________________
112
Lord Mahåvira reformed creed of Mahâvîra, which is called panchayàma dharma. The five yàmas are the five great vows, mahavratani, as they are usually named, viz. ahimsa not killing, sûnrita truthful speech, asteya not stealing, brahmacharya chastity, apariyraha renouncing of all illusory objects. In the châturyâma dharma of Mahâvîra brahmacharya was included in aparigraha. The most important passage is one of the Bhagavatî (Weber, Fragment der Bhagavati, p. 185) where a dispute between Kâlâsa Vesiyaputta, a follower of Pârsva (Pàsâvachchejja, i.e. Parsvapatyeya) and some disciples of Mahâvîra is described. It ends with Kâlâsa's begging permission: tujjham antie châtujjâto dhammâto pamchamahavvaiyam sapadikkamanam dhammam uvasampajjitta nam viharittae: “to stay with you after having changed the Law of the four vows for the Law of the five vows enjoining compulsory confession.” In Silâñka's Commentary on the Achârânga the same distinction is made between the châturyâmadharma of Parsva's followers and the panchayâma dharma of Vardhamâna's tirtha (Ed. Cal. p. 331). These particulars about the religion of the Jainas previous to the reforms of Mahâvîra are so matter-of-fact like, that it is impossible to deny that they may have been handed down by trustworthy tradition. Hence we must infer that Nirgranthas already existed previous to Mahâvîra-a result which we shall render more evident in the sequel by collateral proofs. On this supposition we can understand how the Buddhists ascribed to Nâtaputta the châturyâma dharma, though he altered just this tenet; for it is probable that the Buddhists ascribed the old Nirgrantha creed to Nâtaputta, who then took the lead of the community, and of whose reforms, being indeed only trifling, his opponents were not aware. And though it looks like a logical trick, the testimony of the Buddhist on this point might be brought forward as an argument for the existence of Nirgranthas previous to, and differing in details from, the Buddha of Mahâvîra. But we have not to rely on as dubious arguments as this for our proposition. The arguments that may be adduced from the Jaina Sútras in favour of the theory that Mahâvîra reformed an already existing religion, and did not find a new one, are briefly these, Mahâvîra plays a part wholly different from that of Buddha in the histories of their churches. His attainment to the highest knowledge cannot be compared to that of Buddha. The latter had to reject wrong beliefs and wrong