________________
JAINISM IN INDIAN HISTORY
Is our law the right one, or is the other Law the right one? Are our
conduct and doctrines right, or the other? The Law as taught by the great sage Parsva, which recognises but four vows
or the law taught by Mahavira, which enjoins five vows ? The Law which forbids clothes (for a monk), or that which allows an under
and upper garments ?
Knowing the thoughts and doubts of their disciples, the two teachers decided to meet for a settlement, Gautama calling on Kesi by way of courtesy due to his being a follower of the older section (of the church) Their meeting became a big one, as there assembled many heretics out of curiosity and many thousands of laymen. At this meeting, the differences between the two sections were explained away by stating that the various outward marks of religious men introduced to distinguish them do not count towards final liberation, but only towards knowledge, faith and right conduct It seems that this meeting did not result in complete absorption of the two sections and that the two Orders continued to retain their distinction in the time of Mahavira, for the Majjhima Nikaya mentions how Saccaka, the son of a Nigantha, boasts of his having vanquished in disputation the Nataputta (Mahavira).
In view of the above, it is possible to argue that although the Jaina tradition insistently claims for Jainism a hoary aptiquity represented by a succession of twenty four prophets, the creed propounded by these prophets, was not always absolutely identical and could be spoken of as Jainism merely in a rough and broad way, that in fact Jainism as preached by these prophets did not refer to all the various outward marks of religious men introduced to distinguish but could be called a system merely with reference to the underlying spirit of the creed preached by them It is arguable that in the context of our analysis Jainism was a cultural pattern, which flourished in variovs parts of the country long before the coming of the Aryans, which put its emphasis upon penances and austerities, which put its faith in the presence of universal life in animate as well as seemingly inanimate substances, which accepted the principle of transmigration of soul, and which admitted the possibility of the attainment of the highest truth by people of all sects, classes, races and sexes. A cultural pattern like that was necessarily divergent from the practical, ritualistic and the essentially exclusive and oligarchical culture of the Aryans, and possibly in speaking of the earlier Tirthankaras, often differing from each other in their complexion, stature, longevity, and separated from each other by long stretches of time, the Jaina canon was doing no more than admitting its kioship with the various indegenous practices of the country, or at best appropriating to itself the many saintly orders which existed in India before the coming of the Aryans Certainly, the rationalisation of the Jaina,
