Achelatva Sachelatva

This text, "Achelatva Sachelatva" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, explores the historical development of clothing practices within the Jain tradition, specifically the distinction between being unclothed (achelatva) and clothed (sachelatva).

The author begins by referencing Buddhist texts that mention "Nigantho Nataputto" (referring to Mahavira) and "nigamtha eksatika" (a Nigantha wearing one garment). He asserts that those familiar with Jain Agamas (scriptures) would understand these terms, as Mahavira is referred to as "Nayatputta" in ancient texts like the Sutrakritanga. The Achara Sutra is cited as mentioning the practice of being unclothed and wearing a single garment among Niganthas (ascetics). The text notes that Mahavira himself initially wore a garment after renouncing worldly life but later abandoned it to become unclothed.

Sanghavi argues that the "eksatika Nigantha" described in Buddhist texts must belong to the tradition of Parshvanatha or Mahavira, as other ascetic traditions of that era were diverse, including both unclothed and clothed ascetics. However, the specific combination of "Nigantha" with "eksatika" points directly to a clothed Nigantha in the Jain tradition.

The central question posed is whether both unclothed and clothed practices existed within the Nigantha tradition during Mahavira's lifetime or even before. The author suggests that Mahavira was initiated into an existing ascetic tradition that included the practice of wearing a garment (sachelatva), indicating its presence prior to him.

However, the text delves deeper into the origin of unclothed practice. While ancient Jain texts describe certain unique practices introduced by Mahavira that were not present in earlier traditions, his biography primarily mentions his abandonment of clothing. A significant point is the dialogue in the Uttaraadhyayana Sutra between Keshikumar (representing the Parshvanatha tradition) and Gautama (Mahavira's chief disciple). Keshikumar poses the question: Mahavira advocates for the unclothed path, while Parshvanatha taught the clothed path. Given that their ultimate goals are the same, why the difference in their teachings? This exchange clearly indicates that both Keshikumar and Gautama believed Mahavira was the one who introduced the unclothed practice into the Nigantha tradition. Historical evidence, therefore, suggests that prior to Mahavira, the Nigantha tradition was predominantly clothed.

When Mahavira introduced the practice of being unclothed, many ascetics, both from the Parshvanatha tradition and new followers, were drawn to his spiritual persona and adopted the unclothed path. However, there was a segment within the Parshvanatha tradition that wished to join Mahavira's order but found complete nudity difficult to adhere to. Considering their capabilities and sincerity, Mahavira established a regulated practice of wearing a single garment, allowing a connection with the earlier tradition. This led to the stipulation of reducing clothing from three to two, and then to one garment. The term "eksatika" (single garment) used in the Achara Sutra is consistent with its mention in Buddhist texts, suggesting the historical accuracy of these accounts.

The author concludes that while the tendency towards wearing clothes increased after Mahavira, the practice of being unclothed remained and was considered the principal ideal.

The author summarizes his historical analysis with three key conclusions:

1. Before Mahavira: The Nigantha tradition in the historical period was clothed.
2. Mahavira's Contribution: Mahavira introduced the practice of being unclothed through his own life and set it as the ideal for Niganthas. To incorporate followers from the Parshvanatha tradition who found complete nudity challenging, a regulated, clothed practice was also accommodated. Thus, during Mahavira's time, both clothed and unclothed forms of the Nigantha tradition coexisted, with a single garment being the most excellent practice among the clothed ascetics.
3. Resolution of Differences: During or shortly after Mahavira's time, disagreements arose between the proponents of clothed and unclothed practices regarding seniority. Mahavira or his contemporary disciples resolved this by stating that both practices were valid depending on the individual's capacity. While clothed practice held seniority historically, the unclothed practice, being newer, was considered superior in terms of virtue. The harmony between these two practices continued for about two to two-and-a-half centuries after Mahavira.

The text ends by noting that later, due to the entrenched views and conflicts between the two factions, distortions occurred in the Nigantha tradition, leading to a distorted representation of this issue in later Nigantha literature. The author also briefly mentions Buddhist texts that refer to Niganthas with epithets like "tapasvi" (ascetic) or "dhi tapasvi" (great ascetic), and describe Niganthas performing austerities in places like Rajagriha.