Jaina Philosophy

SR No.: 001180
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Mohanlal Mehta
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1998
Total Pages: 328
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 15 MB

Page 20

HISTORY OF JAINISM
town there was another park called Kosthaka. There he took up his abode in a pure place.
The pupils of both, who controlled themselves, who practised austerities, who possessed virtues, made the following reflection:
'Is our Law the right one or the other ? Are our conduct and doctrines right or the other ? The Law taught by Lord Pārsva, which recognises only four vows, or the Law taught by Lord Mahāvīra (Vardhamāna), which enjoins five vows ? The Law which forbids clothes for a monk or that which allows an under and an upper garment ? Both pursuing the same end, what has caused their difference ?'
Knowing the thoughts of their pupils, both Kesi and Gautama made up their minds to meet each other. Gautama went to the Tinduka park where Kesi received him. With his permission Kesi asked Gautama: "The Law taught by Pārsva recognises only four vows, while that of Vardhamāna enjoins five. Both laws pursuing the same end, what has caused this difference? Have you no misgivings about this two-fold law?" Gautama made the following reply : "The monks under the first tirthankara are simple but slow of understanding, those under the last are prevaricating and slow of understanding and those between the two are simple and wise. Hence, there are two forms of the Law. The first can but with difficulty understand the precepts of the Law and the last can but with difficulty observe them. But those between the two can easily understand and observe them." This answer removed the doubt of Kesi. He asked another question : "The Law taught by Vardhamana forbids clothes but that of Pāráva allows an under and an upper garment. Both Laws pursuing the same end, what lias caused this difference?" Gautama gave the following reply: "The various outward marks have been introduced in view of their usefulness for religious life and their distinguishing character. The opinion of the tirthankaras is that right