according to the Tattvarthasaradipika, which agrees with what we know about it from other sources: Posaha, i.e. to observe a fast or eat once only or one dish only on the two holy days (the eighth and the fourteenth of each fortnight), after having given up bathing, unguents, ornaments, company of women, odours, incense, lights, &c., and assumed renunciation as an ornament.' Though the Posaha observances of the present Gainas are apparently more severe than those of the Buddhists, still they fall short of the above description of the Nigantha rules; for a Gaina layman does not, to my knowledge, take off his clothes during the Posaha days, though he discards all ornaments and every kind of luxury; nor must he pronounce any formula of renunciation similar to that which the monks utter on entering the order. Therefore, unless the Buddhist account contains some mistake or a gross misstatement, it would appear that the Gainas have abated somewhat in their rigidity with regard to the duties of laymen.

Buddhaghosa, in his commentary on the Brahmagala Sutta, Digha Nikaya I, 2, 38 , mentions the Niganthas as holding the opinion, discussed in the text, that the soul has no colour, in contradistinction to the Agivikas, who divide mankind into six classes according to the colour of the Atman; both Niganthas and Agivikas, however, agree in maintaining that the soul continues to exist after death and is free from ailments (arogo). Whatever may be the exact meaning of the last expression, it is clear that the above description squares with the opinions of the Gainas about the nature of the soul, as described below, <page 172> f.

In another passage (l.c. p. 168) Buddhaghosa says that Nigantha Nataputta considers cold water to be possessed of life (so kira sitodake sattasanni hoti), for which reason he does not use it. This doctrine of the Gainas is so generally known that I need not bring forward any quotation from the Sutras in support of its genuineness.

This is nearly all the information on the doctrines of the

ancient Niganthas which I have been able to gather from the Pali texts. Though it is less than we desire, its value is not to be underrated. For with one exception all the doctrines and usages of the ancient Niganthas mentioned agree with those of the present Gainas, and they comprise some of the fundamental ideas of Gainism. It is therefore not probable that the doctrines of the Gainas have undergone a great change in the interval between the quoted Buddhist records and the composition of the Gaina canon.