________________
22
Arbat Pārsva and Dharanendra Nexus
quences); so it is with (the enjoyment of) attractive (woman). How could, then, there be sin due to that ?"38
From this stanza it follows that some śramanas were interpreting the concept of non-possession in their own way. It only meant that, for the one who takes the vow of non-possession, cannot have a wife or woman. So it became necessary for Mahavira explicitly to add celibacy as an independent vow and to lay considerable stress on the observance of this vow.
If we contemplate this question historically, we notice that the ancient Vedic rşis used to marry and had had progenies. After that state in life, on the one hand is followed the concept of vānaprastha, in which a rşi did have a wife but observed celibacy; on the other hand, as informed by the Nirgrantha canonical literature, there were śramanas who were of the view that to enjoy a woman without possessing or getting her married was no sin: which is why Mahāvīra included in the fold a separate, clear, definite and uncompromising vow of celibacy.
In Pārsva's tradition, repentance was not accepted as an essential daily duty. Only when a monk committed sin or transgression of his vows may he repent. But Mahāvīra made repentance an obligatory daily-duty. A monk must repent every morning and evening whether he committed a sin and violated his vows or not. In the Sūtrakrtānga39 and in the Vyākhyāprajñapti40 as well as in other canonical works of Mahāvīra's discipline it is known as pratikramana-dharma.
One more difference in monastic practice was that Pārśva did not lay stress on nudity; he rather allowed one or two apparels for his monks (who thus were sacelaka), while Mahavira stressed on nudity and so Mahāvira's tradition was known as acela-dharma. Though the medieval commentator of the Uttarădhyayana holds that Pārsva allowed his śramaņas to wear expensive or coloured robe,“ we possess no early textual support for such an assumption.
These three were the main features distinguishing the monastic code of conduct of Pārśva and that of Mahāvīra. Along with these three major differences, there also were some minor differences which are found in the concepts of the ten kalpas or planes of asceticism.2 For instance, in Pārsva's tradition a monk could accept the invitation for food and also could take food prepared for him; but Mahāvīra forbade this practice. Pārsva allowed his monks to accept the meals prepared for the king; Mahāvīra prohibited it. In Mahāvīra's tradition it was vital for a friar (or nun) to move from one place to another, except during the rainy season: Also, an ascetic, he had said, must not stay at one place for more than a month. But, according to Pārsva's tradition, a friar could stay at one place as long as he wished. In short, to
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
