refore be
regarded as an invention and an outcome of sect hatred as well as of the
wish to throw discredit on their opponents. [Footnote: Jacobi _loc.
cit._. p. 159-160.]

The Buddhist remarks on the personality and life of Nataputta are still
more remarkable. They say repeatedly that he laid claim to the dignity of
an Arhat and to omniscience which the Jainas also claim for their prophet,
whom they prefer simply to call 'the Arhat' and who possesses the
universe-embracing '_Kevala_' knowledge. [Footnote: See for example
the account in the _Chullavagga_, in _S.B.E_. Vol. XX. p. 78-79;
_Ind. Antiq._ Vol. VIII, p. 313.] A history of conversions, tells us
further that Nataputta and his disciples disdained to cover their bodies;
we are told just the same of Vardhamana. [Footnote: Spence Hardy,
_Manual of Budhism_, p. 225.] A story in the oldest part of the
Singalese canon gives an interesting and important instance of his
activity in teaching. Buddha, so the legend runs, once came to the town
Vai['s]ali, the seat of the Kshatriya of the Lichchhavi race. His name,
his law, his community were highly praised by the nobles of the Lichchhavi
in the senate-house. Siha, their general, who was a follower of the
Niga[n.][t.]ha, became anxious to know the great teacher. He went to his
master Nataputta, who happened to be staying in Vai['s]ali just then, and
asked permission to pay the visit. Twice Nataputta refused him. Then Siha
determined to disobey him. He sought Buddha out, heard his teaching and
was converted by him. In order to show his attachment to his new teacher
he invited Buddha and his disciples to eat with him. On the acceptance of
the invitation, Siha commanded his servants to provide flesh in honour of
the occasion. This fact came to the ears of the followers of the
Niga[n.][t.]ha. Glad to have found an occasion to damage Buddha, they
hurried in great numbers through the town, crying out, that Siha had
caused a great ox to be killed for Buddha's entertainment; that Buddha had
eaten of the flesh of the animal although he knew it had been killed on
his account, and was, therefore guilty of the death of the animal. The
accusation was brought to Siha's notice and was declared by him to be a
calumny. Buddha, however preached a sermon after the meal, in which he
forbade his disciples to partake of the flesh of such animals as had been
killed on their account. The legend also corroborates the account in the
Jaina works, accor