________________
104
Aspects of Jainology Volume VI
If we
Pārsva in the field of metaphysics and karma philosophy. The concepts, such as the world is eternal as well as dynamic, that it exists by itself and has no creator, are common to both traditions. The concept of permanence in change as the nature of Reality, which is the foundational tenet of the later Nirgrantha doctrine of anekāntaväda or non-absolutism is also met with in its embryonic form in, and in point of fact is central to, the teachings of Päráva as well as Mahāvira. Similarly, the concept of the five astikāyas and the eight-fold karmas are found in the philosophy of Pārśva as well as Mahāvira. We encounter brief references to these concepts in the Pārsva-chapter of the Isibhaiyain and more detailed ones in the standard canonical works of Mahāvira's tradition.
Similarly, the concepts of asrava, samvara, nirjarā, sāmāyika, pratyākhyāna and pausadha are also common to both traditions, though there were some differences in the minutiae of these concepts and observances. The difference in opinion about the nature of pratyakhyāna between Gautama and Udaka Pedhälaputra in the Sütrakstānga has been earlier noticed. Similarly, the differences in terms of detail on the practices are noticed in the relevant dialogues in the Vyākhyāprajñapti and in the Uttaradhyāyana also. However, these differences were related mostly to the code of conduct and not to the doctrines, philosophy, and principles of ethics as such. The distinctness of Pärśva's sect lies in its code of conduct, and not in dogma or philosophy, since it somewhat differed from that of Mahävira. We shall notice and discuss at this point the distinctive features of the Pārsva's tradition.
(1) Pärśva propounded căturyāma-dharma, while Mahāvira preached the pañcayāma-dharma or the five mahāvratas. According to the Ardhamăgadhi canon, Mahāvira added celibacy as an independent vow to the cāturyāma-dharma of Pārsva. The Sutrakrtānga mentions that Mahāvira prohibited having woman, and eating during night hours.37
The question arises: Why did Mahavira add celibacy as an independent vow? The answer to this question can be read in the Sütrakrtānga. In the times of Pärsva, woman was considered a property or possession and it was taken for granted that prohibition of possession implied the prohibition of sexual relationship, for no one can enjoy the woman without having her. But, as the Sutraktärga informs, in the time of Mahavira, there were some påsatthā (wayward) śramanas, who believed that the prohibition of possession did not imply for include) the prohibition of sexual
enjoyment. "If any woman invited or offered herself for enjoyment to a śramana, then the fulfillment of her sexual desire was no sin, just as the squeezing of a blister or boil (causes relief) for some time (and hasno dangerous consequences); 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 Mahāvira 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 rșis used to marry and had progenies. After that state in life, on the one hand is followed the concept of vānaprastha, in which a rși 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 Mahavira included in the fold a separate, clear, definite and uncompromising vow of celibacy.
In Parsva'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 Mahāvira 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 Sutrakrtānga" and in the Vyākhyāprajñaptito as well as in other canonical works of Mahāvira's discipline it is known as pratikramanadharma.
One more difference in monastic practice was that Parśva did not lay stress on nudity; he rather allowed one or two apparels for his monks (who thus were sacelaka), while stressed on nudity and so Mahävira's tradition was known as acela-dharma. Though the medieval commentator of the Uttarādhyayana holds that Pärśva 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 Pärśva and that of Mahavira. 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. For instance, in Pārsva's tradition a monk could accept the invitation for food and also could take food prepared for him; but
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
