t. Old historical
traditions and inscriptions prove the independent existence of the sect of
the Jainas even during the first five centuries after Buddha's death, and
among the inscriptions are some which clear the Jaina tradition not only
from the suspicion of fraud but bear powerful witness to its honesty.
[Footnote: Apart from the ill-supported supposition of Colebrooke,
Stevenson and Thomas, according to which Buddha was a disloyal disciple of
the founder of the Jainas, there is the view held by H. H. Wilson, A.
Weber, and Lassen, and generally accepted till twenty-five years ago, that
the Jainas are an old sect of the Buddhists. This was based, on the one
hand, upon the resemblance of the Jaina doctrines, writings, and
traditions to those of the Buddhists, on the other, on the fact that the
canonical works of the Jainas show a more modern dialect than those of the
Buddhists, and that authentic historical proofs of their early existence
are wanting. I was myself formerly persuaded of the correctness of this
view and even thought I recognised the Jainas in the Buddhist school of
the Sammatiya. On a more particular examination of Jaina literature, to
which I was forced on account of the collection undertaken for the English
Government in the seventies, I found that the Jainas had changed their
name and were always, in more ancient times, called Nirgrantha or
Niga[n.][t.]ha. The observation that the Buddhists recognise the
Niga[n.][t.]ha and relate of their head and founder, that he was a rival
of Buddha's and died at Pava where the last Tirthakara is said to have
attained _Nirva[n.]a_, caused me to accept the view that the Jainas
and the Buddhists sprang from the same religious movement. My supposition
was confirmed by Jacobi, who reached the like view by another course,
independently of mine (see _Zeitschrift der Deutsch Morg. Ges_. Bd.
XXXV, S. 669. Note 1), pointing out that the last Tirthakara in the Jaina
canon bears the same name as among the Buddhists. Since the publication of
our results in the _Ind. Ant_. Vol. VII, p. 143 and in Jacobi's
introduction to his edition of the _Kalpasutra,_ which have been
further verified by Jacobi with great penetration, views on this question
have been divided. Oldenberg, Kern, Hoernle, and others have accepted this
new view without hesitation, while A Weber (_Indische Studien_ Bd.
XVI, S. 240) and Barth (_Revue de l'Histoire des Religions_, tom.
III, p. 90) keep to their former