Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta untranslated

Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta (Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta). One of six eminent teachers, contemporary with the Buddha; he is described as a heretic (aññatitthiya, e.g., SN.i.66).

He was leader of a sect known as the Nigaṇṭhā, and a summary of his teachings is found in the Sāmaññaphalasutta (DN.i.57; DN­a.i.166).

A Nigaṇṭha is restrained with a fourfold restraint (cātuyāma saṁvara)

• he is restrained as regards all water,
• restrained as regards all evil,
• all evil has he washed away, and
• he lives suffused with the sense of evil held at bay.

And, because of this fourfold restraint,

• he is called a Nigaṇṭha (free from bonds),
• gatatta (one whose heart has been in the attainment of his aim),
• yattala (one whose heart is under command) and
• ṭhitatta (one whose heart is fixed).

The meaning of this fourfold restraint is not clear; for a discussion of this cātuyāma saṁvara, see Barua: Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, pp. 378f. The first in evidently the well-known rule of the Jains against drinking cold water, as it contains “souls” (cp. Mil.259ff). The Buddha taught a corresponding fourfold restraint, which consisted of observing the four precepts against injury, stealing, unchastity and lying (DN.iii.48f.)

Nātaputta is also stated to have claimed omiscience – to be all-knowing, all-seeing, to have all-comprising (aparisesa) knowledge and vision. “Whether I walk or stand or sleep or wake,” he is mentioned as saying, “my knowledge and vision are always, and without a break, present before me.” (E.g., MN.ii.31; AN.i.220; MN.i.92f.; also MN.ii.214ff. It is curious, in view of this statement of Nātaputta’s doctrine of inaction, that the main ground on which he is stated to have objected to Sīha’s visit to the Buddha, was that the Buddha was an akiriyavādī (AN.iv.180)).

He taught that past deeds should be expirtated by severe austerities, fresh deeds should be avoided by inaction. By expelling through penance all past misdeeds and by not committing fresh misdeeds, the future becomes cleared. From the destruction of deeds results the destruction of dukkha; this leads to the destruction of vedanā. Thus all dukkha is exhausted and one passes beyond (the round of existence). It is said that Nātaputta did not employ the term kamma in his teaching; he used, instead, the word daṇḍa; and that, according to him, the daṇḍa of deed was far more criminal than the daṇḍas of word and mind (MN.i.371. Daṇḍa probably means sins or hurtful acts. Buddhaghosa says (MN­a.ii.595ff.) that the Jain idea was that citta (the manodaṇḍa) did not come into bodily acts or into words which were irresponsible and mechanical, like the stirring and sighing of boughs in the wind).

He is said to have shown no hesitation in declaring the destinies of his disciples after death (SN.iv.398); but Sakuludāyi says that when asked a question as to the past, he skipped from one matter to another and dismissed the question, evincing irritation, bad temper and resentment. (MN.ii.31; also ibid., i.93; and ii.214f.; the Nigaṇṭhas admit they did not know of the past).

Only one discussion is recorded between Nātaputta and a follower of the Buddha, and that was with Cittagahapati at Macchikāsaṇḍa (SN.iv.298ff). He praises Citta at the outset of the discussion, holding him up as an example to his own flock, and agreeing with Citta that knowledge is more excellent than faith. But later, when Citta claims knowledge of the four jhānas, Nātaputta is represented as condemning him for a deceitful man. Citta, thereupon, asks him ten questions and, getting no answer, leaves him. The Commentary (SN­a.iii.99) explains that the questions Citta asked were the same as the Kumārapañhā.

The Devadahasutta contains a detailed analysis and attributed to the Buddha, of the beliefs and teachings of the Nigaṇṭhas (MN.ii.214; cp. Cūḷa Dukkhakkhandhasutta; MN.i.91ff.; also AN.v.150; DN.iii.119). He there selects for his condemnation ten of their operative utterances, major and minor, and proves that the efforts and strivings of the Nigaṇṭhas are fruitless.

Nātaputta is said (Dhp­a.iii.201) to have claimed miraculous powers, but he did not, in fact, possess them. When, for instance, the Rājagahaseṭṭhi offered his bowl of red sandalwood to anybody who could remove it from its perch, Nātaputta tried to obtain it by a ruse, but was unable to deceive the seṭṭhi.

The books contain the names of several disciples of Nātaputta, among them a Deva called Niṅka (SN.i.66; the Buddha’s own paternal uncle, Vappa, was a follower of the Nigaṇṭhas). Nātaputta is so convinced of the truth and the irrefutableness of his own doctrines, that he actually encourages his disciples to hold discussions with the Buddha. Some, like Dīgha Tapassī, come away unscathed, without having carried the discussion to any conclusion; others are mentioned as being convinced by the Buddha in the end and as becoming his disciples. Such, for instance, are Asibandhakaputta (SN.iv.317ff) and Abhayarājakumāra (MN.i.392ff). Nātaputta tries, without success, to dissuade Sīha, general of the Licchavīs, from visiting the Buddha (AN.iv.180ff). Sīha goes and is converted. The next day he holds an almsgiving, on a grand scale, to the Buddha and his monks, at which flesh is served. It is said that Nātaputta went about Vesālī, sneering at the Buddha for encouraging slaughter. The Buddha, hearing of this, relates the Telovādajātaka (Ja 246, Ja.ii.262f.; Vin.i.233ff), to show that in the past, too, Nātaputta had sneered at him for a similar reason. Nātaputta is identified with the rich man of the Jātaka.

In the Bāverujātaka (Ja 339, Ja.iii.126f) he is identified with the crow who lost all his honour and glory when approached by the peacock, who was the Bodhisatta.

But the greatest blow to Nātaputta was when Upāli gahapati joined the Buddha (MN.i.373ff). Nātaputta had allowed Upāli to visit him in spite of the warning of Dīgha Tapassī as to the Buddha’s arresting personality. But Nātaputta thought Upāli would be proof against it, and, on hearing that he had renounced his allegiance to the Nigaṇṭhas, refused to believe it until he could verify the information himself. The discovery of the apostasy of Upāli prostrated him with grief; he vomited hot blood and had to be carried away on a litter from Bālaka, where he was then living, to Pāvā. There, soon after, he died, and immediately great dissensions arose among his followers. When the Buddha heard of the quarrels, he remarked that it was only to be expected (MN.ii.243f.; DN.iii.117, 210; it is stated that the quarrel was deliberately fostered by Nātaputta before his death. See Nigaṇṭhā).

Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta is the name by which the Jaina teacher, Mahā Vīra, was known to his contemporaries. He was also called Vardhamāna. Nāta (or Nāya) was the name of his clan (Snp­a. (ii.423) says Nāta was the name of his father), which belonged to Vesālī. According to Jaina tradition, his father’s personal name was Siddhatha, and he was a Kṣatriya, his mother being Triśālā (for an account of Mahā Vīra’s life and philosophy, see Barua: Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, pp.372ff).