________________
Vardhamâna and the Foundations of Jainism
229
The Tradition of Pârsva: Caturyama-dharma
A second issue raised by the discussion between Kesi and Gautama has to do with the apparent difference betwee the “law of the four restraints” (caturyama-dharma preached by Pârsva and the five great vows (panca mahavrata) taken by mendicant followers of Mahâvîra.32 The affiliation of Mahâvîra's own parents with the tradition of Pârsva has already been noted, as has the existence Buddhist materials which specifically identify câturyâma with this tradition. Whereas Digambaras may reject the authenticity of the Kesi-Gautama dialogue, particularly with regard to its position on nudity, the Buddhist reference to câturyama forces nem to confront the "discrepancy” between the teaching of Pârsva and Mahâvîra which this dialogue seems to excess. The problem is rendered even more crucial by the Svetâmbaras' use of this discrepancy to support their view that not all Jinas propound identical doctrines; once such variation is admitted, it is only a small step to suggesting that Pârsva need not have required nudity even if Mahâvîra did.33
Although Buddhists employ the term câturyâma-samavara (Pali: catuyama-samvara to describe the teachings of Pârsva, they fail to make exactly what the term entails. 34 The Svetâmbara canon gives the first comprehensive definition. Here, the câturyâma is said to involve restraint from four sorts of actions injury, nontruthfulness, taking what is not given and possession.35 This list agrees with that of Mahâvîra exept that it omits the fourth of his five vows, which specifically prohibits sexual activity.36 But even the Svetâmbara have not been willing to suggest that Pârsva allowed the monks to engage in such activity; their later eleventhcentury commentators Abhayadeva and Sântyâcârya integrated the vow of nonpossession as including celibacy.37 Even so, they imply that the slight difference in emphasis between the two sets of rules does leave open the possibility of variation from one Jina to the next.
Western scholars, following Jacobi, have generally accepted the Svetâmbara interpretation and understood the câturyâma as above, prohibiting four specific kinds of action.38 The recent research of P. K. Modi, however, shows that this interpretation is subject to serious difficulties.39 First, we should expect Mahâvîra, as a follower of the tradition of Pârsva, to have initially taken the
