The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c18.17

v1.c18.17

In regard to the teaching of Pārçva we are better informed: it was probably essentially the same as that of Mahāvīra and his followers. But we have no exact knowledge, except on two principal points, as to how far this creed was due to Pārçva, or what innovations may have been introduced by his successor. We are told that Pārçva enjoined on his followers four great vows, viz. not to injure life, to be truthful, not to steal, and to possess no property², while Mahāvīra added a fifth requisition, viz. that of chastity. Further we know that Pārçva allowed his disciples to wear an upper and an under garment. Mahāvīra, on his part, followed the more rigid rule which obliged the ascetic to be completely naked. These seem to have been, in fact, the most important differences in doctrine between the founder and the reformer of Jainism; for an old canonical text³ tells us about a meeting between Gautama, the pupil of Mahāvīra, and Keçin, a follower of Pārçva, in which they tried successfully to solve those questions on which a difference of opinion existed among the religious; and in that account the four vows and the wearing or not wearing of clothes form the main points of discussion. From this text we may venture to draw the conclusion that followers of Pārçva, who did not, perhaps, fully recognise Mahāvīra as their spiritual head, existed during the lifetime of the latter, and that a sort of compromise was effected between the two sections of the church. Indeed it seems to remain a somewhat unsettled question if followers of Pārçva and of Mahāvīra are not to be found even at the present day as the Çvetāmbaras, or ‘monks in white clothes,’ and the Digambaras, ‘sky-clad or naked ascetics.’ However, this hypothesis is denied by most authorities; and as a matter of fact the old records place the division of the church into these two main sects at a time much later than Mahāvīra, as we shall see subsequently.