Doctrines of An Obsolete Sect

Summary

Pranabananda Jash’s study explores the doctrines of the Ājīvikas, a now‑extinct heterodox sect that flourished contemporaneously with early Jainism and Buddhism. He opens by noting that Mahāvīra, the 24th Jain Tīrthaṅkara, initially travelled with the Ājīvika leader Gosāla for six years before doctrinal differences caused a split. Despite later hostility between the communities, Jash demonstrates that the Jains borrowed certain concepts from the Ājīvikas. For example, the Jaina doctrine of leśyā, or the colouring of the soul by karmic emotions, appears to derive from the Ājīvika classification of people into six classes (abhijāti), which the Jains adapted into their sevenfold classification of naya (standpoints). A central theme of the article is the Ājīvika doctrine of niyati—absolute fatalism. Ājīvikas believed that all events, including salvation, are predetermined by cosmic destiny; individuals have no real agency, and even moral effort does not alter the course of transmigration. Jash contrasts this with Jainism’s doctrine of karma, which posits that while actions bind the soul, liberation is attained through right knowledge and ethical discipline. He cites passages from Ājīvika texts describing salvation through transmigration and destiny, suggesting that Ajivikism viewed existence as a process of purification rather than a moral struggle. Other distinctive Ājīvika views discussed include their logic of trairāśika—classifying propositions into three categories—and their belief in the threefold nature of reality (living, not living and both). Although Ajivikas shared certain terminologies with Jains, they drew radically different conclusions about metaphysics and ethics. Jash argues that understanding Ajivikism is crucial for appreciating the development of Jain philosophy. The sect’s uncompromising determinism stimulated Jain thinkers to refine doctrines of karma, free will and moral responsibility. Moreover, examining Ajivika doctrines enriches our knowledge of the pluralistic and dynamic nature of early Indian religious discourse.