________________
258
Amrita
performed pratikramana which is thus attributed to Pārsva, while we have reason to believe that it was lacking therein. The passage in the Buddhist canon is also not conclusive. It not only commits the mistake of attributing the cātuyyāmadhamma to Mahāvīra but also incorrectly states the nature of these four vows which does not agree with Pārsva's teaching. We are thus led to believe that the writer was not well acquainted with the caujjāmadhamma of Pārsva. The statement is clearly the result of a superficial acquaintance of the Jain scriptures, which regards everything contained in it as the doctrines of Nigantha Nātaputta. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the mistake was committed at the time of Mahāvīra or even of Buddha, as the canonical passage is obviously of later date. There is still less reason to believe that Pārsva lived some 250 years before Mahāvīra. In fact, the Jaina tradition itself tells us that Subhadatta, one of the eight disciples of Pārsva, became the head of the church after him, and was followed by Haridatta, Āryasamudra, Prabha and Keśi, the last a contemporary of both Mahāvīra and his disciple Gautama. He was thus separated from Pārśva by at most four generations and a period of 250 years is certainly and unusually long one for them.
We thus find that the evidence available so far is not sufficient to prove that Pārsva was a historical person, and some more evidence must be brought forth if we are to believe in his historicity.
OOO
Pārsva's Historicity Reconsidered
All India Oriental Conference 13th Session 1946
