deliberation, say [4]: O long-lived householder! it does not become me to eat or drink this [3] food, or (accept) anything else of the same kind.

A mendicant who has resolved, that he will, when sick, accept the assistance of fellow-ascetics [1] in good health, when they offer (assistance) without being asked, and that vice versa he, when in health, will give assistance to sick fellow-ascetics, offering it without being asked–(he should not deviate from his resolution though he die for want of help).

Taking the vow to beg (food, ) for another (who is sick), and to eat (when sick) what is brought by another; taking the vow to beg, and not to eat what is brought; taking the vow not to beg, but to eat what is brought; taking the vow neither to beg, nor to eat what is brought–(one should adhere to that vow). Practising thus the law as it has been declared, one becomes tranquil, averted from sin, guarded against the allurements of the senses. Even thus (though sick) he will in due time put an end to existence [2]. This (method) has been adopted by many who were free from delusion; it is good, wholesome, proper, beatifying, meritorious. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 69:1 See lesson 4, section 1.
  • 69:2 The MSS. are at variance with each other in adapting the words of the former lesson to the present case. As the commentaries are no check, and do not explain our passage, I have selected what seemed to me to be the most likely reading.
  • 69:3 Abhihada = abhyahrita: it is a typical attribute of objectionable things. The commentator explains it here by givopamardanivritta.
  • 69:4 The original has only aloegga, he should examine whether [p. 70] the food is acceptable or not. This is called the grahanaishana.
  • 70:1 Sahammiya = sadharmika, one who follows the same rule in cases where different rules are left to the option of the mendicants. The word abhikamkha = abhikankshya is not translated, the commentator makes it out to mean, wishing for freedom from sinful acts.
  • 70:2 As in the preceding lesson a man who cannot conquer his sensuality, is permitted to commit suicide (by hanging himself, ), in order to put an end to his trials and temptations, so in this lesson a man whose sickness prevents him from persevering in a life of austerities, is permitted to commit suicide by rejecting food and drink. This is called bhaktapanapratyakhyanamukti. It seems therefore to have been regarded as leading to final liberation (mukti).

lecture 7.6

A mendicant who is fitted out with one robe, and a bowl as second (article), will not think: I shall beg for a second robe. He should beg for such a robe only as is allowed to be begged for, 'and he should wear it in the same state as he receives it. This is, .

But when the hot season has come, one should leave off the used-up clothes; one should be clad with one or no garment–aspiring to freedom from bonds. Knowing what the Revered One, .

When the thought occurs to a mendicant: 'I am myself, alone; I have nobody belonging to me, nor do I belong to anybody,' then he should thoroughly know himself as standing alone–aspiring to freedom from bonds. Penance suits him. Knowing what the Revered One has declared, one should thoroughly and in all respects conform to it.

A male or female mendicant eating food should not shift (the morsel) from the left jaw to the right jaw, nor from the right jaw to the left jaw, to get a fuller taste of it, not caring for the taste (of it)–aspiring to freedom from bonds. Penance suits him. Knowing what the Revered One has declared, one should thoroughly and in all respects conform to it.

If this thought occurs to a monk: 'I am sick and not able, at this time, to regularly mortify the flesh,' that monk should regularly reduce his food; regularly reducing his food, and diminishing his sins, 'he should take proper care of his body, being immovable like a beam; exerting himself he dissolves his body [1].'

Entering a village, or a scot-free town, or a town with an earth-wall, or a town with a small wall, or an isolated town, or a large town, or a sea-town, or a mine, or a hermitage, or the halting-places of processions, or caravans, or a capital [2]–a monk should beg for straw; having begged for straw he should retire with it to a secluded spot. After having repeatedly examined and cleaned the ground, where there are no eggs, nor living beings, nor seeds, nor sprouts, nor dew, nor water, nor ants, nor mildew, nor waterdrops, nor mud, nor cobwebs–he should spread the straw on it. Then he should there and then effect (the religious death called) itvara [3].

This is the truth: speaking truth, free from passion, crossing (the samsara), abating irresoluteness, knowing all truth and not being known, leaving this frail body, overcoming all sorts of pains and troubles through trust in this (religion), he accomplishes this fearful (religious death). Even thus he will in due time put an end to existence. This has been adopted by many who were free from delusion; it is good, wholesome, proper, beatifying, meritorious. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 72:1 There is no finite verb in this sentence, nor any word which could supply its place. The old Gaina authors were so accustomed to surround their meaning with exclusions and exceptions, and to fortify it with a maze of parentheses, that they sometimes apparently forgot to express the verb, especially when they made use of fragments of old verses, as in the present case.
  • 72:2 This is one of the most frequent gamas or identical passages which form a rather questionable ornament of the Sutra style. The gamas are usually abbreviated, eg. villages, all down to capital, or eggs, all down to cobwebs, which we shall presently meet with.
  • 72:3 Itvara or ingitamarana consists in starving oneself, while keeping within a limited space. A religious death is usually permitted only to those who have during twelve years undergone preparatory penance, consisting chiefly in protracted periods of fasting. The scholiast says that in our case the itvara is not enjoined for sick persons who can no longer sustain austerities; but they should act as if they were to commit the itvara suicide, hoping that in five or six days the sickness would leave them, in which case they are to return to their former life. But if they should not get better but die, it is all for the best.

lecture 7.7

To a naked [1] monk the thought occurs: I can bear the pricking of grass, the influence of cold and heat, the stinging of flies and mosquitos; these and other various painful feelings I can sustain, but I cannot leave off the covering of the privities. Then he may cover his privities with a piece of cloth [2].

A naked monk who perseveres in this conduct, sustains repeatedly these and other various painful feelings: the grass pricks him, heat and cold attack him, flies and mosquitos sting him. A naked monk (should be) aspiring to freedom from bonds. Penance suits him. Knowing what the Revered One has declared, one should thoroughly and in all respects conform to it.

A monk who has come to any of the following resolutions,–having collected food, I shall give of it to other monks, and I shall eat (what they have) brought; (or) having collected food, I shall give of it to other monks, but I shall not eat

(The last two paragraphs of the last lesson are to be reproduced here.)

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 73:1 Akela.
  • 73:2 This is the katibandhana or kolapattaka; it should be four fingers broad and one hasta long.

lecture 7.8

The wise ones who attain in due order [3] to one of the unerring states (in which suicide is prescribed), those who are rich in control and endowed with knowledge, knowing the incomparable (religious death, should continue their contemplation).

Knowing the twofold (obstacles, i.e. bodily and mental), the wise ones, having thoroughly learned the law, perceiving in due order (that the time for their death has come), get rid of karman.

Subduing the passions and living on little food [1], he should endure (hardships). If a mendicant falls sick, let him again take food.

H e should not long for life, nor wish for death he should yearn after neither, life or death.

He who is indifferent and wishes for the destruction of karman, should continue his contemplation. Becoming unattached internally and externally, he should strive after absolute purity.

Whatever means one knows for calming one's own life [2], that a wise man should learn (i.e. practise) in order to gain time (for continuing penance).

In a village or in a forest, examining the ground and recognising it as free from living beings, the sage should spread the straw [3].

Without food he should lie down and bear the pains which attack him. He should not for too long time give way to worldly feelings which overcome him.

When crawling animals or such as live on high or below, feed on his flesh and blood, he should neither kill them nor rub (the wound).

Though these animals destroy the body, he should not stir from his position,

After the asravas have ceased, he should bear (pains) as if he rejoiced in them.

When the bonds fall off, then he has accomplished his life.

(We shall now describe) a more exalted (method [1]) for a well-controlled and instructed monk.

This other law has been proclaimed by Gnatriputra:

He should give up all motions except his own in the thrice-threefold way [2].

He should not lie on sprouts of grass, but inspecting the bare ground he should lie on it.

Without any comfort and food, he should there bear pain.

When the sage becomes weak in his limbs, he should strive after calmness [3].

For he is blameless, who is well fixed and immovable (in his intention to die).

He should move to and fro (on his ground), contract and stretch (his limbs) for the benefit of the whole body; or (he should remain quiet as if he were) lifeless.

He should walk about, when tired of (lying), or stand with passive limbs; when tired of standing, he should sit down.

Intent on such an uncommon death, he should regulate the motions of his organs.

Having attained a place swarming with insects, he should search for a clean spot.

He should not remain there whence sin would rise.

He should raise himself above (sinfulness), and bear all pains.

And this is a still more difficult method [1], when one lives according to it: not to stir from one's place, while checking all motions of the body.

This is the highest law, exalted above the preceding method:

Having examined a spot of bare ground he should remain there; stay O Brahmana!

Having attained a place free from living beings, he should there fix himself.

He should thoroughly mortify his flesh, thinking: There are no obstacles in my body.

Knowing as long as he lives the dangers and troubles, the wise and restrained (ascetic) should bear them as being instrumental to the dissolution of the body.

He should not be attached to the transitory pleasures, nor to the greater ones; he should not nourish desire and greed, looking only for eternal praise.

He should be enlightened with eternal objects [2], and not trust in the delusive power of the gods; a Brahmana should know of this and cast off all inferiority [1].

Not devoted to any of the external objects he reaches the end of his life; thinking that patience is the highest good, he (should choose) one of (the described three) good methods of entering Nirvana. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 74:1 Ahesanigga: it had those qualities which are required of a thing the mendicant may accept.
  • 74:2 Ahapariggahiya = ahaparigrihita.
  • 74:3 The preceding lessons treated of suicide conceded to sick persons as a means of entering Nirvana. The eighth lesson, which is written in slokas, describes the different kinds of religious deaths which form the end of a twelve-years' mortification of the flesh (samlekhana). But the ascetic must ask and get the permission of his Guru, before he commits suicide.
  • 75:1 Compare lecture 7, lesson 6, section 3.
  • 75:2 I.e. for preserving the life, when too severe penance brings on sickness and the probability of instant death.
  • 75:3 Here commences the description of the bhaktapratyakhyanamarana, suicide by rejecting food.
  • 76:1 Viz. the ingitamarana, which differs from the preceding one by the restriction of the motions of the candidate for suicide to a limited space.
  • 76:2 I.e. of body, speech, and mind; doing, or causing, or allowing to be done.
  • 76:3 He should not give way to melancholy thoughts.
  • 77:1 It is called paovagamana, translated by the commentators padapopagamana, remaining motionless like a felled tree. This etymology, which is generally adopted by the Gainas, is evidently wrong; for the Sanskrit prototype is the Brahmanical prayopagamana.
  • 77:2 This is the scholiast's interpretation of nimamtegga nimantrayet.
  • 78:1 Numam karma maya va.

lecture 8.1: the pillow of righteousness

As I have heard it, I shall tell how the Venerable Ascetic, exerting himself and meditating, after having entered the order in that winter, wandered about [1],

'I shall not cover myself with that robe [2],' only in that winter (he used it). He had crossed (the samsara) for the rest of his life. This (refusing of dress) is in accordance with his doctrine.

More than four months many sorts of living beings gathered on his body, crawled about it, and caused pain there.

For a year and a month he did not leave off his robe. Since that time the Venerable One, giving up his robe, was a naked, world-relinquishing, houseless (sage) [3].

Then he meditated (walking) with his eye fixed on a square space before him of the length of a man [1]. Many people assembled, shocked at the sight; they struck him and cried.

Knowing (and renouncing) the female sex in mixed gathering places [2], he meditated, finding his way himself: I do not lead a worldly life.

Giving up the company [3] of all householders whomsoever, he meditated. Asked, he gave no answer; he went, and did not transgress the right path.

For some it is not easy (to do what he did), not to answer those who salute; he was beaten with sticks, and struck by sinful people.

Disregarding slights difficult to bear, the Sage wandered about, (not attracted) by story-tellers, pantomimes, songs, fights at quarter-staff, and boxing-matches.

At that time the son of Gnatri saw without sorrow (or pleasure) people in mutual conversation. Gnatriputra obtained oblivion of these exquisite sorrows.

For more than a couple of years he led a religious life without using cold water; he realised singleness, guarded his body, had got intuition, and was calm.

Thoroughly knowing the earth-bodies and water-bodies and fire-bodies and wind-bodies, the lichens, seeds, and sprouts,

He comprehended that they are, if narrowly inspected, imbued with life, and avoided to injure them; he, the great Hero.

The immovable (beings) are changed to movable ones, and the movable beings to immovable ones; beings which are born in all states become individually sinners [1] by their actions.

The Venerable One understands thus: he who is under the conditions (of existence) [2], that fool suffers pain. Thoroughly knowing (karman), the Venerable One avoids sin.

The sage, perceiving the double (karman) [3], proclaims the incomparable activity [4], he, the knowing one; knowing the current of worldliness, the current of sinfulness, and the impulse,

Practising the sinless abstinence from killing, he did no acts, neither himself nor with the assistance of others; he to whom women were known as the causes of all sinful acts, he saw (the true state of the world).

He did not use what had expressly been prepared for him [5]; he well saw (that bondage comes) through action. Whatever is sinful, the Venerable One left that undone: he consumed clean food.

He did not use another's robe, nor does he eat out of another's vessel. Disregarding contempt, he went with indifference to places where food was prepared.

Knowing measure in eating and drinking, he was not desirous of delicious food, nor had he a longing for it. A sage should not rub his eyes nor scratch his body.

Looking a little sideward, looking a little behind, answering little when spoken to, he should walk attentively looking on his path.

When the cold season has half-way advanced, the houseless, leaving off his robe and stretching out his arms, should wander about, not leaning against a trunk.

This is the rule which has often been followed by the wise Brahmana, the Venerable One, who is free from attachment: thus proceed (the monks).

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 79:1 The commentators call this passage a sloka, though only the beginning of it looks like a pada, the rest showing no metrical law. The beginning of the last passage looks also like the first pada of a sloka; but the rest requires some violent alterations to answer the metrical laws of a sloka.
  • 79:2 The divine robe given him by Indra.
  • 79:3 The commentator says that this happened at the Suvarnabaluka river.
  • 80:1 Tiriyabhittim is left out in the translation. I cannot make out the exact meaning of it, perhaps: 'so that he was a wall for the animals.'
  • 80:2 Sayanehim in the original.
  • 80:3 Literally, the mixed state.
  • 81:1 Or sinful? bala.
  • 81:2 Upadhi.
  • 81:3 Present and future.
  • 81:4 I.e. religious life.
  • 81:5 Ahakadam: yatha yena prakarena prishtva aprishtva va kritam yathakritam adhakarmadina.

lecture 8.2

Whatever different seats and couches have been told, whatever have been used by the great Hero, these resting-places are thus detailed [1].

He sometimes lodged in workshops, assembling-places, wells, or shops; sometimes in manufactories or under a shed of straw.

He sometimes lodged in travellers' halls, garden-houses, or towns; sometimes on a burying-ground, in relinquished houses, or at the foot of a tree.

In these places was the wise Sramana for thirteen long years; he meditated day and night, exerting himself, undisturbed, strenuously.

The Venerable One, exerting himself, did not seek sleep for the sake of pleasure; he waked up himself, and slept only a little, free from desires.

Waking up again, the Venerable One lay down, exerting himself; going outside for once in a night, he walked about for an hour.

In his resting-places he sustained fearful and manifold calamities; crawling or flying animals attack him.

Bad people, the guard of the village, or lance-bearers attack him; or there were domestic temptations, single women or men;

Fearful and manifold (calamities) of this and the next world; pleasant and unpleasant smells, and manifold sounds:

Always well controlled, he bore the different sorts of feelings; overcoming carelessness and pleasure, the Brahmana wandered about, speaking but little.

In the resting-places there once, in a night, the single wanderers asked him (who he was, and why he was there); as he did not answer, they treated him badly; but he persevered in his meditations, free from resentment.

(Sometimes to avoid greater troubles when asked), 'Who is there within?' he answered, 'It is I, a mendicant.' But this is the best law: silently to meditate, even if badly treated.

When a cold wind blows, in which some feel pain, then some houseless monks in the cold rain seek a place sheltered from the wind.

(Some heretical monks say), 'We shall put on more clothes; kindling wood or (well) covered, we shall be able (to bear) the very painful influence of the cold.'

But the Venerable One desired nothing of the kind; strong in control, he suffered, despising all shelter. Going outside once of a night, the Venerable One was able (to endure all hardships) in calmness.

This is the rule which has often been followed by the wise Brahmana, the Venerable One, who is free from attachment: thus proceed (the monks).

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 82:1 Silanka remarks: 'This verse has not been explained by the author of the old tika. Why? Either because it offers no difficulty, or because it was wanting. Yet it is found in the MSS. of the text alone. We do not exactly know the reason.' Which old tika is meant by Silanka we cannot tell with certainty. It scarcely can be the Kurni, for in the Bombay MS. of it the text of the verse in question is giver, but no explanation beyond the words: esa pukkha, this is (given as an answer to) a question.

lecture 8.3

Always well guarded, he bore the pains (caused by) grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats; manifold pains.

He travelled in the pathless country of the Ladhas, in Vaggabhumi and Subbhabhumi [1]; he used there miserable beds and miserable seats.

In Ladha (happened) to him many dangers. Many natives attacked him. Even in the faithful part of the rough country [2] the dogs bit him, ran at him.

Few people kept off the attacking, biting dogs. Striking the monk, they cried 'Khukkhu,' and made the dogs bite him.

Such were the inhabitants. Many other mendicants, eating rough food in Vaggabhumi, and carrying about a strong pole or a stalk (to keep off the dogs), lived there.

Even thus armed they were bitten by the dogs, torn by the dogs. It is difficult to travel in Ladha.

Ceasing to use the stick (i.e. cruelty) against living beings, abandoning the care of the body, the houseless (Mahavira), the Venerable One, endures the thorns of the villages (i.e. the abusive language of the peasants), (being) perfectly enlightened.

As an elephant at the head of the battle, so was Mahavira there victorious. Sometimes he did not reach a village there in Ladha.

When he who is free from desires approached the village, the inhabitants met him on the outside, and attacked him, saying, 'Get away from here.'

He was struck with a stick, the fist, a lance, hit with a fruit, a clod, a potsherd. Beating him again and again, many cried.

When he once (sat) without moving his body, they cut his flesh [1], tore his hair under pains, or covered him with dust.

Throwing him up, they let him fall, or disturbed him in his religious postures; abandoning the care of his body, the Venerable One humbled himself and bore pain, free from desire. (1 2)

As a hero at the head of the battle is surrounded on all sides [2], so was there Mahavira. Bearing all hardships, the Venerable One, undisturbed, proceeded (on the road to Nirvana).

This is the rule which has often been followed,

footnotes

  • 84:1 Vagrabhumi and Subhrabhumi (or Svabhrabhumi) are, according to the commentaries, the two divisions of Ladha. I think that Ladha may be identical with the classical Radha or western Bengal and the Lala of the Buddhists, the native country of Vigaya, the legendary conqueror of Ceylon. Subbhabhumi is probably the country of the Suhmas, who are also identified with the Radhas.
  • 84:2 The commentator seems to understand the words lukkhadesie bhatte in the sense: There the living also was rough; for they used clothes of grass instead of cotton.
  • 85:1 Or his mustaches.
  • 85:2 Or is on his guard.

lecture 8.4

The Venerable One was able to abstain from indulgence of the flesh [3], though never attacked by diseases. Whether wounded or not wounded, he desired not medical treatment.

Purgatives and emetics, anointing of the body and bathing, shampooing and cleansing of the teeth do not behove him, after he learned (that the body is something unclean).

Being averse from the impressions of the senses [1], the Brahmana wandered about, speaking but little. Sometimes in the cold season the Venerable One was meditating in the shade.

In summer he exposes himself to the heat, he sits squatting in the sun; he lives on rough (food): rice, pounded jujube, and beans.

Using these three, the Venerable One sustained himself eight months. Sometimes the Venerable One did not drink for half a month or even for a month.

Or he did not drink for more than two months, or even six months, day and night, without desire (for drink). Sometimes he ate stale food.

Sometimes he ate only the sixth meal, or the eighth, the tenth, the twelfth; without desires, persevering in meditation.

Having wisdom, Mahavira committed no sin himself, nor did he induce others to do so, nor did he consent to the sins of others.

Having entered a village or a town, he begged for food which had been prepared for somebody else. Having got clean [2] food, he used it, restraining the impulses.

When there were hungry crows, or thirsty beings stood in his way, where he begged, or when he saw them flying repeatedly down,

When a Brahmana or Sramana, a beggar or guest, a Kandala [1], a cat, or a dog stood in his way,

Without ceasing in his reflections, and avoiding to overlook them [2], the Venerable One slowly wandered about, and, killing no creatures, he begged for his food.

Moist or dry or cold food, old beans, old pap, or bad grain, whether he did or did not get such food, he was rich (in control).

And Mahavira meditated (persevering) in some posture, without the smallest motion; he meditated in mental concentration on (the things) above, below, beside, free from desires.

He meditated free from sin and desire, not attached to sounds or colours; though still an erring mortal (khadmastha), he wandered about, and never acted carelessly.

Himself understanding the truth and restraining the impulses for the purification of the soul, finally liberated, and free from delusion, the Venerable One was well guarded during his whole life.

This is the rule which has been followed,

footnotes

  • 85:3 Omodariya.
  • 86:1 Gamadhamma.
  • 86:2 I.e. free from faults.
  • 87:1 Svapaka.
  • 87:2 Tassa appattiyam pariharamto, avoiding the non-perception of it, i.e. the interruption of his reflections.

book 2

lecture 1.1: begging of food

WHEN a male or a female mendicant, having entered the abode of a householder with the intention of collecting alms, recognises [3] food, drink, dainties, and spices as affected by, or mixed up with, living beings, mildew, seeds or sprouts, or wet with water, or covered with dust–either in the hand or the pot of another [4]–they should not, even if they can get it, accept of such food, thinking that it is impure and unacceptable [5].

But if perchance they accept of such food, under pressing circumstances [6], they should go to a secluded spot, a garden, or a monk's hall–where there are no eggs, nor living beings, nor sprouts, nor dew, nor water, nor ants, nor mildew, nor drops (of water), nor mud, nor cobwebs–and rejecting (that which is affected by), and cleaning that which is mixed up (with living beings, ), they should circumspectly eat or drink it. But with what they cannot eat or drink, they should resort to a secluded spot, and leave it there on a heap of ashes or bones, or rusty things, or chaff, or cowdung, or on any such-like place which they have repeatedly examined and cleaned.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept as alms whatever herbs they recognise, on examining them, as still whole, containing their source of life, not split longwise or broadwise, and still alive, fresh beans, living and not broken; for such food is impure and unacceptable.

But when they recognise after examination that those herbs are no more whole, do not contain their source of life, are split longwise or broadwise, and no more alive, fresh beans, lifeless and broken, then they may accept them, if they get them; for they are pure and acceptable.

A monk or nun on a begging-tour should not accept as alms whatever flattened grains, grains containing much chaff, or half-roasted spikes of wheat, or flour of wheat, or rice or flour of rice, they recognise as only once worked [1]; for such food is impure and unacceptable.

But when they recognise these things as more than once worked, as twice, thrice worked, then they may accept them, if they get them; for they are pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun desiring to enter the abode of a householder for collecting alms, should not enter or leave it together with a heretic or a householder; or a monk who avoids all forbidden food, together with one who does not.

A monk or a nun entering or leaving the out-of-door places for religious practices or for study [1] should not do so together with a heretic or a householder; or a monk who avoids all forbidden food, together with one who does not.

A monk or a nun wandering from village to village should not do so together with a heretic or a householder; or a monk who avoids all forbidden food, together with one who does not.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not give, immediately or mediately, food, to a heretic or a householder; or a monk who avoids all forbidden food, to one who does not. (1o)

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, from a householder whom they know to give out of respect for a Nirgrantha, in behalf of a fellow-ascetic, food, which he has bought or stolen or taken, though it was not to be taken nor given, but was taken by force, by acting sinfully towards all sorts of living beings; for such-like food, prepared by another man [2] or by the giver himself, brought out of the house or not brought out of the house, belonging to the giver or not belonging to him, partaken or tasted of, or not partaken or tasted of, is impure and unacceptable.

In this precept substitute for 'on behalf of one fellow-ascetic,' on behalf of many fellow-ascetics, on behalf of one female fellow-ascetic, on behalf of many female fellow-ascetics; so that there will be four analogous precepts.

A monk or a nun should not accept of food, which they know has been prepared by the householder for the sake of many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars, after he has counted them, acting sinfully towards all sorts of living beings; for such food, whether it be tasted of or not, is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun should not accept of food, procured in the way described in section 1I for the sake of the persons mentioned in section 12, if the said food, has been prepared by the giver himself, has been brought out of the house, does not belong to the giver, has not been partaken or tasted of; for such food, is impure and unacceptable; but if the food, has been prepared by another person, has been brought out of the house, belongs to the giver, has been partaken or tasted of, one may accept it; for it is pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun wishing to enter the abode of a householder with the intention of collecting alms, should not, for the sake of food or drink, enter or leave such always liberal, always open houses, where they always give a morsel, always the best morsel, always a part of the meal, always nearly the half of it.

This certainly is the whole duty of a monk or a nun in which one should, instructed in all its meanings and endowed with bliss, always exert oneself.

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 88:1 Kuda.
  • 88:2 Pindaishana.
  • 88:3 This is the typical beginning of most precepts or sutras in this kuda: se bhikkhu va bhikkhuni va gahavaikulam pimdavayapadiyae anupavitthe samane se ggam puna ganegga. In the sequel I have shortened this rather lengthy preamble.
  • 88:4 By the other is meant the householder or the giver (datri).
  • 88:5 This is the typical conclusion of all prohibitions: aphasuyam anesaniggam ti mannamane labhe samte no padiggahegga. In the translation the plural is used throughout, in order to avoid the necessity of always repeating 'he or she.'
  • 88:6 As e. g. total want of another opportunity to get suitable food during famine and sickness.
  • 89:1 Pounded or cooked or roasted, because after only one operation sperms of life might still be left.
  • 90:1 These are the vikarabhumi and viharabhumi.
  • 90:2 Purisamtarakada. I have rendered this word according to the interpretation of the commentators; but in a similar passage, 8, 3, section section 2 and 3, they understand the word to mean appropriated by another person.

lecture 1.2

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, in the following case: when, on the eighth or paushadha day, on the beginning of a fortnight, of a month, of two, three, four, five, or six months, or on the days of the seasons, of the junction of the seasons, of the intervals of the seasons, many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars are entertained with food, out of one or two or three or four vessels, pots, baskets, or heaps of food; such-like food which has been prepared by the giver, (all down to) not tasted of, is impure and unacceptable. But if it is prepared by another person, , one may accept it; for it is pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour may accept food, from unblamed, uncensured families, to wit, noble families, distinguished families, royal families, families belonging to the line of Ikshvaku, of Hari, cowherds' families, Vaisya families, barbers' families, carpenters' families, takurs' families, weavers' families; for such food, is pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, in the following case: when in assemblies, or during offerings to the manes, or on a festival of Indra or Skanda or Rudra or Mukunda or demons or Yakshas or the snakes, or on a festival in honour of a tomb, or a shrine, or a tree, or a hill, or a cave, or a well, or a tank, or a pond, or a river, or a lake, or the sea, or a mine–when on such-like various festivals many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars are entertained with food, (all as in section 1, down to) acceptable.

But when he perceives that all have received their due share, and are enjoying their meal, he should address [1] the householder's wife or sister or daughter-in-law or nurse or male or female servant or slave and say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) will you give me something to eat?' After these words of the mendicant, the other may bring forth food, and give it him. Such food, whether he beg for it or the other give it, he may accept; for it is pure and acceptable.

When a monk or a nun knows that at a distance of more than half a yogana a festive entertainment [2] is going on, they should not resolve to go there for the sake of the festive entertainment.

When a monk hears that the entertainment is given in an eastern or western or southern or northern place, he should go respectively to the west or east or north or south, being quite indifferent (about the feast); wherever there is a festive entertainment, in a village or scot-free town, , he should not go there for the sake of the festive entertainment.

The Kevalin assigns as the reason for this precept, that if the monk eats food, which has been given him on such an occasion, he will incur the sin of one who uses what [1] has been prepared for him, or is mixed up with living beings, or has been bought or stolen or taken, though it was not to be taken, nor was it given, but taken by force.

A layman [2] might, for the sake of a mendicant, make small doors large, or large ones small; put beds [3] from a level position into a sloping one, or from a sloping position into a level one; place the beds [3] out of the draught or in the draught; cutting and clipping the grass outside or within the upasraya, spread a couch for him, (thinking that) this mendicant is without means for a bed [3]. Therefore should a well-controlled Nirgrantha not resolve to go to any festival which is preceded or followed by a feast.

This certainly is the whole duty, .

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 93:1 Puvvam eva aloegga, he should first look at him or her (and then say).
  • 93:2 Samkhadi, somewhere explained odanapaka, cooking of rice; in the commentary the following etymology is given: samkhandyante viradhyante pranino yatra sa samkhadi. But the Guzerati commentator explains it: giham ghana gan nimitti ahara kelviva bhana.
  • 94:1 This stands for ahakammiya and uddesiya, pure and impure food prepared for a mendicant.
  • 94:2 Asamgae, the uncontrolled one; it denotes a layman or a householder.
  • 94:3 Segga = sayya, bed; but the scholiast explains it by vasati, dwelling, lodging.

lecture 1.3

When he has eaten or drunk at a festive entertainment, he might vomit (what he has eaten), or not well digest it; or some other bad disease or sickness might befall him.

The Kevalin says this is the reason:

A mendicant, having drunk various liquors, together with the householder or his wife, monks or nuns, might not find the (promised) resting-place on leaving the scene of entertainment and looking out for it; or in the resting-place he may get into mixed company; in the absence of his mind or in his drunkenness he may lust after a woman or a eunuch; approaching the mendicant (they will say): O long-lived Sramana! (let us meet) in the garden, or in the sleeping-place, in the night or in the twilight.' Luring him thus by his sensuality (she says): Let us proceed to enjoy the pleasures of love.' He might go to her, though he knows that it should not be done.

These are the causes to sin, they multiply continuously. Therefore should a well-controlled Nirgrantha not resolve to go to any festival which is preceded or followed by a feast.

A monk or a nun, hearing or being told of some festivity, might hasten there, rejoicing inwardly: 'There will be an entertainment, sure enough!' It is impossible to get there from other families alms which are acceptable and given out of respect for the cloth [1], and to eat the meal. As this would lead to sin, they should not do it [2]. But they should enter there, and getting from other families their alms, should eat their meal.

A monk or a nun, knowing that in a village or a scot-free town, , an entertainment will be given, should not resolve to go to that village, for the sake of the entertainment. The Kevalin assigns as the reason herefore: When a man goes to a much-frequented and vulgar entertainment somebody's foot treads on his foot, somebody's hand moves his hand, somebody's bowl clashes against his bowl, somebody's head comes in collision with his head, somebody's body pushes his body, or somebody beats him with a stick or a bone or a fist or a clod, or sprinkles him with cold water, or covers him with dust; or he eats unacceptable food, or he receives what should be given to others. Therefore should a well-controlled Nirgrantha not resolve to go to a much-frequented and vulgar entertainment to partake of it.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept such food, about the acceptability or unacceptability of which his (or her) mind has some doubts or misgivings for such food,

When a monk or a nun wishes to enter the abode of a householder, they should do so with the complete outfit [1].

A monk or a nun entering or leaving the out-of-door places for religious practices or study, should do so with the complete outfit.

A monk or a nun wandering from village to village should do so with the complete outfit [2].

A monk or a nun should not, with the complete outfit, enter or leave the abode of a householder to collect alms, or the out-of-door places for religious practices and study, or wander from village to village on perceiving that a strong and widely-spread rain pours down, or a strong and widely-spread mist is coming on, or a high wind raises much dust, or many flying insects are scattered about and fall down.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, in the houses of Kshatriyas, kings, messengers, and relations of kings, whether they are inside or outside, or invite them; for such food, is impure and unacceptable. Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 95:1 Esiyam vesiyam. The latter word is explained by ragoharanadiveshal labdham, what one gets for the sake of one's apparel, the broom,
  • 95:2 Maitthanam samphase, no evam karegga, i.e. matristhanam samspriset, na evam kuryat: matristhana is somewhere explained karmopadanasthana.
  • 96:1 See I, 7, 4, note 1.
  • 96:2 These Sutras are perfectly analogous with section section 7, 8 of the first lesson.

lecture 1.4

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not resolve to go to a festival, preceded or followed by an entertainment, to partake of it, when they know that there will be served up chiefly meat or fish or roasted slices of meat or fish; nor to a wedding breakfast in the husband's house or in that of the bride's father; nor to a funeral dinner or to a family dinner where something is served up,–if on their way there, there are many living beings, many seeds, many sprouts, much dew, much water, much mildew, many drops (of water), much dust, and many cobwebs; or if there have arrived or will arrive many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars, and if it will be a crowded assembly, so that a wise man may not enter or leave it, or learn there the sacred texts, to question about them, to repeat them, to consider them, to think about the substance of the law.

A monk or a nun may go to such an entertainment (as described in the preceding Sara), provided that on their way there, there are few living beings, few seeds, ; that no Sramanas and Brahmanas, have arrived or will arrive; that it is not a crowded assembly, so that a wise man may enter or leave, [1]

A monk or a nun desirous to enter the abode of a householder, should not do so, when they see that the milch cows are being milked, or the food, is being cooked, and that it is not yet distributed. Perceiving this, they should step apart and stay where no people pass or see them. But when they conceive that the milch cows are milked, the dinner prepared and distributed, then they may circumspectly enter or leave the householder's abode for the sake of alms.

Some of the mendicants say to those who follow the same rules of conduct, live (in the same place), or wander from village to village: 'This is indeed a small village, it is too populous, nor is it large; reverend gentlemen, go to the outlying villages to beg alms [2].'

Some mendicant may have there kinsmen or relations, e. g. a householder or his wife, or daughters, or daughters-in-law, or nurses, or male and female slaves or servants. Such families with which he is connected by kindred or through marriage, he intends to visit before (the time of begging): 'I shall get there (he thinks) food or dainties or milk or thick sour milk or fresh butter or ghee or sugar or oil or honey or meat or liquor, a sesamum dish [3], or raw sugar, or a meal of parched wheat [4], or a meal of curds and sugar with spices [5]; after having eaten and drunk, and having cleaned and rubbed the alms-bowl, I shall, together with other mendicants, enter or leave the abode of a householder to collect alms.' As this would be sinful, he should not do so.

But, at the proper time, entering there with the other mendicants, he may there in these or other families accept alms which are acceptable and given out of respect for his cloth, and eat his meal.

This certainly is the whole duty, .

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 98:1 This precept applies, according to the commentator, only to sick monks, or such as can get nothing elsewhere.
  • 98:2 The just arrived monks should do as they are bidden.
  • 98:3 Samkuli.
  • 98:4 Puya.
  • 98:5 Sikharini.

lecture 1.5

When a monk or a nun on entering the abode of a householder sees that the first portion of the meal is being thrown away [1] or thrown down, or taken away, or distributed, or eaten, or put off, or has already been eaten or removed; that already other Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars go there in great haste; (they might think), 'Hallo! I too shall go there in haste.' As this would be sinful, they should not do so.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour comes upon walls or gates, or bolts or holes to fit them, they should, in case there be a byway, avoid those (obstacles), and not go on straight.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Walking there, he might stumble or fall down; when he stumbles or falls down, his body might become contaminated with faeces, urine, phlegmatic humour, mucus, saliva, bile, matter, semen, or blood. And if his body has become soiled, he should not wipe or rub or scratch or clean [1] or warm or dry it on the bare ground or wet earth [or dusty earth [2]] on a rock or a piece of clay containing life, or timber inhabited by worms, or anything containing eggs, living beings, (down to) cobwebs; but he should first beg for some straw or leaves, wood or a potsherd, which must be free from dust, resort with it to a secluded spot, and on a heap of ashes or bones, .

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour perceives a vicious cow coming towards them, or a vicious buffalo coming towards them, or a vicious man, horse, elephant, lion, tiger, wolf, panther, bear, hyena, sarabha, shakal, cat, dog, boar, fox, leopard coming towards them, they should, in case there be a byway, circumspectly avoid them, and not walk on straight.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour comes on their way upon a pit, pillar, thorns, or unsafe, marshy or uneven ground, or mud, they should, in case there be a byway, avoid these (obstacles), and not walk on straight.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour perceives that the entrance of a householder's abode is secured by a branch of a thorn bush, they should not, without having previously got the (owner's) permission, and having examined and swept (the entrance), make it passable or enter and leave (the house). But they may circumspectly do so, after having got the (owner's) permission, and having examined and swept it.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour knows that a Sramana or a Brahmana, a guest, pauper or beggar has already entered (the house), they should not stand in their sight or opposite the door [1].

The Kevalin [2] says: This is the reason: Another, on seeing him, might procure and give him food, Therefore it has been declared to the mendicants: This is the statement, this is the reason, this is the order, that he should not stand in the other mendicants' sight or opposite the door.

Knowing this, he should go apart and stay where no people pass or see him. Another man may bring and give him food, while he stays where no people pass or see him, and say unto him: 'O long-lived Sramana! this food, has been given for the sake of all of you; eat it or divide it among you.' Having silently accepted the gift, he might think: Well, this is just (enough) for me!' As this would be sinful, he should not do so.

Knowing this, he should join the other beggars, and after consideration say unto them [3]: 'O long-lived Sramanas! this food, is given for the sake of all of you; eat it or divide it among you.' After these words another might answer him: 'O long-lived

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour perceives that a Sramana or Brahmana, a beggar or guest has already entered the house, they should not overtake them and address (the householder) first. Knowing this, they should go apart and stay where no people pass or see them. But when they perceive that the other has been sent away or received alms, and has returned, they may circumspectly enter the house and address the householder.

This certainly is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 99:1 In honour of the gods.
  • 100:1 This stands for uvvalegga va uvvattegga va (udvaled va udvarted va), for which words, denoting some rather indistinct varieties of rubbing, I know no adequate English words.
  • 100:2 The words in brackets are the translation of varia lectio.
  • 101:1 This might also be translated: at an opposite door.
  • 101:2 The following passage is not explained in the commentaries, and is wanting in the oldest MS., though supplied on the margin. It may therefore be concluded that the whole passage, the greater part of which is typical, is a later addition.
  • 101:3 Aloegga. The scholiast explains it here by darsayet, he should show the food, Professor Oldenberg has identified this word with the Pali aroketi.
  • 102:1 The scholiast says that the way to procure food, as described in this paragraph, should only be resorted to under pressing circumstances.

lecture 1.6

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour perceives that many hungry animals have met and come together in search of food, e. g. those of the chicken-kind or those of the pig-kind, or that crows have met and come together, where an offering is thrown on the ground, they should, in case there be a byway, avoid them and not go on straight.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not stand leaning against the door-post of the householder's abode, or his sink or spitting-pot, nor in sight of, or opposite to his bathroom or privy; nor should they contemplate a loophole or a mended spot or a fissure (of the house) or the bathing-house, showing in that direction with an arm or pointing with a finger, bowing up and down.

Nor should they beg, pointing with a finger at the householder, or moving him with a finger, or threatening him with a finger, or scratching him with a finger, or praising him, or using coarse language.

If he sees somebody eating, eg. the householder or his wife, he should after consideration say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) will you give me some of that food?' After these words the other might wash or wipe his hand or pot or spoon or plate with cold or hot water [1]. He should after consideration say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) do not wash or wipe your hand or pot or spoon or plate! If you want to give me something, give it as it is!' After these words the other might give him a share, having washed or wiped his hand, with cold or hot water. But he should not accept anything out of such a hand, which has been before treated thus; for it is impure and unacceptable.

It is also to be known that food, is impure and unacceptable, which is given with a wet hand, though the hand be not purposely wetted.

The same rule holds good with regard to a moistened hand, and a dusty hand, and a hand which is soiled with clay, dew, orpiment, vermilion, realgar, collyrium, white chalk, alum, rice-flour, kukkusa, ground drugs.

It is also to be known that he may accept such food, which is given with a soiled hand, to one similarly soiled (i.e. with what one is to receive), or to one unsoiled, with hand similarly soiled; for such food, is pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept flattened grains, grains containing much chaff, cobwebs; for such large, parched grains, are impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept fossil salt or sea salt which a householder, for the sake of the mendicant, has ground or pounded, grinds or pounds, will grind or pound on a rock or a piece of clay containing life, ; for such-like fossil salt or sea salt is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which is prepared over the fire; for such food is impure and unacceptable. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: A layman will kill the fire-bodies, by wetting or moistening, wiping or rubbing, throwing up or turning down the food, for the sake of the mendicant. Hence it has been declared to the mendicants: This is the statement, this is the reason, this is the order, that they should not accept food, which has been prepared over the fire,

This certainly is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 103:1 Siodagavigada, usinodagavigada. Vigada, Sanskrit vikata, is explained apkaya. It is therefore cold or hot water which is to be considered as containing life.
  • 104:1 The subject asamgae, the uncontrolled one, i.e. layman, stands in the singular, but the verb in the plural. The same irregularity occurs in the next paragraph. The commentator accounts for it simply by saying: ekavakanadhikare pi khandasatvat tadvyatyayena bahuvakanam drashtavyam, purvatra va gatav ekavakanam.

lecture 1.7

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which has been placed on a post or pillar or beam or scaffold or loft [1] or platform or roof or some such-like elevated place; for such food fetched from above is impure and unacceptable. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: The layman might fetch and erect a stool or a bench or a ladder or a handmill, get upon it, and getting upon it fall or tumble down. Thus he might hurt his foot or arm or breast or belly or head or some other part of his body; or he might kill or frighten or bruise or smash or crush or afflict or pain or dislocate all sorts of living beings. Therefore he should not accept such-like food, fetched from above.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which a layman, for the sake of the mendicant, has taken from a granary or vault by contorting himself up and down and horizontally; thinking that such-like food is brought from underground [1].

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which is kept in earthenware. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: The layman might, for the sake of the mendicant, break the earthen vessel containing the food, and thereby injure the earth-body; in the same way he might injure the fire-body, the wind-body, plants and animals; by putting it again (in earthenware), he commits the pakkhakamma sin. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not accept food, which is put in earthenware.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, placed on the earth-body, the wind-body, the fire-body, for such food is impure and unacceptable. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: A layman might, for the sake of the mendicant, stir or brighten the fire, and taking the food, down from it, might give it to the mendicant. Hence it has been said, that he should accept no such food.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour sees that a layman might, for the sake of the mendicant, cool too hot food, by blowing or fanning with a winnowing basket or fan or a palm leaf or a branch or a part of a branch or a bird's tail or a peacock's tail or a cloth or a corner of a cloth or the hand or the mouth, they should, after consideration, say (to the householder or his wife): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) do not blow or fan the hot food, with a winnowing basket, ; but if you want to give it me, give it as it is.' After these words the other might give it after having blown or fanned it with a winnowing basket, ; such-like food they should not accept, because it is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which is placed on vegetable or animal matter [1]; for such food is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept water which has been used for watering flour or sesamum or rice, or any other such-like water which has been recently used for washing, which has not acquired a new taste, nor altered its taste or nature, nor has been strained; for such-like water is impure and unacceptable. But if it has long ago been used for washing, has acquired a new taste, has altered its taste or nature, and has been strained, it may be accepted, for it is pure and acceptable.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour finds water used for washing sesamum, chaff or barley, or rainwater [2] or sour gruel or pure water, they should, after consideration, say (to the householder or his wife): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) will you give me some of this water?' Then the other may answer him: 'O long-lived Sramana! take it yourself by drawing it with, or pouring it in, your bowl!' Such-like water, whether taken by himself or given by the other, he may accept.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept such water as has been taken from the bare ground, cobwebs, or water which the layman fetches in a wet or moist or dirty vessel, mixing it with cold water.

This certainly is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 105:1 Mala. The word is not explained in the Tika and Dipika; the Guzerati translation says that the word is lokapratita, commonly understood. It is probably the Marathi mal or mala; the former word denotes a loft, floored with bamboos; the second, the room formed by overlaying with slight sticks the cross-beams of a house, a loft, an erection or stand in a cornfield, scaffolding (of a building). Molesworth, Marathi and English Dictionary, s. v.
  • 106:1 The original has bho malohadam ti nakka. Bho malohada is explained adhomalahritam. Malohada, which I translate 'fetched from above,' is the technical term for things affected by the dosha under question.
  • 107:1 Vanassaikayapatitthiya and tasakayapatitthiya.
  • 107:2 Ayama, akamlam avasyanam.

lecture 1.8

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept juice of mangos, inspissated juice of mangos, juice of wood-apples, citrons, grapes, wild dates, pomegranates, cocoa-nuts, bamboos, jujubes, myrobalans, tamarinds, or any such-like liquor containing particles of the shell or skin or seeds, which liquor the layman, for the sake of the mendicant, pressed, strained, or filtered through a basket [1], cloth, or a cow's tail; for such liquor is impure and unacceptable.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour smells, in travellers' houses or garden houses or householders' houses or maths, the scent of food or drink or sweet scents, they should not smell them, being indifferent against smell, and not eager or desirous or greedy or covetous of the pleasant smell.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept raw things which are not yet modified by instruments [1], as bulbous roots, growing in water or dry ground, mustard stalks; for they are impure and unacceptable. The same holds good with regard to long pepper, ground long pepper, common pepper, ground common pepper, ginger or ground ginger.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept such raw fruits which are not yet modified by instruments, as those of Mango, Amrataka, Ghigghira [2], Surabhi [3], Sallaki [4]; for they,

The same holds good with regard to raw shoots which, as those of Asvattha, Nyagrodha, Pilamkhu [5], Niyura [6], Sallaki.

The same holds good with regard to raw berries which, as those of Kapittha [7], pomegranate, or Pippala.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept raw, powdered fruits which are not well ground and still contain small seeds, as those of Umbara, Pilamkhu, Nyagrodha, and Asvattha; for

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept unripe wild rice [8], dregs, honey, liquor, ghee, or sediments of liquor, if these things be old or if living beings are engendered or grow or thrive in them, or are not taken out, or killed or destroyed in them.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept any such-like raw plants [1] as Ikshumeru, Ankakarelu, Kaseru, Samghatika, Putialu.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept any such-like (vegetables) as Nymphaea or stalk of Nymphaea or the bulb of Nelumbium or the upper part or the filament of Lotus or any part of the plant.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept such-like raw substances as seeds or sprouts, growing on the top or the root or the stem or the knots (of a plant), likewise the pulp or blossoms of the plantain, cocoa-nut, wild date, and palmyra trees.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept any such-like raw unmodified substances as sugar-cane, which is full of holes, or withering or peeling off or corroded by wolves; or the points of reeds or the pulp of plantains.

The same holds good with regard to garlic or its leaves or stalk or bulb or integument. Likewise with regard to cooked fruits of Atthiya [2], Tinduka [3], Vilva [4], Sriparni [5].

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept such raw, unmodified substances as corn, clumps of corn, cakes of corn, sesamum, ground sesamum, or cakes of sesamum.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 108:1 Khavva, Sanskrit khabdaka (sic). The Hindi has khavda, basket.
  • 109:1 I.e. when they have undergone no operation which takes the life out of them.
  • 109:2 Name of a shrub.
  • 109:3 Explained by satagru.
  • 109:4 Boswellia Thurifera.
  • 109:5 Explained by pippari.
  • 109:6 Cedrela Toona.
  • 109:7 The wood-apple tree, Feronia Elephantum.
  • 109:8 .Amadaga, explained in the commentary amapannam, unripe or half ripe, aranikatanduliyakadi.
  • 110:1 Of these plants only Kaseru, a kind of grass, and Samghatika Trapa Bispinosa are specialised in our dictionaries.
  • 110:2 A certain tree.
  • 110:3 Diospyros Glutinosa.
  • 110:4 Aegle Marmelos.
  • 110:5 Pistia Stratiotes.

lecture 1.9

In the east or west or south or north, there are some faithful householders, (all down to) servants who will speak thus: 'It is not meet that these illustrious, pious, virtuous, eloquent, restrained, controlled, chaste ascetics, who have ceased from sensual intercourse, should eat or drink food, which is adhakarmika [1]; let us give to the ascetics all food, that is ready for our use, and let us, afterwards, prepare food for our own use.' Having heard such talk, the mendicant should not accept such-like food, for it is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour or in their residence or on a pilgrimage from village to village, who know that in a village or scot-free town, dwell a mendicant's nearer or remoter relations–viz. a householder or his wife, –should not enter or leave such houses for the sake of food or drink. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Seeing him, the other might, for his sake, procure or prepare food, Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not enter or leave such houses for the sake of food or drink.

Knowing this, he should go apart and stay where no people pass or see him. In due time he may enter other houses, and having begged for alms which are acceptable and given out of respect for his cloth, he may eat his dinner. If the other has, on the mendicant's timely entrance, procured or prepared food, which is adhakarmika, he might silently examine it, and think: 'Why should I abstain from what has been brought.' As this would be sinful, he should not do so. But after consideration he should say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) as it is not meet that I should eat or drink food, which is adhakarmika, do not procure or prepare it.' If after these words the other brings and gives him adhakarmika food which he has prepared, he should not accept such-like food, for it is impure and unacceptable.

When a monk or a nun on a begging-tour sees that meat or fish is being roasted, or oil cakes, for the sake of a guest, are being prepared, they should not, quickly approaching, address the householder; likewise if the food is prepared for the sake of a sick person.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour might, of the received quantity of food, eat only the sweet-smelling parts and reject the bad-smelling ones. As this would be sinful, they should not do so; but they should consume everything, whether it be sweet smelling or bad smelling, and reject nothing.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour might, of the received quantity of drink, imbibe only the well-flavoured part, and reject the astringent part. As this would be sinful, they should not do so; but they should consume everything, whether it be well flavoured or astringent, and reject nothing.

A monk or a nun, having received a more than sufficient quantity of food, might reject (the superfluous part) without having considered or consulted fellow-ascetics living in the neighbourhood, who follow the same rules of conduct, are agreeable and not to be shunned; as this would be sinful, they should not do so. Knowing this, they should go there and after consideration say: 'O long-lived Sramanas! this food, is too much for me, eat it or drink it!' After these words the other might say: 'O long-lived Sramana! we shall eat or drink as much of this food or drink as we require; or, we require the whole, we shall eat or drink the whole.'

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept food, which for the sake of another has been put before the door, if the householder has not permitted him to do so, or he gives it him; for such food, But on the contrary he may accept it.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 111:1 For the meaning of this frequently used term, see note on <page 81>, and note on <page 94>.

lecture 1.10

A single mendicant, having collected alms for many, might, without consulting his fellow-ascetics, give them to those whom he list; as this would be sinful, he should not do so. Taking the food, he should go there (where his teacher is) and speak thus: 'O long-lived Sramana! there are near or remote (spiritual) relations of mine: a teacher, a sub-teacher, a religious guide, a Sthavira, a head of a Gana, a Ganadhara, a founder of a Gana; forsooth, I shall give it them.' The other may answer him: 'Well now, indeed, O long-lived one! give such a portion!' As much as the other commands, thus much he should give; if the other commands the whole, he should give the whole.

A single mendicant, having collected agreeable food, might cover it with distasteful food, thinking: 'The teacher or sub-teacher, seeing what I have received, might take it himself; indeed, I shall not give anything to anybody!' As this would be sinful, he should not do so.

Knowing this, he should go there (where the other mendicants are), should put the vessel in his out-stretched hand, show it (with the words): Ah, this! ah, this!' and hide nothing.

A single mendicant, having received some food, might eat what is good, and bring what is discoloured and tasteless; as this would be sinful, he should not do so.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept any part of the sugar-cane [1], whether small or large, pea-pods, seed-pods, of which articles a small part only can be eaten, and the greater part must be rejected; for such things are impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept meat or fish containing many bones, so that only a part of it can be eaten and the greater part must be rejected; for such meat or fish, is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour may be invited to meat or fish containing many bones, (by the householder who addresses him thus): 'O long-lived Sramana! will you accept meat with many bones?' Hearing such a communication, he should say, after consideration: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) it is not meet for me to accept meat with many bones; if you want to give me a portion of whatever size, give it me; but not the bones!' If after these words the other (i.e. the householder) should fetch meat containing many bones, put it in a bowl and return with it, (the mendicant) should not accept such a bowl, whether out of the other's hand or a vessel [1]; for it is impure and unacceptable. But if he has inadvertently accepted it, he should not say: 'No, away, take it!' Knowing this, he should go apart, and in a garden or an upasraya, where there are few eggs, (all down t o) cobwebs, eat the meat or fish, and taking the bones, he should resort to a secluded spot and leave them on a heap of ashes, .

If a householder should fetch fossil salt or sea salt, put it in a bowl and return with it, a monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept it out of the other's hand or vessel; for,

But if he has inadvertently accepted it, he should return with it to the householder, if he is not yet too far away, and say, after consideration [2]: 'Did you give me this with your full knowledge or without it?' He might answer: I did give it without my full knowledge; but indeed, O long-lived one! I now give it you; consume it or divide it (with others)!'

Then being permitted by, and having received it from, the householder, he should circumspectly eat it or drink it, and what he cannot eat or drink he should share with his fellow-ascetics in the neighbourhood, who follow the same rules of conduct, are agreeable, and not to be shunned; but if there are no fellow-ascetics, the same should be done as in case one has received too much food.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 114:1 They are detailed in the original: amtarukkhuyam, a piece between two knots; ukkhugamdiyam, a piece containing a knot; ukkhukoyagam (?), ukkhumeragam, top of a stalk; ukkhusalagam, long leaf; ukkhudalagam, fragment of a leaf.
  • 115:1 Parahatthamsi va parapayamsi va. This is a typical phrase, and seems rather out of place here.
  • 115:2 Aloegga, he should show, would perhaps be better.

lecture 1.11

Some mendicants say unto (others) who follow the same rules of conduct, or live in the same place, or wander from village to village, if they have received agreeable food and another mendicant falls sick [1]: 'Take it! give it him! if the sick mendicant will not eat it, thou mayst eat it.' But he (who is ordered to bring the food) thinking, 'I shall eat it myself,' covers it and shows it (saying): This is the lump of food, it is rough to the taste [2], it is pungent, it is bitter, it is astringent, it is sour, it is sweet; there is certainly nothing in it fit for a sick person.' As this would be sinful, he should not do so. But he should show him which parts are not fit for a sick person (saying): 'This particle is pungent, this one bitter, this one astringent, this one sour, this one sweet.'

Some mendicants say unto (others) who follow the same rules of conduct, or live in the same place, or wander from village to village, if they have received agreeable food and another mendicant falls sick: 'Take it! give it him! if the mendicant will not eat it, bring it to us!' 'If nothing prevents me, I shall bring it.' (Then he might act as stated in section 1, which would be sinful.)

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin there are seven rules for begging food and as many for begging drink, to be known by the mendicants.

Now, this is the first rule for begging food. Neither hand nor vessel are wet [1]: with such a hand or vessel he may accept as pure, food, for which he himself begs or which the other gives him. That is the first rule for begging food.

Now follows the second rule for begging food. The hand and the vessel are wet. The rest as in the preceding rule. That is the second rule for begging food.

Now follows the third rule for begging food. In the east, there are several faithful householders, (all down to) servants: they have put (food) in some of their various vessels, as a pan, a pot, a winnowing basket, a basket, a precious vessel. Now (the mendicant) should again know: is the hand not wet and the vessel wet; or the hand wet and the vessel not wet? If he collect alms with an alms-bowl or with his hand [2], he should say, after consideration: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) with your not-wet hand, or with your wet vessel, put (alms) in this my bowl, or hand, and give it me!' Such-like food, for which he himself begs or which the other gives him, he may accept; for it is pure and acceptable. That is the third rule for begging food.

Now follows the fourth rule for begging food. A monk or a nun may accept flattened grains, (cf. II, 1, 1, section 5), for which they beg themselves or which the other gives them, if it be such as to require little cleaning or taking out (of chaff); for it is pure, That is the fourth rule for begging food.

Now follows the fifth rule for begging food. A monk or a nun may accept food which is offered on a plate or a copper cup or any vessel, if the moisture on the hands of the giver is almost dried up; for, That is the fifth rule for begging food.

Now follows the sixth rule for begging food. A monk or a nun may accept food which had been taken up from the ground, either taken up for one's own sake or accepted for the sake of somebody else, whether it be placed in a vessel or in the hand; for, That is the sixth rule for begging food.

Now follows the seventh rule for begging food. A monk or a nun may accept food of which only a part may be used, and which is not wanted by bipeds, quadrupeds, Sramanas, Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars, whether they beg for it themselves, or the householder gives it them. That is the seventh rule for begging food.

These are the seven rules for begging food; now follow the seven rules for begging drink. They are, however, the same as those about food, only the fourth gives this precept: A monk or a nun may accept as drink water which has been used for watering flour or sesamum, (II, 1, 7, section 7), if it be such as to require little cleaning and taking out (of impure) articles; for,

One who has adopted one of these seven rules for begging food or drink should not say: 'These reverend persons have chosen a wrong rule, I alone have rightly chosen.' (But he should say): 'These reverend persons, who follow these rules, and I who follow that rule, we all exert ourselves according to the commandment of the Gina, and we respect each other accordingly.'

This certainly is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 116:1 This is the way in which the commentator construes the sentence. There is some confusion in the text, which cannot easily be removed.
  • 116:2 Loe, Sanskrit ruksha?
  • 117:1 Samsattha; it would perhaps be more correct to translate this word, soiled with the food in question.
  • 117:2 These are the padiggahadhari and the panipadiggahiya, lit, one who uses his hand instead of an alms-bowl.

lecture 2.1: begging for a couch

If a monk or a nun want to ask for a lodging, and having entered a village or scot-free town, conceive that lodging to contain eggs, living beings, they should not use it for religious postures, night's-rest, or study [2].

But if the lodging contains only few eggs or few living beings, they may, after having inspected and cleaned it, circumspectly use it for religious postures, Now, if they conceive that the householder, for the sake of a Nirgrantha and on behalf of a fellow-ascetic (male or female, one or many), gives a lodging which he has bought or stolen or taken, though it was not to be taken nor given, but was taken by force, by acting sinfully towards all sorts of living beings, they should not use for religious postures, such a lodging which has been appropriated by the giver himself, .

The same holds good if there be instead of a fellow-ascetic many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars. But if the lodging has been appropriated by another man than the giver, they may, after having inspected and cleaned it, circumspectly use it for religious postures,

A monk or a nun, knowing that the layman has, for the sake of the mendicant, matted the lodging, whitewashed it, strewn it (with grass, ), smeared it (with cowdung), levelled, smoothed, or perfumed it (or the floor of it), should not use that lodging, which has been prepared by the giver himself, for religious postures. But if it has been prepared by another person, they may circumspectly use it for religious postures.

A monk or a nun, knowing that a layman will, for the sake of a mendicant, make small doors large, (all as in II, 1, 2, section 7, down to) spread his couch or place it outside, should not use such a lodging which has been appropriated by the giver himself, for religious postures, But if it has been appropriated by another person, they may circumspectly use it for religious postures,

Again, a monk or a nun, knowing that the layman, for the sake of the mendicant, removes from one place to another, or places outside, bulbs or roots or leaves or flowers or fruits or seeds or grass-blades of water plants, should not use such a lodging, which is appropriated by the giver himself, for religious postures, But if it has been prepared by another person, they may circumspectly use it for religious postures,

A monk or a nun, knowing that the layman, for the sake of the mendicant, removes from one place to another, or places outside, a chair or a board or a ladder or a mortar, should not use such a lodging-place, (all as at the end of the last paragraph).

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging-place above ground, as a pillar or a raised platform or a scaffold or a second story or a flat roof, likewise no underground place (except under urgent circumstances). If by chance they are thus lodged, they should there not wash or clean their hands or feet or eyes or teeth or mouth with hot or cold water; nor should they put forth there any other secretion, as excrements, urine, saliva, mucus, bilious humour, ichor, blood, or any other part of the bodily humours.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Making secretions he might stumble or fall; stumbling or falling he might hurt his hand, (II, I, 7, section 1), or any other limb of his body, or kill, all sorts of living beings. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should use no above-ground lodging-place for religious postures,

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not use, for religious postures, a lodging-place used by the householder, in which there are women, children, cattle, food, and drink. This is the reason: A mendicant living together with a householder's family may have an attack of gout, dysentery, or vomiting; or some other pain, illness, or disease may befall him; the layman might, out of compassion, smear or anoint the mendicant's body with oil or ghee or butter or grease, rub or shampoo it with perfumes, drugs, lodhra, dye, powder, padmaka, then brush or rub it clean; clean, wash, or sprinkle it with hot or cold water, kindle or light a fire by rubbing wood on wood; and having done so, he might dry or warm (the mendicant's body).

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not use for religious postures, a lodging-place which is used by the householder.

This is (another) reason: While a mendicant lives in a lodging used by the householder, the householder or his wife, might bully, scold [1], attack or beat each other. Then the mendicant might direct his mind to approval or dislike.: 'Let them bully each other!' or, 'Let them not bully each other!'

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not use, for religious postures, a lodging-place used by the householder.

This is (another) reason: While the mendicant lives together with householders, the householder might, for his own sake, kindle or light or extinguish a fire-body. Then the mendicant might direct his mind to approval or dislike: Let them kindle or light or extinguish a fire-body;' or, 'Let them not do so.'

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, .

This is (another) reason: While the mendicant lives together with householders, he might see the householder's earrings or girdle or jewels or pearls or gold and silver [2] or bracelets (those round the wrist and those round the upper arm) or necklaces (those consisting of three strings, or those reaching halfway down the body, or those consisting of eighty strings or forty strings or one string or strings of pearls, golden beads or jewels) or a decked or ornamented girl or maiden. Thus the mendicant might direct his mind to approval or dislike: 'Let her be thus;' or, 'Let her not be thus.' So he might say, so he might think. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, .

This is (another) reason: While a mendicant lives together with householders, the householder's wives, daughters, daughters-in-law, nurses, slave-girls or servant-girls might say: 'These reverend Sramanas, have ceased from sexual intercourse; it behoves them not to indulge in sexual intercourse: whatever woman indulges with them in sexual intercourse, will have a strong, powerful, illustrious, glorious, victorious son of heavenly beauty.' Hearing and perceiving such talk, one of them might induce the mendicant ascetic to indulge in sexual intercourse.

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not use for religious postures, a lodging used by the householder.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 120:1 Segga.
  • 120:2 Tahappagare uvassae no thanam va seggam vi nisihiyam va ketegga. Thana = sthana is explained kayotsarga; segga = sayya, samstaraka; nisihiya = nisithika, svadhyaya; ketegga = kintayet. The last word is elsewhere translated dadyat.
  • 123:1 Vahamti. The Guzerati translation renders it nirbhamkhe, which is derived from Sanskrit nirbharts.
  • 123:2 Hiranne suvanne. The commentators explain these two words, which are synonyms in the later language, as 'raw and wrought gold, or coined gold.' I translate 'gold and silver,' because the distinction of the commentators seems rather farfetched, and because silver would be missed in enumerations like the present one.

lecture 2.2

Some householders are of clean habits and the mendicants, because they never bathe, are covered with uncleanliness; they smell after it, they smell badly, they are disagreeable, they are loathsome. Hence the householders, with regard to the mendicant, put off some work which otherwise they would have done before, and do some work which otherwise they would have put off.

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not use, for religious postures, a lodging used by the householder.

This is the reason: While a mendicant lives together with householders, the householder might, for his own sake, have prepared something to eat. Then, afterwards, he might, for the sake of the mendicant, prepare or dress food, and the mendicant might desire to eat or drink or swallow it.

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, .

This is the reason: While the mendicant lives together with a householder, there may be ready wood cleft for the use of the householder. Then, afterwards, (the householder) might, for the sake of the mendicant, cleave or buy or steal wood, kindle or light, by rubbing wood on wood, the fire-body, and the mendicant might desire to dry or warm himself at, or enjoy, the fire.

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, .

When in the night or twilight a mendicant, to ease nature, leaves the door open, a thief, watching for an occasion, might enter. It is not meet for the mendicant to say: This thief enters or does not enter, he hides himself or does not hide himself, he creeps in or does not creep in, he speaks or does not speak; he has taken it, another has taken it, it is taken from that man; this is the thief, this is the accomplice, this is the murderer, he has done so [1]. The householder will suspect the ascetic, the mendicant, who is not a thief, to be the thief. Hence it has been said to the mendicant,

A monk or a nun should not use, for religious postures, sheds of grass or straw which contain eggs, living beings, But they may do so if they contain few eggs, few living beings,

A mendicant should not stay in halting-places, garden houses, family houses, monasteries, where many fellow-ascetics are frequently arriving.

1. If the reverend persons continue to live in those places after staying there for a month [1] in the hot or cold seasons or for the rainy season (he should say): 'O long-lived one! you sin by overstaying the fixed time.'

2. If the reverend persons repeatedly live in halting-places, after staying there for the proper time, without passing two or three intermediate months somewhere else, (he should say): 'O long-lived one! you sin by repeating your retreat in the same place.'

3. Here, in the east, west, north, or south, there are, forsooth, some faithful householders, householders' wives, who are not well acquainted with the rules of monastic life (with regard to the fitness of lodging-places); nevertheless they believe in, perceive, are convinced of, (the merit of) giving lodging to mendicants. They (accordingly) give lodging-places for the sake of many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars, in workshops, chapels, temples, assembly halls, wells, houses or halls for shopkeeping or for keeping or building carriages, distilleries, houses where Darbha-grass, bark, trees, wood or charcoal are being worked, houses on burial-places, rooms for retirement near the place of sacrifice [1], empty houses, hill-houses, caves, stone-houses, or palaces. He should say to those reverend persons who live in such-like places as workshops, together with other guests: 'O long-lived one! you sin by living in a place frequented by other sectarians.'

4. Here, in the east, They accordingly give, (all as in section8 down to) palaces. If the mendicants come there while the other religious men do not come there, they sin by living in a place not frequented by other mendicants.

5. In the east, west, north, or south there are faithful householders, viz. a householder or his wife, who will speak thus: 'It is not meet that these illustrious, pious, virtuous, eloquent, controlled, chaste ascetics, who have ceased from sexual intercourse, should dwell in a lodging which is adhakarmika [2]: let us give to the mendicants the lodgings which are ready for our use, viz. workshops, and let us, afterwards, prepare lodgings for our own use, viz. workshops, ' Hearing and perceiving such talk, if the reverend persons frequent such-like lodgings, viz. workshops, and live in them which are ceded by other people (they should be warned): 'O long-lived one! that (lodging is infected by the sin called) vargakriya.'

6. Here, in the east, they give lodging-places for the sake of many Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars, after having well counted them, in workshops,

7. Here, in the east, They accordingly give, for the sake of many sorts of Sramanas [1], after having well counted them, lodging-places, viz. workshops, If the reverend persons frequent such-like lodgings, viz. workshops, and live in them which are ceded by other people (they should be warned): 'O long-lived one! that (lodging is infected by the sin called) savadyakriya.'

8. Here, in the east, They accordingly prepare, for the sake of one sort of Sramanas, lodgings, viz. workshops, for which purpose great injury is done to the earth, water, fire, wind-bodies, plants, and animals, great injury, great cruelty, great and manifold sinful acts; by wasting cold water or strewing (the ground), smearing it with cowdung, shutting the doors and securing the bed, lighting a fire. If the reverend persons frequent such-like lodgings, viz. workshops, and lead in such ceded lodgings an ambiguous [2] life (they should be warned): 'O long-lived one! that (lodging is infected by the sin called) mahasavadyakriya.' (is)

9. But if the lodgings, viz. workshops, are prepared by the householders for their own sake under the same circumstances as detailed in the preceding paragraph, and the reverend persons frequent such-like lodgings, they lead, in those lodgings, an unambiguous life. 'O long-lived one! that (lodging is infected by the very small sin called) alpasavadyakriya.'

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 125:1 For if he gives warning of the thief, the warner or the thief might be slain; but if he gives no warning, no life will be lost, though the mendicant's integrity may be doubted.
  • 126:1 Or any fixed period, which the mendicant has vowed not to exceed staying in one place.
  • 127:1 Santigriha.
  • 127:2 See note on <page 81>.
  • 128:1 There are five sorts of Sramanas enumerated in the following hemistich, which occurs not only in Silanka's commentary, but also in that of the Sthananga Sutra, as Dr. Leumann informs me: Niggamtha, Sakka, Tavasa, Gerua, Agiva pamkaha samana. Nirgranthas, Sakyas, Tapasas, Gairikas, Agivakas.
  • 128:2 Dupakkham te kamma sevamti, lit. use twofold work; the meaning is, according to the commentary, that they act like householders, though they make a show of monastic life.

lecture 2.3

'It [1] is difficult to obtain pure, acceptable alms; it is indeed not free from such preparations as strewing the ground (with Darbha-grass), smearing it (with cowdung), shutting the doors and securing the beds. And he (the mendicant) delights in pilgrimage, religious exercises, study, begging for a bed, a couch, or other alms.'

Some mendicants explain thus (the requisites of a lodging); they are called upright, searching after liberation, practising no deceit.

Some householders (who, having learned the requisites of a lodging-place, fit one out accordingly, try to deceive the mendicants, saying): 'This lodging, which we offer you, has been assigned to you, it has been originally prepared for our sake, or for the sake of some relations, it has been used, it has been relinquished.'

Explaining [2] thus, he truly explains. (The teacher says): Well, he is (an explainer of the truth).

If a mendicant, at night or at the twilight, leaves or enters a small lodging, one with a small door, a low or crammed lodging, (he should put forward) first his hand, then his foot, and thus circumspectly leave or enter it.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: There might be a badly bound, badly placed, badly fastened, loose umbrella, pot, stick, staff, robe, hide, leather boots or piece of leather belonging to Sramanas or Brahmanas; and the mendicant, when leaving or entering (the lodging) at night or twilight, might stumble or fall; stumbling or falling he might hurt his hand or foot, , kill, all sorts of living beings.

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that one (should put forward) first the hand, then the foot, and thus circumspectly leave or enter such a lodging.

He (the mendicant) should, at halting-places, ask for a lodging-place, after having inquired who is the landlord or who is the tenant. H e should ask permission to use the lodging-place in this way: 'By your favour, O long-lived one! we shall dwell here for a while (for the time and in the place) which you will concede.' (If the landlord should object and say that he owns the lodging for a limited time only, or if he asks for the number of monks for which the lodging is required, he should answer) [1]: 'As long as this lodging belongs to you, (or) for the sake of as many fellow-ascetics (as shall stand in need of it), we shall occupy the lodging; afterwards we shall take to wandering.'

A monk or a nun may know the name and gotra of him in whose lodging he lives; in that case they should not accept food, in that house whether invited or not invited; for it is impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging-place which is used by the householder, which contains fire or water; for it is not fit for a wise man to enter or leave it, (cf. II, 1, 4, section 1).

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging for which they have to pass through the householder's abode, or to which there is no road; for it is not fit, .

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging where the householder or his wife, might bully or scold, each other ; for it is not fit,

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging where the householder or his wife, rub or anoint each other's body with oil or ghee or butter or grease; for it is not fit,

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging where the householder or his wife, rub or shampoo each other's body with perfumes, ground drugs, powder, lodhra, ; for it is not fit,

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging where the householder or his wife, clean, wash, or sprinkle each other's body with cold or hot water; for it is not fit,

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging where the householder or his wife, go about naked or hide themselves, or talk about sexual pleasures, or discuss a secret plan; for it is not fit,

A monk or a nun should not use for religious postures, a lodging which is a much-frequented playground [1]; for it is not fit,

1. If a monk or a nun wish to beg for a couch, they should not accept one which they recognise full of eggs, living beings,

2. If the couch is free from eggs, living beings, but is heavy, they should not accept such a couch.

3. If the couch is free from eggs, living beings, light, but not movable, they should not accept such a couch.

4. If the couch is free from eggs, living beings, light, movable, but not well tied, they should not accept such a couch [2].

5. If the couch is free from eggs, living beings, light, movable, and well tied, they may accept such a couch.

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin there are four rules, according to which the mendicant should beg for a couch.

Now this is the first rule for begging for a couch.

If a monk or a nun beg for a couch, specifying (its quality), viz. one of Ikkata-reed, a hard one, one of Gantuka-grass, of Para-grass [1], of peacock feathers, of hay, of Kusa-grass, of brush-hair, of Pakkaka, of Pippala, of straw, they should, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) please give me this here!' If the householder prepares one of the above-specified couches, or if the mendicant asks himself, and the householder gives it, then he may accept it as pure and acceptable.

This is the first rule.

Now follows the second rule.

If a monk or a nun beg for a couch (of the above-detailed description) after having well inspected it, they should, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! ' (all as in the first rule).

This is the second rule [2].

If a monk or a nun beg for a couch of the above-detailed description, viz. one of Ikkata-grass, from him in whose house he lives, they may use it if they get it; if not, they should remain in a squatting or sitting posture (for the whole night).

This is the third rule.

Now follows the fourth rule.

If a monk or a nun beg for a couch such as it is spread, either on the ground or on a wooden plank, they may use it if they get it; if not, they should remain in a squatting or sitting posture (for the whole night).

This is the fourth rule.

A monk who has adopted one of these four rules, should not say, (all as in II, 1, 11, section 12, down to) we respect each other accordingly.

If a monk or a nun wish to give back a couch, they should not do so, if the couch contains eggs, living beings, But if it contains few living beings, they may restrainedly do so, after having well inspected, swept, and dried it [1].

A monk or a nun on a begging-tour or in a residence or on a pilgrimage from village to village should first inspect the place for easing nature. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: If a monk or a nun, in the night or the twilight, ease nature in a place which they have not previously inspected, they might stumble or fall, stumbling or falling they might hurt the hand or foot, kill, all sorts of living beings.

A monk or a nun might wish to inspect the ground for their couch away from [2] that occupied by a teacher or sub-teacher, , or by a young one or an old one or a novice or a sick man or a guest, either at the end or in the middle, either on even or uneven ground, or at a place where there is a draught or where there is no draught. They should then well inspect and sweep

Having spread a perfectly pure bed or couch, a monk or a nun might wish to ascend it. When doing so, they should first wipe their body from head to heels; then they may circumspectly ascend the perfectly pure bed or couch, and circumspectly sleep in it.

A monk or a nun sleeping in a perfectly pure bed or couch (should have placed it at such a distance from the next one's) that they do not touch their neighbour's hand, foot, or body with their own hand, foot, or body; and not touching it, should circumspectly sleep in their perfectly pure bed or couch.

Before inhaling or breathing forth, or coughing or sneezing or yawning or vomiting or eructating, a monk or a nun should cover their face or the place where it lies; then they may circumspectly inhale or breathe forth,

Whether his lodging [1] be even or uneven; full of, or free from, draughts; full of, or free from, dust; full of, or free from, flies and gnats; full of, or free from, dangers and troubles–in any such-like lodging one should contentedly stay, nor take offence at anything.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 129:1 The commentators say that this passage contains the mendicant's answer to an invitation to live in this or that village. By the second it is meant the lodging.
  • 129:2 The commentator supposes here the householder to further [p. 130] inquire after the requisites of, and the objections to, the lodging-place. The mendicant should explain them.
  • 130:1 The passage in parentheses contains what the commentator supplies.
  • 132:1 Ainnasamlekkham. I am not certain whether I have found the correct meaning.
  • 132:2 In the first case, there would be samyamaviradhana, or obstruction to control; in the second, atmaviradhana, injury to him who lifts the couch; in the third, tatparityaga; in the fourth, bandhanadipalimantha, friction of the ropes. The word which I have translated movable is padihariya pratiharuka. The translation is conjectural.
  • 133:1 The commentator says that from this grass artificial flowers are produced.
  • 133:2 According to the commentary the first and second rules may not be adopted by a gakkha-nirgata, or a monk who is attached to no order of monks.
  • 134:1 One past participle vinitthuniya is left out in the translation, as I do not know its meaning.
  • 134:2 Nannattha with instr., here explained muktva. Though I suspect the correctness of this translation, I have nothing better to offer.
  • 135:1 Segga, here explained by vasati.

lecture 3.1: walking

When the rainy season has come and it is raining, many living beings are originated and many seeds just spring up, the roads between (different places) contain many living beings, seeds, one should not wander from village to village, but remain during the rainy season in one place [2].

When a monk or a nun knows that in a village or scot-free town, ; in such a village, scot-free town, they should not remain during the cold season.

When a monk or a nun knows that in a village or scot-free town, there is a large place for religious practices or for study; that there can easily be obtained a stool, bench, bed, or couch, or pure, acceptable alms; that there have not come nor will come Sramanas and Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars; that the means of existence are not small, they may remain in such a village, during the rainy season.

Now they should know this: After the four months of the rainy season are over, and five or ten days of the winter have passed, they should not wander from village to village, if the road contains many living beings, and if many Sramanas and Brahmanas, do not yet travel [1].

But if after the same time the road contains few living beings, and many Sramanas and Brahmanas, travel, they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun wandering from village to village should look forward for four cubits, and seeing animals they should move on by walking on his toes or heels or the sides of his feet. If there be some bypath, they should choose it, and not go straight on; then they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun wandering from village to village, on whose way there are living beings, seeds, grass, water, or mud, should not go straight if there be an unobstructed byway; then they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, whose road (lies through) places belonging to borderers, robbers, Mlekkhas, non-Aryan people [2], half-civilised people, unconverted people, people who rise or eat at an improper time, should, if there be some other place for walking about or friendly districts, not choose the former road for their voyage.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: The ignorant populace might bully, beat, the mendicant, in the opinion that he is a thief or a spy, or that he comes from yonder (hostile village); or they might take away, cut off, steal or rob his robe, alms-bowl, mantle, or broom. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that one whose road (lies through) places belonging, (all as in the last paragraph); then he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, whose road (lies through) a country where there is no king or many kings or an unanointed king or two governments or no government or a weak government, should, if there be some other place for walking about or friendly districts, not choose the former road for their voyage. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: The ignorant populace might bully or beat, the mendicant, (all as in section 9).

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, whose road lies through a forest [1] which they are not certain of crossing in one or two or three or four or five days, should, if there be some other place for walking about or friendly districts, not choose the former road for their voyage.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: During the rain (he might injure) living beings, mildew, seeds, grass, water, mud. Hence it has been said to the mendicant that one whose road lies through such a forest, (all as in the last paragraph) then he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, on whose way there is some watercourse which must be crossed by a boat, should not ascend such a boat which plies up or down or across (the river), neither for one yogana's or half a yogana's distance, neither for a shorter nor a longer voyage, if they know that the householder [1] will buy or purloin the boat, or doing the work necessary to put the boat in order, pull it ashore out of the water, or push it from the shore into the water, or bale it, if it is filled (with water), or cause a sinking boat to float.

A monk or a nun, knowing that a boat will cross the river, should, after having received the owner's permission, step apart, examine their outfit, put aside their provender, wipe their body from head to heels, reject the householder's food, and putting one foot in the water and the other in the air [2], they should circumspectly enter the boat.

A monk or a nun in entering the boat should not choose for that purpose the stern or the prow or the middle of the boat; nor should they look at it holding up their arms, pointing at it with their finger, bowing up and down.

If, on board, the boatman should say to the monk, 'O long-lived Sramana! pull the boat forward or backward, or push it, or draw it with the rope towards you, or, let us do it together,' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If, on board, the other should say to him, 'O long-lived Sramana! you cannot pull the boat forward or backward, or push it, or draw it with a rope towards you; give us the rope, we will ourselves pull the boat forward or backward, ' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If, on board, the other should say to him, 'O long-lived Sramana! if you can, pull the boat by the oar, the rudder, the pole, and other nautical instruments [1],' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If, on board, the other should say to him, 'O long-lived Sramana! please, lade out the water with your hand, or pitcher [2], or vessel, or alms-bowl, or bucket,' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If, on board, the other should say to him, 'O long-lived Sramana! please, stop the boat's leak with your hand, foot, arm, thigh, belly, head, body, the bucket, or a cloth, or with mud, Kusa-grass, or lotus leaves,' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If a monk or a nun see that water enters through a leak in the boat, and the boat becomes dirty all over, they should not approach the boatman and say: 'O long-lived householder! water enters through a leak into the boat, and it becomes dirty all over.'

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 136:1 Iriya.
  • 136:2 I.e. keep the paggusan.
  • 137:1 He should in that case stay in the same place for the whole month Margasirsha, where he was during the rainy season.
  • 137:2 According to the commentary mlekkha (milakkhu) means [p. 138] the Varvara, Sarvara, Pulindra, ; the non-Aryans are those who live not in the 36 1/2 countries.
  • 138:1 Viham, forest, as explained in the third lesson. But the commentator here explains it, a journey of some days.
  • 139:1 By householder is here intended the host of the mendicant.
  • 139:2 Thale = sthale. The commentator explains it by akase.
  • 140:1 Rudder is a guess for pidha, nautical instruments for valaya and avallaya.
  • 140:2 Paena = patrena. The Guzerati commentator takes it for padena, foot.

lecture 3.2

If, on board, the boatman should say to the mendicant, 'O long-lived Sramana! please, take this umbrella, pot, , hold these various dangerous instruments [1], let this boy or girl drink,' he should not comply with his request, but look on silently.

If, on board, the boatman should say to another of the crew, 'O long-lived one! this Sramana is only a heavy load for the boat, take hold of him with your arms and throw him into the water!' hearing and perceiving such talk, he should, if he wears clothes, quickly take them off or fasten them or put them in a bundle on his head.

Now he may think: These ruffians, accustomed to violent acts, might take hold of me and throw me from the boat into the water. He should first say to them: 'O long-lived householders! don't take hold of me with your arms and throw me into the water! I myself shall leap from the boat into the water!' If after these words the other, by force and violence, takes hold of him with his arms and throws him into the water, he should be neither glad nor sorry, neither in high nor low spirits, nor should he offer violent resistance to those ruffians; but undisturbed, his mind not directed to outward things, , he may circumspectly swim in the water.

A monk or a nun, swimming in the water, should not touch (another person's or their own?) hand, foot, or body with their own hand, foot, or body; but without touching it they should circumspectly swim in the water.

A monk or a nun, swimming in the water, should not dive up or down, lest water should enter into their ears, eyes, nose, or mouth; but they should circumspectly swim in the water.

If a monk or a nun, swimming in the water, should be overcome by weakness, they should throw off their implements (clothes, ), either all or a part of them, and not be attached to them. Now they should know this: If they are able to get out of the water and reach the bank, they should circumspectly remain on the bank with a wet or moist body.

A monk or a nun should not wipe or rub or brush or stroke [1] or dry or warm or heat (in the sun) their body. But when they perceive that the water on their body has dried up, and the moisture is gone, they may wipe or rub, their body in that state; then they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage should not wander from village to village, conversing with householders; they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If a monk or a nun on the pilgrimage come across a shallow water [1], they should first wipe their body from head to heels, then, putting one foot in the water and the other in the air, they should wade through the shallow water in a straight line [2].

If a monk or a nun on the pilgrimage come across a shallow water, they should wade through it in a straight line, without being touched by or touching (another person's or their own?) hand, foot, or body with their own hand, foot, or body.

A monk or a nun, wading through shallow water in a straight line, should not plunge in deeper water for the sake of pleasure or the heat; but they should circumspectly wade through the shallow water in a straight line. Now they should know this: If one is able to get out of the water and reach the bank, one should circumspectly remain on the bank with a wet or moist body.

A monk or a nun should not wipe or rub, (all as in section 7).

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, with their feet soiled with mud, should not, in order that the grass might take off the mud from the feet, walk out of the way and destroy the grass by cutting, trampling, and tearing it. As this would be sinful, they should not do so. But they should first inspect a path containing little grass; then they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If a monk or a nun on the pilgrimage come upon walls or ditches or ramparts or gates or bolts or holes to fit them, or moats or caves, they should, in case there be a byway, choose it, and not go on straight.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Walking there, the mendicant might stumble or fall down; when he stumbles or falls down, he might get hold of trees, shrubs, plants, creepers, grass, copsewood, or sprouts to extricate himself. He should ask travellers who meet him, to lend a hand; then he may circumspectly lean upon it and extricate himself; so he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If a monk or a nun perceive in their way (transports of) corn, waggons, cars, a friendly or hostile army [1], some encamped troops, they should, in case there be a byway, circumspectly choose it, and not walk on straight. One trooper might say to another: 'O long-lived one! this Sramana is a spy upon the army; take hold of him with your arms, and drag him hither!' The other might take hold of the mendicant with his arms and drag him on. He should neither be glad nor sorry for it, ; then he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If on his road travellers meet him and say, 'O long-lived Sramana! how large is this village or scot-free town, ? how many horses, elephants, beggars, men dwell in it? is there much food, water, population, corn? is there little food, water, population, corn?' he should not answer such questions if asked, nor ask them himself.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 141:1 Satthagaya = sastragata. About sastra, see I, 1, 2.
  • 142:1 The original has six words for different kinds of rubbing, which it would be impossible to render adequately in any other language.
  • 143:1 Gamghasamtarime udae, literally, a water which is to be crossed by wading through it up to the knees; or perhaps water to be crossed on foot.
  • 143:2 Ahariyam = yatha rigu bhavati. It might also mean, in the right way. Another explanation is yathataryam.
  • 144:1 Svakakrani va parakakrani va. My translation is merely a guess.

lecture 3.3

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, in whose way there are walls or ditches or ramparts or gates, , should not look at them holding up their arms, pointing at them with their fingers, bowing up and down. Then they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

A monk or a nun on the pilgrimage, on whose way there are marshes, pasture-grounds, moats, fortified places, thickets, strongholds in thickets, woods, mountains, strongholds on mountains, caves [1], tanks, lakes, rivers, ponds, lotus ponds, long winding ponds, water-sheets, rows of water-sheets, should not look at them holding up their arms, .

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: The deer, cattle, birds, snakes, animals living in water, on land, in the air might be disturbed or frightened, and strive to get to a fold or (other place of) refuge, (thinking): 'The Sramana will harm me!'

Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should not look at the objects (mentioned in section 2) holding up his arms, [2]

A monk or a nun, wandering from village to village together with the master or teacher, should not touch the master's or teacher's hand with their own, ; but without touching or being touched they should circumspectly wander from village to village together with the master or teacher.

A monk or a nun, wandering from village to village together with the master or teacher, might be met on the road by travellers and asked: 'O long-lived Sramana! who are you? whence do you come, and where do you go?' The master or teacher may answer and explain; but whilst the master or teacher answers and explains, one should not mix in their conversation. Thus they may wander from village to village with a superior priest [1].

A monk or a nun, wandering from village to village with a superior priest, should not touch the superior's hand with their own, . .

A monk or a nun, wandering from village to village with superior priests, might be met on the road by travellers, and be asked: 'O long-lived Sramana! who are you?' He who has the highest rank of them all, should answer and explain; but whilst the superior answers and explains, one should not mix in their conversation, .

A monk or a nun, wandering from village to village, might be met on the road by travellers, and be asked: 'O long-lived Sramana! did you see somebody on the road? viz. a man, cow, buffalo, cattle, bird, snake, or aquatic animal–tell us, show us!' The mendicant should not tell it, nor show it, he should not comply with their request, but look on silently, or, though knowing it, he should say that he did not know. Then he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

He should act in the same manner, if asked about bulbs of water-plants, roots, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, water in the neighbourhood, or a kindled fire;

Likewise, if asked about (transports of) corn, waggons, cars, .

Likewise, if asked: 'O long-lived Sramana! how large is this village or scot-free town, ?'

Likewise, if asked: 'O long-lived Sramana! How far is it to that village or scot-free town, ?'

If a monk or a nun, wandering from village to village, sees a vicious cow coming towards them, , they should not, from fear of them, leave the road, or go into another road, nor enter a thicket, wood, or stronghold, nor climb a tree, nor take a plunge in a large and extended water-sheet, nor desire a fold or any other place of refuge, or an army or a caravan; but undisturbed, the mind not directed to outward things, they should collect themselves for contemplation; thus they may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If the road of a monk or a nun on the pilgrimage lies through a forest, in which, as they know, there stroll bands of many thieves desirous of their property, they should not, for fear of them, leave the road, (all as in section 13).

If these thieves say, 'O long-lived Sramana! bring us your clothes, give them, put them down!' the mendicant should not give or put them down.

If the thieves, resolving to do it themselves, bully him, tear off his clothes, he should not lodge an information in the village or at the king's palace; nor should he go to a layman, and say, 'O long-lived householder! these thieves, resolving to do (the robbing) themselves, have bullied me, they have torn off my clothes,' He should neither think so, nor speak so; but undisturbed, .

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 145:1 The word agada has been left out in the translation.
  • 145:2 The passage closes: 'then he may circumspectly wander from village to village together with the master and teacher (ayariovagghaya).' But as the master and teacher have not been mentioned before, and will be mentioned in the next Sutra, it is almost certain that the words in question have been brought over from the next Sutra, or that they ought to be supplied to all Sutras from the beginning of the third lesson.
  • 146:1 Aharatiniyae, Com. yatharatnadhikam. Ratiniya is opposed to seha (disciple); it is elsewhere explained by gyeshtha; see Kalpa Sutra, Sam. 59. I am not sure if the phrase ought not to be translated, with due respect for his superior.

lecture 4.1: modes of speech

A monk or a nun, hearing and perceiving these uses of speech, should know that the following ones are not to be employed and have not hitherto been employed (by persons of exemplary conduct); those who speak in wrath or in pride, for deception or for gain, who speak, knowingly or unknowingly, hard words. They should avoid all this, which is blamable. Employing their judgment, they should know something for certain and something for uncertain [2]: (N. N.) having received food or not having received food, having eaten it or not having eaten it, has come or has not come, comes or does not come, will come or will not come.

Well considering (what one is to say), speaking with precision, one should employ language in moderation and restraint: the singular, dual, plural; feminine, masculine, neuter gender; praise, blame, praise mixed with blame, blame mixed with praise; past, present, or future (tenses), the first and second, or third (person) [1]. If one thinks it necessary to speak in the singular, he should speak in the singular; if he thinks it necessary to speak in the plural, he should speak in the plural, Considering well: this is a woman, this is a man, this is a eunuch, this is to be called thus, this is to be called otherwise, speaking with precision, he should employ language in moderation and restraint.

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin, a mendicant should know that there are four kinds of speech: the first is truth; the second is untruth; the third is truth mixed with untruth; what is neither truth, nor untruth, nor truth mixed with untruth, that is the fourth kind of speech: neither truth nor untruth [2]. Thus I say.

All past, present, and future Arhats have taught and declared, teach and declare, will teach and declare these four kinds of speech; and they have explained all those things which are devoid of intellect, which possess colour, smell, taste, touch, which are subject to decay and increase, which possess various qualities.

A monk (or a nun should know that) before (the utterance) speech is speech in (antecedent) non-existence [3]; that while uttered, it is (real) speech; that the moment after it has been uttered, the spoken speech is speech in (subsequent) non-existence.

A monk or a nun, well considering, should not use speech whether truth or untruth, or truth mixed with untruth, if it be sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, coarse, hard, leading to sins, to discord and factions, to grief and outrage, to destruction of living beings.

A monk or a nun, considering well, should use true and accurate speech, or speech which is neither truth nor untruth (i.e. injunctions); for such speech is not sinful, blamable, rough, stinging,

A monk or a nun, if addressing a man who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: 'You loon! you lout [1]! you Sudra! you low-born wretch! you slave! you dog! you thief! you robber! you cheat! you liar! ; you are such and such! your parents [2] are such and such!' Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, speech.

But in that case they should say: 'N. N.! O long-lived one! O long-lived ones! O layman! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!' Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, speech.

A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: 'You hussy! you wench! ' (repeat the above list of abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, speech.

A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should say: 'O long-lived one! O sister! madam! my lady! O lay-sister! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!' Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, speech.

A monk or a nun should not say: 'The god [1] of the sky! the god of the thunderstorm! the god of lightning! the god who begins to rain! the god who ceases to rain! may rain fall or may it not fall! may the crops grow or may they not grow! may the night wane or may it not wane! may the sun rise or may it not rise! may the king conquer or may he not conquer!' They should not use such speech.

But knowing the nature of things, he should say: The air; the follower of Guhya; a cloud has gathered or come down; the cloud has rained.'

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 149:1 Bhasagaya.
  • 149:2 The commentator understands this passage and the following paragraph in a different way: a man of ripe judgment should utter no such positive assertions, e. g. it is certain (that it will rain), or it is not certain, He seems to have been of opinion that the prohibition in the last sentence, savvam etam savaggam vaggegga, extends also to the following sentence. But this is not probable, as etam generally refers to what precedes, and imam to what follows.
  • 150:1 Pakkakkhavayanam, parokkhavayanam.
  • 150:2 The first, second, and third cases refer to assertions, the fourth (asatyamrisha) to injunctions.
  • 150:3 Literally, non-speech. The commentary has the terms used in the translation, which are taken from the Vaiseshika philosophy. But it is well known that many Gainas have adopted and written on the Vaiseshika philosophy, and that the Gainas themselves maintain [p. 151] that one of their own creed, Khuluya-Rohagutta, is the author of the Vaiseshika Darsanam; see Kalpa Sutra, p. 119.
  • 151:1 The original has hole, gole, which are said by the commentator to have been used, in another country, as abusive words. My conjectural translation is based on the meaning of the Sanskrit words hoda, gola.
  • 151:2 It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions.
  • 152:1 This prohibition to use the word god in such phrases as the god (deva) rains, is a curious instance of the rationalism of the early Gainas. As they were allowed to speak nothing but the truth, they were enjoined not to say, the god rains,' but the air (amtalikkham) rains.'

lecture 4.2

A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of diseases), should not talk of them in this way: 'He has got boils, or leprosy, ; his hand is cut, or his foot, nose, ear, lip is cut.' For as all such people, spoken to in such language, become angry, hence, considering well, they should not speak to them in such language.

A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of good qualities), should speak thus: 'He is strong, powerful, vigorous, famous, well-formed, well-proportioned, handsome.' For as all such people, spoken to in such language, do not become angry, they should, considering well, speak to them in such language.

A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of such things as walls or ditches, or to be done;' they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing walls, should speak about them in this way: 'This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very magnificent, it is very beautiful, it is very fine, it is very handsome;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing food, prepared, should not speak about it in this way: 'This is well executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing food, prepared, should speak about it in this way: 'This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very good, it is excellent, it is well seasoned, it is most delicious, it is most agreeable;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, a buffalo, deer, cattle, a bird, a snake, an aquatic animal of increased bulk, should not speak about them in this way: 'He (or it) is fat, round, fit to be killed or cooked;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, of increased bulk, should speak about them in this way: 'He is of increased bulk, his body is well grown, well compacted, his flesh and blood are abundant, his limbs are fully developed;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should not speak about them in this way: 'These cows should be milked or tamed or covered, should draw a waggon or car;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should speak about them in this way: 'It is a young cow, a milch cow, she gives much milk, it is a short or a large one, a beast of burden;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way: 'These (trees) are fit for palaces, gates, houses, benches, bolts, boats, buckets, stools, trays, ploughs, mattocks(?), machines, poles, the nave of a wheel(?), gandi [1], seats, beds, cars, sheds;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way: 'These trees are noble, high and round, big; they have many branches, extended branches, they are very magnificent,' ; considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing many wild fruits, should not speak about them in this way: 'They are ripe, they should be cooked or eaten, they are just in season, or soft, or they have just split;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing many wild fruits, should speak about them in this way: They are very plentiful, they contain many seeds, they are fully grown, they have developed their proper shape;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing many vegetables, should not speak about them in this way: 'They are ripe, they are dark coloured, shining, fit to be fried or roasted or eaten;' considering well, they should not use such sinful, language.

A monk or a nun, seeing many vegetables, should speak about them in this way: 'They are grown up, they are fully grown, they are strong, they are excellent, they are run to seed, they have spread their seed, they are full of sap;' considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

A monk or a nun, hearing any sort of sounds, should not speak about them in this way: 'This is a good sound, this is a bad sound;' considering well, they should not use such sinless, language; but they should call them good, if they are good; bad, if they are bad; considering well, they should use such sinless, language.

In the same manner they should speak about the

A monk or a nun, putting aside wrath, pride, deceit, and greed, considering well, speaking with precision, what one has heard, not too quick, with discrimination, should employ language in moderation and restraint.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 154:1 The Guzerati commentator explains gandi by a kind of utensil. The Sanskrit commentaries give no explanation.

lecture 5.1: begging of clothes

A monk or a nun wanting to get clothes, may beg for cloth made of wool, silk, hemp, palm-leaves, cotton, or Arkatula, or such-like clothes. If he be a youthful, young, strong, healthy, well-set monk, he may wear one robe, not two; if a nun, she should possess four raiments, one two cubits broad, two three cubits broad, one four cubits broad [2]. If one does not receive such pieces of cloth, one should afterwards sew together one with the other.

A monk or a nun should not resolve to go further than half a yogana to get clothes. As regards the acceptance of clothes, those precepts which have been given in the (First Lesson of the First Lecture, called) Begging of Food [3], concerning one fellow-ascetic, should be repeated here; also concerning many fellow-ascetics, one female fellow-ascetic, many female fellow-ascetics, many Sramanas and Brahmanas; also about (clothes) appropriated by another person [4].

A monk or a nun should not accept clothes which the layman, for the mendicant's sake, has bought, washed, dyed, brushed, rubbed, cleaned, perfumed, if these clothes be appropriated by the giver himself. But if they be appropriated by another person, they may accept them; for they are pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun should not accept any very expensive clothes of the following description: clothes made of fur, fine ones, beautiful ones; clothes made of goats' hair, of blue cotton, of common cotton, of Bengal cotton, of Patta, of Malaya fibres, of bark fibres, of muslin, of silk; (clothes provincially called) Desaraga, Amila, Gaggala, Phaliya, Kayaha; blankets or mantles.

A monk or a nun should not accept any of the following plaids of fur and other materials: plaids made of Udra, Pesa fur [1], embroidered with Pesa fur, made of the fur of black or blue or yellow deer, golden plaids, plaids glittering like gold, interwoven with gold, set with gold, embroidered with gold, plaids made of tigers' fur, highly ornamented plaids, plaids covered with ornaments.

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin there are four rules for begging clothes to be known by the mendicants.

Now, this is the first rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for clothes specifying (their quality), viz. wool, silk, hemp, palm-leaves, cotton, Arkatula. If they beg for them, or the householder gives them, they may accept them; for they are pure and acceptable.

This is the first rule.

Now follows the second rule:

A monk or a nun may ask for clothes which they have well inspected, from the householder or his wife, After consideration, they should say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) please give me one of these clothes!' If they beg for them, or the householder gives them, they may accept them; for they are pure and acceptable.

This is the second rule.

Now follows the third rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for an under or upper garment. If they beg for it, .

This is the third rule.

Now follows the fourth rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for a left-off robe, which no other Sramana or Brahmana, guest, pauper or beggar wants. If they beg, .

This is the fourth rule.

A monk or a nun who have adopted one of these four rules should not say, (all as in II, 1, 11, section 12, down to) we respect each other accordingly.

A householder may perhaps say to a mendicant begging in the prescribed way: O long-lived Sramana! return after a month, ten nights, five nights, to-morrow, to-morrow night; then we shall give you some clothes.' Hearing and perceiving such talk, he should, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) it is not meet for me to accept such a promise. If you want to give me (something), give it me now!'

After these words the householder may answer: O long-lived Sramana! follow me! then we shall give you some clothes.' The mendicant should give the same answer as above.

After his words the householder may say (to one of his people): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) fetch that robe! we shall give it the Sramana, and afterwards prepare one for our own use, killing all sorts of living beings.'

Hearing and perceiving such talk, he should not accept such clothes; for they are impure and unacceptable.

The householder [1] may say (to one of his people): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) fetch that robe, wipe or rub it with perfume, ; we shall give it to the Sramana.'

Hearing and perceiving such talk, the mendicant should, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) do not wipe or rub it with perfume, If you want to give it me, give it, such as it is!'

After these words the householder might nevertheless offer the clothes after having wiped or rubbed them, ; but the mendicant should not accept them, for they are impure and unacceptable.

The householder may say (to another of his people): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) bring that robe, clean or wash it with cold or hot water!'

The mendicant should return the same answer as above (in section11) and not accept such clothes.

The householder may say (to another of his people): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) bring that cloth, empty it of the bulbs, do not empty that cloth of the bulbs, ; it is not meet for me to accept such clothes.' After these words the householder might nevertheless take away the bulbs, and offer him the cloth; but he should not accept it; for it is impure and unacceptable.

If a householder brings a robe and gives it to the mendicant, he should, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) I shall, in your presence, closely inspect the inside of the robe.'

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: There might be hidden in the robe an earring or girdle or gold and silver, , or living beings or seeds or grass. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should closely inspect the inside of the robe.

A monk or a nun should not accept clothes which are full of eggs or living beings, ; for they are impure, A monk or a nun should not accept clothes which are free from eggs or living beings, but which are not fit nor strong nor lasting nor to be worn [1]–which though pleasant are not fit (for a mendicant); for they are impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun may accept clothes which are fit, strong, lasting, to be worn, pleasant and fit for a mendicant; for they are pure and acceptable.

A monk or a nun should not wash his clothes, rub or wipe them with ground drugs, because they are not new.

A monk or a nun should not clean or wash his clothes in plentiful water, because they are not new.

A monk or a nun should not make his clothes undergo the processes (prohibited in section 17), because they have a bad smell.

A monk or a nun wanting to air or dry (in the sun) their clothes, should not do so on the bare ground or wet earth or rock or piece of clay containing life, . [1]

A monk or a nun wanting to air or dry (in the sun) their clothes, should not hang them for that purpose on a post of a house, on the upper timber of a door-frame, on a mortar, on a bathing-tub, or on any such-like above-ground place, which is not well fixed or set, but shaky and movable.

A monk or a nun wanting to air or dry (in the sun) their clothes, should not lay them for that purpose on a dyke, wall, rock, stone, or any such-like above-ground place,

A monk or a nun wanting to air or dry (in the sun) their clothes, should not do it on a pillar, a raised platform, a scaffold, a second story, a flat roof, or any such-like above-ground place,

Knowing this, he should resort to a secluded spot, and circumspectly air or dry his clothes there on a heap of ashes or bones, , which he has repeatedly inspected and cleaned.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 157:1 Vatthesana.
  • 157:2 The first to wear in the cloister, the second and third for out-of-door, the fourth for assemblies.
  • 157:3 See II, 1, 1, section 11.
  • 157:4 See II, 1, 1, section 13.
  • 158:1 According to the commentary udra and pesa are animals in Sindh.
  • 160:1 Here and in the following paragraph the original adds netta, which may be = nitva, bringing (the clothes); but the following words seem to militate against this rendering. For the householder's order to fetch (ahara) the clothes would be superfluous, if he had already brought (netta) them. Unless ahara has here some other meaning than the common one, perhaps 'take it,' netta cannot be translated 'having brought them.'
  • 161:1 If they contain stains of mustard or Angana, The commentator quotes two slokas which, as I understand them, assign to the different parts of the cloth different significations as omina. They run thus: Kattari deviya bhaga do ya bhaga ya manusa asurana ya do bhaga magghe vatthassa rakkhaso || devesu uttamo lobho manusesu ya magghimo | asuresu ya galannam maranam gana rakkhase ||
  • 162:1 If the garment falls on the ground, it would come in contact with dust, then it would contain living beings and be no more pure.

lecture 5.2

A monk or a nun should beg for acceptable clothes, and wear them in that state in which they get them; they should not wash or dye them, nor should they wear washed or dyed clothes, nor (should they) hide (their clothes) when passing through other villages, being careless of dress. This is the whole duty for a mendicant who wears clothes [1].

A monk or a nun wanting, for the sake of alms, to enter the abode of a householder, should do so outfitted with all their clothes; in the same manner they should go to the out-of-door place for religious practices or study, or should wander from village to village.

Now they should know this: A monk or a nun dressed in all their clothes should not enter or leave, for the sake of alms, the abode of a householder, on perceiving that a strong and widely spread rain pours down, .

If a single mendicant borrows for a short time a robe [2] (from another mendicant) and returns after staying abroad for one, two, three, four, or five days, he (the owner) should not take such a robe for himself, nor should he give it to somebody else, nor should he give it on promise (for another robe after a few days), nor should he exchange that robe for another one. He should not go to another mendicant and say: 'O long-lived Sramana! do you want to wear or use this robe?' He (the owner of the robe) should not rend the still strong robe, and cast it away; but give it him (who had borrowed it) in its worn state; he should not use it himself.

The same rule holds good when many mendicants borrow for a short time clothes, and return after staying abroad for one, days. All should be put in the plural.

'Well, I shall borrow a robe and return after staying abroad for one, two, three, four, or five days; perhaps it will thus become my own.' As this would be sinful, he should not do so.

A monk or a nun should not make coloured clothes colourless, or colour colourless clothes; nor should they give them to somebody else thinking that they will get other clothes; nor should they give it on promise (for other clothes); nor should they exchange them for other clothes; nor should they go to somebody else and say: 'O long-lived Sramana! do you want to wear or use these clothes?' They should not rend the still strong clothes, and cast them away, that another mendicant might think them bad ones.

If he sees in his way thieves, he should not from fear of them, and to save his clothes, leave the road or go into another road, , but undisturbed, his mind not directed to outward things, he should collect himself for contemplation; then he may circumspectly wander from village to village.

If the road of a monk or a nun on the pilgrimage lies through a forest in which, as they know, there stroll bands of many thieves desirous of their clothes, they should not from fear of them, and to save their clothes, leave the road or go into another road, (all as in section 6).

If these thieves say: 'O long-lived Sramana! bring us your robe, give it, deliver it!' he should not give or deliver it. He should act in such cases (as prescribed in II, 3, 3, section section 15 and 16).

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 163:1 See I, 7, 4, section 1.
  • 163:2 Padihariyam, which is translated pratiharuka. There are various readings as parihariya, padihariya; but the meaning of the word remains uncertain, and my translation is but conjectural.

lecture 6.1: begging for a bowl

A monk or a nun wanting to get a bowl, may beg for one made of bottle-gourd or wood or clay, or such-like bowls. If he be a youthful, young, monk, he may carry with him one bowl, not two [2].

A monk or a nun should not resolve to go farther than half a Yogana to get a bowl.

As regards the acceptance of a bowl, those four precepts which have been given in (the First Lesson of the First Lecture, called) [3] Begging of Food, concerning one fellow-ascetic, should be repeated here, the fifth is that concerning many Sramanas and Brahmanas.

A monk or a nun should not accept a bowl which the layman has, for the mendicant's sake, bought,

A monk or a nun should not accept any very expensive bowls of the following description: bowls made of iron, tin, lead, silver, gold, brass, a mixture of gold, silver, and copper, pearl, glass, mother of pearl, horn, ivory, cloth, stone, or leather; for such very expensive bowls are impure and unacceptable.

A monk or a nun should not accept bowls which contain a band of the same precious materials specialised in section 2; for

For the avoidance of these occasions to sin there are four rules for begging a bowl to be known by the mendicants.

Now this is the first rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for a bowl specifying its quality, viz. bottle-gourd or wood or clay. If they beg for such a bowl, or the householder gives it, they may accept it, for it is pure and acceptable.

This is the first rule.

Now follows the second rule:

A monk or a nun may ask for a bowl, which they have well inspected, from the householder or his wife, After consideration, they should say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) please give me one of these bowls, viz. one made of bottle-gourds or wood or clay.' If they beg for such a bowl, or the householder gives it, they may accept it; for

This is the second rule.

Now follows the third rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for a bowl which has been used by the former owner or by many people. If they beg for it, .

This is the third rule.

Now follows the fourth rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for a left-off bowl which no other Sramana or Brahmana, guest, pauper, or beggar wants. If they beg for it, .

This is the fourth rule.

A monk or a nun having adopted one of these four rules should not say, we respect each other accordingly.

A householder may perhaps say to a mendicant begging in the prescribed way: 'O long-lived Sramana! return after a month,' (all as in the Lecture called Begging of Clothes [1]).

The householder may say (to one of his people): 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) fetch that bowl, rub it with oil, ghee, fresh butter or marrow, we shall give it,' .

The householder may say (to the mendicant): 'O long-lived Sramana! stay a while till they have cooked or prepared our food, then we shall give you, O long-lived one! your alms-bowl filled with food or drink; it is not good, not meet that a mendicant should get an empty alms-bowl.' After consideration, the mendicant should answer: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) it is indeed not meet for me to eat or drink food which is adhakarmika; do not cook or prepare it; if you want to give me anything, give it as it is.' After these words the householder might offer him the alms-bowl filled with food or drink which had been cooked or prepared: he should not accept such an alms-bowl, for it is impure and unacceptable.

Perhaps the householder will bring and give the mendicant an alms-bowl; the mendicant should then, after consideration, say: 'O long-lived one! (or, O sister!) I shall in your presence closely inspect the interior of the bowl.'

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: In the alms-bowl there might be living beings or seeds or grass. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should closely inspect the interior of the alms-bowl.

All that has been said in the Lecture called Begging of Clothes (II, 5, I, section 15 down to the end) is mutatis mutandis to be repeated here. (In section 15, add before perfumes) with oil, ghee, butter or marrow.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 166:1 Paesana.
  • 166:2 This applies, according to the commentator, to Ginakalpikas, Ordinary monks may have a drinking vessel besides the alms-bowl.
  • 166:3 See II, 1, 1, section 11.
  • 166:4 II, 5, 1, section 3.
  • 168:1 II, 5, 1, section 10.

lecture 6.2

A monk or a nun, entering the abode of a householder for the sake of alms, should after examining their alms-bowl, taking out any living beings, and wiping off the dust, circumspectly enter or leave the householder's abode.

The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Living beings, seeds or dust might fall into his bowl. Hence it has been said to the mendicant, that he should after examining his alms-bowl, taking out any living beings, circumspectly enter or leave the householder's abode.

On such an occasion the householder might perhaps, going in the house, fill the alms-bowl with cold water and, returning, offer it him; (the mendicant) should not accept such an alms-bowl [1] either in the householder's hand or his vessel; for it is impure and unacceptable.

Perhaps he has, inadvertently, accepted it; then he should empty it again in (the householder's) water-pot; or (on his objecting to it) he should put down the bowl and the water somewhere, or empty it in some wet place.

A monk or a nun should not wipe or rub a wet or moist alms-bowl. But when they perceive that on their alms-bowl the water has dried up and the moisture is gone, then they may circumspectly wipe or rub it.

A monk or a nun wanting to enter the abode of a householder, should enter or leave it, for the sake of alms, with their bowl; also on going to the out-of-door place for religious practices or study; or on wandering from village to village.

If a strong and widely spread rain pours down, they should take the same care of their alms-bowl as is prescribed for clothes (in the preceding Lecture, Lesson 2, section 1).

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 169:1 Though the alms-bowl is expressly mentioned, it must stand here for water, as the commentators interpret the passage.

lecture 7.1: regulation of possession

'I shall become a Sramana who owns no house, no property, no sons, no cattle, who eats what others give him; I shall commit no sinful action; Master, I renounce to accept anything that has not been given.' Having taken such vows, (a mendicant) should not, on entering a village or scot-free town, take himself, or induce others to take, or allow others to take, what has not been given. A mendicant should not take or appropriate any property, viz. an umbrella [2] or vessel or stick, , he may take or appropriate it [3].

He may beg for a domicile in a traveller's hall,

Having got possession of some place, a mendicant should invite to that food, which he himself has collected, any fellow-ascetics arriving there who follow the same rules and are zealous brethren; but he should not invite them to anything of which he has taken possession for the sake of somebody else.

Having got possession of some place (in a traveller's hall, ), a mendicant should offer a footstool or bench or bed or couch, which he himself has begged, to any fellow-ascetics arriving there who follow other rules than he, yet are zealous brethren; but he should not offer them anything of which he has taken possession for the sake of somebody else.

Having got possession of some place in a traveller's hall, a mendicant might ask from a householder or his sons the loan of a needle or a Pippalaka [2] or an ear-picker or a nail-parer, he should not give or lend it to somebody else; but having done that for which he wanted one of the above articles, he should go with that article there (where the householder, is), and stretching out his hands or laying the article on the ground, he should, after consideration, say: 'Here it is! here it is!' But he should not with his own hand put it in the hand of the householder.

A monk or a nun should not take possession of anything on the bare ground, on wet ground, where there are eggs, ; nor on pillars or such an above-ground place (II, 2, 1, section 7); nor on a wall, ; nor on the trunk of a tree, ; nor where the householder or fire or water, or women or children or cattle are, and where it is not fit for a wise man to enter or to leave, nor to meditate on the law; nor where they have to pass through the householder's abode or to which there is no road, and where it is not fit, ; nor where the householder or his wife, bully or scold each other, .

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say. (6-12)

footnotes

  • 171:1 Oggahapadima.
  • 171:2 The commentator (Silanka) states that the monks in Kunkanadesa, are allowed to carry umbrellas, because of the heavy rains in that country.
  • 171:3 Oginhegga va pagginhegga va. The commentators explain these words 'to take for once' (sakrit) and 'to take repeatedly' (anekasas). Later on the Guzerati commentator explains ogginhegga by mage, he should ask.'
  • 172:1 Compare the corresponding precept in II, 2, 3, section 3.
  • 172:2 The Guzerati commentator only says that pippalaka is some utensil. The older commentators do not explain this passage.

lecture 7.2

He may beg for a domicile in a traveller's hall, ; he should ask permission to take possession of it from the landlord or the steward of that place: 'Indeed, O long-lived one! for the time and in the space you concede us, we shall dwell here [1],' .

A monk or a nun might wish to go to a mango park; they should then ask the landlord's or steward's permission (in the manner described above). Now what further after the place is taken possession of? Then they might desire to eat a mango. If the monk or the nun perceive that the mango is covered with eggs, living beings, , they should not take it; for it is impure,

If the monk or the nun perceive that the mango is free from eggs, living beings, but not nibbled at by animals, nor injured, they should not take it; for it is impure, But if they perceive that the mango is free from eggs, living beings, and is nibbled at by animals and injured, then they may take it; for it is pure, [2]

The monk might wish to eat or suck one half of a mango or a mango's peel or rind or sap or smaller particles. If the monk or the nun perceive that the above-enumerated things are covered with eggs, or living beings, they should not take them; for they are impure, But they may take them, if they are free from eggs, and nibbled at by animals or injured [1].

A monk or a nun might wish to go to a sugarcane plantation. They should ask permission in the manner described above. The monk or the nun might wish to chew or suck sugar-cane. In that case the same rules as for eating mango apply also; likewise if they wish to chew or to suck the sugar-cane's pulp, fibres, sap, or smaller particles.

A monk or a nun might wish to go to a garlic field. They should ask permission in the manner described above. The monk or the nun might wish to chew or suck garlic. In that case the same rules as for eating mangoes apply also; likewise if they wish to chew or suck the bulb or peel or stalk or seed of garlic [2].

A monk or a nun, having got possession of a place in a traveller's hall, should avoid all occasions to sin (proceeding from any preparations made by) the householders or their sons, and should occupy that place according to the following rules.

Now this is the first rule:

He may beg for a domicile in a traveller's hall, having reflected (on its fitness for a stay), ( section 2 of the preceding Lesson is to be repeated here).

This is the first rule.

Now follows the second rule:

A monk resolves: 'I shall ask for possession of a dwelling-place, for the sake of other mendicants, and having taken possession of it for their sake, I shall use it.'

This is the second rule.

Now follows the third rule:

A monk resolves: 'I shall ask for possession of a dwelling-place, for the sake of other mendicants, and having taken possession of it for their sake, I shall not use it.'

This is the third rule.

Now follows the fourth rule:

A monk resolves: 'I shall not ask for possession of a dwelling-place, for the sake of other mendicants; but if the dwelling-place, has already been ceded to them, I shall use it.'

This is the fourth rule.

Now follows the fifth rule:

A monk resolves: 'I shall ask for possession of a dwelling-place for my own sake, not for two, three, four, or five persons.'

This is the fifth rule.

Now follows the sixth rule:

If a monk or a nun, occupying a dwelling-place in which there is Ikkada reed, , get this thing, then they may use it; otherwise they should remain in a squatting or sitting posture.

This is the sixth rule.

Now follows the seventh rule:

A monk or a nun may beg for a dwelling-place paved with clay or wood. If they get it, then they may use it; otherwise they should remain in a squatting or sitting posture.

This is the seventh rule.

One who has adopted one of these seven rules, should not say, (all as in II, 1, 11, section 12).

I have heard the following explanation by the venerable (Mahavira): The Sthaviras, the venerable ones, have declared that dominion [1] is fivefold:

The lord of the gods' dominion;

The king's dominion;

The houseowner's [2] dominion;

The householder's [3] dominion;

The religious man's [4] dominion.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 173:1 Oggaha.
  • 174:1 section 2 of the preceding Lesson is repeated word for word.
  • 174:2 See II, 1, 1, section section 3, 4.
  • 175:1 In the text section 3 is repeated with the necessary alterations.
  • 175:2 Silanka, in his commentary, remarks that the meaning of the Sutras about eating mangoes, sugar-cane, and garlic should be learned from the Sixteenth Lesson of the Nishitha Sutra.
  • 177:1 Oggaha, avagraha.
  • 177:2 Gahavai, grihapati. In another part of the commentary it is explained gramamahattaradi, his dominion is gramapatakadikam.
  • 177:3 Sagariya, sagarika. It is explained sayyatara, host. His dominion is shampasaladi.
  • 177:4 Sahammiya, sadharmika. His dominion is vasatyadi, his domicile which extends for a Yogana and a quarter. When he takes possession (parigraha) of it, he must ask permission of the possessors.

lecture 8

When a monk or a nun wishes to perform religious postures [3], they should enter a village or a scot-free town, ; having entered it, they should not accept a place, even if it is offered, which is infected by eggs or living beings, ; for such a place is impure and unacceptable. In this way all that has been said about couches (in the Second Lecture) should be repeated here as far as 'water-plants' (II, 2, 1, section 5).

Avoiding these occasions to sin, a mendicant may choose one of these four rules for the performance of religious postures.

This is the first rule:

I shall choose something inanimate [4], and lean against it; changing the position of the body, and moving about a little, I shall stand there.

This is the first rule.

Now follows the second rule:

I shall choose something inanimate, and lean against it; changing the position of the body, but not moving about a little, I shall stand there. This is the second rule.

Now follows the third rule:

I shall choose something inanimate, and lean against it; not changing the position of the body, nor moving about a little, I shall stand there.

This is the third rule.

Now follows the fourth rule:

I shall choose something inanimate, but I shall not lean against it; not changing the position of the body, nor moving about a little, I shall stand there. Abandoning the care of the body, abandoning the care of the hair of the head, beard, and the other parts of the body, of the nails, perfectly motionless, I shall stand there.

This is the fourth rule.

One who has adopted one of these four rules, .

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 178:1 Sattikao.
  • 178:2 Thanasattikkayam, sthanasaptaikakam.
  • 178:3 Thanam thaittae.
  • 178:4 As a wall,

lecture 9

When a monk or a nun wishes to go to a pure place for study, they [2] should not accept one which is infected by eggs or living beings, ; for it is impure and unacceptable. But if that place for study to which they wish to go, is free from eggs or living beings, they may accept it; for it is pure and acceptable.

In this way all that has been said in the corresponding passage about couches [1] should be repeated here as far as 'water-plants.'

If parties of two, three, four, or five (mendicants) resolve to go to the place for study, they should not embrace or hug, bite with their teeth or scratch with their nails each other's body.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 179:1 Nisihiyasattikkayam; nishithika = svadhyayabhumih.
  • 179:2 The original has the first person ketissami.
  • 180:1 Segga-gamena.

lecture 10

A monk or a nun being pressed by nature should, in case they have not their own broom, beg for that of a fellow-ascetic. A monk or a nun, seeing that the ground is infected by eggs or living beings, should not ease nature on such an unfit ground. But if the ground is free from eggs or living beings, then they may ease nature on such a ground.

A monk or a nun, knowing that the householder with regard to such a place for the sake of one or many, male or female fellow-ascetics, for the sake of many Sramanas or Brahmanas whom he has well counted, kills living beings and commits various sins, should not ease nature on such a place or any other of the same sort, whether that place be appropriated by another person or not [3], .

Now he should know this: If that place has not been appropriated by another person, he may ease nature on such a place (after having well inspected and cleaned it).

A monk or a nun should not ease nature on a ground which for their sake has been prepared or caused to be prepared (by the householder), or has been occupied by main force, or strewn with grass, or levelled, or smeared (with cowdung), or smoothed, or perfumed.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature on a ground where the householders or their sons remove from outside to inside, or vice versa, bulbs, roots, .

A monk or a nun should not ease nature on a pillar or bench or scaffold or loft or tower or roof.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature on the bare ground or on wet ground or on dusty ground or on a rock or clay containing life, or on timber inhabited by worms or on anything containing life, as eggs, living beings,

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in a place where the householders or their sons have. do, or will put [1] by bulbs, roots,

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in a place where the householders or their sons have sown, sow, or will sow rice, beans, sesamum, pulse, or barley. (1o)

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in a place where there are heaps of refuse, furrows, mud, stakes, sprigs, holes, caves, walls, even or uneven places [1].

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in fireplaces, layers (or nests) of buffaloes, cattle, cocks, monkeys, quails, ducks [2], partridges, doves, or francoline partridges.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in a place where suicide is committed, or where (those who desire to end their life) expose their body to vultures, or precipitate themselves from rocks or trees [3], or eat poison, or enter fire. (I 3)

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in gardens, parks, woods, forests, temples, or wells.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in towers, pathways, doors, or town gates.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature where three or four roads meet, nor in courtyards or squares.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature where charcoal or potash is produced, or the dead are burnt, or on the or shrines of the dead.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature at sacred places near rivers, marshes or ponds, or in a conduit.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in fresh clay pits, fresh pasture grounds for cattle, in meadows or quarries.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in a field of shrubs, vegetables, or roots.

A monk or a nun should not ease nature in woods of Asana [1], Sana [2], Dhataki [3], Ketaki [4], Mango, Asoka, Punnaga, or other such-like places which contain leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, or sprouts.

A monk or a nun should take their own chamber-pot or that of somebody else, and going apart with it, they should ease nature in a secluded place where no people pass or see them, and which is free from eggs or living beings, ; then taking (the chamber-pot), they should go to a secluded spot, and leave the excrements there on a heap of ashes, .

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 180:2 Ukkarapasavanasattikkao, discharging of feces and urine.
  • 180:3 Purisamtarakada, here translated svikrita. The text proceeds gava bahiya nihadam va, which I do not know how to apply to the object in question. As section 3 differs from section 2 only in giving [p. 181] the negative attributes (apurisamtarakadam), I have contracted both paragraphs in the translation.
  • 181:1 Parisademsu va, explained parikshepanadikah kriyah kuryuh.
  • 182:1 The translation of some of the words in the text is merely conjectural.
  • 182:2 Vattaya. I think this is the modern battak, duck.
  • 182:3 The commentator says: where they fall like a tree, having starved themselves to death, or where they fall from trees.
  • 183:1 Terminalia Tomentosa.
  • 183:2 Crotolaria Juncea.
  • 183:3 Grislea Tomentosa.
  • 183:4 Pandanus Odoratissimus.

lecture 11

A monk or a nun should not resolve to go where they will hear sounds of a Mridanga, Nandimridanga, or Ghallari [6], or any such-like various sounds of drums.

If a monk or a nun hear any sounds, viz. of the Vina, Vipamki, Vadvisaka, Tunaka, Panaka, Tumbavinika, or Dhamkuna, they should not resolve to go where they will hear any such-like various sounds of stringed instruments.

The same precepts apply to sounds of kettledrums, viz. of the Tala, Lattiya, Gohiya [7], or Kirikiriya;

Also to sounds of wind instruments, viz. the conch, flute, Kharamukhi, or Piripiriya.

A [1] monk or a nun should not, for the sake of hearing sounds, go to walls or ditches, ;

Nor to marshes, pasture grounds, thickets, woods, strongholds in woods, mountains, strongholds in mountains;

Nor to villages, towns, markets, or a capital, hermitages, cities, halting-places for caravans;

Nor to gardens, parks, woods, forests, temples, assembly halls, wells;

Nor to towers, pathways, doors, or town gates; Nor where three or four roads meet, nor to courtyards or squares; (1o)

Nor to stables (or nests) of buffaloes, cattle, horses, elephants, ;

Nor to places where buffaloes, bulls, horses, fight;

Nor to places where herds of cattle, horses, or elephants are kept;

Nor to places where story-tellers or acrobats perform, or where continuously story-telling, dramatical plays, singing, music, performance on the Vina, beating of time, playing on the Turya, clever playing on the Pataha is going on;

Nor to places where quarrels, affrays, riots, conflicts between two kingdoms, anarchical or revolutionary disturbances occur;

Nor to places where a young well-attended girl, well-attired and well-ornamented, is paraded, or where somebody is led to death.

A monk or a nun should not, for the sake of hearing sounds, go to places where there are many great temptations [1], viz. where many cars, chariots, Mlekkhas, or foreigners meet.

A monk or a nun should not, for the sake of hearing sounds, go to great festivals where women or men, old, young, or middle-aged ones are well-dressed and ornamented, sing, make music, dance, laugh, play, sport, or give, distribute, portion or parcel out plenty of food, drink, dainties, and spices.

A monk or a nun should not like or love, desire for, or be enraptured with, sounds of this or the other world, heard or unheard ones, seen or unseen ones.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 183:5 Saddasattikkayam. Lecture on Sounds.
  • 183:6 These are different kinds of drums.
  • 183:7 Lattiya and gohiya would be in Sanskrit lattika and godhika; both words are names of lizards.
  • 184:1 The beginning, 'If a monk or a nun hear particular sounds somewhere, viz.,' and the end, 'they should not resolve to go to suchlike or other places for the sake of hearing sounds,' are in the text repeated in all, section section 5-16. In the translation the text has been somewhat Abridged.
  • 185:1 Mahasava, mahasrava. The word has probably here the original meaning, conflux; or mahasava is a mistake for mahosava, which would be identical with mahussava, great festivals, in the next paragraph.

lecture 12

If a monk or a nun see various colours (or forms), viz. in wreaths, dressed images, dolls, clothes [2], woodwork, plastering, paintings, jewelry, ivory-work, strings, leaf-cutting, they should not for the sake of pleasing the eye resolve to go where they will see various colours (or forms). All that has been said in the last chapter with regard to sounds should be repeated here with regard to colours (or forms); only the passages on music are to be omitted.

footnotes

  • 185:2 I have translated the last four words, gamthimani, vedhimani, purimani, samghatimani, according to the commentary. Later on I shall translate them garlands, ribbons, , and sashes.

lecture 13

One should neither be pleased with nor prohibit the action of another which relates to one's self, and produces karman.

One should neither be pleased with nor prohibit it [1];

If another (i.e. a householder) wipes [or rubs] the mendicant's feet;

If he kneads or strokes them; If he touches or paints them;

If he smears or anoints them with oil, ghee, or marrow;

If he rubs or shampoos them with Lodhra, ground drugs, powder, or dye;

If he sprinkles or washes them with hot or cold water;

If he rubs or anoints them with any sort of ointment;

If he perfumes or fumigates them with any sort of incense;

If he extracts or removes a splinter or thorn from them;

If he extracts or removes pus or blood from them.

If he wipes or rubs the mendicant's body, [2] if he perfumes or fumigates it with any sort of incense.

If he wipes or rubs a wound in (the mendicant's) body ( [1], down to) if he sprinkles or washes it with hot or cold water;

If he cuts or incises it with any sharp instrument; if after having done so, he extracts or removes pus or blood from it.

If he wipes or rubs a boil, abscess, ulcer, or fistula ( [1], down to) if he cuts or incises it with any sharp instrument; if after having done so, he extracts or removes pus or blood from it;

If he removes, or wipes off, the sweat and uncleanliness on his body;

If he removes, or wipes off, the dirt of his eyes, ears, teeth, or nails.

If he cuts or dresses the long hair of his head or his brows or his armpits;

If he removes, or wipes off, the nit or lice from his head.

One should neither be pleased with nor prohibit it, if the other, sitting in the Anka or Paryanka posture, wipes or rubs (the mendicant's) feet; in this way the section section 1-18 should be repeated here.

One should neither be pleased with nor prohibit it, if the other, sitting in the Anka or Paryanka posture, fastens or ties a necklace of many or less strings, a necklace hanging down over the breast, a collar, a diadem, a garland, a golden string;

If the other leading him to, or treating him in, a garden or a park, wipes or rubs (the mendicant's) feet, (all as above); similarly with actions done reciprocally.

One should neither be pleased with nor prohibit it, if the other tries to cure him by pure charms;

If the other tries to cure him by impure charms;

If he tries to cure him, digging up and cutting, for the sake of a sick monk, living bulbs, roots, rind, or sprouts.

For sensation is the result of former actions; all sorts of living beings experience sensation.

This is the whole duty,

Thus I say.

footnotes

  • 186:1 In the text these words are repeated after each Sutra in section section 1-10.
  • 186:2 The text gives the whole in extenso.
  • 187:1 The text gives the whole in extenso as in section 11.

lecture 14

One should not be pleased with nor prohibit a reciprocal action, which relates to one's self, and produces karman.

A mendicant should not be pleased with nor prohibit it, if (he and the other) wipe or rub each other's feet,

In this way the whole Thirteenth Lecture should be repeated here.

This is the whole duty, Thus I say.

lecture 15: the clauses

In that period, in that age lived the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, the five (most important moments of whose life happened) when the moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttaraphalguni [2]; to wit: In Uttaraphalguni he descended (from heaven), and having descended (thence), he entered the womb (of Devananda); in Uttaraphalguni he was removed from the womb (of Devananda) to the womb (of Trisala); in Uttaraphalguni he was born; in Uttaraphalguni tearing out his hair, he left the house, and entered the state of houselessness; in Uttaraphalguni he obtained the highest knowledge and intuition, called Kevala, which is infinite, supreme, unobstructed, unimpeded, complete, and perfect. But in Svati the Venerable One obtained final liberation [3].

When in this Avasarpini era, the Sushama-sushama period, the Sushama period, the Sushamaduhshama period, and much time of the Duhshamasushama period had elapsed, seventy-five years nine and a half months of it being left; in the fourth month of summer, in the eighth fortnight, in the light fortnight of Ashadha, on its sixth day, while the moon was in conjunction with Uttaraphalguni, the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira descended from the great Vimana [1], the all-victorious and all-prosperous Pushpottara, which is like the lotus amongst the best (and highest flowers), and like the Svastika and Vardhamanaka amongst the celestial regions, where he had lived for twenty Sagaropamas till the termination of his allotted length of life, (divine) nature and existence (among gods). Here, forsooth, in the continent of Gambudvipa, in Bharatavarsha, in the southern part of it, in the southern brahmanical part of the place Kundapura, he took the form of an embryo in the womb of Devananda, of the Galandharayana gotra, wife of the Brahmana Rishabhadatta, of the gotra of Kodala, taking the form of a lion [2]. The knowledge of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira (with reference to this transaction) was threefold: he knew that he was to descend; he knew that he had descended; he knew not when he was descending. For that time has been declared to be infinitesimally small.

Then in the third month of the rainy season, the fifth fortnight, the dark (fortnight) of Asvina, on its thirteenth day, while the moon was in conjunction with Uttaraphalguni, after the lapse of eighty-two days, on the eighty-third day current, the compassionate god (Indra), reflecting on what was the established custom (with regard to the birth of Tirthakaras), removed the embryo from the southern brahmanical part of the place Kundapura to the northern Kshatriya part of the same place, rejecting the unclean matter, and retaining the clean matter, lodged the fetus in the womb of Trisala of the Vasishtha gotra, wife of the Kshatriya Siddhartha, of the Kasyapa gotra, of the clan of the Gnatris, and lodged the fetus of the Kshatriyani Trisala in the womb of Devananda of the Galandharayana gotra, wife of the Brahmana Rishabhadatta, of the gotra of Kodala, in the southern brahmanical part of the place Kundapuri. The knowledge of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira (with regard to this transaction) was threefold: he knew that he was to be removed; he knew that he was removed; he also knew when he was being removed.

In that period, in that age, once upon a time, after the lapse of nine complete months and seven and a half days, in the first month of summer, in the second fortnight, the dark (fortnight) of Kaitra, on its thirteenth day, while the moon was in conjunction with Uttaraphalguni, the Kshatriyani Trisala, perfectly healthy herself, gave birth to a perfectly healthy (boy), the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira.

In that night in which the Kshatriyani Trisala, perfectly healthy herself, gave birth to a perfectly healthy (boy), the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, there was one great divine, godly lustre (originated) by descending and ascending gods and goddesses (of the four orders of) Bhavanapatis, Vyantaras, Gyotishkas, and Vimanavasins; and in the conflux of gods the bustle of gods amounted to confusion [1].

In that night, the gods and goddesses rained down one great shower of nectar, sandal powder, flowers, gold, and pearls [1].

In that night the gods and goddesses (of the above-mentioned four orders) performed the customary ceremonies of auspiciousness and honour, and his anointment as a Tirthakara.

Upwards from the time when the Venerable Mahavira was placed in the womb of the Kshatriyani Trisala, that family's (treasure) of gold, silver, riches, corn, jewels, pearls, shells, precious stones, and corals increased [2]. When the parents of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had become aware of this, after the lapse of the tenth day, and the performance of the purification, they prepared much food, drink, sweetmeats, and spices; and having invited a host of friends, near and remote relatives, they distributed, portioned out, bestowed (the above-mentioned materials) to Sramanas, Brahmanas, paupers, beggars [3], eunuchs, and distributed gifts to those who wanted to make presents; then they gave a dinner to the host of friends, near and remote relatives, and after dinner they announced the name (of the child) to their guests: 'Since the prince was placed in the womb of the Kshatriyani Trisala, this family's (treasure) of gold, silver, riches, corn, jewels, pearls, shells, precious stones, and corals increased; therefore the prince shall be called Vardhamana (i.e. the Increasing).'

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira was attended by five nurses: a wet-nurse, a nurse to clean him, one to dress him, one to play with him, one to carry him; being transferred from the lap of one nurse to that of another, he grew up on that beautiful ground, paved with mosaic of precious stones, like a Kampaka [1] tree growing in the glen of a mountain.

Then the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, after his intellect had developed and the childhood had passed away, lived in the enjoyment of the allowed, noble, fivefold joys and pleasures: (consisting in) sound, touch, taste, colour, and smell [2].

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira belonged to the Kasyapa gotra. His three names have thus been recorded by tradition: by his parents he was called Vardhamana, because he is devoid of love and hate (he is called) Sramana (i.e. Ascetic), because he sustains dreadful dangers and fears, the noble nakedness, and the miseries of the world; the name Venerable Ascetic Mahavira has been given to him by the gods [3].

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira's father belonged to the Kasyapa gotra; he had three names: Siddhartha, Sreyarsa, and Gasamsa [4]. His mother belonged to the Vasishtha gotra, and had three names: Trisala, Videhadatta, and Priyakarini. His paternal uncle Suparsva belonged to the Kasyapa gotra. His eldest brother, Nandivardhana, and his eldest sister, Sudarsana, belonged both to the Kasyapa gotra. His wife Yasoda belonged to the Kaundinya gotra. His daughter, who belonged to the Kasyapa gotra, had two names: Anogga and

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira's parents were worshippers of Parsva and followers of the Sramanas. During many years they were followers of the Sramanas, and for the sake of protecting the six classes of lives they observed, blamed, repented, confessed, and did penance according to their sins. On a bed of Kusa-grass they rejected all food, and their bodies dried up by the last mortification of the flesh, which is to end in death. Thus they died in the proper month, and, leaving their bodies, were born as gods in Adbhuta Kalpa. Thence descending after the termination of their allotted length of life, they will, in Mahavideha, with their departing breath, reach absolute perfection, wisdom, liberation, final Nirvana, and the end of all misery.

In that period, in that age the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, a Gnatri Kshatriya, Gnatriputra, a Videha, son of Videhadatta, a native of Videha, a prince of Videha, lived thirty years amongst the householders under the name of 'Videha [2].'

After his parents had gone to the worlds of the gods and he had fulfilled his promise, he gave up his gold and silver, his troops and chariots, and distributed, portioned out, and gave away his valuable treasures (consisting of) riches, corn, gold, pearls, and distributed among those who wanted to make presents to others. Thus he gave away during a whole year. In the first month of winter, in the first fortnight, in the dark (fortnight) of Margasiras, on its tenth day, while the moon was in conjunction with Uttaraphalguni, he made up his mind to retire from the world.

A year before the best of Ginas will retire from the world, they continue to give away their property, from the rising of the sun. i.

One krore and eight of gold is his gift at the rising of the sun, as if it were his morning meal. ii.

Three hundred and eighty-eight krores and eighty were given in one year. iii.

The Kundaladharas of Vaisramana, the Laukantika and Maharddhika gods in the fifteen Karmabhumis [1] wake the Tirthakara. iv,

In Brahma Kalpa and in the line of Krishnas, the Laukantika Vimanas are eightfold and infinite in number. v.

These orders of gods wake the best of Ginas, the Venerable Vira: Arhat! propagate the religion which is a blessing to all creatures in the world!' vi.

When the gods and goddesses (of the four orders of) Bhavanapatis, Vyantaras, Gyotishkas, and Vimanavasins had become aware of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira's intention to retire from the world, they assumed their proper form, dress, and ensigns, ascended with their proper pomp and splendour, together with their whole retinue, their own vehicles and chariots, and rejecting all gross matter, retained only the subtile matter. Then they rose and with that excellent, quick, swift, rapid, divine motion of the gods they came down again crossing numberless continents and oceans till they arrived in Gambudvipa at the northern Kshatriya part of the place Kundapura; in the north-eastern quarter of it they suddenly halted.

Sakra, the leader and king of the gods, quietly and slowly stopped his vehicle and chariot, quietly and slowly descended from it and went apart. There he underwent a great transformation, and produced by magic a great, beautiful, lovely, fine-shaped divine pavilion [1], which was ornamented with many designs in precious stones, gold, and pearls. In the middle part of that divine pavilion he produced one great throne of the same description, with a footstool.

Then he went where the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira was, and thrice circumambulating him from left to right, he praised and worshipped him. Leading him to the divine pavilion, he softly placed him with the face towards the east on the throne, anointed him with hundredfold and thousandfold refined oil, with perfumes and decoctions, bathed him with pure water, and rubbed him with beautifying cool sandal [2], laid on a piece of cloth worth a . He clad him in a pair of robes so light that the smallest breath would carry them away; they were manufactured in a famous city, praised by clever artists, soft as the fume of horses, interwoven with gold by skilful masters, and ornamented with designs of flamingos. Then (the god) decked him with necklaces of many and fewer strings, with one hanging down over his breast and one consisting of one row of pearls, with a garland, a golden string, a turban, a diadem, wreaths of precious stones, and decorated him with garlands, ribbons, scarves, and sashes like the Kalpavriksha.

The god then, for a second time, underwent a great transformation, and produced by magic the great palankin, called Kandraprabha [1], which a thousand men carry. (This palankin) was adorned with pictures of wolves, bulls, horses, men, dolphins, birds, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, sarabhas [2], , tigers, lions, creeping plants, and a train of couples of Vidyadharas; it had a halo of thousands of rays; it was decorated with thousands of brilliant glittering rupees; its lustre was mild and bright; the eyes could not bear its light; it shone with heaps and masses of pearls; it was hung with strings and ribbons, and with golden excellent necklaces, extremely beautiful; it was embellished with designs of lotuses and many other plants; its cupola was adorned with many precious stones of five colours, with bells and flags; it was conspicuous, lovely, beautiful, splendid, magnificent.

This palankin was brought for the best of Ginas, who is free from old age and death; it was hung with wreaths and garlands of divine flowers, grown in water or on dry ground. vii.

In the middle of the palankin (was) a costly throne covered with a divine cloth, precious stones and silver, with a footstool, for the best of Ginas. viii.

H e wore on his head a chaplet and a diadem, his body was shining, and he was adorned with many ornaments; he had put on a robe of muslin worth a . ix.

After a fast of three days, with a glorious resolution he ascended the supreme palankin, purifying all by his light. x.

He sat on his throne, and Sakra and Isana, on both sides, fanned him with chowries, the handles of which were inlaid with jewels and precious stones. xi.

In front it was uplifted by men, covered with joyful horripilation; behind the gods carried it: the Suras and Asuras, the Garudas and the chiefs of Nagas. xii.

The Suras carried it on the eastern side, and the Asuras on the southern one; on the western side the Garudas carried it, and the Nagas on the northern side. xiii.

As a grove in blossom, or a lotus-covered lake in autumn looks beautiful with a mass of flowers, so did (then) the firmament with hosts of gods. xiv.

As a grove of Siddhartha [1], of Karnikara [2] or of Kampaka [3] looks beautiful with a mass of flowers, so did (then) the firmament with hosts of gods. xv.

In the skies and on earth the sound of musical instruments produced by hundreds of thousands of excellent drums, kettle-drums, cymbals, and conches was extremely pleasant. xvi.

Then the gods ordered many hundreds of actors to perform a very rich concert of four kinds of instruments: stringed instruments and drums, cymbals and wind-instruments. xvii.

At that period, in that age, in the first month of winter, in the first fortnight, the dark (fortnight) of Margasiras, on its tenth day, called Suvrata [4], in the Muhurta called Vigaya, while the moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttaraphalguni, when the shadow had turned towards the east, and the first Paurushi [1] was over, after fasting three days without taking water, having put on one garment, the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, in his palankin Kandraprabha, which only a thousand men can carry, with a train of gods, men, and Asuras left the northern Kshatriya part of the place Kundapura by the high way for the park Gnatri Shanda. There, just at the beginning of night, he caused the palankin Kandraprabha to stop quietly on a slightly raised untouched ground, quietly descended from it, sat quietly down on a throne with the face towards the east, and took off all his ornaments and finery.

The god Vaisramana, prostrating himself [2], caught up the finery and ornaments of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira in a cloth of flamingo-pattern. Mahavira then plucked out with his right and left (hands) on the right and left (sides of his head) his hair in five handfuls. But Sakra, the leader and king of the gods, falling down before the feet of the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, caught up the hair in a cup of diamond, and requesting his permission, brought them to the Milk Ocean. After the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had plucked out his hair in five handfuls (as described above), he paid obeisance to all liberated spirits, and vowing to do no sinful act, he adopted the holy conduct. At that moment the whole assembly of men and gods stood motionless, like the figures on a picture.

At the command of Sakra, the clamour of men and gods, and the sound of musical instruments suddenly ceased, when Mahavira chose the holy conduct. xviii.

Day and night following that conduct which is a blessing to all animated and living beings, the zealous gods listen to him with joyful horripilation. xix.

When the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had adopted the holy conduct which produced that state of soul in which the reward of former actions is temporarily counteracted, he reached the knowledge called Manahparyaya [1], by which he knew the thoughts of all sentient beings, with five organs, which are not defective, and possess a developed intellect, (living) in the two and a half continents and the two oceans. Then he formed the following resolution: I shall for twelve years neglect my body and abandon the care of it; I shall with equanimity bear, undergo, and suffer all calamities arising from divine powers, men or animals [2].

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira having formed this resolution, and neglecting his body, arrived in the village Kummara when only one Muhurta of the day remained. Neglecting his body, the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira meditated on his Self, in blameless lodgings, in blameless wandering, in restraint, kindness, avoidance of sinful influence (samvara), chaste life, in patience, freedom from passion, contentment; control, circumspectness, practising religious postures and acts; walking the path of

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira passed twelve years in this way of life; during the thirteenth year in the second month of summer, in the fourth fortnight, the light (fortnight) of Vaisakha, on its tenth day, called Suvrata, in the Muhurta called Vigaya, while the moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttaraphalguni, when the shadow had turned towards the east, and the first wake was over, outside of the town Grimbhikagrama [1], on the northern bank of the river Rigupalika [2], in the field of the householder Samaga, in a north-eastern direction from an old temple [3], not far from a Sal 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 [4], the complete and full, the unobstructed, unimpeded, infinite and supreme, best knowledge and intuition, called Kevala. When the Venerable One had become an Arhat and Gina, 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 (kyavana), or become gods or hell-beings (upapada); their food, drink, doings, desires, open and secret deeds, their conversation and gossip, and the thoughts of their minds; he saw and knew all conditions in the whole world of all living beings.

On the day when the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira reached the Kevala, the gods (of the four orders of) Bhavanapatis, Vyantaras, Gyotishkas, and Vimanavasins descended from, and ascended to heaven, (as on the moment of his birth, see above, section 7).

Then when the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira had reached the highest knowledge and intuition, he reflected on himself and the world: first he taught the law to the gods, afterwards to men.

The Venerable Ascetic Mahavira endowed with the highest knowledge and intuition taught the five great vows, with their clauses, the six classes of lives to the Sramanas and Nirgranthas, to Gautama,

The six classes of lives are earth-body, (down to) animals. i. The first great vow, Sir, runs thus:

I renounce all killing of living beings, whether subtile or gross, whether movable or immovable. Nor shall I myself kill living beings (nor cause others to do it, nor consent to it). As long as I live, I confess and blame, repent and exempt myself of these sins, in the thrice threefold way [1], in mind, speech, and body.

There are five clauses.

The first clause runs thus:

A Nirgrantha is careful in his walk, not careless [1]. The Kevalin assigns as the reason, that a Nirgrantha, careless in his walk, might (with his feet) hurt or displace or injure or kill living beings. Hence a Nirgrantha is careful in his walk, not careless in his walk.

This is the first clause.

Now follows the second clause:

A Nirgrantha searches into his mind (i.e. thoughts and intentions). If his mind is sinful, blamable, intent on works, acting on impulses [2], produces cutting and splitting (or division and dissension), quarrels, faults, and pains, injures living beings, or kills creatures, he should not employ such a mind in action; but if, on the contrary, it is not sinful, then he may put it in action.

This is the second clause.

Now follows the third clause:

A Nirgrantha searches into his speech; if his speech is sinful, blamable, (all down to) kills creatures, he should not utter that speech. But if, on the contrary, it is not sinful, then he may utter it.

This is the third clause.

Now follows the fourth clause:

A Nirgrantha is careful in laying down his utensils of begging, he is not careless in it. The Kevalin says: A Nirgrantha who is careless in laying down his utensils of begging, might hurt or displace or injure or kill all sorts of living beings. Hence a Nirgrantha is careful in laying down his utensils of begging, he is not careless in it.

This is the fourth clause.

Now follows the fifth clause:

A Nirgrantha eats and drinks after inspecting his food and drink; he does not eat and drink without inspecting his food and drink. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha would eat and drink without inspecting his food and drink, he might hurt and displace or injure or kill all sorts of living beings. Hence a Nirgrantha eats and drinks after inspecting his food and drink, not without doing so.

This is the fifth clause.

In this way the great vow is correctly practised, followed, executed, explained, established, effected according to the precept.

This is, Sir, the first great vow: Abstinence from killing any living beings. i. ii. The second great vow runs thus:

I renounce all vices of lying speech (arising) from anger or greed or fear or mirth. I shall neither myself speak lies, nor cause others to speak lies, nor consent to the speaking of lies by others. I confess and blame, repent and exempt myself of these sins in the thrice threefold way, in mind, speech, and body.

There are five clauses.

The first clause runs thus:

A Nirgrantha speaks after deliberation, not without deliberation. The Kevalin says: Without deliberation a Nirgrantha might utter a falsehood in his speech. A Nirgrantha speaks after deliberation, not without deliberation.

This is the first clause.

Now follows the second clause:

A Nirgrantha comprehends (and renounces) anger, he is not angry. The Kevalin says: A Nirgrantha who is moved by anger, and is angry, might utter a falsehood in his speech. A Nirgrantha,

This is the second clause.

Now follows the third clause:

A Nirgrantha comprehends (and renounces) greed, he is not greedy. The Kevalin says: A Nirgrantha who is moved by greed, and is greedy, might utter a falsehood in his speech. A Nirgrantha,

This is the third clause.

Now follows the fourth clause:

A Nirgrantha comprehends (and renounces) fear, he is not afraid. The Kevalin says: A Nirgrantha who is moved by fear, and is afraid, might utter a falsehood in his speech. A Nirgrantha,

This is the fourth clause.

Now follows the fifth clause:

A Nirgrantha comprehends (and renounces) mirth, he is not mirthful. The Kevalin says: A Nirgrantha who is moved by mirth, and is mirthful, might utter a falsehood in his speech. A Nirgrantha,

This is the fifth clause.

In this way the great vow is correctly practised, followed,

This is, Sir, the second great vow. ii. iii. The third great vow runs thus:

I renounce all taking of anything not given, either in a village or a town or a wood, either of little or much, of small or great, of living or lifeless things. I shall neither take myself what is not given, nor cause others to take it, nor consent to their taking it. As long as I live, I confess and blame, (all down to) body.

There are five clauses.

The first clause runs thus:

A Nirgrantha begs after deliberation, for a limited ground, not without deliberation. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha begs without deliberation for a limited ground, he might take what is not given. A Nirgrantha,

This is the first clause.

Now follows the second clause:

A Nirgrantha consumes his food and drink with permission (of his superior), not without his permission. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha consumes his food and drink without the superior's permission, he might eat what is not given. A Nirgrantha,

This is the second clause.

Now follows the third clause:

A Nirgrantha who has taken possession of some ground, should always take possession of a limited part of it and for a fixed time. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha who has taken possession of some ground, should take possession of an unlimited part of it and for an unfixed time, he might take what is not given. A Nirgrantha,

This is the third clause.

Now follows the fourth clause:

A Nirgrantha who has taken possession of some ground, should constantly have his grant renewed. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha has not constantly his grant renewed, he might take possession of what is not given. A Nirgrantha,

This is the fourth clause.

Now follows the fifth clause:

A Nirgrantha begs for a limited ground for his co-religionists after deliberation, not without deliberation. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha should beg without deliberation, he might take possession of what is not given. A Nirgrantha,

This is the fifth clause.

In this way the great vow,

This is, Sir, the third great vow. iii. iv. The fourth great vow runs thus:

I renounce all sexual pleasures, either with gods or men or animals. I shall not give way to sensuality, (all as in the foregoing paragraph down to) exempt myself.

There are five clauses.

The first clause runs thus:

A Nirgrantha does not continually discuss topics relating to women. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha discusses such topics, he might fall from the law declared by the Kevalin, because of the destruction or disturbance of his peace. A Nirgrantha,

This is the first clause.

Now follows the second clause:

A Nirgrantha does not regard and contemplate the lovely forms of women. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha regards and contemplates the lovely forms of women, he might, A Nirgrantha,

This is the second clause.

Now follows the third clause:

A Nirgrantha does not recall to his mind the pleasures and amusements he formerly had with women. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha recalls to his mind the pleasures and amusements he formerly had with women, he might, A Nirgrantha, This is the third clause.

Now follows the fourth clause:

A Nirgrantha does not eat and drink too much, nor does he drink liquors or eat highly-seasoned dishes. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha did eat and drink too much, or did drink liquors and eat highly-seasoned dishes, he might, A Nirgrantha,

This is the fourth clause.

Now follows the fifth clause:

A Nirgrantha does not occupy a bed or couch affected [1] by women, animals, or eunuchs. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha did occupy a bed or couch affected by women, animals, or eunuchs, he might, A Nirgrantha,

This is the fifth clause.

In this way the great vow,

This is, Sir, the fourth great vow. iv. v. The fifth great vow runs thus:

I renounce all attachments [2], whether little or much, small or great, living or lifeless; neither shall I myself form such attachments, nor cause others to do so, nor consent to their doing so, (all down to) exempt myself.

There are five clauses.

The first clause runs thus:

If a creature with ears hears agreeable and disagreeable sounds, it should not be attached to, nor delighted with, nor desiring of, nor infatuated by, nor covetous of, nor disturbed by the agreeable or disagreeable sounds. The Kevalin says: If a Nirgrantha is thus affected by the pleasant or unpleasant sounds, he might fall, .

If it is impossible not to hear sounds, which reach the ear, the mendicant should avoid love or hate, originated by them.

A creature with ears hears agreeable and disagreeable sounds.

This is the first clause.

Now follows the second clause:

If a creature with eyes sees agreeable and disagreeable forms (or colours), it should not be attached, to them.

The Kevalin says, (the rest as in the last clause. Substitute only see and forms for h ear and sounds).

This is the second clause.

Now follows the third clause

If a creature with an organ of smell smells agreeable or disagreeable smells, it should not be attached to them. (The rest as above. Substitute smell and nose.)

This is the third clause.

Now follows the fourth clause:

If a creature with a tongue tastes agreeable or disagreeable tastes, it should not be attached, to them. (The rest as above. Substitute taste and tongue.)

This is the fourth clause.

Now follows the fifth clause:

If a creature with an organ of feeling feels agreeable or disagreeable touches, it should not be attached to them. (The rest as above. Substitute feel and touch.)

This is the fifth clause.

In this way the great vow, . v.

He who is well provided with these great vows and their twenty-five clauses is really Houseless, if he, according to the sacred lore, the precepts, and the way correctly practises, follows, executes, explains, establishes, and, according to the precept, effects them.

footnotes

  • 189:1 Bhavana. The bhavanas are subdivisions of the five great vows.
  • 189:2 Hatthottara in the original.
  • 189:3 Kalpa Sutra, section 1.
  • 190:1 Vimanas are palaces of the gods.
  • 190:2 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 2.
  • 191:1 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 97.
  • 192:1 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 98.
  • 192:2 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 90.
  • 192:3 The next word, bhivvumdaga, has been left out in the translation.
  • 193:1 Michelia Champaka.
  • 193:2 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 10.
  • 193:3 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 108.
  • 193:4 The spaced words are Prakrit, the Sanskrit form of which cannot be made out with certainty.
  • 194:1 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 109.
  • 194:2 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 110.
  • 195:1 Those parts of the world which are inhabited by men who practise religious duties, are called Karmabhumi. In Gambudvipa they are Bharata, Airavata, and Videha.
  • 196:1 Devakhamdaya in the original. My translation is but a guess.
  • 196:2 Gosirsha and red sandal.
  • 197:1 I.e. shining like the moon.
  • 197:2 A fabulous animal with eight legs.
  • 198:1 White mustard.
  • 198:2 Cassia Fistula.
  • 198:3 Michelia Champaka.
  • 198:4 Correct suvvatenam in the printed text.
  • 199:1 Wake, Yama, or time of three hours.
  • 199:2 Gamtuvayapadie, according to the Guzerati Balbodh this means making obeisance to the Lord of the world by touching his feet. Another MS. has: Then Sakra the chief and king of the gods.
  • 200:1 Or Manahparyaya.
  • 200:2 Cf. Kalpa Sutra, section 117.
  • 201:1 Gambhiyagama in Prakrit.
  • 201:2 Uggupaliya in Prakrit.
  • 201:3 Or, a temple called Vigayavartta.
  • 201:4 Nivvane or nevvane; it may also be an adjective, belonging to nirvana. This is of course not the final nirvana, which is reached at the dissolution of the body, but that state which the orthodox philosophers call givanmukti.
  • 202:1 I.e. acting, commanding, consenting, either in the past or the present or the future.
  • 203:1 This could also be translated: he who is careful in his walk is a Nirgrantha, not he who is careless.
  • 203:2 Anhayakare explained by karmasravakari.
  • 208:1 This may mean belonging to, or close by.
  • 208:2 This means the pleasure in external objects.

lecture 16: the liberation

The creatures attain only a temporary residence (in one of the four states of being); hearing this supreme truth (i.e. the doctrine of the Tirthakara's) one should meditate upon it. The wise man should free himself from the family bonds; fearless should he give up acts and attachments.

A mendicant, living thus [1], self-controlled towards the eternal (world of living beings), the matchless sage, who collects his alms, is insulted with words by the people assailing him, like an elephant in battle with arrows.

Despised by such-like people, the wise man, with undisturbed mind, sustains their words and blows, as a rock is not shaken by the wind. Disregarding (all calamities) he lives together with clever (monks, insensible) to pain and pleasure, not hurting the movable and immovable (beings), not killing, bearing all: so is described the great sage, a good Sramana.

As the lustre of a burning flame increases, so increase the austerity, wisdom, and glory of a steadfast sage who, with vanquished desires, meditates on the supreme place of virtue [1], though suffering pain [2].

The great vows which are called the place of peace, the great teachers, and the producers of disinterestedness have, in all quarters of the earth, been proclaimed by the infinite Gina, the knowing one [3], as light, illumining the three worlds, (repels) darkness.

The unbound one, living amongst the bound (i.e. householders), should lead the life of a mendicant; unattached to women, he should speak with reverence. Not desiring this or the next world, the learned one is not measured by the qualities of love.

The dirt (of sins) formerly committed by a thus liberated mendicant who walks in wisdom (and restraint), who is constant, and bears pain, vanishes as the dirt covering silver (is removed) by fire.

He lives, forsooth, in accordance with wisdom (and restraint), and walks free from desire, and with conquered sensuality. As a snake casts off its old skin, so is the Brahmana freed from the bed of pain.

As they call the great ocean a boundless flood of water, difficult to traverse with the arms (alone), so should the learned one know (and renounce) it (the samsara): that sage is called 'Maker of the end.'

Here amongst men bondage and deliverance have been declared; he who, according to that doctrine (of the church), knows bondage and deliverance: that sage is called 'Maker of the end.' He for whom there is no bondage whatever in this world, and besides in the two (other continents, or heaven and hell), is indeed a (monk needing) no support and no standing place; he has quitted the path of births.

footnotes

  • 211:1 Tahagaya, i.e. tathagata.
  • 212:1 Dhammapadam.
  • 212:2 Vidunate, which I take to be the genitive of the present participle corresponding to vidunvatah. The commentators divide the word into vidu nate = vidvan natah, which gives no sense.
  • 212:3 Natina in the original. I would prefer to translate it gnatri, the name of the clan to which Nataputta belonged.
type:
book
author:
mahavira
year:
-600
syear:
1400
indexer
×