King Ajātaśatru of Magadha, known to Jainas as Kūṇika, is one of the royal characters who appears in both Buddhist and Jaina traditions.Footnote 1 Both Buddhists and Jainas portrayed him as a supporter of their own religions. Both shared the common narrative that, in pursuit of the throne, Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika imprisoned his father, King Bimbisāra/Śreṇika, and consequently caused the latter's death.Footnote 2 Although Buddhists spoke of Ajātaśatru's patricide and Jainas spoke of Śreṇika's suicide, “both traditions agree that Kūṇiya usurped the throne of Magadha, whereby he at least toyed with the thought of murdering his father, and that Seṇiya perished in prison” (Deleu Reference Deleu1969: 87–8 = 1996: 28).Footnote 3 The parallelism between Buddhist and Jaina accounts of Ajātaśatru's/Kūṇika's conflict with his father has received much attention from modern scholars. Rather less known and less explored, however, is the fact that Buddhists and Jainas held significantly different opinions on the salvation of Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika, if we construe the term “salvation” in its ultimate sense, referring to liberation (mokṣa) from the cycle of rebirths (saṃsāra). On the Jaina side, neither Śvetāmbaras nor Digambaras give any definite prophecy of Kūṇika's future liberation. Only several texts from the Śvetāmbara tradition inform us that Kūṇika was killed by a cave deity and fell into hell. On the Buddhist side, while the extant versions of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra (“Scripture on the Fruits of the Ascetic Life”) do not disclose whether Ajātaśatru will attain ultimate liberation,Footnote 4 a number of texts from both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna traditions show that although Ajātaśatru will go to hell in his next life because of his patricide, he will subsequently be released from hell and eventually attain parinirvāṇa after becoming a pratyekabuddha or a buddha.
This article takes a closer look at how differently Buddhist and Jaina storytellers in ancient India dealt with the sin (or perhaps more appropriately, the karmic obstruction) and salvation of Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika, and reflects on what we can learn about Buddhist and Jaina storytellers from such differences, especially regarding their karmic views and soteriological emphases. I will first give an outline of the Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajātaśatru. Then I will turn to Jaina sources, discussing episodes of Kūṇika's remorse over causing the death of his father, and episodes of his death and descent into hell. Finally, through comparing Buddhist and Jaina story traditions of Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika, I will comment on the different functions this character serves in Buddhist and Jaina soteriological discourses.
The Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajātaśatru: an outline
The image of Ajātaśatru that emerges from Indian Buddhist literature is a paradigmatic embodiment of both violence and virtue. He is both infamous as a committer of patricide – one of the five most serious crimes according to Indian Buddhist ethics, namely, the “crimes of immediate karmic retribution [of descent into hell in the next life]” (ānantaryakarma) – and famous as a model of Buddhist faith (more precisely, the so-called “rootless faith”).Footnote 5 As Phyllis Granoff (Reference Granoff, Granoff and Shinohara2012: 203–4) aptly puts it, Ajātaśatru is “both vilified, as the ultimate sinner who killed his father and conspired against the Buddha, and glorified as the greatest devotee of the Buddha, whose faith in the Buddha was so extraordinary that his ministers had to prevent him from dying with grief on hearing the news of the Buddha's death.”Footnote 6
There is a very rich body of Buddhist literature – including both narrative and non-narrative sources – that deals, at various levels of detail, with Ajātaśatru's repentance, conversion, future rebirths, and/or final liberation.Footnote 7 As far as narrative sources are concerned, the Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajātaśatru basically comprises five subcycles: (1) stories of his repentance for the patricide and conversion by the Buddha (i.e. the frame story of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra and its adaptations); (2) stories of his repentance for the patricide and conversion by someone other than the Buddha; (3) stories of his conversion unrelated to his repentance for the patricide; (4) prophecies of his future rebirths and pratyekabuddhahood; and (5) prophecies of his future rebirths and buddhahood. Table 1 gives an overview of the five subcycles and their corresponding textual sources.
Table 1. The narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajātaśatru in Indian Buddhism
It is impossible to discuss in detail all five subcycles in an article of this length. It may suffice here to outline Subcycles I, IV, and V, since they are the most relevant to our purpose of comparison with the Jaina episodes of Kūṇika's remorse over causing the death of his father and his subsequent descent into hell. Subcycle I gives insights into Buddhist authors' views on the inescapability of karmic effects, whereas Subcycles IV and V provide prophecies of Ajātaśatru's ultimate liberation, showing the temporary nature of karmic obstacles.
Regarding Subcycle I, the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra is perhaps the best-known canonical Buddhist text dealing with the salvation of Ajātaśatru, in which the story of his visit to the Buddha serves as a narrative frame enclosing a sermon on the benefits of being an ascetic. The latter half of the story, which follows the Buddha's sermon, narrates Ajātaśatru's confession of the patricide and his declaration of taking refuge in the Three Jewels (the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṃgha). The Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra has come down to us in multiple versions.Footnote 30 Almost all of the versions that give accounts of Ajātaśatru's confession and conversion – except a Chinese version (T. 22) – agree that although he is brought to faith by the Buddha through a sermon, his patricide hinders him from making substantial spiritual progress during the sermon.Footnote 31
There are three chief adaptations of the frame story of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra. The “story of the present” (paccuppannavatthu) of the Sañjīvajātaka (no. 150) and that of the Saṃkiccajātaka (no. 530) in the Pali Jātakatthavaṇṇanā are undoubtedly adapted from the narrative frame of the Sāmaññaphalasutta.Footnote 32 Each adaptation serves as a background for the Buddha's recalling of a “story of the past” (atītavatthu). The Sañjīvajātaka focuses on Ajātasattu's loss of the “fruit of stream-entry” (sotāpattiphala) as a consequence of his association with Devadatta, whereas the Saṃkiccajātaka centres on his recovery of mental peace through direct contact with the Buddha. The elaborate story of Ajātaśatru in the fanxing pin 梵行品 (“Chapter on Pure Practice”) of Dharmakṣema's Chinese version of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (T. 374) is also adapted, though rather loosely, from the narrative frame of a certain version of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra. This story ends by telling us that as a result of visiting the Buddha, “all of King Ajātaśatru's weighty sins were immediately made light. The king, his wives, and his concubines in the inner palace all conceived the aspiration for supreme perfect awakening (*anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhicitta)”, though nothing is said about the king's future spiritual attainment.Footnote 33
Within Subcycle IV, concerning prophecies of Ajātaśatru's future rebirths and pratyekabuddhahood, Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Sāmaññaphalasutta relates that because of visiting the Buddha and hearing his sermon, Ajātasattu will be released after staying in hell for sixty thousand years, and will finally attain parinibbāna as a paccekabuddha. While the Sāmaññaphalasutta says that Ajātasattu is hindered by his patricide from attaining the Dhamma-eye during the visit (DN I 86, 3–5), Buddhaghosa shows that this hindrance is only temporary, and that the visit itself has long-reaching benefits. By doing so, he shifts the emphasis from the obstacle caused by Ajātasattu's bad kamma to the salvific power of the Buddha and of his teaching. Moreover, both a sūtra collected in the Chinese Ekottarikāgama (EĀc 38.11) and the Asheshiwang wen wuni jing 阿闍世王問五逆經 (“Scripture on King Ajātaśatru's Inquiry into the Five Most Heinous Crimes”, T. 508) predict the king's short stay in hell, subsequent release from hell, continuous rebirths in heaven, and final pratyekabuddhahood. In both texts his future heavenly rebirths and awakening are said to be the karmic rewards for his faith in the Buddha and in the Buddhist Dharma in this life. Yet another source, the Ajātaśatrupitṛdrohāvadāna of Kṣemendra's Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā, shows that after torturing Bimbisāra to death in prison, Ajātaśatru feels remorseful and seeks aid from the Buddha, who then preaches to him a sermon on karma. The Buddha prophesies that if Ajātaśatru abandons evil and associates himself with the virtuous, his sins will be extinguished in due time, and that he will finally become a pratyekabuddha.Footnote 34
Within Subcycle V, concerning prophecies of Ajātaśatru's future rebirths and buddhahood, the Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodanā centres on how the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, through expounding the ultimate emptiness (śūnyatā) of all phenomena, successfully dispels Ajātaśatru's remorse (kaukṛtya) over his patricide. As Harrison and Hartmann (Reference Harrison, Hartmann and Braarvig2000: 169) aptly put it, in this text “the notion of ‘emptiness’ (śūnyatā) is applied unflinchingly to the problems of moral responsibility and personal continuity, in short, to the central Buddhist doctrine of karma, illustrated, as it were, with the ‘worst case scenario’ represented by the parricide Ajātaśatru”. The text shows that after hearing Mañjuśrī’s exposition of emptiness, Ajātaśatru is almost totally absolved of the bad karmic consequences of his patricide. It predicts that he will stay in hell only for a short while, without feeling any pain there, and that after emerging from hell he will be reborn first in heaven, then as a bodhisattva, and finally as a buddha. Mañjuśrī’s thorough salvation of the worst sinner Ajātaśatru serves to demonstrate his extraordinary religious insight, capabilities, and ultimately the worthiness of the bodhisattva path exemplified by him. The Asheshiwang shoujue jing 阿闍世王授決經 (“Scripture on the prediction [of future buddhahood] of King Ajātaśatru”, T. 509) gives a briefer prophecy of his buddhahood, which shows both parallels with and differences from the Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodanā’s prophecy.Footnote 35 In the Shouhu guojiezhu tuoluoni jing 守護國界主陀羅尼經 (“Scripture on the Dhāraṇī that protects state rulers”, T. 997) the Buddha assures Ajātaśatru that due to his confession and repentance he will quickly get out of hell after falling into it, and will then be reborn in the Tuṣita heaven, where he will receive from Maitreya a prophecy of buddhahood.
The description above outlines the three most important subcycles of stories of the salvation of Ajātaśatru in Indian Buddhism. In Subcycle I, most versions and adaptations of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra (except T. 22 and the story of Ajātaśatru in the “Chapter on pure practice” of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra) present an overall balanced picture: on the one hand, Ajātaśatru's confession and taking refuge demonstrate the Buddha's personal charisma and the great impact of his teaching; on the other hand, Ajātaśatru's failure to make substantial spiritual progress during his visit to the Buddha as a result of his patricide indicates the inescapability of karmic effects. The situation is rather different in Subcycles IV and V, which respectively comprise prophecies of his pratyekabuddhahood and prophecies of his buddhahood. Through granting ultimate awakening and liberation to this archetypal sinner, Buddhist authors of these prophecies illustrated the temporary nature of karmic obstacles to spiritual growth, the salvific power of the Buddha (or a bodhisattva such as Mañjuśrī), the efficacy of the Buddhist Dharma, and the overwhelmingly positive nature of Buddhist soteriology. In contrast to those Buddhists claiming Ajātaśatru's future liberation, the Jainas showed little interest in granting liberation to Kūṇika. Now let us look at how the Jainas dealt with Kūṇika's sin of causing the death of his father, and what they said about Kūṇika's next rebirth.
Jaina silence on the salvation of Kūṇika
In recounting Kūṇika's grief and remorse over the death of his father Śreṇika, Jaina storytellers made no attempt to have his sense of guilt resolved through religious measures. They simply told us that Kūṇika gradually relieves himself of mental anguish through performing worldly funeral rites for, or offering oblations to, his dead father, and through relocating his own residence from Rājagṛha to Campā, without mentioning the involvement of any religious figure. For instance, the Nirayāvaliyāo (Skt. Nirayaāvalikā, “Sequence of hells”), the eighth upāṅga of the Śvetāmbara canon, a text dating in its current form perhaps from sometime between 350 and 500 ce,Footnote 36 depicts Kūṇika's reaction to Śreṇika's death in prison as follows:
tae ṇaṃ se Kūṇie kumāre jeṇ’ eva cāraga-sālā teṇ’ eva uvāgae 2 Footnote 37 Seṇiyaṃ rāyaṃ nippāṇaṃ nicceṭṭhaṃ jīva-vippajaḍhaṃ oiṇṇaṃ pāsai 2 mahayā pii-soeṇaṃ apphuṇṇe samāṇe parasu-niyatte viva campaga-vara-pādave dhasatti dharaṇī-yalaṃsi savv'aṅgehiṃ saṃnivaḍie.Footnote 38 tae ṇaṃ se Kūṇie kumāre muhutt’ antareṇaṃ āsatthe samāṇe royamāṇe kandamāṇe soyamāṇe vilavamāṇe evaṃ vayāsī: «aho ṇaṃ mae adhanneṇaṃ apuṇṇeṇaṃ akaya-puṇṇeṇaṃ duṭṭhu kayaṃ Seṇiyaṃ rāyaṃ piyaṃ devayaṃ guru-jaṇagaṃ accanta-nehāṇurāga-rattaṃ niyala-bandhaṇaṃ karanteṇaṃ mama mūlāgaṃ c’ eva ṇaṃ Seṇie rāyā kāla-gae» tti kaṭṭu īsara-talavara-jāva-sandhivāla-saddhiṃ saṃparivuḍe royamāṇe 3 Footnote 39 mahayā iḍḍhi-sakkāra-samudaeṇaṃ Seṇiyassa ranno nīharaṇaṃ karei bahūiṃ loiyāiṃ maya-kiccāiṃ karei.
tae ṇaṃ se Kūṇie kumāre eeṇaṃ mahayā maṇo-māṇasieṇaṃ dukkheṇaṃ abhibhūe samāṇe annayā kayāi anteura-pariyāla-saṃparivuḍe sa-bhaṇḍa-mattovagaraṇam āyāe Rāyagihāo paḍinikkhamai jeṇ’ eva Campā nayarī teṇ’ eva uvāgacchai 2 tattha vi ṇaṃ viula-bhoga-samii-samannāgae kāleṇaṃ appa-soe jāe yāvi hotthā. (Deleu Reference Deleu1969: 105.39–106.15, §14 = 1996: 46.10–22)Footnote 40
Then Prince Kūṇika came to the prison. He saw King Śreṇika fallen [on the ground], breathless, motionless, devoid of life. Overwhelmed by great sorrow for his father, he fell flat on the ground with a crash, like an excellent campaka tree hewn by an axe. Then in a short while Prince Kūṇika recovered. Crying, lamenting, grieving, and wailing, he said, “Alas! I am wretched, devoid of merit, and have made no merit. By me an evil deed was done, putting in chains King Śreṇika who is dear, god-like, a respectable father, attached [to me] with boundless love and affection. King Śreṇika died in my very presence.”Footnote 41 Surrounded by overlords, administrators of cities, and so on up to diplomatic officers,Footnote 42 crying, [lamenting, grieving, and wailing], with great pomp, reverence, and assembly [of citizens], he removed the corpse of King Śreṇika. He performed many worldly funeral rites.
Afterwards Prince Kūṇika was overcome by great mental suffering. At one time, surrounded by his harem and entourage, with his vessels, utensils, and other household paraphernalia, he left Rājagṛha and went to the city of Campā. There, provided with an extensive range of enjoyments, he seemed to feel less sorrow.
A briefer and somewhat different account of Kūṇika's grief over the death of Śreṇika is found in the Āvassayacuṇṇi (Skt. Āvaśyakacūrṇi; henceforth ĀvC), attributed to Jinadāsa (seventh century). This work is a Prakrit prose commentary on the versified Āvassayanijjutti (Āvaśyakaniryukti), which itself is a commentary on the Āvassayasutta (Āvaśyakasūtra, “Scripture on six obligatory rites”), one of the four mūlasuttas (mūlasūtras, “fundamental scriptures”) of the Śvetāmbara canon. The Āvassayacuṇṇi reads:Footnote 43
daṭṭhūṇa suṭṭhutaraṃ addhitī jātā. tāhe dahitūṇa gharaṃ āgato. rajjadhuramukkatattī taṃ ceva ciṃteṃto acchati. kumārāmaccehiṃ ciṃtitaṃ. naṭṭho rāyā hoti tti taṃbie sāsaṇe lihittā juṇṇaṃ kātūṇa uvaṇītaṃ. evaṃ pituṇo kīrati piṃḍadāṇaṃ nitthārijjati tti. tappabhitiṃ pitipiṃḍanivedaṇā pavattā. evaṃ kāleṇaṃ visogo jāto. puṇar avi taṃ pitusaṃtikaṃ atthāṇiyaṃ āsaṇasayaṇaparibhogeṇa daṭṭhūṇa addhiti tti tato niggato caṃpaṃ rāyahāṇiṃ kareti || (ĀvC II 172.6–9)
Seeing [Śreṇika dead in the prison], [Kūṇika] became even more distressed. Then, having cremated [Śreṇika], he went home. Having given up concerns for the burden of kingship, he sat thinking about him [= Śreṇika] only. His ministers thought, “The king is lost”. Having engraved an edict on a copper plate and made it look old, they presented it [to the king], saying, “Thus should it be done for a father: he is to be saved through the offering of rice balls”. From that time on, [the rite of] offering rice balls to one's father was established. Thus in the course of time [Kūṇika] became free from sorrow. But again, when he saw an assembly hall belonging to his father with seats, couches, and objects of enjoyment, he felt distressed. Hence he left [Rājagṛha] and made Campā the place of his royal residence.
The Āvaśyakaṭīkā (ĀvH) of Haribhadra (eighth century), a mixed Prakrit-Sanskrit prose commentary on the Āvassayanijjutti, gives basically the same account, with only minor differences in wording.Footnote 44 In his Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita (“The lives of sixty-three illustrious persons”), Hemacandra (1089–1172) likewise speaks of Kūṇika's offering of rice balls to Śreṇika, his sadness upon seeing the couches and seats used by Śreṇika, and his consequent relocation from Rājagṛha to Campā, though, unlike Jinadāsa and Haribhadra, Hemacandra includes an extra episode explaining why Campā was so named and why Kūṇika considered it a suitable place to dwell.Footnote 45
In the Ākhyānakamaṇikośavṛtti of Āmradeva (twelfth century), a Prakrit verse commentary on the Ākhyānakamaṇikośa (“Treasury of jewels of short stories”), written by Nemicandra between 1073 and 1083 ce, we find yet another account of Kūṇika's reaction to his father's death, which forms part of the Koṇikākhyānakaṃ (“Short story of Kūṇika”).Footnote 46 There, Kūṇika is depicted as initially blaming himself for the death of Śreṇika and later gradually giving up his grief. The Ākhyānakamaṇikośavṛtti reads:
King [Kūṇika], stricken with remorse, saw this situation [i.e. Śreṇika's suicide in prison]. His mind was tormented with grief over the death of his father. He lamented in various ways: [98]
“Alas, O father, who was well behaved, of great graciousness, and has gained the highest reputation! Alas, O father, who was known for his excellent debates! Alas, O King of Rājagṛha!” [99]
Alas, O father, who was devoted to the Jina Lord Vīra! Alas, O father, who has abandoned the [seven] evil addictions!Footnote 47 Alas, O father, who has conquered, with his formidable power, a multitude of irresistible enemies! [100]
Alas, [O father,] who has crushed the misery of the states [of a soul] with the jewel of the auspicious destructive right view!Footnote 48 Alas, [O father,] who was to become a tīrthaṃkara (ford-maker) of the land of Bharata, like the ornament of the palatial universe!Footnote 49 [101]
Alas, O father, who was affectionate towards his children, alas, [he] who was born of an impeccable family and had the best physical form! Alas, O father, who suffered pain and death caused by his son who is the firebrand of the family!” [102]
Thus King Kūṇika, whose whole body was overwhelmed with unbearable grief over his father, was unable to stay there [in Rājagṛha]. He founded the city of Campā. [103]
Gradually relieved from grief, he became ruler of the earth, [the one] who conquered the entire tripartite world.Footnote 50 Equipping himself with a fourfold army, Aśokacandra [ = Kūṇika] protected his kingdom. [104]
Besides the Jaina sources introduced above, the Kathākośa (“Treasury of stories”), of unknown authorship and dating perhaps from the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries,Footnote 51 also shows that although Kūṇika is initially overwhelmed with sorrow over his father's death, insofar as he refuses to bathe and to take food, he eventually frees himself from sorrow by relocating to Campā. The text reads:Footnote 52
itaś ca koṇikaḥ pitur viyogena duḥkhī babhūva. imāṃ gāthāṃ paṭhati:
pradhānaiḥ pratibodhito ’pi na karoti snāna-bhojana-kriyām. tataś ca koṇikena pitur duḥkhaṃ asahamānena rājagṛhaṃ parityajya navyā campā-purī niveśitā. tatra koṇiko ’pi rājyaṃ karoti. (Hoffmann Reference Hoffmann1974: 431.18–22, 433.1–3)
Then Kūṇika became distressed because of the loss of his father. He recited the following stanza:
“The gardens, houses and places look as if they were laughing, enjoying themselves, even though they are just localities. While the places are seen, the people are not seen.”
Though advised by chief officials, he would not bathe or take food. Then Kūṇika, unable to bear the sorrow over his father, left Rājagṛha and founded the new city of Campā. There Kūṇika exercised kingship.
The fact that Jaina storytellers did not pursue further the theme of Kūṇika's grief and remorse but opted to have such emotions resolved through non-religious means makes them radically different from Buddhist storytellers who, as I have outlined above, made sustained efforts to explore Ajātaśatru's repentance after sinning and proposed various Buddhist solutions to his sinful condition. The Jainas were, of course, aware of the soteriological value of repentance. For instance, the Uttarajjhayaṇa (Skt. Uttarādhyayana, “Later chapters”), one of the four mūlasuttas of the Śvetāmbara canon, speaks of repentance as being conducive to reducing karmic bondage.Footnote 53 Some medieval Jaina story collections, such as Uddyotana's Kuvalayamālā (dated 779 ce) and Āmradeva's Ākhyānakamaṇikośavṛtti, contain various narrative illustrations of the efficacy of remorse and confession in cleansing sin.Footnote 54 Strikingly, the soteriological value of repentance is not addressed in the Jaina stories of Kūṇika. While the Jainas did show Kūṇika's remorse over causing the death of his father, they did not feature this theme prominently, nor did they go a step further to explore the possibility of having Kūṇika's sin (or karmic bondage) reduced through remorse, or through any other means. The Jainas did not provide any remedy for his sin, probably because they believed that there was no way to mitigate the bad karma he had accrued by imprisoning his father with patricidal intent. In other words, Kūṇika must live out the consequences of his own misdeed.
According to the Jaina narrative tradition, Kūṇika was killed by a cave deity and fell into the sixth hell.Footnote 55 There seems to be no mention of when he will be released from hell, or whether he will attain ultimate liberation. Accounts of his death and descent into hell are found at least in five post-canonical Śvetāmbara texts. Among the five, two are prose commentaries on the Dasaveyāliyasutta (Skt. Daśavaikālikasūtra, “Scripture of ten evening lectures”), namely the Dasaveyāliyacuṇṇi (DasCA) written by Agastyasiṃha (fifth century?) and the Dasaveyāliyacuṇṇi (DasCJ) ascribed to Jinadāsa.Footnote 56 The other three are Jinadāsa's Āvassayacuṇṇi, Haribhadra's Āvaśyakaṭīkā, and Hemacandra's Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita. In all three texts the death of Kūṇika occurs immediately after his war against King Ceṭaka of Vaiśālī, and the war breaks out not long after Kūṇika throws his father Śreṇika into prison, where Śreṇika dies by suicide.Footnote 57 Given this sequence, Kūṇika's rebirth in hell may be seen as karmic retribution both for his military violence and for his patricidal intention. According to Jaina doctrine, wherever an intention to hurt or kill arises under the influence of passions (kaṣāyas) – such as lust (rāga) and hatred (dveṣa) – there is “violence in disposition” (bhāvahiṃsā) leading to the binding of bad karma.Footnote 58 Jaina narrative literature repeatedly shows that thoughts of violence, even without being manifested in bodily action, still incur severe karmic consequences.Footnote 59 In the case of Kūṇika, although the Jainas spoke of Śreṇika's suicide instead of Kūṇika's patricide, they did show that Kūṇika “at least toyed with the thought of murdering his father” (Deleu 1969: 87–8 = 1996: 28). Thus even with the thought of patricide, Kūṇika bound much bad karma and had to undergo the punishment of hell.
Jinadāsa's Āvassayacuṇṇi and Haribhadra's Āvaśyakaṭīkā give basically the same accounts of Kūṇika's death and descent into hell. Since the narrative material in the Āvassayacuṇṇi is usually considered to be older, I translate its account here:
tāhe kūṇiko caṃpam āgato. tattha sāmī samosaḍho. tāhe kūṇiko ciṃteti: bahugā mama hatthī assā vi. to jāmi sāmiṃ pucchāmi ahaṃ cakkavaṭṭī homi na homi tti. niggato savvabalasamudaeṇaṃ. vaṃdittā bhaṇati: kevaiyā cakkavaṭṭī essā. sāmī sāhati: savve atītā. puṇo bhaṇati: kahiṃ ovajjissāmi. chaṭṭhīe puḍhavīe. taha vi asaddahaṃto savvāṇi egiṃdiyāṇi lohamayāṇi rayaṇāṇi karettā tāhe savvabalena timisaguhaṃ gato. aṭṭhame bhatte kate bhaṇati katamālao: atītā cakkavaṭṭiṇo jāhi tti. ṇecchati. hatthiṃ vilaggo. maṇiṃ hatthimatthae kātūṇa patthito. katamālaeṇa āhato mato. chaṭṭhīe puḍhavīe gato | (ĀvC II 176.11–177.2 [corresponding to ĀvH 687b1–6])
At that time Kūṇika returned to Campā. There the Svāmin stopped at a holy assembly. Then Kūṇika thought, “I have many elephants and horses. Now I go and ask the Svāmin, ‘Am I a cakravartin [“wheel-turning king”] or not?”’ He set off with all pomp. Having venerated [the Svāmin], he said, “How many cakravartins are to come?” The Svāmin said, “They all passed away.” [Kūṇika] further asked, “Where will I be reborn?” [The Svāmin said,] “In the sixth hell.” Even so, unbelieving, having had all the single-sensed jewels made in copper,Footnote 60 [Kūṇika] then went to the Timisa cave with all pomp.Footnote 61 After having taken the eighth meal,Footnote 62 [the cave deity] Kṛtamālaka said, “The cakravartins were all gone. Go away!” [Kūṇika] did not want [to leave]. He fastened [his riding-]elephant. Having put the jewel [i.e. his crown jewel] on the elephant's head, he went forth.Footnote 63 He was killed by Kṛtamālaka and died, going to the sixth hell.
The Āvassayacuṇṇi goes on to describe the ascension of Kūṇika's son Udāyin to the throne, without saying anything more about Kūṇika. In his Dasaveyāliyacuṇṇi, Agastyasiṃha gives a slightly different version of this episode:
kūṇieṇa sāmī pucchito cakkavaṭṭiṇo aparicattakāmabhogā kālaṃ kiccā kahiṃ gacchaṃti. sāmī bhaṇati sattamīe puḍhavīe. so bhaṇati ahaṃ kahiṃ uvavajjīhāmi. sāmiṇā bhaṇiyaṃ chaṭṭhapuḍhavīe. so bhaṇati ahaṃ sattamīe kiṃ na uvavajjāmi. sāmī bhaṇati sattamiṃ cakkavaṭṭī gacchati. bhaṇati ahaṃ kiṃ na cakkavaṭṭī. mama vi caurāsītiṃ daṃtisayasahassā. sāmī bhaṇati tava kiṃ rayaṇā atthi. so kittimāṇi rayaṇāṇi kāravettā oyaveum āraddho. timisaguhaṃ pavisium āraddho kayamālaeṇa vārito. volīṇā cakkavaṭṭī vārasa vi. Footnote 64 tumaṃ viṇassihisi. ṇa ṭhāti. kayamālaeṇa hato chaṭṭhiṃ gato || (DasCA 26.1–6 [corresponding to DasCJ 51.4–9])
Kūṇika asked the Svāmin, “Where do the cakravartins who have not abandoned the enjoyment of sensual pleasures go after finishing their lives?” The Svāmin said, “[They are reborn] in the seventh hell”. [Kūṇika] said, “Where will I be reborn?” The Svāmin said, “In the sixth hell”. He said, “Why am I not to be reborn in the seventh?” The Svāmin said, “A cakravartin goes to the seventh”. He said, “Am I not a cakravartin? I also have eighty-four hundred thousand elephants”. The Svāmin said, “Do you have the jewels [of a cakravartin]?” Having had unauthentic [i.e. feigned] jewels made, [Kūṇika] undertook to show what one can accomplish.Footnote 65 He set out to enter the Timisa cave. Kṛtamālaka stopped him, [saying,] “The twelve cakravartins all passed away. You are going to vanish!” He did not stay [?].Footnote 66 He was killed by Kṛtamālaka and went to the sixth hell.
In both versions, Kūṇika is portrayed in a negative light. Overwhelmed by egotism, he disbelieves Mahāvīra's words and considers himself a cakravartin. Eventually he is killed by Kṛtamālaka and goes to the sixth hell as Mahāvīra predicts. According to Jaina universal history, there were twelve cakravartins in all: three renounced the world and became tīrthaṃkaras; seven abandoned their thrones and became Jaina monks, among whom some attained liberation and the others were reborn in heaven; the remaining two (Subhauma and Brahmadatta), due to their unrighteousness, went to the seventh (and worst) hell, and there is no mention of their ultimate liberation (Jaini Reference Jaini and Doniger1993: 209–10). In the present episode, by comparing Kūṇika with the two bad cakravartins, not with the ten good ones, Agastyasiṃha clearly classifies him as a villainous tyrant who will end in ruination, rather than a virtuous hero who is to attain liberation. In his Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita, Hemacandra retells this episode in more detail, and like his predecessors (Jinādasa and Agastyasiṃha), he also keeps silent on what happens to Kūṇika after his descent into hell.Footnote 67
It should not surprise us that none of these Śvetāmbara Jaina authors made any attempt to reduce Kūṇika's lifespan in hell. Kristi Wiley (Reference Wiley and Qvarnström2003: 352) notes that there seems to be no story in Śvetāmbara literature “that would indicate some adjustment in the sthiti [‘duration’] of āyus [‘lifespan’] for the next life between the time it [i.e. āyus karma] was bound and the time it comes to fruition at the first moment of the next life.”Footnote 68 The fact that the Jainas (particularly the Śvetāmbaras) did not believe that the duration of lifespan in one's next birth could be easily adjusted after the binding of āyus karma puts them in stark contrast with the Buddhists who, as we saw earlier, made various attempts to reduce considerably Ajātaśatru's lifespan in hell.
In the Digambara tradition, Guṇabhadra's Uttarapurāṇa (ninth century) briefly speaks of Kūṇika's adoption of Jaina lay practices, but without giving any prophecy of his future liberation. The text reads:
Also, exactly at that time [i.e. immediately after Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa], having attained the knowledge that has the name of omniscience, together with a group leader called Sudharma, I [ = Indrabhūti Gautama] will delight those who are excessively tormented by the fire of saṃsāra with the water that contains the nectar of the Dharma. Having once again reached that very city [of Pāvā, where Mahāvīra attained nirvāṇa], I will stay right here at the [Vipulācala] mountain. After hearing this, Kuṇika, son of Celinī and ruler of his city [i.e. Rājagṛha], surrounded by his entire entourage, will come, honour and venerate [me]. Having heard the Dharma, he will adopt giving, precepts, fasting, and so on, which are the efficient means of attaining heavenly rebirths or liberation.
To date, I have not found any Jaina account of Kūṇika's future destiny after his next birth in hell. While this does not necessarily mean that such an account has never been composed, it does seem that the Jainas in general were little concerned with whether Kūṇika can finally attain liberation. By contrast, in both Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions, there are multiple accounts of Śreṇika's attainment of “right view [of reality]” (samyaktva or samyagdarśana) in this life, his next birth in hell, and his following birth as a jina or “victor”, the first of the 24 jinas of the next cycle of time.Footnote 70 According to Jaina doctrine, in order to attain samyaktva, a soul must have an innate quality called bhavyatva, “capability of attaining liberation”.Footnote 71 Not all souls have such a quality, and not all the souls who have such a quality will realize their potential. Regarding a bhavya (“capable”) soul who has the potential to attain liberation, Padmanabh Jaini (Reference Jaini1979: 140) says:
The bhavyatva can be aroused, thus initiating an irreversible turning of the soul towards mokṣa, only when that soul encounters a particular set of outside conditions while being itself sufficiently “ready” to respond to them; such a confluence of external and internal factors may or may not ever take place.
Jaini goes on to clarify that “outside conditions” include, inter alia, encountering a jina (or his image) and hearing Jaina teachings, whereas being internally “ready” means that “the soul is relatively less bound and more oriented towards its own well-being” (Jaini Reference Jaini1979: 140, italics original). Thus, in order for its bhavyatva to be activated, a soul must minimize passions, striving for freedom from karmic bondage, and meanwhile must meet the necessary external conditions. If a soul is abhavya (“eternally incapable of attaining liberation”), or if a soul is bhavya but its dormant bhavyatva never happens to be activated due to the lack of co-ordination of external and internal conditions, in either case the soul always remains in a state of mithyātva (“false view [of reality]”) and never attains samyaktva. In the case of Kūṇika, while the Uvavāiyasutta (Skt. Aupapātika-sūtra, “Scripture on rebirths [in heavenly abodes]”), the first upāṅga of the Śvetāmbara canon, narrates his pious journey to Mahāvīra's samavasaraṇa (“holy assembly”) and his receiving of Mahāvīra's teachings there, no Jaina text ever speaks of his attainment of samyaktva (or any other significant spiritual status) as a result of meeting Mahāvīra or hearing his teachings.Footnote 72 The Jainas seem to have generally assumed Kūṇika to be one who is never able to overcome his mithyātva. It is unclear whether they considered him a bhavya soul or an abhavya soul.Footnote 73 If they considered him a bhavya soul, the reason for the failure of activation of his bhavyatva must lie in his strong passions – as can be seen from his hostility towards his father, his desire for the cakravartin status, and his military ambition – which make him simply unready, or inadequate, to respond even under the optimal external conditions of direct contact with Mahāvīra and hearing his teachings.
Concluding remarks
While both the Buddhists and the Jainas told about how Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika imprisoned his father and consequently caused his death, only the Buddhists provided religious solutions to Ajātaśatru's sinful condition. The Jainas, as seen from extant textual sources, made no attempt to tackle Kūṇika's sin or bad karma through religious means, and did not pursue the theme of his remorse over the death of his father in much detail. From the discussion above, we may conclude that the Buddhists and the Jainas ascribed very different roles to Ajātaśatru/Kūṇika in their soteriological discourses:
In Buddhist traditions, as one guilty of the ānantarya crime of patricide, Ajātaśatru represents one of the worst-case scenarios in Indian Buddhist ethics. Some Buddhists, namely the authors or redactors of most versions of the Śrāmaṇyaphalasūtra, focused on the karmic obstacle to his spiritual cultivation caused by his patricide. Some other Buddhists, namely those who told or retold prophecies of his future buddhahood or pratyekabuddhahood, saw such an obstacle as being only temporary. They moreover used Ajātaśatru's extremely miserable moral (and thus karmic) status as a device to demonstrate the salvific power of the Buddha (or Mañjuśrī), as well as the efficacy of the Buddhist Dharma. In these prophecies Ajātaśatru attains liberation not because of his own virtue, but because of the divine intervention of the Buddha (or Mañjuśrī) and of the Buddhist Dharma. In his recent article on some medieval Mahāyāna texts that promise salvation to birds, bugs, and really bad sinners, Gregory Schopen (Reference Schopen, Granoff and Shinohara2012: 291) convincingly argues that when some Buddhist authors insisted on a strict version of the doctrine of karma, and when this doctrine gradually took root in the world of ordinary people, “it was almost inevitable that other Buddhist authors would over time have to devise some means and provide mechanisms for those ordinary people to, in effect, get around it”. From a similar perspective, prophecies of Ajātaśatru's future awakening may be seen as responses to the earlier story tradition that stresses the karmic obstacle caused by his criminality. The ultimate purpose of the Buddhist authors producing such prophecies was not to save Ajātaśatru alone, but to use him as an example to teach ordinary people how to get around the constraints of karmic law, and thereby to make Buddhist soteriology more appealing to its mass audience.
In Jaina traditions, Kūṇika does not appear as a paradigmatic sinner as Ajātaśatru does in Buddhism. Jaina sources show that he commits sins chiefly through imprisoning his father with patricidal intent and through performing military violence. The Jainas did not propose any remedy for (or any religious solution to) his sins, which suggests that in their view the bad karma he had accrued must work itself out and cannot be altered by anyone through any means. There seems to be no mention of Kūṇika's attainment of any spiritual status in canonical or post-canonical Jaina literature, and there is little (if any) information on what happens to him after his next birth in hell. The Jainas portrayed Kūṇika essentially as a mundane and spiritually inert character, who is unable to overcome his mithyātva even under the optimal conditions of meeting Mahāvīra and hearing Jaina teachings. Unlike those Buddhists stressing the intervention of external factors (such as the Buddha, Mañjuśrī, and the Dharma), the Jainas placed primary emphasis on the soul's inherent qualities (such as bhavyatva or abhavyatva and to what degree the soul is contaminated with passions). Thus the contrast between the Buddhist choice of having Ajātaśatru saved and the Jaina choice of having Kūṇika not saved is by no means accidental, but reflects some of the key distinctions between Buddhist and Jaina understandings of necessary conditions for spiritual liberation.
