Jain Aur Bauddh Ka Bhed

This document is a translation and analysis of the book "Jain Aur Bauddh ka Bhed" (The Distinction Between Jain and Buddhist) by Hermann Jacobi and Raja Sivaprasad. The core of the document argues for the distinct existence of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha as separate individuals, refuting the notion that Buddhism originated from Jainism or vice versa.

Here's a breakdown of the key arguments and points made in the text:

Central Argument:

• Mahavira and Buddha were distinct individuals who lived concurrently. The text strongly refutes claims by some European scholars and others who suggest Buddhism is an offshoot of Jainism or that Buddha was a follower of Mahavira.

Key Evidence and Reasoning:

1. Chronological Coexistence and Shared Contemporaries:

   • Jain scriptures place Mahavira during the time of kings like Bimbisara (referred to as Shrenik in Jain texts) and Ajatashatru (known as Kunik or Kounik in Jain texts).
   • These same kings are also known as contemporaries of Buddha from Buddhist scriptures.
   • The text highlights that names like Shrenik and Kunik in Jain texts likely correspond to Bimbisara and Ajatashatru respectively, found in Buddhist texts.
   • Even minor figures like Gosala Maskariputra (a contemporary of Buddha and Mahavira) are mentioned in both traditions, further supporting their concurrent existence.

2. Distinct Philosophies and Practices (Though with Similarities):

   • While both traditions emerged in a period of religious ferment against Brahmanical orthodoxy, and both sought to provide new paths, their core tenets and practices differed.
   • The text acknowledges that both figures had similar epithets (like Shakya Simha for Buddha and Vardhamana for Mahavira) and shared a wife named Yashoda, but stresses that beyond these superficial similarities, their personal histories, teachings, family relationships, disciples, and conduct were entirely distinct.
   • The text suggests that the similarity in their teachings stems from a common root and their opposition to the prevailing Brahmanical norms of the time, as evidenced by the diverse new philosophies that emerged during Buddha's era (as described in the Samannaphala Sutta).

3. Refutation of Claims of Jainism as a Branch of Buddhism:

   • The argument that Jainism is a later offshoot that arose after Buddhism's decline is rejected. Weber is cited as believing Jainism to be older than Buddhism.
   • The claim that Jains adopted caste distinctions from Buddhism is dismissed as baseless. The text states Jains have only two categories: monks (yati) and lay followers (shravaka). It also points out that Lankan Buddhists also have caste distinctions, indicating it's not unique to Buddhism.
   • The argument that Pali language of Buddhism is older than Jain Prakrit is dismissed, as Jain scriptures were compiled much later than Mahavira's Nirvana, allowing for linguistic evolution. Also, the loss of 14 Purvas in Jainism is mentioned as a factor.

4. Specific Names and Historical Figures:

   • The inscription on a statue found in Mathura mentioning "Namo Arhat Mahavira Devanam" with the year 98 (likely Vikram Samvat) and names like Huvishka and Kanishka associated with it, clearly points to Mahavira being distinct from Buddha.
   • Buddhist texts often refer to Jain ascetics as "Nigrantha" or "Nigranthanathaputra." The text connects "Nigrantha" to Jain monks and "Nathaputra" to Mahavira, who is also called "Jnataputra" in Jain texts like the Kalpasutra and Uttaradhyayana Sutra. The identification of Nigranthanathaputra with Mahavira is strongly supported by various sources.
   • The Samannaphala Sutta's description of Nigranthanathaputra's doctrine is considered by the text, despite the absence of specific dates, to be consistent with Mahavira's teachings, and any discrepancies are attributed to Buddhist misinterpretations or conflation with Mahavira's chief disciple, Sudharma.

5. Chronological Data and Dating:

   • The text discusses the different dating of Buddha's and Mahavira's Nirvanas. Buddha's Nirvana is placed around 477 BCE.
   • The Nirvana of Mahavira is dated by Svetambara Jains to 470 years before Vikram Samvat and by Digambara Jains to 605 years before Vikram Samvat. The 135-year difference is linked to the Vikram Samvat and Shaka era calculations.
   • Through a detailed analysis of historical periods mentioned in Jain texts (like the reign of King Palaka, Nandas, Mauryas, Pushyamitra, Balmitra, Bhanumitra, Nabovahana, Gardabhilla), the text attempts to establish a chronological framework.
   • The text concludes that Mahavira's Nirvana occurred approximately 527 years before the Common Era, leaving a difference of only 16 years with the commonly accepted date for Buddha's Nirvana (543 BCE by Sri Lankans).
   • Hemachandra's dating of Chandragupta's coronation 155 years after Mahavira's Nirvana suggests Mahavira's Nirvana around 467 BCE, leading to a total difference of about 10 years with Buddha's Nirvana, which the text considers more accurate.

6. The "Nivedan" Section (Critique of Dayananda Saraswati):

   • This section is a separate, but included, critical examination of Swami Dayananda Saraswati's views, particularly his interpretation of the Vedas and his polemic against traditional Hindu beliefs.
   • Raja Sivaprasad engages in a debate with Dayananda Saraswati via letters regarding the authority of Vedic texts, specifically the distinction between Samhitas and Brahmanas.
   • Dayananda Saraswati's assertion that only Samhitas are divinely revealed (Ishwarokta) and Brahmanas are human-authored (Rishi Muni pronita) is challenged.
   • Sivaprasad argues that if Samhitas are self-proving (swatah praman), then Brahmanas should also be, and vice versa. He criticizes Dayananda's selective use of scripture and his dismissal of certain interpretations or entire texts as interpolations.
   • The correspondence highlights Dayananda's tendency to dismiss critics with personal attacks rather than substantive theological debate.

7. Critique of Astrology:

   • A significant portion of the document (pages 49-98) is a detailed critique of contemporary astrology, its practices, and its practitioners.
   • The author argues that while Vedic astrology (like Surya Siddhanta) has a scientific basis in astronomy, the popular astrology practiced by many is based on deception, superstition, and exploitation of people's fears and desires.
   • It debunks claims about predicting past lives, divine intervention through rituals, and the influence of specific astrological combinations on individuals based on their birth charts.
   • The text emphasizes the importance of effort (purusharth) over fatalistic reliance on astrology.
   • It advocates for a more practical and evidence-based approach to life, advocating for education and rational thinking rather than blind faith in astrological predictions.

Overall Significance:

The document is a scholarly attempt to establish the distinct historical and doctrinal identities of Jainism and Buddhism. It uses textual evidence from both traditions, along with archaeological and chronological data, to counter theories of their interrelationship or one being a derivative of the other. The appended critique of Dayananda Saraswati's reformist views on the Vedas and the detailed debunking of popular astrology highlight a broader intellectual and religious discourse of the era. The work emphasizes the importance of critical analysis and historical accuracy in understanding religious traditions.