Origin
of Buddhism ( Budha and contemporary thinkers, various philosophical
schools before 2500 years)
There
are frequent references in Buddhist literature to some six senior
contemporaries of the Buddha, for instance, in the digha-nikaya (the
samannaphala-sutta and its counterpart in Sanskrit). It appears from
the context of these references that Ajatshatru, the king of Magadha,
met a number of these teachers and asked them each separately to state
in clear and unambiguous terms the result of their ascetic practices.
All of them were well known in the country as founders of religious
schools with a large following. Their names and special doctrines
they held are briefly stated in the text. It is possible, however,
that the information supplied is prejudiced as it emanates from their
opponents; in fact, the mis-statements they make are partly due to
design and partly to ignorance. All the same, it is interesting to
study their views in order to understand correctly as well to appreciate
the views of the founder of Buddhism. Of
these six thinkers, Nigantha Nathaputta, who is no other than Mahavira,
the founder, or according to the Jaina tradition the last prophet
of the present world cycle, seems to have been slightly older than
Buddha. He preached ethical doctrines without apparently knowing that
similar ideas had been held by an incomparably senior ascetic, Parshva.
The latter is now acknowledged to be Mahavir’s predecessor and is
believed to have lived 250 years before Mahavira. Parshva’s ethical
code consisted of four rules, whereas that of Mahavira consisted of
five. Of these, the first three, viz., not to kill living things,
not to take articles of use unless they are given, and not to tell
a lie, are common to the schools of both Parshva and Mahavira. The
fourth rule in Parshva’s teaching that of aparigraha, not to
have any wordly possessions including a wife, was split up into two
by Mahavira to make up his code of five. Not to take a wife or to
lead a celebrate life, which is the fourth rule of Mahavira’s code,
and not to have worldly possessions except clothes, which is the fifth
rule in Mahavira’s code seems to constitute jointly the forth rule
of Parshva. The main difference in the practical or external aspects
of Parshava’s and Mahavira’s code of conduct thus seems to have been
that while Parshava and his followers were Acelakas or naked, Mahavira
and his followers wore white garments, but refused to have any other
paraphernalia. In other words, the jaina faith has preached by Mahavira
is the same Parshava’s, but somewhat more modern. It was natural,
therefore, that this two schools should have become one as they actually
did some 250 years after the death of Parshava, when the disciples
of Parshava and those
of Mahavira met at Sravasti and brought about the union. Later, the
jainas explained the fusion of schools differently by adding 22 prophets
to precede Parshava, there by making Parshava the twenty-third and
Mahavira the twenty forth of their prophets. It would, however, be
quite correct to hold that Parshava and Mahavira independently evolved
a philosophy and a religious system which has identical tents. In
the sammana phala sutta nigantha nattaputta is mentioned as having
held the doctrine of four fold restraint; restraint from the use of
cold water as it contains life, and from sinful activities such as
killing and sexual intercourse. He was free from all sins had purified
himself. In the Udumbarika–sihanada sutta the restrains ascribed to
him are different but identical with the four vows of Parshava. According
to jaina sources, however, Jainism is not a purely ethical system,
but also a philosophy based on the doctrine of many possibilities,
known as Anekanta or Syadvada. The doctrine looks at two aspects of
everything, the eternal and the non-eternal. The soul undergoes migration
according to good or bad deeds. As Jainism regards the existence of
jiva in everything, it enjoys such behaviour as does not cause
injury to any jiva. The soul becomes impure and is engulfed
by samsara if it is subjected to the influence of sense objects.
In order to keep the soul pure from their contamination, and to secure
its relase, it is necessary to practise restraint. To achive this
one must resort to or aquire right knowledge, faith and conduct. Buddhist
sources, for instance, the Anguttara, and the sventy fourth sutta
of the Tikanipata, ridicule the Jaina doctrine, particularly its idea
of overcoming sin, its restraint on movements and its insistence on
certain times of clothing. The next contemporary of the Buddha was
Makkhali Gosala. He belonged to the select of the Acelakas or naked
ones, and, as the as the first part of his name indicates, carried
a stuff of bamboo. It is said that he was for some time a disciple
of Mahavira, but later broke away from him. Afterwards he probably
founded an independent school known as Ajivika School. Later writers
mention two predecessors, Nanda Vaccha, and kisa Samkicca, thus giving
this school three prophets. This sect is now extinct, but seems to
have enjoyed popularity and even royal patronage. The doctrine advocated
by Gosala is styled samsara visuddhi or the doctrine of attaining
purity only by passing through all kinds of existence. Gosala did
not belive that there was any special cause for either the misery
of human beings or for their deliverance. He did not belive in human
effort, and held that all creatures were helpless against destiny.
He maintained that all creatures, whether wise or foolish, were destined
to pass through samara, and that their misery would come to
an end at the completion of the cycle. No human efforts would reduce
or lengthen this period. Like a ball of thread, samsara had
affixed term, through which every being must pass. The remaining four
teachers, who are mentioned as contemporaries of the Buddha, did not
leave their mark on posterity as did Mahavira and to a lesser degree,
Gosala. Of these four, Purana Kassapa held the doctrine of Akriya
or non-action. He maintained that a man did not incur sin through
actions, which were popularly known as bad, e.g., killing, committing
theft, talking another man’s wife, or telling a lie. Even if a man
killed all the creatures on earth and raised a heap of skulls, he
incurred no sin. Similarly,
he did not earn merit through a good act, or by staying on the northern
or southern bank of the Ganga; similarly, self-control, gifts, and
truthfulness did not earn for him any credit. The doctrine that Kassapa
preached resembles the doctrine of the Carvakas in many respects. Ajita
keshakambalin was another contemporary of the Buddha. He did not believe
the utility of gifts, in sacrifice, the fruits of good and bad acts,
the existence of heavenly worlds or persons possessing higher or supernatural
powers. He held that the body consisted of four elements, into which
it dissolved after death. He
also held that it was useless to talk of the next world; that both
the wise and ignorant die and have no further life after death. His
views are similar to those of the Carvakas, and his doctrine may be
styled Ucchedavada. Pakudha Kaccayana is probably Kakuda Katyayana
as mentioned in the Prasnopanisad. He and his views are also
referred to in the Suyagada, the second book of the Shvetambara
Jaina canon. His doctrine may be called Asasvatavada. According to
him, there are seven elements which are immutable, and do not in any
way contribute to pleasure or pain. The body is ultimately dissolved
into these seven eternal elements. The
last among these teachers is Sanjaya Belatthiputta. Ajatashatru calls
him the most foolish and most ignorant of all the teachers he had
met. His doctrine is known as Viksepavada, or a doctrine, which diverts
the mind from the right track. According to the Samannaphala sutta,
he always declined to give categorical answers to problems facing
the human mind. There are ten unexplained and unanswered questions,
that have always exercised the mind of man and have frequently been
mentioned in Buddhist literature, which Sanjaya never even attempted
to answer. It may be noted that these questions were also put to Buddha
on several occasions and he, too, declined to answer them; but his
attitude towards them was altogether different.
He said that it was useless to waste time on these idle quests,
as they were not conducive to human progress. Having
taken stock of the trends of philosophical speculations before the
coming of Buddha, it will now be clear why he thought of a new faith
which at once caught the imagination of the people and was accepted
by millions. Teachers like Pakudha Kaccayana and Ajita Keshakambalin
advocated a theory of the Universe, according to which it was either
eternal or non-eternal as represented by their respective formulae;
Sabbam attahi and Sabbam natthi, or better still, by
doctrines known as Sasvatavada and Ucchedavada. Gosala
thought that the characteristics of all things were predetermined,
and that there was no cause or condition which predetermined them,
as represented by the formulae; Sabbam Pubbekatahetu and Sabbam
ahetu-apaccaya. Another
was that happiness and sorrow were due to ones own deeds or that they
were due to some other cause, as represented by the formulae: Sukhadukkham
and Sayamkatam and Sukhadukkham Parakatam. Yet another belief was that the aims or values of human life were realized by the enjoyment of worldly pleasures, or by self-mortification, as represented by the formulae; Kamesu-Kama-Sukhallikanuyogo and attakilamathanuyogo.
|
