DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0024
20
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
been compiled in the period between 200 and 450 A. D., as they
are apparently directed against the doctrines of the Sunyavada,
though neglecting the Vijnanavada. Recently, however, N. Peri
BEFPIO. XI, 339 ff. has proved that Yasubandhu, the younger brother
of Asahga, the first vijnanavddin, probably lived as early as about
350 B. C., and consequently we must say that the Vaisesika-sutra’s
were compiled before that date. This work, however, can appar-
ently have nothing to do with Chaluya Rohagutta, who, according
to the tradition related above, must have flourished in the first
century B, C. But it is evidently absurd to think that the drsti-
vctdci, or rather the purva's, i. e. the oldest section of the sacred lore,
should have contained anything concerning a doctrine which arose
at least five centuries after the death of Mahavira. And, more-
over, Chaluya’s date is by no means quite certain, as the sthcwi-
rcivali of the Kalpasiitra says1 that Chaluya Rohagutta of the
Kausika gotra was a disciple of Mahagiri, who succeeded Sthu-
labhadra as pontiff of the Svetambaras in 219 A. V. (= 308 or
248 B. C. —- the latter date alone seems possible), and died 30 years
later. Accordingly Chaluya must have lived shortly after the time
of Asoka, but there is nevertheless not much more probability
of his tenets having been incorporated in the purvas. Chaluya
is said to have been the founder of the Trairasika sdJchd; but I feel
•convinced that we must fall back upon the explanation offered by
the great commentators Sllanka (on Sutrakrta I, I, 3, 12)2 and
Abhayadeva3, according to whom the Terasiya’s were originally
identical with the Ajlvika’s, the followers of Gosala. Some con-
nection, however, between these philosophers, i.e. Chaluya Rohagutta
on the one side and the Vaisesika’s on the other, is too frequent-
ly mentioned by the Jains to be wholly fanciful, and there prob-
ably was such a connection though I cannot here try to make
out to what extent the statement is supported by other evidence.
Concerning the relations between the Jains and Vaisesikas cp.
Jacobi SBE. XLV, p. xxxv ff.
From this digression I return to the argument of Weber quoted
above. It seems at first to be fairly convincing, but I am inclined
to think that it rests on somewhat uncertain premises. For on
the one side we have the statement of the passages in ahga
1 Cp. SBE. XXII, 290.
2 SBE. XLV, 245.
3 Quoted by Weber Ind. Stud. XV, 351.
Charpentier, Uttaradhyayanasutra
been compiled in the period between 200 and 450 A. D., as they
are apparently directed against the doctrines of the Sunyavada,
though neglecting the Vijnanavada. Recently, however, N. Peri
BEFPIO. XI, 339 ff. has proved that Yasubandhu, the younger brother
of Asahga, the first vijnanavddin, probably lived as early as about
350 B. C., and consequently we must say that the Vaisesika-sutra’s
were compiled before that date. This work, however, can appar-
ently have nothing to do with Chaluya Rohagutta, who, according
to the tradition related above, must have flourished in the first
century B, C. But it is evidently absurd to think that the drsti-
vctdci, or rather the purva's, i. e. the oldest section of the sacred lore,
should have contained anything concerning a doctrine which arose
at least five centuries after the death of Mahavira. And, more-
over, Chaluya’s date is by no means quite certain, as the sthcwi-
rcivali of the Kalpasiitra says1 that Chaluya Rohagutta of the
Kausika gotra was a disciple of Mahagiri, who succeeded Sthu-
labhadra as pontiff of the Svetambaras in 219 A. V. (= 308 or
248 B. C. —- the latter date alone seems possible), and died 30 years
later. Accordingly Chaluya must have lived shortly after the time
of Asoka, but there is nevertheless not much more probability
of his tenets having been incorporated in the purvas. Chaluya
is said to have been the founder of the Trairasika sdJchd; but I feel
•convinced that we must fall back upon the explanation offered by
the great commentators Sllanka (on Sutrakrta I, I, 3, 12)2 and
Abhayadeva3, according to whom the Terasiya’s were originally
identical with the Ajlvika’s, the followers of Gosala. Some con-
nection, however, between these philosophers, i.e. Chaluya Rohagutta
on the one side and the Vaisesika’s on the other, is too frequent-
ly mentioned by the Jains to be wholly fanciful, and there prob-
ably was such a connection though I cannot here try to make
out to what extent the statement is supported by other evidence.
Concerning the relations between the Jains and Vaisesikas cp.
Jacobi SBE. XLV, p. xxxv ff.
From this digression I return to the argument of Weber quoted
above. It seems at first to be fairly convincing, but I am inclined
to think that it rests on somewhat uncertain premises. For on
the one side we have the statement of the passages in ahga
1 Cp. SBE. XXII, 290.
2 SBE. XLV, 245.
3 Quoted by Weber Ind. Stud. XV, 351.