The Doctrine of the Jainas, Described after the Old Sources c6.40.5

c6.40.5

Thus it is Pāsa's *third* vow that corresponds with both the third and fifth of Mahāvīra's including prohibition of any appropriation other than by gift as well as by acquisition. At any rate, it is a merit of Mahāvīra that he did away with a certain vagueness in the terms of his predecessor and made his fifth commandment applicable for both sexes. Utt. 23, 26f. and probably also 87 indicate that this act of extension was at the same time a process of revival, and this, to be sure, is the case, since it was in the nature of the two founders. Moreover, this is indicated by the above-mentioned view according to which the teaching experiences a decline until a new preacher of salvation comes to make his appearance. And it was also the difference existing between the teachings of Pāsa and Mahāvīra that had to be perpetuated within this view. This was done in a way (Viy. 791 b; Thāṇ. 201a) that all Titthagara prior to Pāsa are considered preachers of the cāujjāma dhamma with the exception of Usabha¹, and in the timeless continent of Mahāvideha (§ 113) it is even all 24. Likewise there is a difference being construed (Thāṇ. 296a) in that the same preachers of salvation including Pāsa had no difficult career as teachers whereas Usabha and Mahāvīra had (purima-pacchimāṇaṃ jiṇāṇaṃ duggamaṃ bhavai, tam-jahā: duāikkhaṃ duvibhajjaṃ dupassaṃ dutitikkhaṃ duraṇucaraṃ).