DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0025
Introduction
21
4 and the Nandi, according to which the purva's (or the drstivdda)
explained the doctrine of the Ajivika’s in connection with that
of the Jains themselves; and on the other, the Bhagavatl tells us
that Gosala took his tenets from a certain portion of the purva's.
These statements ought certainly to be considered in connection
with each other, and if that is done they make it extremely doubtful
whether the drstivdda did really contain an exposition of heretical
doctrines, and rather prompt the query whether the heresy did not
start from some passages in the already existing sacred lore, which
had been wrongly or at least differently interpreted, just in the same
way as has been alleged concerning the second schism1. For we
learn from the old accounts that TIsagutta, the author of this
schism, based his erroneous opinions upon the false interpretation
of a passage in the dyappavdyapuvva (p. vn); and Gosala may
have started in just the same way from certain tenets in the old
canon. This is indeed much more probable, as he is actually
said to have taken his doctrine from the purva's. We ought also
to remember both that the Jain religion is certainly older than
Mahavira, his reputed predecessor Parsva having almost certainly
existed as a real person, and that, consequently, the main points
of the original doctrine may have been codified long before Ma-
havira. From these considerations we may perhaps draw the con-
clusion that the drstivacla did not actually contain the tenets of
the Ajivika’s, which would really be somewhat surprising, but that
on the contrary the heretics took their doctrine from this oldest
part of the canon. From this point of view I willingly agree with
Jacobi that Weber’s assumption concerning the drstivdda, that it
is not wholly orthodox, is not very convincing nor even probable.
Again, Jacobi himself2 thinks it more credible that the reason
why the drstivdda became obsolete was that it consisted merely
of discussions ('pravada) between Mahavira and his opponents, and
that these would have gradually lost their interest and at last
become wholly unintelligible to the Jains themselves. But even
this explanation does not seem quite probable. Jacobi assumes
that the title pravada “added to the name of each piirva* implies
that they really contained merely discussions between Mahavira
1 Leumann Ind. Stud. XVII, 107 ff.
2 SBE. XXII, p. xlv ff.
Arch Or. C harpentier 2
21
4 and the Nandi, according to which the purva's (or the drstivdda)
explained the doctrine of the Ajivika’s in connection with that
of the Jains themselves; and on the other, the Bhagavatl tells us
that Gosala took his tenets from a certain portion of the purva's.
These statements ought certainly to be considered in connection
with each other, and if that is done they make it extremely doubtful
whether the drstivdda did really contain an exposition of heretical
doctrines, and rather prompt the query whether the heresy did not
start from some passages in the already existing sacred lore, which
had been wrongly or at least differently interpreted, just in the same
way as has been alleged concerning the second schism1. For we
learn from the old accounts that TIsagutta, the author of this
schism, based his erroneous opinions upon the false interpretation
of a passage in the dyappavdyapuvva (p. vn); and Gosala may
have started in just the same way from certain tenets in the old
canon. This is indeed much more probable, as he is actually
said to have taken his doctrine from the purva's. We ought also
to remember both that the Jain religion is certainly older than
Mahavira, his reputed predecessor Parsva having almost certainly
existed as a real person, and that, consequently, the main points
of the original doctrine may have been codified long before Ma-
havira. From these considerations we may perhaps draw the con-
clusion that the drstivacla did not actually contain the tenets of
the Ajivika’s, which would really be somewhat surprising, but that
on the contrary the heretics took their doctrine from this oldest
part of the canon. From this point of view I willingly agree with
Jacobi that Weber’s assumption concerning the drstivdda, that it
is not wholly orthodox, is not very convincing nor even probable.
Again, Jacobi himself2 thinks it more credible that the reason
why the drstivdda became obsolete was that it consisted merely
of discussions ('pravada) between Mahavira and his opponents, and
that these would have gradually lost their interest and at last
become wholly unintelligible to the Jains themselves. But even
this explanation does not seem quite probable. Jacobi assumes
that the title pravada “added to the name of each piirva* implies
that they really contained merely discussions between Mahavira
1 Leumann Ind. Stud. XVII, 107 ff.
2 SBE. XXII, p. xlv ff.
Arch Or. C harpentier 2