________________
arguably before, that period. A metal image of Pārśva in the Prince of Wales Museum verily dated between the 2"-1st cent. B.C. to C. 2nd cent. A.D. is one earlier piece in evidence.
The inscriptional as well as the literary references to the Nirgranthas, however, are met with from third century B.C. The term "Niggantha" is mentioned in the inscription of Maurya Ashoka and is fairly frequently met with in Pāli Tripitaka (usually, of course, in hateful and derogatory terms) though this cannot be taken as a conclusive evidence for the earlier church of Pārsva because the term Niggantha by then also had included the sect of Mahāvīra. In point of fact, the Pāli canon confounded a few views and teachings of these two historical Tīrthankaras. As demonstrated in the early days of the Nirgranthic researches by Jacobi in the Tripitaka it is said that Niggantna Nataputta (Mahāvīra) preached Cāturyāma-Samvara, while in point of fact the preacher of the Cāturyāma-Dharma was Arhat Pārsvanātha and not Mahāvīra according to the Ardhamagadhi canon of the Nigranthas themselves. Mahāvīra preached five-fold great vows (Pañca-Mahāvratas) and not the Cāturyāma-Samvara.
What we today can know about the teachings of Arhat Pārsvanātha and the distinctness of his sect from that of Jina Vardhamāna is only through the available Ardhamagadhi Canon preserved in the Northern tradition of Mahāvīra, because the ancient tradition of Pārsva was later progressively absorbed in the former and the records and texts relating to its geneology and history are long lost.
Nirgranthologists like Padmabhushan Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi and others were of the opinion that the Purva literature (so often mentioned in the canonical literature from the late Kusāņa Period onward) had belonged of Parva's tradition. At present, however,
Jainism and its History
