Pali Agamo Ma Chatuyam Samvar

This article, "Catuyama-Samvara in the Pali Agamas" by Padmanabh S. Jaini, translated by Muni Kalyankirtivijay, delves into the concept of Chatuyam Samvara (Fourfold Restraint) as it appears in the Pali Canon of Buddhism, and its relationship to Jainism.

The author begins by referencing the work of Dr. Hermann Jacobi, who in 1880, in his article "Mahāvīra and His Predecessors," highlighted the Buddhist descriptions of Niggantha Nātaputta (Jain ascetics) and the concept of Chatuyam Samvara attributed to them. Jacobi argued that these Buddhist references, particularly in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, supported the historical authenticity of Mahāvira and the antiquity of the Chatuyam Samvara doctrine. He further elaborated in his translations of Jain Sutras, asserting that the Buddhist attribution of Chatuyam Samvara to the Nirgranthas was mistaken and that their principles predated both Buddha and Mahāvira, tracing the doctrine back to the 23rd Jain Tirthankara, Pārśvanātha.

However, the article notes a crucial point: the Sāmaññaphala Sutta does not specify the fourfold "yāmas" (limbs) of Chatuyam Samvara. Similarly, while the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra states that Pārśvanātha taught four great vows and Mahāvira taught five, it doesn't name these vows.

The author then examines subsequent research on Chatuyam Samvara, stating that it largely expands upon the evidence found in the Buddhist and Jain texts already mentioned. The five great vows (pañca mahāvrata) in Jainism are well-established in texts like the Sthānāṅga Sūtra, with detailed descriptions of each vow and its five associated attitudes. These vows are: abstention from violence, abstention from false speech, abstention from stealing, abstention from unchastity, and abstention from attachment to possessions.

The article highlights the Bhagavatī Sūtra, which distinguishes these vows by referring to them as Pañcajama (Fivefold Restraint) and contrasting them with Chatujjama. The Bhagavatī Sūtra contains five verses describing five restraints, the first two of which are particularly relevant. The first restraint is Sāmāyika Saṃyama (Equanimous Restraint), defined in the Ācārāṅga Sūtra as abstaining from all sinful activities. The text states that this Sāmāyika is itself the unsurpassed Chatujjama Dharma. This leads to the question of whether Mahāvira adopted Chatujjama Dharma upon initiation, although no Śvetāmbara commentator explicitly supports this.

The second verse in the Bhagavatī Sūtra explains Chedopasthāpana Saṃyama (Upheaval Restraint) as having a similarity to Pañcamahāvrata (the five great vows).

The article then turns to the Digambara tradition, where the term Chatujjama is not found. However, the terms Sāmāyika and Chedopasthāpana appear in the ancient Digambara text, Mūlācāra, by Ācārya Vaṭṭakera. According to Mūlācāra, the restraint of Sāmāyika, which involves abstaining from all sinful activities, was preached by 22 Tirthankaras with the provision of atonement for transgressions. In contrast, the first and last Tirthankaras, Ṛṣabhanātha and Mahāvīra, preached Chedopasthāpana conduct along with daily atonement.

The article expresses a sense of mystery regarding how the Śvetāmbara texts establish a connection between Sāmāyika and Chatujjama, as no commentator clarifies this. The term Chatujjama is also well-known in other Jain traditions, appearing in Ācārya Śivārya's Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (attributed to Digambaras) and its commentary by Ācārya Aparājita Sūri. Aparājita Sūri, discussing rules for monks' atonement, mentions that the first and last Tirthankaras preached vows with daily atonement, while the other 22 Tirthankaras preached doctrines with occasional atonement. He attributes this difference to the distinction between the Pañcayāma (fivefold restraint) of the first and last Tirthankaras and the Chaturyāma (fourfold restraint) elsewhere.

It is considered significant that the term Chatujjama, which holds importance in Śvetāmbara Āgamas, is absent from the Tattvārthasūtra and its commentaries, although the five great vows are discussed. The Digambara commentator Sarvārthasiddhi explains that originally there was only one Sāmāyika vow, which is abstention from all sinful activities, and this vow was later divided into five aspects in relation to Chedopasthāpana Sāmāyika. However, the term Chatujjama is not mentioned here.

Aparājita Sūri's reference to Chaturyāma and Pañcayama aligns with the Sāmāyika and Chedopasthāpana restraints described in the Bhagavatī Sūtra. However, it remains unclear what constitutes Chatujjama in the Bhagavatī Sūtra or its commentary. This leaves no basis for comparing the four limbs of Chatujjama described in the Sthānāṅga Sūtra with any other available information, especially regarding the meaning of the fourth limb.

The Sthānāṅga Sūtra, in its fourth volume (266th Sutra), defines the four limbs of Chatujjama as: abstention from all violence, abstention from all falsehood, abstention from all theft, and abstention from all bahiddādāna (giving outside). The meaning of this fourth limb, bahiddādāna, has remained obscure. While the first three limbs are clear, bahiddādāna has multiple interpretations. Commentators strive to demonstrate that Pārśvanātha's fourth vow, as taught by Mahāvira, encompasses both Mahāvira's fourth and fifth vows.

Abhayadevasūri, in his commentary on the Sthānāṅga Sūtra, interprets bahiddādāna as maithuna-parigraha (sexual intercourse and possession) combined with ādāna (taking, implying other possessions). By combining these, he believes the term encompasses both vows taught by Mahāvira. He suggests that although not explicitly explained, sexual intercourse is inherently included in possession, as one cannot engage in sexual activity with a woman who is not considered their property; she must be discarded like any external object.

The author notes that the difference in the teachings of the two Tirthankaras is not due to a fundamental divergence, but rather due to the circumstances of their disciples. Abhayadevasūri clarifies that while the perceived differences arise from the disciples' situations, fundamentally all Tirthankaras taught the five great vows.

The article then shifts focus to Buddhist scriptures, identifying two more Suttas from the Dīgha Nikāya, besides the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, that are relevant to the study of Chatuyama Samvara: the Sīhanāda Suttas. These Suttas deal with the merits and demerits of self-control in the monastic life for the attainment of Nirvana.

The Kassapasīhanāda Sutta (No. 7) doesn't directly discuss Chatuyama Samvara but mentions the monk Nigrodha, whose story is detailed in the Udumbarikasīhanāda Sutta (No. 25). This latter Sutta offers a description of Chatuyama Samvara similar to the Sthānāṅga Sūtra but without mentioning Niggantha Nātaputta or any other Jain figure. The author suggests that this Sutta's oversight by Jacobi and its subsequent neglect might be due to this lack of explicit Jain reference.

The Sāmaññaphala Sutta, though appearing earlier in the Dīgha Nikāya, might not be chronologically prior. It is situated within the context of King Ajātasattu's repentance and visit to the Buddha, an event likely occurring in the Buddha's last decade.

In the Kassapasīhanāda Sutta, the ascetic Kassapa questions the Buddha's disregard and criticism of ascetic practices and observes flaws in the conduct of ascetics who engage in arduous lifestyles like plucking hair, nudity, and begging. The Buddha, at the end of the dialogue, refers to Nigrodha, who lived a similarly austere life. When Nigrodha questioned the Buddha about higher forms of asceticism, the Buddha explained his own views. The Buddha also explained the futility of all such hardships to Kassapa and preached the Eightfold Noble Truths, leading Kassapa to become a Buddhist monk and attain the state of an Arhat.

Buddha's commentary on "I met the ascetic Nigrodha myself" is elaborated upon by Buddhaghosa in the Dīgha Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā, stating that Nigrodha's account is preserved in the Udumbarikasīhanāda Sutta.

Nigrodha, a wandering ascetic who followed extremely difficult ascetic practices, resided in the Udumbarika garden with his large following of disciples. One day, a Buddhist devotee on his way to pay respects to the Buddha encountered Nigrodha and praised the Buddha in his assembly. Nigrodha then proclaimed, "He (Gautama) remains hidden in solitude. If he comes out and debates with me, he will be exposed." The Buddha, through his supramundane knowledge, became aware of this and appeared at Nigrodha's location himself. Nigrodha questioned the Buddha about severe penance, disciple training, and the pure Dharma. The Buddha's response is crucial to the current discussion.

The Buddha told Nigrodha, "Nigrodha! Ask me about your own doctrines, about higher asceticism, and the advantages and disadvantages of self-control."

A lengthy dialogue ensued between the Buddha and Nigrodha, in which the Buddha explained the meaninglessness of penances like those described in the Kassapasīhanāda Sutta. He stated that all forms of bodily mortification are flawed and cannot even touch the bark of the tree of a pure, noble life, let alone reach its essence.

Nigrodha then inquired, "Then, Bhante! How can a monk attain the higher state of a pure life and its essence?"

The Buddha replied, "A monk becomes restrained by the Chatuyama Samvara. Chatuyama Samvara means that the monk: 1. Does not kill, cause to kill, or approve of killing; 2. Does not take what is not given, cause to take what is not given, or approve of taking what is not given; 3. Does not speak falsehood, cause to speak falsehood, or approve of speaking falsehood; and 4. Does not covet the objects of the senses, cause to covet, or approve of coveting. In this way, the monk becomes restrained by Chatuyama Samvara."

The author notes that in the Jain tradition, the order of vows is violence, falsehood, and theft, whereas here it is violence, not taking what is given, and falsehood. Secondly, the word bhāvita (from na bhāvita āśisati - "does not seek that which has not been sought") in the fourth vow is significant and has not been found in any Jain text in this context.

Commenting on this word, Buddhaghosa in the Aṭṭhakathā states that "according to those who accept this Chatuyama Samvara, bhāvita means the five sensual pleasures, i.e., forms of pleasure related to the senses." While Buddhists elsewhere use the word bhāvita to mean "to have attachment, desire, constant contemplation," its meaning here is not their definition. Buddhaghosa clearly states that "here, the word bhāvita refers to the meaning according to those who practice Chatuyama Samvara."

This meaningful explanation suggests that the commentator (Buddhaghosa) had contact with practitioners of Chatuyama Samvara and received this meaning of the fourth vow from them. This interpretation is credible because the meaning of the term bahiddādāna in the Sthānāṅga Sūtra remains ambiguous (whether it refers to sexual intercourse, possession, or both), and a similar ambiguity exists here, as sensual pleasures, like lust, can be associated with external objects as well as women. However, unfortunately, neither the original Pali Sutta nor the Aṭṭhakathā mentions any practitioners or traditions of Chatuyama Samvara.

One certain aspect is that Buddhists perceived a significant difference between their Chatuyama Samvara and the bodily mortification practices of other ascetics and ascetics. The Buddha did not condemn or criticize this Chatuyama Samvara, as evident from the dialogues.

The Buddha further states that a monk who adheres to Chatuyama Samvara can attain the meditations (Brahmavihāras), i.e., experience friendliness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. However, even this does not lead to the highest state, only touching the bark of the tree, not its essence.

When asked by Nigrodha again, the Buddha states that one can progress further, overcome mental obstacles, and gain supramundane power to see hundreds or thousands of past lives. But even that power can only reach the veins of the tree, not its essence.

Furthermore, those who advance can reach divine sight (divyacakṣuḥ), which allows them to see various beings in different realms, moving to and fro based on their good and bad karma.

Nigrodha then asks, "Bhagavan! Does the ascetic's penance become utterly pure through all these things, and does it attain the higher state and the essence of the tree?"

The Buddha's answer at that moment is somewhat surprising. He says, "Yes, Nigrodha! This kind of penance attains the higher state and the essence."

"And that is why, Nigrodha! When you ask me, 'Where (in what state) do you train your disciples? Which of your disciples accept the principles of the monastic life that you have propounded?' I say, 'It is a very high state where I train my disciples, and these disciples of mine accept the principles of the monastic life."

This is a concise statement from a Buddhist about another non-Buddhist sect. Surprisingly, the compilers of the Sutta considered Chatuyama Samvara harmless and aligned with their own doctrines. Moreover, the Sutta concludes without further explanation of a higher and unsurpassed path to Nirvana, which is even more astonishing.

Nigrodha admits his offense in criticizing the Buddha and apologizes. The Buddha then tells him that he will provide guidance and instruction to individuals who are honest, intelligent, and simple, enabling them to attain the higher Dharma and the ultimate goal here and now. However, neither Nigrodha nor his disciples are willing to follow this pure path because, as the Buddha himself states, "Every foolish person is afflicted by my evil doctrine." And thus, the Buddha departs without converting anyone, and the Sutta ends as if Chatuyama Samvara is presented as only half of the Buddha's teaching.

The resolution to this lies in the beginning of the dialogue. The Buddha fearlessly declared that he would answer questions about asceticism raised by others before describing his own doctrines. This confidence of the Buddha was not solely based on his superior intellectual power but also on his own past life experiences as a Bodhisattva, where he had undertaken such arduous practices and witnessed their futility. The Aṭṭhakathā also clearly identifies this as the reason for Buddha's unusual pronouncement on Chatuyama Samvara. Commenting on the Sutta related to Chatuyama Samvara, Buddhaghosa in the Aṭṭhakathā states:

"What the Lord has said is according to the views of the tīrthikas (outsiders/heretics). The tīrthikas believe that gain and honor are like the leaves of the tree, adherence to the five vows is like the trunk of the tree, the practice of the eightfold meditation is like the bark of the tree, knowledge of past lives (unbroken) is like the veins of the tree, and divine sight is considered by them to be the ultimate fruit of Arhatship, and its attainment is like the essence of the tree."

"However, in the Buddha's dispensation, gain and honor are like the leaves of the tree, rules are like the wood (trunk) of the tree, meditative attainment is like the bark of the tree, knowledge of past lives is like the veins of the tree, but the true essence of the tree is the Noble Path and the fruit of that path, Nirvana."

The Aṭṭhakathā's attribution of Chatuyama Samvara to the tīrthikas is very insightful. The Sāmaññaphala Sutta describes six prominent sects of ascetics, referred to as tīrthikas. The use of the term tīrthika here undoubtedly refers to the Nirgranthas led by Nātaputta, as no other tīrthikas propounded Chatuyama Samvara.

The Nirgranthas (i.e., tīrthikas) consider the aforementioned supernatural power called divine sight as Arhatship. The Buddhist doctrine, like that of present-day Jains, would certainly have been rejected by the Nirgranthas. While the Buddhists are describing their rival ascetics and are compelled to view their yogic abilities in the light of their own doctrines, it might be appropriate to consider whether a Jain Āgama text might have inspired such a description. The author feels that a passage in the Kalpa Sūtra (likely a reflection of Ācārāṅga Sūtra 2 - 1526) describes the Arhatship attained by Bhagavan Mahāvīra: "When the ascetic Mahāvīra became a Jin, became an Arhat, he became a Kevalin, omniscient and all-seeing. He knew and saw all the states of gods, men, and asuras, and all the states of birth, death, existence, and passing away of all beings in the universe..."

Furthermore, by considering the terms "unsurpassed knowledge and vision" used in the Kalpa Sūtra to describe the omniscience attained by the ascetic Mahāvīra, and the meaning given to it by the Buddhists in the Mahāsāropama Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya - 29), another connection might be found.

The Sutta states that "the āṇa-dassana (knowledge and vision) attained by a heretic is equivalent to the unbroken divine sight." While the Sutta uses the terms "a certain person" in the example of reaching the essence of the tree, the Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā states that "the person mentioned there is Devadatta, who was expelled from the Sangha on the charge of causing a schism." The Sutta states that "even if such a monk attains āṇa-dassana, he can only touch the fibers of the tree, not its essence." When the phrases āṇaṁ ca me udapādi, dassanaṁ ca me udapādi, etc., are spoken by a Buddha or an Arhat, they are always accompanied by expressions indicating the end of the cycle of rebirth, such as "Kheeṇā me jāti, n'atthi dāni punabbhavo..." (My birth is destroyed, there is no more rebirth...). Therefore, the Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā states that "in the present context (i.e., Devadatta's), āṇa-dassana does not refer to any supramundane attainment but rather to an unbroken state called divine sight (among the five worldly unbroken states)."

The powers of seeing the birth and death of beings and seeing and knowing everything, as described in the passages of the Jain Kalpa Sūtra, bear a strong resemblance to the Buddhist concept of unbroken divine sight. This perception may have led Buddhist commentators to believe that Jains consider the attainment of all these powers to be the attainment of Arhatship.

The conflict between these two (Jain and Buddhist) views is well-known and is extensively discussed in Buddhaghosa's Aṭṭhakathā on the Sāmaññaphala Sutta. However, quoting some of the most prominent terms would not be out of place here. Commenting on the Nirgranthas, Buddhaghosa states that "although the Nirgranthas are tīrthikas (heretics) or hypocrites, some of their practices and observances are also acceptable to Buddhism. Nevertheless, due to their impure vision, their entire philosophy is false." Finally, the Pali Āgama texts mentioned earlier, which resemble many Jain Āgama texts, and their commentaries, perhaps indicate actual contact between certain groups of Buddhist monks and Jain monks. As mentioned in his 1995 article, the commentator Dhammapāla notes that the descriptions of Jain monks are consistent with descriptions found in sculptures, suggesting that Buddhists were aware of Jain monks residing in Kanchi. Furthermore, the fact that Theravada Buddhists, by the time of the Buddhist commentators, accepted Chatuyama Samvara without referring to the five great vows of Jains, leads us to infer that Buddhists in the South must have had contact with Jain monks who were still practicing Chatuyama Samvara at that time.