 Pau'n gweld yn gafod am yn ymlaes i ydi. Gwyrddwch i'n byw ymddiol, yn cael ei ddim yn gweithio gyda Peter, ac mae'n cael eu coleg. Dydyn ni'n gwybod i chi'n rhoi y mae'r 100 hwn yn cyrreif iawn ac rydyn niечение nhw'n meddwl i'r 100 hwn i'r rhoi yn gweithio'r 100 hwn ym 700 hwn, ar yr adeiladau dilluminos hwn yn cael eu cyfrifiadau. Ono'n gwneud i fewnonion y gerdyddol yma yn collu'r ddarllen. Beth yn ystod y gwneud y dyfodol, mae'r dyfodol hynny wedi cyd-gyntaf o gynghwysbryddau, rydyn ni'n hoffi yw'r tekst o ddechrau y bwysig ond ondi'n y cyfnoddau a'r cerddwch yn ddiweddol. Mae'r hyd yn i'r gweithio gbl, a'r hyd yn i'r wneud yn i'r gweithio gyrddwch. So, y gallwn y gallwn gweld y 14 ymwneud o Ynchylwpediad o Ynghylwffydd Indio. Mae'n gweld ynghylch yn ddodigau i gynyddiadau, a'r anhyfwll yn ynghylch, yn ynghylch i ynghylch i ynghylch yn ynghylch yn Ynghylch ynghylch. Mae'r anhyfwll yw'r boblad ychydig yn y gynyddiadau i gynyddiadau i gynyddiadau ynghylch, yn gyfnod, ond yn y ffordd, ond yn y ffordd, yn y ffordd, yn y ffordd, yn gyfnod, ac yn ffordd, yn gyfnod, yn y ffordd. Mae'r ysgol yn y ffordd, oedd yn cyfnod rhai. Rwy'n gwych i'r myfyrdd. Llogic and Epistemology. Rwy'n credu i'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Felly mae'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth enthyses ond Llywodraeth a Rhethorix that it was not always the case when we analyse early texts we basically find no mention of logic, logical discussions, no interest in epistemology which is in itself quite interesting and we might be puzzled why it all started. We may also be surprised to realise that Jainism probably was not an important religious tradition, not as important as we may think. Jainism is only mentioned once in Ashoka inscriptions whereas Buddhism of course is mentioned all the time in every inscription by definition but Ajivikas are mentioned three times in the inscriptions of Ashoka. Ajivikas are mentioned also by Kautilia in his Arthasastra at work probably which goes back to the second century BCE and has nothing to do with Chandragupta Maurya as is a common belief in India. So that text nowhere mentions Jainism whereas it does mention Ajivikas and of course Buddhists. I will be talking a lot about this tradition of Ajivikas and one of its founders his name actually we don't know exactly probably his name was Gosala or Gosala he's sometimes called Makhaliputta in Buddhist sources or Makhaliputta in Jain sources. There are different versions Sanskrit his name in Sanskrit is Maskarin very often Maskarin Gosala we are not sure whether it's correct that is not so important but we will while talking about the beginnings of Jainism by necessity I will have to talk about the beginnings of Ajivikas because I will try to demonstrate that the relation of these two traditions was very complex and probably quite different from what we are used to now. The common belief is that Gosala was a kind of Sanjopanta of Mahavira he was someone there always getting himself into problems and then he was always saved by Mahavira. He's made fun of in the text he's also portrayed as a disciple of Mahavira in fact he asks Mahavira three times to be accepted Mahavira simply ignores him and only on the fourth occasion when he gets accepted by Mahavira. We also when we deal with earliest Jain texts we will find strong emphasis on Ahinsa on ascetic conduct there's no mention of epistemology and it is a paradox that Jain's ended up with debates on logic and epistemology. We are used to the term Anakantavada but the term also is relatively fresh probably it goes back to the 6th century CE it does not exist before and this idea is not present in earliest Jain writings. While talking about the complex relationship between the Ajivikas and the Jains I will mostly refer to basically the only longer account of the Ajivikas and of the founder of the Ajivikas Gosala which is Vihapanatti one of the canonical books of the Jains it's and that book contains a chapter 15 devoted to Gosala. The title is Tayanisanga which means the emission of fire power simply because the context are different duels with this yogic power when heat is emitted by one ascetic or another. When we go back again to the earliest history and earliest accounts of how Mahavira became an ascetic probably the most important source of information how it was transmitted is Kalpasutra and there we read a passage how Mahavira became an ascetic. Shramana Bahagavan Mahavira was with robes on for one full year and a month that happened at the age of 30 when his parents died and he decided to leave his home and family and become an ascetic. Then he was devoid of cloth and used the hollow of his palm of his begging bowl for slightly more than 12 years Shramana Bahagavan Mahavira resisted from care of the body and for times exposed it to hardships during this period when any hardship came he bore it in all respects forgave it overlooked it and believed it to be no hardship whatsoever maybe due to divine wrath or caused by men animals or force of nature or by other adverse forces these events in fact take place in the second year of ascetic carrier of Mahavira so at the age of 30 he leaves his home at the age of 32 plus he renounces his clothes becomes a naked ascetic acelaka and he begins to eat directly from his hands this is the giant account it is confirmed in other on other occasions now perhaps it's of interest that Kalpasutra which devolts a lot of attention to how he leaves his home and to his later ascetic carrier he does not mention anything what Mahavira did within that year little more than a year as an ascetic in the beginning but interestingly the moment when he gives up his clothes and becomes a naked ascetic and the moment when he decides to eat directly not from bowls plates or whatever but directly from hands coincides with the moment when he meets gosala manhaliputta I refer to the description of that moment in the other text in the Bhagavati sutra of the hapanatti at that time at that moment after after living within my house for 30 years when my parents reached divine status that as they died I fulfilled my decision as follows I took sacred rope and accepted tonsha that is I became bald a little and departed from home to homelessness he became an ascetic then in the first year and a half month I undertook penins for half a month having remained in a village of asthigrama and stay there for the first intermediate year period then in the second year I undertook penins for a month wandering again and again I have roamed from a village to village until I reached nalanda outside of rajagriha and I came to a weaver's workshop where I remained in a lonely spot in separation for an intermediate period then I stayed undertaking a month long period then this gosala maskari putta whom made his living from hand play with picture boards being himself an itinerant bard wandering again and again he has roamed from a village to village until he reached nalanda outside of rajagriha when he came to weaver's workshop where he deposited his wear tools in a lonely spot when I don't have time to analyze this short text and show that basically it all took probably place within one year not three years the description actually speaks of months not years and that would be confirmed elsewhere this is the way how they met finally after many attempts maharwira accepts gosala the text also narrates how gosala became naked buddhist sources also make up an ad hoc stories buddha gosa a commentator buddhist commentator of one of buddhist texts samanya palasuta describes such made up stories like this one then gosala did not see me in the weaver's shop gosala tried to meet maharwira again and he did not see maharwira he searched and looked for me everywhere inside and outside inside and outside of rajagriha city not seeing my movement my sneezing my activity whatsoever he set off to a weaver's workshop after reaching it he gave away his drape up a gown garment bowl utensils and picture board to a brahmin he made himself an earthen pot with an elongated neck and left the weaver's workshop so he this is how the maharwira gosala is reported to become a naked ascetic however in all other sources he is depicted as a naked ascetic most of the time the story some other stories will say that he worked as a cheap labor and he was accused of stealing he was running away the master tried to catch him and this is he just got hold of of gosala's clothes gosala managed to run away and this is how he became naked so he's he and his nudity is ridiculed both by buddhist and giants chronologically however this is quite interesting because the text shows that gosala was still was naked before actually he became a disciple of maharwira whereas maharwira was at the time still wearing clothes when we compare and I don't have much time for that here when you compare the events in the life of maharwira and gosala there is some coincidence as you see I take zero as the birth of maharwira we don't know when gosala was born he was definitely much older maharwira lived for 30 years as a householder he completed his life as a householder became an ascetic he was and he spent 12 years as an ascetic before his jinnahood then at the age of 31 after leaving the house as I've said he completed his first year of asceticism then he met gosala um he lives for six years in the company of gosala or gosala lives for six years with maharwira whatever then they part gosala two years later reaches his omnisians or jinnahood four years later that's the same happens to maharwira so again it's quite peculiar because the sources will say that gosala became omnisiant two years before maharwira it is probably maharwira was around 39 or 40 when gosala became omnisiant maharwira reaches omnisians at the age of 42 gosala lives for 16 years longer until his death altogether he from the accounts with what we know he spends 24 years as an ascetic maharwira lives longer dies at the age of 72 um from elsewhere for also from giant sources we know that maharwira that gosala maharwira gosala played an important role as a teacher of of giant community he is mentioned in one of the earliest works of giants in the collection of different hymns isi bahasiam the sayings of sears surprisingly in that in that collection gosala has his own section whereas parshfa who plays much more important role in gynism has much smaller section and his words words ascribed to parshfa are just in an excerpt of a longer discourse so when we analyse the contents of isi bahasiam we will see that gosala at that time was given more attention than parshfa perhaps with a big question mark these might be the only semi original words of gosala ever preserved because we have no mention of no account of gosala anywhere else and we have no traces of ajivica works anywhere on another occasion last year in japan during a seminar on fragments from indian philosophers i gave a longer talk when i analysed all possible quotations ascribed to ajivicas and none of them proved original all of them were composed with with certainty by either buddists or giants or some other writers so basically this is a tradition which disappears completely from indian soil this is a text which basically does not say anything revealing i would say gosala mentioned some banalities these could be mentioned by anyone any ascetic but what is important he has his own important section that proves that he was considered there was a period when he was considered a genuine gyn representative or someone who was important for the giants this is this goes on and on um now surprisingly we will find lots of points of interaction between giants and ajivicas we can reconstruct certain important doctrines from quotations or reports rather reports on ajivicas and i will analyse these in order to demonstrate that the real relation between gosala and mahavira was the other way around then it was normally considered i would claim that at least for some period of time gosala was that teacher of mahavira and then when mahavira decided that he has something to tell when he gained in popularity then probably both started to quarrel that quarrel is depicted in the bahagavati sutra in the via aparnatti of course in the light which with certainty mis represents ajivicas and gosala this is the problem with this tradition of of the ajivicas that basically all we know about them always comes from staunch enemies of them not even from someone who was neutral to the ajivicas but all these accounts come from giants and buddhists who for different reasons were very inimical to the ajivicas and had no interest to represent them faithfully two of these influences have already been mentioned nakedness was always associated with the ajivicas it was much complex in the case of gynism so i would claim that it was not a coincidence that mahavira gave up his clothes in the same year when he met gosala it was also not a coincidence that mahavira began to eat the way the ajivicas did from buddhist accounts we can read that ajivicas were ridiculed because they ate from hands and are often portrayed as those who lick their hands after meals this is a clear indication that they ate from palms this is a tradition still preserved in gynism of course but originally i would claim this was an ajivican tradition which was adopted by mahavira there are many other such traces uh in giant doctrine which come from the ajivicas perhaps i should mention the first thing that both buddhist and giant sources are unanimous in describing gosala as tirthankara as jina uh as someone who is a leader of a gana and sangha garnin sanghin these are the terms used in both traditions of course both traditions try to ridicule gosala but they admit that he had his following um i will start this this comparison of certain doctrinal points with a well-known doctrine in giantism the six lesias the the sole colorings this is something which has been noticed a few times before ajivicas are reported to have a doctrine of the so-called six abhijatis abhijati was the color of humans probably color of their souls um and this basically overlaps with what we have with the lesias except for gray and for supremely white uh in ajivicas but otherwise all colors match the earliest descriptions of the lesias show that this term was understood in gynism differently from what we are used to now simply humans were given as examples mahavira would speak of the black lesia as people who injure living beings those who contravene ahinsa the blue are those who are full of greed and passion gray are those who are deceitful and are thieves yellow are those who are firm in controlling themselves some mendicants ascetics the white are those who have attained self-control from the accounts buddhist accounts of what abhijatis were we find very similar descriptions the black class black abhijati these are hunters butchers murderers thieves blue are mendicants known as bhikshu the red are the mendicants known as nigandhas the giants yellow are lay adherents of the ajivicas white are ajivica monks and the supreme white are three nandavachha kisa sankiccia and gosala manhaliputa that is the three teachers of the ajivicas but apart from that the approach is basically very similar so i would say this is one of additional influences of course you can say it was the other way round that the doctrine of lesias influenced uh the doctrine of abhijatis of the ajivicas however the buddhist have no the buddhist as neutral observers who were not always not always faithful but they do not report anything on lesia but they do report on abhijatis so they recognize abhijati as a concept related to the ajivicas probably they would have had they known the concept of lesia they would have perhaps pointed out that the giants have the same idea of course it's a rather weak argument but my talk is based on weak arguments when together i would say they will make a stronger argument it's a it's a guess uh because all theories about the beginnings of jainism are guesses to the extent that even the identity of dniatryputta nataputta en mahavira is questioned sometimes the next point of coincidence is divination and uh fortune telling telling of the future um foretelling of the future um we know that the ajivicas had the scriptures called mahanimitta great omens so books of great omens they were eight of such books later giant commentators even give titles of these books they all are about divination we can guess from the titles mancha the name which is preserved in the epithet epithet of of makhaligosala also suggests that he was such a wandering uh fortune teller uh he's always portrayed as someone in the commentary someone who has a picture board and is telling stories but probably these were his activities were also related to fortune telling we have accounts from buddhist sources but also from from later giant sources that ajivicas made their living from divination horoscopes they were known as those who could tell the future um mahavira himself rejected and was quite critical of divination though in the course of time we find a very similar development in jainism the giants got more and more involved in divination and that process ended up with a range of texts such as angavidja that is a science of divination from signs probably body signs interestingly we also find an emphasis in giant accounts on titi on astronomy when we read the account of biography of of mahavira the texts always mention the season the month the time of the day or night the exact moment when something happened these are exactly the same things which any astrologer would need and these were the same things which ajivicas did for living mahavira himself also tells the future on few occasions but even in the same text of if you have a nati chapter 15 where gosala the story of gosala is narrated at the end of the text mahavira will tell the future of gosala what would happen with gosala so we see that basically mahavira does exactly the same what the ajivicas did again it's a weak argument but i would say there is an influence of ajivica tradition of divination on jainism i come back to mahanimitas we have some evidence that the giants and the ajivicas had some perhaps not necessarily common set of scriptures but at least certain common tradition to which they referred one is the account from the bhagavati sutra via pannatti the ajivicas as i've said are mentioned to have had mahanimita eight books of omens interestingly these eight books of omens are said to be included in the puvvas or ancient text puvvas very well known in jainism these texts for the giants disappeared of course since any work of the ajivicas disappeared also these puvvas also disappeared but interestingly that the title of the scriptures for giants and ajivicas is the same puvvas the giants never bother to mention that these puvvas were distinct from giant puvvas normally they would rather take a step back and say well the name is the same but it is not the same as our text in a later text nandi sutra we find an interesting description of the canon it's a longer passage but i think quite interesting because it shows that the giants were pretty aware of the fact that the structure of early giant canon and the structure of early ajivica canon was the same with some important distinctions 22 sutras are accepted to be the sutras in the arrangement of our own system the gynon the sections of which are independent for meaning on each other that is each section is an independent work in itself 22 sutras are accepted to be the sutras in the arrangement of ajivica sutras the sections of which are dependent for meaning on each other 22 sutras are accepted to be sutras in the arrangement of tri rashica sutras the sections of which form three groups 22 sutras are accepted to be the sutras in the arrangement of our own system, the sections of which reflect four viewpoints. In this manner they are together with the first one and the last one, 88 sutras. This passage analyzes a structure of Jain and Ajivika Khanan and shows that basically the structure is the same. It is, I think, quite telling that the Jains do this comparison. The item 1 and 4 refer to Jain sutras. The item 2 and 3 refer to Ajivikas, Ajivikas who are very often called Trairashikas. I will come to Trairashikas in a moment and this will concern Jain logic. Now we have clear indications that Jains and Ajivikas had some common set of cosmology. Ajivikas believed, at least Gosala is reported to speak of eight finalities, eight final things which await everyone before death. I will focus on the last one, number eight. There, Gosala is said to express the view that he is the last fortmaker, the last Tirthankara out of 24 Tirthankaras of this ascending era, Avasarpini. That shows that Ajivikas believed in 24 Tirthankaras. They believed also in the sinusoidal development of cosmos. This is descending, Avasarpini serves as a mistake. Desending and ascending eras in the development of the world. Now there is another very interesting passage in the Bhagavati Sutra. At the beginning of the ascetic career, Gosala is said to come up with an idea. I quote, there upon I, Mahavira, Mahavira reports in the first person, I live together with Gosala Mankhaliputta through temporary wakefulness for six years on the ground of a barth place bazar experiencing gain, loss, pleasure, pain, good and bad treatment, good treatment and bad treatment. That happens in the period of six years when they live together as ascetics. However, before the story begins, we are reported that Gosala Mankhaliputta teaches the following six unavoidable things. I quote, then Gosala Mankhaliputta having extracted the gist from these great omens in eight canonical books by merely taking a casual glance into the contents. He teaches the following six unavoidable contingences that befall all creatures, all beings, all souls, all living beings, name, experience, gain, loss, pleasure, pain, life and death. Out of these six, of course, only four could be experienced as long as Mahavira and Gosala lived. They could experience gain, loss, pleasure and pain. Life, birth will come next, death will come next. So it's interesting that Mahavira says that he experienced four things out of six which were previously taught by Gosala. That means he recounts the teaching of Gosala. Now I come to logic, which is the main subject. But I needed this introduction to talk how Jainism now, in my opinion, began and what was the relationship between Ajivikas and the Jains, early relation. So that we better understand how logic and interest in epistemology started in Jainism. We are used to the fact that the Jains operate with the three basic or sometimes four basic figures. Siad asti, siad nasti, siad avaktaviam, siad asti nasti. However, it is quite interesting that this structure does not appear in early Jain writings. It is not there. The Jains, early Jains would operate with two figures. But yeah, so this model is basically absent in early Jain writings. What we have is P and not P. For instance, lokach, alokach, jiva, ajiva, but never a combination of these two. To give you an example from Tarangasutta, one is soul, one is punishment, one is action, one is world, one is non-world. First we have P, then the next chapter says, whatever is there in this world, it falls under two words, namely living element jiva, the lifeless element ajiva, the movable being and the immovable being, space and non-space, righteousness and righteousness. So we have these pairs, jiva ajiva, akasha no akasha, dharma, adharma, bandha, moksha, abandha. However, we do not have the next step when we would have that one is soul, there is jiva, there is jiva ajiva and there is jiva ajiva and a combination of these two. This does not appear. The text goes on in these counts and only adds new elements. So it is not P, non-P, P and not P, but it is the pattern is P, Q, R. Or P, non-P, R and so on. Basically it's quite consistent in earliest strata of Ciancanon. This is a separate question what is earliest. Now the same pattern is found in this early collection of Jain hymns, Isibhasiain. This is in fact that Porsche inscribed to Parsefa. He is reported to say, what is this world? Is it living element jiva or the lifeless element ajiva? What is its course? Gati. What is the course of living beings and of matter particles? Sorry, what is of living beings and of matter particles that is called course? What is the course? Courses of living beings and matter particles with respect to substance, with respect to place, with respect to time, with respect to condition. What is the condition of the course? The condition of the world is beginning less and less transforming. We again have the trace of this pattern P and not P, jiva and ajiva. Again it is not extended to jiva ajiva and jiva ajiva. It is the pattern P, non-P, Q and so on. Basically this is the same pattern which we find in all other Elegine texts. However we are used to this kind of pattern P, non-P, P and not P and so on. This is typical of Siadwada. Where does this pattern come from then? I'll skip this. Perhaps before I give the answer where this pattern comes from, I will mention one more important thing. In reply, perhaps I'll go back to this. No, it's not here. In reply to one of these questions, I don't list them all because it's a longer passage. The answer peaks of different viewpoints. It says, with respect to substance, the world is discussed with respect to substance, place, time and condition. Perhaps, historically, this may be the earliest mention of the canonical Nikshepas. I would claim, since it is associated with Parishwa, perhaps Parishwa was the one who really introduced this division. This is a part which, ah, there is one more important element. It's question three, which is not, yeah, it's mentioned here. The question three runs, who's is the world? The world, in its own condition, with respect to ownership, belongs to living beings. With respect to its development, it belongs to living elements and lifeless elements. The word here used is paduccia, with respect to. It goes back probably to a similar usage of pratitya in Buddhist canon, pratitya samutpada, for instance. But it's interesting, again, we have the same method. When something is discussed with respect to its own condition, ownership and so on. Again, this is still the same account of Parishwa. I would call this the beginnings of perspectivism and Jainism. That is, the approach that we analyze something with respect to ownership, with respect to substance, with respect to time and so on. Ah, perhaps this. I think, yes, there is an interesting example where in another Jain work things, in fact, causes are discussed. I'll read it and then comment it. Causes are explained to be five, namely one cognizes a cause, with a cause, one sees a cause, with a cause, one understands a cause, with a cause, one adopts a cause, one dies a death of a person in the stage of bondage, which is a cause and so on. Causes are explained to be five, namely one does not cognize a cause, one dies a death of an ignorant person. The pattern, it's a longer passage, I don't repeat it. Next step, non-causes are explained to be five, namely one cognizes a non-cause, one dies a death of an omniscient person and so on. Next step, non-causes are explained to be five, namely one does not cognize a non-cause. In fact, this passage shows that we have two binaries. Hetu, that is cause, and janati, cognizes. These two things, two elements are permuted. So, if we say V is verb, H is hetu cause, then these are all possible permutations. There are two elements which are permuted. Again, this is a device which we find in giant cannon early sections. Again, we have only two binaries, not three elements. But we see that giants from the beginning liked to use a term, its negation, combine it perhaps with a verb and its negation and permute and check for all possibilities. I will later try to say why. Now, I come back to Ajivikas. Ajivikas are sometimes called teresia, that is tri-rashika. Rashi means heap. In this context, it means an option. Those who had three options or three figures, we could say. These three options, three figures are jiva, ajiva and jiva-ajiva. This is the combination of these elements. One element, its negation and then combination of these two. This is, as I emphasized, does not come to view in early giant cannon. The description of tri-rashika pops up very seldom. The best known is this from Nandisutra. I will read this whole passage. The accepted computational schemes are seven. Six are originally systemic. The sixth one is that of the Ajivikas. It's interesting that canonical works often refer to the Ajivikas and take them by sort of authority, which is perhaps on the side, but still Ajivikas pop up here, not the Buddhists. There are six computational schemes based on quadripartite viewpoints. There are seven ones of the tri-rashika. Such are computational schemes. That doesn't tell us much, but that's the introduction to the commentary. Out of these seven computational schemes, the first six computational schemes are our own systemic, which means they have been propounded in their own doctrine. The Ajivikas are heretics led by Goshala. According to their systemic view, seven computational schemes are distinguished and doubt with the vanished or deceased and they're not vanished, not deceased. That's a long discussion what it means. There are three angled perspectives in the computational scheme. Comprehensive viewpoint, nigh gamma, is two-fold. Collected and uncollected. The collected viewpoint is again two-fold, identical and conquering. The uncollected viewpoint is empirical, vyavahara. Collective, empirical, direct, and so on. With the help, it goes direct viewpoint, verbal viewpoint, and so on. With the help of these four viewpoints, the six, our own systemic computational schemes are conceived. This quote shows, ah, the quote that goes on. Now, perhaps it's the same text, but another, the same sutra, but another section. Precisely these were expounded by the Ajivikas, the Trirachikas. Why it is explained? Because of the whole world, of the whole world existence, is taken to be tripartite, namely the living element jiva, the lifeless element ajiva, and both the living element compounded with the lifeless element jiva ajiva. Similarly, it is the world, non-world, and both the world compounded with the non-world, loka aloka. And then we have sad, asad, and sad asad, existent, non-existent, and existent plus non-existent. All these viewpoint perspectives are accepted as tripartite viewpoint, namely substance expressive, drafia artica, o drafia astica, drafia artica in progret, mode expressive, duality expressive. That is why it is set in the sutra. There are seven ones of the Trirachikas. We see that the Trirachikas, the Ajivikas, used naias. Seven naias. And these naias consisted, or were based, on this tripartite scheme. P, non-P, and P and non-P. felly mae'r fflues. If there was a debate, someone claimed that these passages were a result of a wrong reading of the manuscript. But we have the confirmation from other texts that the Thryrashikas did exist that they are followers of Goshala. This is a Shilanka commentary on Suyagadanga, Tsutrakritanga. He says, thus this Thryrashika follower of Goshala system being refuted argues in another manner. So we have the term Thryrashika in other parts of the giant canon. I would say, before I go to the next part, I would say that this is the sword of these three figures in giantism. Ajivikas must have remained in close contact with the giants, early giants, for some longer time, perhaps also even at the time of Ashoka, these contacts were very close. Thryrashikas was a name used for Ajivikas by the giants. Apparently it was very significant at the time for the giants, and the giants themselves must have regarded the name to be significant. They knew that the name denotes these three options, P, non-P and P and non-P, Jiva, Ajiva and Jiva Ajiva. Had at that period of time the thought that Ajivikas follow the same procedure as the giants, they would have portrayed Ajivikas as simply followers of some giant inventions, but Ajivikas are portrayed as original in their views, and this is why they were called Thryrashikas. There is one more interesting case in the accounts of the Bhagavati Sutra, which in my opinion will point to the fact that Goshala himself probably may have used this pattern. Goshi, Bhagavati Sutra, Vihapanati narrates the last days of Goshala. He is portrayed there as a victim of his own pride and his own misuse of this ascetic heat, with which he wants to kill or damage Mahavira. That rebounds and Goshala is hit back by that heat, and he does know that. Then he suffers a lot. He goes into a delirium for seven days and towards the end of the seventh night of this delirious fever, he is described to regain his senses and repent. He says the following, I am not a victor proclaimed as victor, liberated proclaimed as liberated, omniscient proclaimed as omniscient. I am mascarine Goshala who destroys ascetics, who kills ascetics. This is the way he repents, and then he immediately afterwards he says, through numerous cases of my adherence to falsehood, when I communicated in existent things, I let astray, betrayed, and separated from the community, myself and others, and both myself and others. Now being pervaded with my own firepower, being at the end of seventh night, being overcome with heat with my own body seized with the bilious fever, I will die at death of a person at the stage of bondage. I emphasise this expression, myself and others, and then we have a compound, myself and others. This is precisely this tripartite form, P, not P, and P and not P. We could say that this pattern perhaps is nothing unusual, because in Sanskrit it would be atman para tad ubhaya. However, when we search for this pattern in the whole text of Vyaha Pannati, we don't find it. We find just four cases, except for this one, which are definitely inserted, there are later insertions because they discuss very complex cosmological issues. So nowhere in this text we find an expression similar to this one, when someone says of myself, others and myself and others, this never comes, except for this single passage. We could say that this pattern is innocuous, it is a mode of expression. However, I would say, since this pattern is associated closely with later Ajivika tradition, in this context it is quite meaningful. It is a remnant of the original way in which Gosala described events or things, from time to time at least. Now, I come to another interesting point, Salekhana, a very well-known practice from Jainism. I would again claim it is not a Jain tradition originally. This is an interesting passage. Gosala, before his death, proclaims some other things. He speaks of four drinkables and four undrinkables, or substitutes for liquids. He says, what are the drinkables? There are four drinkables known, namely water, which has touched earth, water which has been soiled with earth by hand, water which has been heated by the heat of a kiln, which has dropped down from the stone of a potter's wheel. What are the undrinkables? There are four undrinkables known, namely the simulation of a drink of a vessel, that is someone holds a cold vessel. The simulation of a drink of a fruit skin that, for example, is given is important as mango skin. And Gosala is reported as portrayed as someone who keeps a mango skin in his mouth before dying. The simulation of a drink of kidney bean is a simulation of a drink of pure substances. I will come back to these four drinkables and undrinkables. They, in my opinion, are very significant. But then he goes on to describe each of these. It's a lengthy passage, but I will select just one. The last fourth of these undrinkables, that is the simulation of a drink of pure substances, Ranzis follows. One eats pure food for six months. Within this period of six months, for two months, he approaches the bed of earth, that is he sleeps on earth, on ground. For two months, he approaches the bed of wood. He sleeps on wooden bed, probably. For two months, he approaches the bed of grass. On the last night of these six months, completed in full extension, these two divine beings of mighty supernatural powers, known as mighty loads, namely Purnabhadra and Maribhadra appear near him. Then these two gods with cold and moist hands touch, caress the members of his body. The one who succumbs to these two gods, who enjoys this cool touch, induces the carman suffering within the serpent hood. If the one who does not succumb to these two gods, within his own physical body, a fire body originates, he burns his physical body with his own fire produced by the fire body. After this physical body has been burned, he attains perfection, that is he succeeds, and he dies. This is the drink of the pure substances. In fact, in my opinion, this is the way how an Ajivika monk dies. Dies first, in fact, he dies of dehydration. He doesn't take any liquids. The mango skin was probably something, because of its sour taste, something which elevated the thirst for someone who wanted to drink. And the difference was that Salekhana, giant Salekhana is death by starvation. Ajivika has practiced death by dehydration, a shorter period. Again, I would say this is any Ajivika influence, even for chronological reasons. Gosala dies much earlier than Mahavira, and he dies this way of dehydration, of not drinking, because of not drinking. Now, we see the four drinkables and undrinkables, water is used in different ways. These four drinkables are described as something which provides protection against evil forces, against sansara, against also demons, who would like to draw one back into sansara. And the application first of water, and then of these substitutes for water, is supposed to play an important role to alleviate pain, and also to keep one on the right track of asceticism, not to succumb to demons. I would say this is a link which may explain a very cryptic passage of Samanya Palasutta. This is the passage, a well-known description of Mahavira, who is described there in the following way. Now, O' King, there is an ascetic free from all bonds who lives restrained by the restraint of four controls. And who is, O' King, such an ascetic who lives restrained by the restraint of four-fold control? He is, O' King, the ascetic free from all bonds is covered by all water, worded of by all water, protected by all water, who is touched by all water. This was, or is, a cryptic passage, and basically it has been cryptic to all buddologists, to all indologists, and also to Budhagosa, who had problems to command. But I would say this is not a description of Mahavira. This is a description of Gosala. The second description is a description of Gosala. The second description of Gosala, or at least someone who follows the path of Gosala, of Ajivikas. Because of these four waters, for drinkables or for undrinkables, these four water occurs in the passage four times. Exactly the same as four times, it occurs in the description of drinkables and undrinkables. Even in the commentary Abahadeva Suri uses a term Udakavarakam. This is something someone who protects himself with water. So there is even a terminological overlap, at least in one case. So I would say this would explain the cryptic passage of Samanya Palasutta. I'll skip this perhaps because I should finish soon. I cannot leave the most important concept which Peter already mentioned, niati, determinism. This is the concept closely associated with the Ajivikas. In fact, in many those who profess determinism. I don't have time to deal with this topic in itself, which is quite interesting. But there are at least two cases of determinism in Jainism. There are many more, but these are quite problematic for the Jainists. One is the well-known distinction of Bahavia and Abahavia souls. Bahavia souls are those souls who, by nature, are capable of reaching liberation. Abahavia souls are, on the contrary, the souls which, by nature, are not capable of reaching liberation. Never ever. They are doomed to be in sansara. It is not about the simple fact that some souls will never reach. But the Jainists, by talking about Abahavia soul, emphasise that these are not capable by nature of reaching moksha. There are discussions, and in these discussions, of course, the option is there that Bahavia souls, that they may never reach liberation, but not for any other reason. They simply will never follow the right track. But even though they will never reach liberation, they are always capable of reaching, because such is the nature. However, other souls, by nature, are not capable of doing this. This is a very problematic case for the Jainists, because it was either neglected by Jain thinkers, put aside, or commented in a very awkward manner. It was problematic. How to explain that Jainism defines certain living beings as those not capable of reaching liberation? No doctrinal explanation was ever given for that. I would say this is again a remnant of Ajivikan determinism, of the concept of niati. Another interesting case is the idea of a carman ni kachita carman, carman which is unalterable. The Jainists normally say that all carmen can be destroyed, or its fruition can take place at a desired moment, it can be speeded up. Of course, it's very important for someone who, for a Tirthankara, a Tirthankara to be. There are always some carmans which will keep an individual in the world, so someone has the potential to reach liberation, will not be able to do it because of some dormant carmans. So it is important that these carmans can be eliminated, or the fruition may come about quicker. However, there is one strange variety in Jainism. Precisely this kind of carman, and it is explained as the one, this is from Gomata Sara. It is unknown as deposited or tight bound, which is dormant, cannot be operated by any action in fruition, both delay and fruition in all four karmic states. So what everyone does, this cannot be changed, and it seems this is precisely the same argument used by the Ajivikas. There was a paper by Johannes Bronchhorst, who a few years ago discussed this issue. I completely agree, this is the way Ajivikas understood carman, that the carman, once it is there, we have to experience it in full, and this is the remnant of that carman in Jainism. Now, there is... Do I have still time? Five minutes? What to do? I'm usually too talkative last time when I was there again, extended my paper, which was supposed to be for 20 minutes, I think, to 40 minutes, but I promise it will not be double this time. The interesting question, what about Saptabhangi? The idea which we now associate with Jainism. Is it Jain or Ajivika? What are the origins of this? Now, there is a place in Jaincannon, a passage which I would say reflects how this concept was developed. It's at the end of one of the chapters. End of chapters are very important, like Moksha dharma parvan is a very good example. End of chapters are usually dustbins. You drop dust, you drop rubbish. The oldest parts are oldest. Whatever comes first is oldest, and every new layer is a new material, like in a dustbin. This passage, in my opinion, is such a dustbin which preserves a certain development. This passage runs as follows. I will cut it short because it's very long. Oh, venerable. Is soul cognition or something else is cognition? This is a question posed by Gautama to Mahavira. Gautama soul could be cognition, could be non-cognition, however cognition is necessarily soul. Venerable is soul of hellish beings. Cognition or something of hellish beings is cognition. Gautama soul of hellish beings could be cognition, could be non-cognition, however cognition is necessarily soul. Or venerable is soul of earth-bodied beings. That is one sensed beings. Non-cognition or something of earth-bodied beings is non-cognition. Gautama soul of earth-bodied beings is necessarily non-cognition.39 cwld iawn. A 9 cwld iawn i ddim yn deall. Rydym eich cwld iawn o'r rhaid. Yn y ffordd gennymau, mewn ffordd i ddim ond yw'r opa pam y pwyntol a rhaid, maedd eich ddull i'r cyffredin sydd combi yn unig. Mae eich awr o'r ffordd awr o'r cyffredin ddim yn y bwg honnod yw unrhyw yw'r cyffredin. Mae rhaid yw o gwaith Yn gyfwyddiad gyda'r hwyl sy'n clywed o'r llwn i amlwg, a'r llwyddiad hwyl sy'n clywed o'r llwyddiad gynrydu'r hynny. Yngynghwyl sy'n clywed o'r llwyddiad mewn cyfwyddiad yma. Llethef wedi'ch rhannu Menethwyr a'r llwyddiad hwn. Mae'n ddysgaredd ar rheineannol sy'n cyfwyddiad, ac fe bryddiad hynny. Mae'r cerddau mewn cerwyddiad yma yda'r cerddau yma. Mae'r ddysgol yn gweithio gyda gyda Giva A Giva, ond mae'r cymdeithasau yn gwneud yn gwneud yn cosmologi ac yn gwneud yn gwneud yn cymdeithasol cosmologi. Nid yw'r cymdeithasau yn gwneud yn gweithio'n gwybod y llwyaf yng nghymru yn ymweld yn ymweld. Yn ymgymru, mae'r cyflawn i'r cyfrifod hynny. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gyflawn i'r cyfrifod yng nghymru. So mynd i'n gweithio ddigonio, gyda ffóliadau, mynd i'n oedd y cyfnod i'n gweithio'r cyfnod. Mae'n gyfoelol, mae'n dweud, mae'n gwneud. Y ddweud, o'n dweud, o'n dweud, o'n dweud, o'n dweud, o'n dweud. A dyna'r ddweud, mae'n dweud, o'n dweud, o'n dweud. Mae'n dweud o'ch bod gallwn cyfnod i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. atman, no-atman, and inexpressible, soul, non-soul, inexpressible. We have, again, an interesting element, no-atman. In other cases, we are used to no as a negation particle in gymism, which is used side by side with a. But here it is quite meaningful, not only for grammatical or phonetical reasons, no is used, but in other cases, no is also used. It is used, apparently, to distinguish the other option from simple negation, like jiva, a jiva. This takes will no longer say jiva, but will say no jiva. Why? That's a different question. And another one more important element is this introduction of the perspective. It is with respect to. It's expressed here by aditha, with genitive. Again, this is an element which will later develop into full siad vada. In this longer chapter, there are more refinements. It's chapter 12, in fact, of Bhagavati Sutra. If siad atma, siad no atma, siad avaktaviam, and you see there are many, a lot of play with these elements, they are not exhausted here. Perhaps I don't have time, so I'll skip this, too. I will also mention, again, this work which I mentioned a few times today, isi bhasi aim. It may probably be a later layer of this text, but the text also says the following thing. Taking refuge, I honor the worlds of Lord Gina, which are profound, wholesome in all aspects, radiant with reasons, aspects, reasons had to, aspects banga, perhaps refutations, and viewpoints naya. It may preserve, again, a very early strata when these concepts appear for the first time. Now, a few words about the beginnings of giant logic. I'm steering towards conclusions. As I've said, giants were not interested in logic at all. They were not interested in inferences at all. We don't find such cases. They were interested in analyzing things from different perspectives. That is true. The earliest mention of pramana, that is this cognitive tool, means of valid cognition, or which I call cognitive criteria, is rather late, and it is clearly a borrowing from the tradition of anviksiki and naya. Anviksiki, again, is a tradition which disappeared, but in one of the books which are there on display, World View and Theor Indian Philosopher, you will find a very long chapter on how naya, Vaisheshika, started. It goes back to anviksiki. Anviksiki was the system from which the giants borrowed the idea of pramana. This earliest classification of pramanas in giant canon mentions four. Pratyaksha, this perception, inference, anumana, analogy, opamya opamana, and scriptural testimony, Agama. At first they are called hetu. The giants did not use the idea of pramana, but later on they also adopted the term pramana. Probably the source for the giants was the milieu closely related to Charaka Sanjita. That was the milieu related also to the anviksiki tradition. Also the giants took the scheme of inference from this tradition of anviksiki, naya, and Vaisheshika. The earliest enumerations mention, or follow, the five-member proof formula, panciava javavakia. We have the thesis Pratidjna, the logical reason hetu, the example drushtanta, application, upanayana, and conclusion nigamana. They were also, the giants worked with that. They developed a scheme of ten-membered proof formulas. That was originally giant, but the incentive was not giant. It was a borrowing from another system. Now, one more interesting element about anekanta vada. Perhaps Johannes Bronkers will tell us more about that. I would say the Ajivikas used this term too. There is a cryptic work ascribed to Siddhasenadivaakara. It is in a collection of 21 dvatrinšikas, works in 32 verses. One of these has a title Niyati dvatrinšika. Oleg Farnström once, three, four years ago, you were talking about this work as an epic, amic work of the Ajivikas, which survived thanks to giants. I spoke about this work and analys it also closely and spoke about this in a seminar last year in Japan. I would say it is not an Ajivika work. It was written for various reasons by a giant who had some knowledge of the Ajivikas, but this work is also important for us because it does preserve certain Ajivikan terminology. There is an interesting verse here. I'll read it in translation. If true knowledge of the Ajivikan victorious genas is tantamode to inevitability, that is determinism, then one should not make an exertion. In other words, if you are determined to become a gena, why should you practice asceticism? This is the well-known argument used against the Ajivikas. Also, if, in the case of Ajivikan genas, the true knowledge is multiplex anekanta, they are not omniscient from one point of view, they are omniscient from one point of view and not omniscient from another, then these genas, in fact, are already vanquished. That is, they will never become liberated. That is, if they are really anekanta, so even in the state of omniscience, they should be also not omniscient. This is, again, a giant author uses this argument against Ajivikas, an argument which is later on used by Vedanta against the giants themselves. If that is so, where is the Lord of the Ajivikas as an authority? There is no gena of the Ajivikas. The text preserves this expression anekanta, which I would say is not a coincidence. There are some more expressions which we associate with anekanta vada in this text. Sad asad atmakam, something, the nature of which is both existent and non-existent, similar to here, dharma dharma atmakatwe, if some things by nature are both righteous and not righteous. Jiva Ajiva again occurs there. And there are some more, these are examples. One more thing. There is a certain echo in Buddhist sources. Okay. This is the last thing before conclusions. In Pali texts, in two texts of the Pali canon, we find a discussion of different things. It is just an example. One section says, a verdict in the presence of, that is someone whose behaviour should be judged, may be skilled, it may be indeterminate. Sorry, this is the first question above. Is a verdict in the presence of skilled, in the presence of someone to be judged, skilled, unskilled or indeterminate? Is a decision of the majority skilled, unskilled, indeterminate? The answer is, a verdict in the presence of the person who may be skilled, it may be indeterminate. There is no unskilled verdict in the presence of. And then the decision of the majority may be skilled, it may be unskilled, it may be indeterminate. It sounds like an echo of Anakantavada, but I don't have time to show that probably it is a natural development within Buddhism. There are some more things to say, but I will go to conclusions. First of all, which I've mentioned already before, we should remember that probably the relation between Gosala and Mahavira was the other way around. For some time, for some period of time, Mahavira was a disciple of Gosala. Then they went apart. Jainism was or is a tradition which combined three different strands. One was that of Mahavira, one of Parśva, the other one was of Gosala. Some elements of Gosala teaching are still present in Jainism. This explains this close relation between Ajivikas and Naked Jains, because we should remember that not every Jain monk was naked, explains why Buddhists found it so confusing. Very often they refer it with the same term to both Digambar monks, so-called Digambar, and Ajivika, sometimes we don't know. Simply for the Buddhists, these two traditions, the tradition of the Ajivikas and Naked Jain ascetics was more or less the same. It is most probable that the whole idea of Nikshepa, two points, goes back to Parśva himself, or his tradition. This is why we have all these expressions, that something is such and such with respect to substance, with respect to time, with respect to place, with respect to condition. Mahavira was not really interested in epistemology in any way. These epistemological elements probably come from the Ajivikas, the Koshala teacher. Ajivikas were responsible for bringing into Jainism these three options, P, non-P and P and non-P. Now, many authors in the past said the following, as Basham did. The Ajivikas seem to have accepted the basic principle of Jain epistemology without going to the overrefined extreme of Saptabhangi, as in the Orthodox Jain Asyadvada and Nayavada. In fact, this is wrong. Of course, the Jains refined the concept of Saptabhangi, but the origins of that belong to Ajivikas. Ajivikas brought into that idea these three options, possibilities. The Jains added siat, something may be. In the beginning was just a connective verb, connecting the subject with object. Later on, it developed into a particle. Now, perhaps this was a final remark. We may ask how Saptabhangi started at all. I think the context was ethical or moral. These were moral considerations. Both Ajivikas and Jains put emphasis on ahinsa, on non-harming, non-injury to living beings. But it was very important to define what is a living being and in what respect. Many discussions in Jain Canon open with discussions like Tananga Sutra, Suyagadanga. Or open up with lists what is Ajiva, what is Ajiva, what is Loka. These three terms usually occur. Loka is understood as a place where living beings live. Simply. It was not about the universe, but about the world, the space where living beings are. So these three terms are discussed precisely for ethical reasons. A Jain or Ajivika monk had to be sure which path is safe, which one is not safe. I would say the beginnings of Jain logic are in ethical moral considerations. Thank you very much.