Nâtaputta'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 Nâtaputta 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 Nâtaputta 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 Nâtaputta and his disciples disdained to cover their bodies;
we are told just the same of Vardhamâna. [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
Vaiśâlî, 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. Sîha, their general, who was a follower of the
Nigaṇṭha, became anxious to know the great teacher. He went to his
master Nâtaputta, who happened to be staying in Vaiśâlî just then, and