THE RISE OF BUDDHISM AND JAINISM IN INDIA

 BY

W. H. MORELAND, C.S.I., C.I.E.

AND

ATUL CHANDRA CHATTERJEE

G.C.I.E., K. C.S.I.

THE first events to which tolerably precise dates can be assigned in Indian history are two movements of religious and moral reform, or revolt, which occurred, or rather cul- minated, simultaneously towards the end of the sixth cen- tury B.C., and which resulted in the establishment of the religions of the Buddhists and Jains. The two movements had many points of similarity. Both were revolts not against Hinduism in the wider sense, but against the traditional polytheism and the spiritual claims of the Hindu priesthood. Both started from the allied doctrines of karma and rebirth. Both regarded existence as in itself an evil, and both offered a path leading ultimately to escape. In both cases the leaders belonged to the Kshatriya caste, and the original teaching of both was practical rather than philosophical; while it may be added that both religions have in course of time diverged somewhat widely from the ideas of their founders. The extant literature of both is voluminous, and it is an interesting fact that the earlier records were com- posed, not in classical Sanskrit, but in the simplified forms of everyday speech which are known as Präkrit, and are the parents of the modern languages of India.

THE BUDDHA

The man who established Jainism as a faith was named Vardhamana, but he is better known by the title Mahāvīra, or in current speech Mahābīr, and his life probably ran from 540 to 468 B.C. He belonged to a noble family living in Videha, or North Bihār, but at the age of thirty he became a wandering ascetic. After twelve years he attained en- lightenment, that is to say, he felt that he had found what  he was seeking; and he then set out to teach the truth which he had learned, that escape from existence can be secured by right knowledge, to be attained only by a life of asceticism. Disciples gathered round him, and he was welcomed at the court of Magadha and elsewhere, but Jainism never became an important factor in political history. At first its adherents were found mainly in Bihār; later on the religion spread to other parts of India; and at the present day the Jains number about 1 millions, most of whom live in Bombay or Rajputana. According to tradition, Mahābīr was not the originator of the Jain doctrine, but stands twenty-fourth in a line of prophets, all of them Kshatriyas, who appeared at intervals during a period which must be measured by billions of years. The traditional account is clearly fantastic, but some scholars hold that the twenty-third prophet of the series may have been an historical personage; everything, however, before Mahābir is wrapped in obscurity.

The founder of Buddhism was Siddhartha Gautama, known also as Sākyamuni, and, after his enlightenment, as the Buddha. His life may be taken to have extended from about 560 to 480 B.C., the precise dates being matter of argument, and he belonged to the Sākiya tribe, an oligarchy occupying the lower slopes of the Himalayas on the eastern border of Kosala, or Oudh. A mass of legends gathered round him in the course of time, and the details of his life are hard to disentangle from the later myths, but it is clear that, starting as a Kshatriya of position, he became dis- satisfied, and like Mahābir, set out as a wandering ascetic to learn the truth. He too became enlightened, and spent the rest of his life in preaching the truth which had been given to him. His doctrine was practical rather than philosophical, and the early texts are not free from ambiguity on the speculative side; but his main principle was the elimination of all desire as the condition necessary for escape from the evil of successive rebirths and attainment of the goal of nirvana, or extinction of personality; and his practical method was to master the mind rather than the body. Actual asceticism was of less value to him than to  Mahābir; meditation and concentration on the essential truth was the essence of the discipline which he preached. But his outlook was wide, and he did not confine his efforts to the perfection of a limited band of disciples. For ordinary men and women his teaching was essentially moral, and he set before them the ideal of righteousness substantially in the form in which it has been presented by other great ethical teachers of humanity.

RISE OF BUDDHISM AND JAINISM

His teaching attracted followers, the discipline took root, and it was to become a factor in political history in later times; but in the early period the significance of Buddhism, as of Jainism, is religious rather than political. It would be a mistake to regard the two movements as new departures: Mahābir claimed to carry on an ancient tradition, and the early Buddhist texts show that there were many seekers after truth, though they allow only one finder. The two men clearly took a road which was already familiar, when, dissatisfied with their environment, they became wandering ascetics; the doctrines which they evolved follow naturally from the basic idea that existence is in itself an evil, and do not differ greatly from teaching to be found in the priestly writings of the period. We must recognise then that in the sixth century, and perhaps earlier, the popular religion failed to satisfy men of action and not merely its priestly expositors; we do not know why other enquirers have left no mark on history, but we may reasonably conjecture that the success of Mahâbîr and of the Buddha was due in the first instance to their personal qualities, and later to the qualities of their disciples.

THE SIGNIFICATION OF BUDDHISM

The fact that the two successful leaders belonged to the Kshatriya caste may be of some significance. As has been said already, the power of the priesthood had increased since the age of the Rigveda, and there are some faint suggestions in the literature that the change was not welcomed by the kings, whose authority it necessarily affected. Nearly all our information comes, however, from priestly sources, which from this point of view cannot be accepted as either complete or impartial, and we do not know how far, or with what success, individual kings may have resisted the encroachments of the priests. It is not improbable that, as some writers have suggested, a long struggle between the two powers had marked the period before Mahābir and the Buddha became ascetics, and that it may have been an important factor in their environment; but we know only that both of them denied the authority of the Brahmans, and thus separated themselves definitely from the priestly tradition.