Book Jainism in Buddhist Literature Author Dr. Hiralal Jain

94. D., i 58-59.

95. DA., i. 115; see, Jaytilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, p. 136.

96. Keith writes-he (sanjaya) seems as an agnostic to have been the first to formulate the four possibilities of existence, non-existence, both and neither..." Buddhist Philosophy, p. 303 : Raju, P. T. also supports this view stating "the principle seems to have been first used by Sanjaya"--an article "The Principle of Four Cornered Negation in Indian Philosophy."

97. Buddhism and Culture, ed. Susuma Yamaguchi, Kyoto, 1960 p. 71.

98. Asiyasayam Kriyanam Akriyavaena hoi culasie. Annaniya sattatthi veniyana ca vattisa. Sukr. Vo. I. fol. 212.

99. Ibid. 1. 3. 11-34; Vrtti, p. 45-6; Vavisam suttaim tikanaiyaim terasia sutta parivadie, Samavayanga 22.4.

100. Tatha te eve Gosala-pravarttita Ajivakah pasandinas Trairasika ucyante, yatas te sarvam vastu tryatmakam icchanti tad yatha jivo jivajivas ca loko' loko loka-lokasca, sadasat sadasat. Naya-cintayam drvya-stikam paryayastikam ubhayastikam ca, Tatas tribhi rasibhis caranti iti Trairasikah Nandi comm., fol. 113, quoted by Weber Verzeichniss, ii, p. 685. Cf. Samavaya comm., fal. 129. History and doctrines of the Ajivikas. p. 275.

101. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, p. 156.

102. Na ya vi panne parihasakujja, na ya' siyavaya viya-garejja, Sukr. 1. 14. 19.

103. Sankejja ya' samkitabhava bhikkhu, vibhajjavayam ca viyagarejja, bhasadukam dhammam-samutthitehim vyagarejja samaya supanne. ibid. 1. 14. 22.

104. PK. 14.

105. Vibhajjavayam ca viyagraejja, sukr. 1. 14. 22.

106. Ekamsika pi...maya dhamma desita pannatta, D. i. 191.; Cf. vibhajja-vado...aham...naham...ekamsavado, M. ii. 197.

107. "The Logic of Relatively as the Common Ground for the Development of the Middle Way", Buddhism and Culture, ed. Susuma Yamaguchi, Kyoto, 1960, p. 80.

108. MA. ii. 831; DA. iii. 906. 109. M. i. 232.

110. S. iv. 298-9. 111. M. i. 498 ff.

112. MA. iii. 204. 113. DPPN., sv. Dighanakha.

114. Katamo ca Rahulo tejodhatu ? tejodhatu siya ajjha-ttika siyavahira, M., Cularahulovadasutta; Also see the Bodhirajakumarasutta of the same Nikaya, p. 330 (Nagari edition).

115. Utpadadyastrayo vyasta nalam laksanakarmani. Samskrtasya samaskrtasya samastayu rekatra kathamekada. Utpadasthitibhangnamanyat samskrtalaksanam. Asticedanvasthaivannasti cette na samskrtah. Mk. 45-6.

116. Etenaiva yadahrikah kimapyasl lamakulam. Pralapanti pratiksiptam tadapyekanta sambhavat. Digam-baranam idam ca kimapyayuktam aslilamaheyopadeya. maparinisthanat akule "syadustro dadhi na syaditi" yairuktam te' pi etenaiva praksiptah. bhabenaiva ekantabhedat. PV. 1. 183.

117. Sarvasyobhayarupatve tadvisesanirakrteh.

Codito dadhi khadeti Kimustram nabhidhavati.

Athastya-tisayah kascit yena bhedena vartate.

Sa eva dadhyonyatra nasltyanubhayam param. ibid 1. 184-5.

118. Sarvatmatve ca sarvesam bhinnau syatam na dhidhvanih. Bhedasamharavadasya tadabhavadasambhavah. ibid., 1. 185-6

119. Athotpadavyayadhrauvyayuktam yattatsadisyate. Esameva na satvam syat etadbhavadhiyogatah etc., PV A., p. 142.

Yada vyavastadasatvam katham tasya pratiyate.

Purvam pratites atvam syat tada tasya vyayah katham.

Dhrauvye' pi yadi nasmin dhih katham satvam pratiyate.

Pratiterevasarvasya tasmatsattvam kuto' nyatha.

Tasmannityanityasya vastunah sambhavah qvacit.

Anityam nityamathavastu ekantena yuktimat. PV A, p. 142.

120. HBT., p. 233.

121. "Utpadavyayadhrauvya yuktam sat" ityetadapyayu-ktam, dhra uvenotpadavyayayorvirodhat, ekasmin dharminyayogat. kathancit utpadavyayau kathancit, dhrauvymiti cet. yathotpadau na thatha dhrauvy-ayam, yatha ca dhrauvyam na tathotpadavyayayayaviti naikam vastu yathoktalaksanam syat. ibid. p. 146.

122. Drvyaparyayarupatvat dvairupyam vastunah kila. Tayorekatmakatvepi bhedah. samjnadibhedath ibid., p. 104.

123. ibid. v. 4-5. 124. ibid. v. 7-12, p. 105.

125. ibid., v. 20 & 25. p. 106. 126. TSP. p. 421.

127. TS., 1722 128. ibid. 1723.

129. ibid. 1720-30 130. cf. ibid. 1733-35.

131. yo'pi Digambaro manyate--Sarvatmakameyedam syadanyapohavyatikrme tasmad bheda evanyatha na syadanyabhavo bhavanam yadi na bhabediti, sopya-nena nirastah. abhavena bhavsbhedasya kartuma-sakyatvat. napyabhinnanam hetuto nispannanamany-onyabhavah sambhavati. bhinnascennispannah, kathamanyonyabhavah sambhavati ? PVST. p 109.

132. tena yo'pi Digambaro manyate...sopyatra nirakrta eva drastavyah. tadvati samanyavisesavati vastunya-bhyupagamyamane atyantenabhedabhedau syatam... atha samanyavisesayoh kathancidabbeda isyate...... mithyavada eva syadvadah. --PVST., p. 332-42.

133. Jaina Theories of Reality and Knowledge, p. 22-23.

134. Sadbhuta dharmah sattadidharmaih samana bhinnascapi yatha Nirgranthadinam. Tanmatam na samanjasam. kasmat ? no bhinnabhinnamete'pi purvavat bhinnabhinnayordosabhavat.....ubhayore-kasmin asiddhatvat......bhidnnabhnnakalpena na sadbhutam nyayasiddham satyabhasam grahitam. 2.2.

135. Gunaved dravyamutpadavyadhrauvadayo gunah.

Dudrava dravati drosyatyekanekam svaparyayam.

Bhedajnanat pratiyet pradurbhavatyayu yadi.

Abhedajnanatah siddha sthitiramsena kenacit. NV., 117-8.

136. Arcatacataka tadasmaduparama, dustarkapaksabala-clanat. Syadadacalavidalanacuncurna tavasti nayacancuh. --NVV., 1087.

137. AJP. Vol. I. p. 72.

138. Na narahsimharupatva na simho naraupatah.

Sabdavijnakayanam bhedat jatyantaram hi tat.

Nanaro nararyeveti na simhah simha eva hi.

Samanadhikaranyena narasimhah prakirtitah.

Dravyat svasmadabhinnasca vyavrttasca parasparam.

Unmajjanti nimajjanti jalakallolavat jale.

--NKC., p. 369; also see APT., p. 15.

139. Bhutadosasyodbhavayitumasakyatvena asaddusaneno-dbhavanam sa jatih, NVV., Vol. 11. p. 233.

140. Tatra mithyottaram jatih yatha' nekantavidvisam. Dadhyustraderabhedatvaprasangadekacodanam. NV., 2. 203.

141. NVV., Vol. Il. p. 233.

142. Purvapaksamavijnaya dusako' pi vidusakah iti prasiddhah. NVV., Voil. ii, p. 233

At another place Dharmakirti is called `Kathamunmatto' NVV., p. 17 Kutsitmasamsamanah ayam prasiddho Dharmakirti kenapi Dignagadina vancitah (SVT., p. 365 etc.)

143. NV., 2. 204-5, Like-wise at another place Akalanka, commenting on the Buddhist Acaryas, especially Dharmakirti, says :

Dadhyadau na pravarteta Bauddha tadbhuktaye.

Janah, Adrasyam saugatim tatra tanum samsankamanakah.

Dadhyadike tatha bhukte na bhuktam kancikadikam.

Ityasau vettu no vetti na bhukta saugati tanuh.

--Siddhiviniscayasvavrtti, 6, 37.

144. Stuletarakarayorapyevamanyonyabhede satyapi dravyenaikena tadatmyopapatteravaya vino Jainabhi-matasya suvyavasthatvat, NVV Pt. ii. p. 172; Sadrasatmanah santo niyatarttaya h. ibid pt. ii. p. 52.

145. PSg. p. 115-6.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Charpentier1, Max Muller2, and General A. Cunningham3 asserted 477-478 B. C. as the date of the Buddha's demise. According to them, the year of Chandragupta's accession was 315 B. C. and it is now proved to be an erroneous premise.

Oldenberge4 favours 481 B. C. while V. A. Smith prefers 486 B. C. Smith depends on the so called "Cantonese Dotted Record". It is said that Bhiksu Sanghabhadra sent news of the buddha's parinibbana to china. since then an arrangement of reckoning the Buddha's death by marking a dot each year had been made in Canton, and this dotted record continued upto the year 489 A. D. All the dots were counted in 489 A. D., and their total number reached 975, which suggests 486 B. C. as the year of Buddha's death. It is not easy to recognize the dotted record as being trust worthy unless other strong evidence supports it.

Raychaudhuri5 accepts 486 B. C., while Kern6 places it in 488 B. C. On the other hand, Muni Nugaraj7 mentions 502 B. C. as the year of the Buddha's parinibbana. But all these conceptions do not carry weight as they do not take into account all the evidences.

Another date 483 B. C., which seems more reliable, is supported by several non-traditionalists or reformed traditionalist scholars. Sylvain Levi8 pointed out from the Chinese accounts that 483 B. C. was reckoned as the Buddha's demise up to the 4th century in Ceylon, while E. R. Ayroton9, the late Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon, and Wickrema-singhe10 try to prove the acceptability of this date from the beginning of the 4th century up to the 11th century. Geiger also warmly accepts this view.

John M. Seneviratne established his theory that "The era reckoned from 483 B. C. remained not only up to the 11th century but up to the end of the 15th century, when the new tradition that the Buddha died in 544 B. C.-came in and soon ousted the old, are creating no little confusion, not so much during the transitionary stage as in our own time.11

The scholars, who accept 483 B. C. as the date of the Buddha, urge that 218 years after Buddha's death, Asoka's consecration took place. They quote the Dipavamsa13, and Mahavamsa14 in support of their theory. As regards Asoka's consecration, they say that his predecessors Bindusara and Candragupta ruled for 28 and 24 years, according to the Ceylonese chronology.15 And Asoka was consecrated four years after he had already reigned over the country.16 This means Candragupta would have ascended the throne 162 years (218 - 4=214 - 28+24= 162) after the Buddha's nibbana.

Fortunately they could say with almost certainty that Chandragupta's accession took place in 321 B. C., since Alexander the Great died at Babylon in the same year and this fact has been amply recorded17. From this they conclude that the Buddha's death would have taken place in 483 B. C. (321+162 = 433).

Hoernle, on the otherhand, accepts 482 B. C. as the "Practically certain" date of the Buddha's parinabbana. He supports his view by the evidence that Bimbisara was murdered by his son eight years before the Buddha's nibbana.18 Though there is no great difference between the dates, 483 B. C. appears the more dependable one.

As regards the traditional date of Buddha, it is yet to be asertained, since the tradition itself is not accepted with unanimity. According to the Buddhist Chronicles of Ceylon and Burma, the Nibbana took place in 544-543 B. C., while the Northern Indian traditions place it at a very early date. Cunningham19 refers to some of them. In the time of Hwen Thasang, A. D. 630-645, the Buddhist schools held widely different opinions, varying from 900 and 1000 years up to 1200, 1300 and even 1500 years prior to that date20, which would place the Nibbana of the Buddha either in 250, or 350, or 550, or 650 and 850 B. C. The same extravagant antitquity was also asserted in the time of Fa-Hian, who places the Nibbana during the reign of Ping-Wang, Emperar of China, in B. C. 770-719 21. A similar antiquity was still claimed as late as the Twelth Century A. D., during the reign of Asoka Balla Deva. Two of his inscriptions are dated in the years 51 and 74 of the Laksmana Sena era, or in A. D. 1159 and 1180. A third inscription, which is dated in the year 1813 after the Nibbana of Buddha shows that at that time, Nibbana was believed to have occured between about 656 to 633 B. C.

But all the traditional views, except the traditions of Ceylon and Burma, do not have sufficiently strong evidences in their support. According to the Mahavamsa, Parakramabahu I was corwned when 1696 years had elapsed since the buddha's death, that is, in the year 1697 A. B. The Ceylonese era falls this year 1153 A. D.22 This is supported by an independant source, viz. a South Indian Inscription at the temple of Tiruvalisvara in Arpakkama. According to the Culavamsa, 56.16 foll., the predecessors of Parakramabahu, from Parak rama Pandu onwards, reigned 107 years. Thus the accession of the last-named prince falls at 1590. A. D. Moreover, this date is confirmed by the South Indian Manimangalam inscription, which is dated the same year23. All this shows that for the second half of the twelfth century the existence of the Ceylon era, reckoned from 544; is established with certainty.24

In support of this view, we can now put forward another evidence. An inscription has been recently discovered near Anuradhapura in Ceylon which delineates the various kinds of donations made by king Upatissa 1, the elder brother and predecessor of the king, for the benefit of the Bodi-shrine. S. Paranavitana, on the basis of this earliest inscription so far found in which a date is given in the Buddhist era reckoning from the parinirvana of Buddha along with the regnal year of the king reigning at the time, has been able to say that the Budhist era reckoned from 544 B. C. was prevalent in the reign of king Upatissa 1 (368-410). A. D25.

It is to be noted here that some scholars think of 483 B. C. as the Ceylonese traditional era of the Buddha's Nirvana. M. De. Z. Wickremasinghe, however, tried to establish the view that till the 11th Centuary A. D. the tradition of counting the Buddhist era from 483 B. C. was prevalent both in India as well as in Ceylon. He suggested that the mistake might have occured in regard to the length of reigns assigned to the several kings who preceded the great Vijaya Bahu 1. His reason for suggesting it is that it was a century of foreign domination for about 86 or 96 years, the Cholians over-ran the Island, carrying destruction every-where. If a mistake did really occur in this chronology, it is mot probable that it was due to such difficult circumstances.26

Senaviratne27 too has attempted to prove that the death of Buddha took place in the year 483 B. C., on the strength of the conclusion arrived at by Fleet and accepted by Geiger and Wikramasinghe. He says that the correctness of Fleet's date is beyond question. According to him, the above date continued till the time of Parakramabahu VI when it was corrupted by the addition of 93 years; and a few centuries still later a Buddhist monk at kandy dropped out of this 93, when the era assumed its present date.

But these views are refuted by other eminent scholars. E. Hultzsch28 pointed out that the above view, that of reckoning the era from 483 B. C. is based on an erroneous translation by WIjesinghe of passage in the Culavamsa (Chapter, 53.v. 44), H, W. Codringron29 remarked on the paper of Seneviratne that the Kalyani inscription indicated that the "Sakaraja" era as that used in Burma and dating form A, D. 638, according to a Burmese inscription, is dated saka-raja 657 at Bodhigaya." "This date", he says "however, shows that the Buddhist era, as used in Burma in the fifteenth centuary was 544 B. C". E. M. Abhesinghe,30 on the basis of Jaina literature, criticising the view of Seneviratne, says that "We know that Buddha was countemporaneous with Bimbisara, and if with the Jainas, we identify Swami Gautama or Gautama Indrabhuti with Lord Buddha, the first disciple of the Jaina Tirthankara Mahavira, we can approximately fix, from both these sources, the date of the great demise at 544 B. C."31

In connection with Abhesinghe's conclusion I would like to make a few comments. His suggestion, in support of 544 B. C. being date of the Buddha's demise, that Gautama Indrubhuti and Bautama the Buddha are identical, is incorrect. They were different personalities. One was the Ganadhara or explainer of Mahavira's preachings, while the other was the founder of Buddhism. One died at Gunava in. Rajagraha at the age of ninety two, 12 years after the attainment of salvation by Mahavira, while the other died at Kusinara at the age of eighty and attained nibbana.

In the light of the aforesaid evidences we can now conclude that the most probable date of the birth of Buddha therefore, is 624-623 B. C. We make this deduction as he is supposed to have lived for 80 years, as he himself says in the Mahaparini-bbanasutta of the Dighanikaya before his death that he was of 80 years of age (athititaro me vayo vattati). Thus the date of the Buddha's parinivana may be decided at 544 B. C. (624-623 B. C.-80 = 544-543 B. C.)

APPENDIX II

Arrangements were made for this to be held at Rajagaha, near the Saptaparni cave under the presidency of Mahakassapa commencing from the second month of the Vassava season, i. e. in the fourth month after the Buddha's death3. Five hundred Arhat bhikkhus participated in it. Ananda4, who was yet a saiksa, attained arhathood (asaiksa) just on the eve of the Council, and he palyed a prominent part in the establishment of the texts of the Sutta Pitaka.

The decisions at the Council were not altogether unanimous. For instance, Gavampati, a senior arhat of the time, abstained from approving or disapproving the decisions of the Council, while Purana denounced the Council's decisions and urged the incorporation of the seven Vinaya rules5. Whatever that may be, the accounts of Gavampati and Purana indicate the germs of schism in the order even at that early date-R. C. Majumdar says "This was a danger signal for the Church."6

The sources of the First Council are (i) The Cullavagga, XI, of the Pali Vinaya, (ii) The Dipavamsa, (iii) The Mahavamsa, (iv) Buddhaghosa's introduction to the Sumanga-lavilasini, (v) Mahabodhivamsa, (vi) Mahavastu, (v) Manjusrimulakalpa, (vi) The Tibetan sources :--Bu-ston's Chos. Bbyung (History of Buddhism), translated into English by Obermiller, and Taranatha's History of Buddhism, (vii) Chinese sources but derived from the Sanskrit sources : The Vinaya of Mahisasakas, Dharmaguptas, Mahasanghikas, Sarvastivadins, Kasyapa samgitisutra (Kai-ye-kie-king), Asokavadana (A-yu-wang-king), Mahaprajnaparamitasastra, Parinirvana-sutra, and Hiuen Tsang's Record of western countries.

As regards the authenticity of the First Council, the Russian savant I. P. Minayeff7 appears to be the first to investigate and establish the historicity of the event in 1887. Oldenberg refuted his opinion in 1898 and said that the First Council was nothing but pure fiction. His argument is that Subhadda's account is referred to in the Cullavagga and Mahaparinibbanasutta, (Digha. 2. 3) but the latter is silent about the Council. This silence, according to him, "is as valuable as the most direct testimony : it shows that the author of the Mahaparinibbanasutta did not know anything of the First Council. "He then concludes that it is not a fact, "but pure invention, and moreover an invention of no very ancient date."8

Rockhill reviewed Oldenberge's view in 1884 on the basis of Tibetan sources and remarked that "the authenticity of the council of Rajagaha has been doubted on insufficient grounds9. But T. W. Rhys Davids seems to have uphelp Oldenberg's view. He says "The conclusion drawn by oldenberg is atleast the easiest and readiest way of explaining the very real discrepancy that he has pointed out10. R. O. Franke declares emphatically against the First Council that "the two accounts in the Cullavagga xi, xii, are but air-bubbles."11 Among later scholars, Sukumar Dutta expresses his view thus--"The account of the First Council is only a legend of this invented character, seizing, as a peg to hang on, the Subhadda story in the Mahaparinibbana narrative12.

But all these views are one-sided and baed on merely the absence of any reference to it in the Mahaparinibbanasutta. As a matter of fact, the Mahaparinibbanasutta is concerned with the account of the Buddha's parinibbana and not the history of the Order. The Vinaya, of course, is related to the history of the Buddhistic order and therefore an account of the First Council has a legitimate place in it. Likwise the Dipavamsa mentions the First Council, but not Subhadda's account. Tibetan Dulva also does the same.

Finot13 pointed out that chapters XI and XII of the Cullavagga, which contain an account of the two councils, have such an abrupt beginning unlike the other chapters of the Cullavagga that they could not have been originally a part of this work. He further points out that the Mahaparinibbanasutta also differs from the other Suttas of the Dighanikaya in the nature of its contents, being more historical in character,and that the Mahaparinibbanasutta and the two chapters (XI, XII) of Cullavagga are so similar in nature that they must have been originally parts of one and the same work. In support of this contention of his, he refers to a work entitled Samyuktavastu (Nanjio 1121), the Vinaya of the Mula-Sarvastivadins, which contains the account of both parinibbana and the Councils, and concludes therefrom that the There-vadins too had a work corresponding to the Samyukta-vastu, and that it was disembered at a later date by the ancient editors of Nikayas and Vinaya14.

Obermiller15, Poussin16, Prazyluski17 also support the authenticity of the First Council Jacobi urged that it was not essential for the Mahaparinibbanasutta to go out of its way to describe the Council. He then remarked that mere argu-mentum es silentio cannot be accepted against the historicity of the First council.18

Assessing the different viows of scholars regarding the authenticity of the First Buddhist Council of Rajagaha, we find that no reliable evidence is available to reject its validity. The Gavampati and Purana accounts contain the parts of the Buddha's teaching which they accepted. We cannot therefore think of it as a pure invention. Thus all accounts favour the acceptance of the First Council as a historical event.

As regards its cotribution to the evolution of the Pali Canon, it is, however, difficult to accept the traditional conception, which asserts that the whole Dhamma and Vinaya were recited in the First Council. The Sumaganlavilasini19 further adds that not only Dhamma and Vinaya, but also the Abhidhamma was finalised in this very Council. How was it possible to compile the whole of the Sutta and Vinaya along with the Abhidhamma within about two months ?

Poussin is inclined to think that the Council could not but be regarded as an enlarged Patimokkha assembly.20

Minayeff asserts that the accounts of the Council contain two clearly distinguishable parts, of which the one that speaks of the compilation of the Canon must belong to a period posterior to the rise of the sects.21 Nalinaksa Dutt is of opinion that the Council was summoned to decide the less important rules of discipline (khuddakanukhuddakani sikkhapadani) which were sanctioned by the Buddha himself.22