Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jain Canons, with Commentaries: An Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey c5.s2.4

c5.s2.4

Pārśva emphasised the doctrine of *Ahiṃsā*. Since he had to raise a protest against the Brāhmanic sacrifices which inculcated slaughter of animals, this step was quite essential⁴¹ Later on, he added three more precepts to this, *viz.*, abstinence from telling lies (*musāvādā veramaṇī*, Palī), from stealing (*adinnādānāo veramaṇa; adinnādānā veramaṇī*, Palī) and from external possessions (*bahiddhāo veramaṇa*). These four precepts were called by the name of *Cāujjāmadhamma*, which constituted an important feature of the immediate background of Mahāvīra's Jainism. Pārśvanātha also enjoined strict asceticism⁴² as the only way for the attainment of salvation. As a matter of fact, the fundamental principles of the two *Niggantha* orders were not at all different and the religion preached by one was substantially the same as preached by the other. The description of the rules of conduct of Kesi Kumāra, a disciple of Pārśva,⁴³ tallies *verbatim* with those of the disciples of Mahāvīra⁴⁴ with the difference that the former preached the four great vows, while the latter preached five. It is said that the first saints were simple but slow of understanding, the last were prevaricating and slow of understanding and those between the two were simple and wise, hence there were two forms of Law.⁴⁵ Another important difference between the doctrine of Pārśva and Mahāvīra was that the former allowed an under and upper garment (*santaruttaro*) whereas the latter forbade clothing altogether.⁴⁶ Questioned by Kesi as to what caused this difference between the two law-givers pursuing the same end, Goyama replied that the various outward symbols were introduced because they were useful for religious life; as a matter of fact, knowledge, faith and right conduct, were the only true causes of liberation and not the outward symbols.⁴⁷ The order of Pārśva seems to have undergone some changes in the period between the death of Pārśvanātha and the advent of Mahāvīra and that might have been the cause of the latter's alienation.⁴⁸