I have purposely deferred the discussion of the classical passage on the doctrines of Nigantha Nataputta, because it leads us to a new line of inquiry. The passage in question occurs in the Samannaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya . I translate it in accordance with Buddhaghosa's comment in the Sumangala Vilasini. 'Here, great king, a Nigantha is protected by restraint in four directions (katuyamasamvarasamvuto). How, great king, is a Nigantha protected by restraint in four directions? Here, great king, a Nigantha abstains from all (cold) water, he abstains from all bad deeds, by abstinence from all bad deeds he is free from sins, he realises abstinence from all bad deeds. In this way, great king, a Nigantha is protected by restraint in four directions. And, great king, because he is thus protected, the Nigantha Nataputta's soul is exalted, is restrained, is well settled .'--This is, certainly, not an accurate nor an exhaustive description of the Gaina creed, though it contains nothing alien from it, and successfully imitates the language of the Gaina Sutras. As I have already explained elsewhere , I think the term katuyamasamvarasamvuto has been misunderstood not only by the commentator, but also by the author of the text. For

the Pali katuyama is equivalent to the Prakrit katuggama, a well-known Gaina term which denotes the four vows of Parsva in contradistinction to the five vows (panka mahavvaya) of Mahavira. Here, then, the Buddhists, I suppose, have made a mistake in ascribing to Nataputta Mahavira a doctrine which properly belonged to his predecessor Parsva. This is a significant mistake; for the Buddhists could not have used the above term as descriptive of the Nigantha creed unless they had heard it from followers of Parsva, and they would not have used it if the reforms of Mahavira had already been generally adopted by the Niganthas at the time of the Buddha. I, therefore, look on this blunder of the Buddhists as a proof for the correctness of the Gaina tradition, that followers of Parsva actually existed at the time of Mahavira.

Before following up this line of inquiry, I have to call attention to another significant blunder of the Buddhists: they call Nataputta an Aggivesana, i.e. Agnivaisyayana; according to the Gainas, however, he was a Kasyapa, and we may credit them in such particulars about their own Tirthakara. But Sudharman, his chief disciple, who in the Sutras is made the expounder of his creed, was an Agnivaisyayana, and as he played a prominent part in the propagation of the Gaina religion, the disciple may often have been confounded by outsiders with the master, so that the Gotra of the former was erroneously assigned to the latter. Thus by a double blunder the Buddhists attest the existence of Mahavira's predecessor Parsva and of his chief disciple Sudharman.