Interesting. I’m not sure what the cause is. It looks very normal on my end.
Well, the author seems like a cool guy, but the essay is not very substantial. The gist of it is that there are “reasons to doubt the identification”, which, okay, sure, but surely we can produce something a little more concrete than that.
He asks, “On what basis, other than long-established tradition, do we state this to be a fact” but does almost nothing to answer his own question. That is, he raises a couple of points of difference between how Mahāvīra/Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is depicted in the two traditions, but does not address the reasons why the original scholars, who were well aware of these differences, nevertheless came to their conclusions.
The points of difference are:
- Character. To me, this is basically meaningless: a person can be presented in different ways from different perspectives.
- Mahāvīra’s death: this is quite contradictory, and only one account can be true. That a religious leader should vomit blood when their disciples left is also said of Devadatta and Sañjaya, so it is stock and should not be regarded as a serious historical account.
- The events following the death. These are depicted quite differently, but this could be just a matter of polemics. The Buddhist texts depict a situation of chaos, but clearly the Jain religion survived; so either the Buddhists were wrong, or, what is equally likely, the chaos was a short term and localized problem that was resolved.
The author does not discuss arguments in favor of the identification in any depth, which is a shame. As he notes, such things, which become accepted wisdom, often get lost in the mists of time, and the basic arguments are lost in some 19th century journal.
He did, however, cite Jacobi’s Jaina Sūtras of 1884, though note he incorrectly specified vol. ii, it should be vol. i. Even here he merely says the issue was “raised” in this introduction, whereas in fact it is discussed in quite a bit of detail. The text can be read in a transliteration on sacred-texts.com or as a PDF from the internet archive. The introduction, and of course the text, are well worth a read.
But let me sum up a few of the arguments in favor of the identification. This is not meant to be exhaustive, as I have not studied the matter in detail.
- Both Mahāvīra and Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta were contemporaries of well-known figures such as Makkhali Gosala, King Bimbisara, and Ajātasattu.
- The general historical situation is similar; note that these conditions only obtained for a fairly short period, after the arrival of Vedic culture and before Ashoka.
- The doctrines and practices in the EBTs of the nigaṇṭhas, of whom Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta was the leader, are essentially identical with the Jains, of whom Mahāvīra was the leader.
- Claims such as omniscience, etc. attributed to Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta were also attributed to Mahāvīra.
- The article rather oddly claims that the name Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is only used in the Buddhist literature, while elsewhere admitting that the Jaina literature does, in fact, use the term Nāyaputta (the Ardhamagadhi spelling). Nigaṇṭha is, of course, just another epithet, so the fact that this is omitted is meaningless. The fact is they are known by the same name.
This is surely not all the evidence, but it is enough. If someone wants to disestablish this thesis, they’re going to have to try harder.
4 Likes
Yes, I think all the points you make about the importance Clasquin-Johnson assigns to the points of difference are good ones. The way Jains would view their own heroic founder might be very different from the way Buddhists viewed that same person. There is bound to be some polemical coloring of both accounts, and so that doesn’t mean the two figures are different people.
It really is a sad thing for he world that so may of the original Jain agamas appear to have been lost. Not only might they help to answer these questions, they must also have been filled with many inspiring teachings.
2 Likes
Note how these Jain monks teach: they all shout!
I wonder if this is something usual/typical across all contemporary Jain monastic sects/traditions and ask myself of this is something that can be traced to the Jain community the Buddha had to deal with!?
If so, that makes even more dramatic and relevant the conversion of Upali depicted in the MN56.
It may be just a cultural thing. I saw a lot of Muslim preacher shouting at the top of their lungs. It looks a bit weird for the people coming from a different background, but I think it is considered to be accepted and even rhetorically skilful in their cultural context.
In the US, there is one tradition of Protestant Christian preaching called “fire and brimstone”, which is loud and frenzied, and based on terrifying people about the doom of Hell that awaits them if they don’t mend their ways.
1 Like
Interesting observation!
When I was in Bodhgaya once for chanting the Tipitaka, the Sangha had a meeting under the Bodhi tree. There we were, in the holiest place of Buddhism, and the chief of the Indian monks present got up give a speech. And boy, was it loud. To me it sounded like he was yelling and ranting, in Hindi, and I was sitting there thinking, “oh boy, what’s up?” Then he finished, and a translator stepped forward, saying: “Bhante wants to thank you all for coming to the sacred land. He hopes we can all work together in metta and harmony for the good of all sentient beings.”
5 Likes
I do not dispute this may be a cultural thing but it is worth reminding what we read in the MN139:
“‘One should speak unhurriedly, not hurriedly.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?
“Here, bhikkhus, when one speaks hurriedly, one’s body grows tired and one’s mind becomes excited, one’s voice is strained and one’s throat becomes hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks hurriedly is indistinct and hard to understand.
“Here, bhikkhus, when one speaks unhurriedly, one’s body does not grow tired nor does one’s mind become excited, one’s voice is not strained nor does one’s throat become hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks unhurriedly is distinct and easy to understand.
(…)
Here, bhikkhus, the speech of one that hurries ( taramānassa bhāsitaṃ) is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way. Therefore this is a state with conflict.
Here, bhikkhus, the speech of one who does not hurry ( ataramānassa bhāsitaṃ) is a state without suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict.
Source for English translation: YellowRobe
1 Like
I didn’t realize this text was available, I thought we had all of the released Bodhi translations. @vimala, could you maybe ask Ven Joe to check through the Majjhima suttas and see if there’s anything else we are missing. MN 139 is available here:
It seems it was released independently by the BPS, rather than Wisdom directly, which may be why I missed it. It would be good to check for similar cases.
1 Like
Will do!
2 Likes
MN 139 is done now. Ven. Joe will also do the others.
3 Likes