Vardhamana’s system, on the other hand, is quite irreconcilable with Nataputta’s assertion that virtue as well as sin, happiness as well as unhappiness is unalterably fixed for men by fate, and nothing in their destiny can be altered by the carrying out of the holy law.  It is, however, just as irreconcilable with the other Buddhist accounts of the teaching of their opponent; because it is absolutely unimaginable, that the same man, who lays vows upon his followers, the object of which is to avoid sin, could nevertheless make virtue and sin purely dependent upon the disposition of fate, and preach the uselessness of carrying out the law.  The accusation that Nataputta embraced fatalism must therefore be regarded as an invention and an outcome of sect hatred as well as of the wish to throw discredit on their opponents. [Footnote:  Jacobi loc. cit.. p. 159-160.]

The Buddhist remarks on the personality and life of Nataputta are still more remarkable.  They say repeatedly that he laid claim to the dignity of an Arhat and to omniscience which the Jainas also claim for their prophet, whom they prefer simply to call ‘the Arhat’ and who possesses the universe-embracing ‘Kevala’ knowledge. [Footnote:  See for example the account in the Chullavagga, in S.B.E.  Vol.  XX. p. 78-79; Ind.  Antiq. Vol.  VIII, p. 313.] A history of conversions, tells us further that Nataputta and his disciples disdained to cover their bodies; we are told just the same of Vardhamana. [Footnote:  Spence Hardy, Manual of Budhism, p. 225.] A story in the oldest part of the Singalese canon gives an interesting and important instance of his activity in teaching.  Buddha, so the legend runs, once came to the town Vai[’s]ali, the seat of the Kshatriya of the Lichchhavi race.  His name, his law, his community were highly praised by the nobles of the Lichchhavi in the senate-house.  Siha, their general, who was a follower of the Niga[n.][t.]ha, became anxious to know the great teacher.  He went to his master Nataputta, who happened to be staying in Vai[’s]ali just then, and asked permission to pay the visit.  Twice Nataputta refused him.  Then Siha determined to disobey him.  He sought Buddha out, heard his teaching and was converted by him.  In order to show his attachment to his new teacher he invited Buddha and his disciples to eat with him.  On the acceptance of the invitation, Siha commanded his servants to provide flesh in honour of the occasion.  This fact came to the ears of the followers of the Niga[n.][t.]ha.  Glad to have found an occasion to damage Buddha, they hurried in great numbers through the town, crying out, that Siha had caused a great ox to be killed for Buddha’s entertainment; that Buddha had eaten of the flesh of the animal although he knew it had been killed on his account, and was, therefore guilty of the death of the animal.  The accusation was brought to Siha’s notice and was declared by him to be a calumny.  Buddha, however preached a sermon after