Parshva Aur Mahavir Ka Shasan Bhed - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Parshva aur Mahavir ka Shasan Bhed" (The Differences in the Teachings of Parshva and Mahavir) by Nathmalmuni, based on the provided pages:

The book explores the differences in the spiritual and disciplinary frameworks established by the 23rd Tirthankara, Lord Parshvanatha, and the 24th Tirthankara, Lord Mahavir. The author, Nathmalmuni, analyzes these distinctions based on several key points:

1. Chaturyaama (Four Vows) vs. Pancha Mahavratas (Five Great Vows):

Lord Rishabha (the first Tirthankara) is believed to have preached the five Mahavratas.
Lord Parshvanatha preached the Chaturyaama Dharma, comprising four vows: Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (truthfulness), Achaurya (non-stealing), and the renunciation of external acquisition (Bahiṣthāt Ādāna-viramaṇa).
Lord Mahavir preached the Pancha Mahavratas, adding Brahmacharya (celibacy) and Aparigraha (non-possession) to the existing three.
The text questions why Lord Mahavir expanded the vows. The explanation is rooted in the nature of disciples across different Tirthankara cycles. According to the dialogue between Acharya Keshī (a disciple of Parshva) and Acharya Gautama (chief disciple of Mahavir), the disciples of the first Tirthankara are "straight-natured" (ṛiju jaḍa), the intermediate ones are "wise" (ṛi-prājña), and the disciples of the last Tirthankara are "crooked-natured" (vakra-jaḍa).
This implies that the disciples of earlier Tirthankaras found it easier to follow the monastic discipline, while those of the later Tirthankaras found it more challenging.
A significant interpretation is that by the time of Lord Mahavir, some followers of Lord Parshva's tradition began to interpret and practice abrahma-charya (non-celibacy) by arguing that Parshva had not explicitly prohibited it, considering it part of parigraha (possessions).
To counter this rationalization and the misuse of the concept of non-attachment, Lord Mahavir established brahma-charya as a distinct and independent Mahavrata. The text cites scriptural references (Sutrakṛtaṅga) that describe those supporting non-celibacy as "parshvastha" (followers of Parshva) or "swayūthika" (belonging to one's own sect), indicating that this laxity existed before Mahavir.
Lord Mahavir refuted the arguments that equated sexual activity with releasing pus from a wound or drinking poison passively, emphasizing that such actions, even if framed as detached, are inherently harmful and do not align with true peace or non-attachment. He stressed that actions like beheading someone or stealing jewels, even with an appearance of detachment, are still criminal.

2. Sāmaika Charitra vs. Chedopasthāpanīya Charitra:

During Lord Parshva's time, the monastic conduct was known as Sāmaika Charitra. This refers to a state of equanimity and adherence to the vows in an undivided manner, without elaborate subdivisions. Lord Parshva did not feel the need to further elaborate or divide this conduct.
Lord Mahavir introduced Chedopasthāpanīya Charitra. "Cheda" means division, and "Chedopasthāpanīya" implies a conduct that is received through subdivision. This means that disciples accept the Mahavratas in parts or subdivisions.
The text clarifies that fundamentally, all charitra (conduct) is sāmaika (equanimous). The difference lies in the presentation and organization.
Lord Mahavir, facing specific challenges, transformed the undivided Sāmaika Charitra into a divided (Vibhāgātmak) Sāmaika Charitra, which became known as Chedopasthāpanīya. This involved accepting Mahavratas and their subdivisions.
It is mentioned that Lord Mahavir created thirteen main divisions of charitra. Pujyapada honors Lord Mahavir as the expounder of thirteen types of charitra not taught by previous Tirthankaras.
The Bhagavati Sutra indicates that the conduct of monks following the Chaturyaama Dharma was called Sāmaika, while those who transitioned from this tradition to the Panchayama Dharma were called Chedopasthāpanīya.
Lord Mahavir's approach was to respect and harmonize with Lord Parshva's tradition by initially acknowledging the short-term, undivided Sāmaika Charitra and establishing the long-term, divided Chedopasthāpanīya Charitra.

3. Prohibition of Night Eating (Rātri Bhojana-Viramaṇa):

In Lord Parshva's teaching, abstaining from eating at night was not considered a vow.
Lord Mahavir included it in the list of vows. The text again refers to the Sutrakṛtaṅga verse ("se vāriyā itthī sarāibhattaṁ" - prohibiting women and night eating).
Commentators like Haribhadra Suri and Somtilak Suri explain that Lord Rishabha and Lord Mahavir elevated "no night eating" to the status of a vow (mūlaguṇa) considering their disciples' nature. Intermediate Tirthankaras did not consider it a primary vow.
Jainbhadra Gani notes that refraining from night eating is an auxiliary virtue (uttaraguṇa) similar to the samiti (carefulness) because it protects Ahimsa. However, for monks, it should be observed like the Mahavrata of Ahimsa, making it worthy of being considered a primary virtue (mūlaguṇa). For lay followers, it is not a primary virtue.
The text clarifies that primary virtues (mūlaguṇa) are foundational to spiritual practice, while auxiliary virtues (uttaraguṇa) are supportive.
The number of Mahavratas and their subdivisions varied across Tirthankara lineages, supported by Lord Mahavir's statement about his specific disciplines, including nudity, shaved heads, not bathing, not cleaning teeth, abandoning umbrellas and footwear, and hair-pulling.

4. Sachèl (Clothed) and Achèl (Unclothed) Conduct:

The disciples of Keshī and Gautama questioned the difference in attire: Parshva's disciples wore valuable and colored garments, while Mahavir's disciples were to wear white, low-value clothes.
Gautama explained that different implements and attire were permitted based on reasoned understanding to help people identify the monks and maintain their spiritual identity.
The text notes the opinion of Dr. Hermann Jacobi that Lord Mahavir adopted the practice of nudity from Gosala, an Ājīvika leader, but deems this "doubtful." There were various nude ascetic traditions before and during Mahavir's time.
It is certain that Mahavir was clothed when he attained initiation but later became unclothed. He also made provisions for his disciples to practice achèl-dharma.
However, Mahavir's achèl-dharma was not as absolute as that of other nude ascetics. Gautama's explanation to Keshī indicates that those capable of remaining unclothed could do so completely, while those not capable could wear limited, low-value, white garments.
The text suggests that the followers of Lord Parshva could integrate into Mahavir's tradition because Mahavir accepted both sachèl and achèl practices. This very issue of sachèl and achèl led to the division of the Nirgrantha Sangha into Śvetāmbara and Digambara.
Śvetāmbara literature states that jinakalpī monks did not wear clothes, while Digambara literature asserts that all monks were unclothed.
The text mentions historical references from scriptures and inscriptions that indicate the existence of both nude (Nirgranthas) and clothed (one-shāṭaka bearers) ascetics in ancient times.
Lord Mahavir's disciples lived in both sachèl and achèl states, with achèl being given more importance, hence the earlier debate.
The interpretation of achèl likely shifted over time. In the context of the Digambara-Śvetāmbara conflict, it might have come to mean wearing minimal or soiled clothes, or refer to Nirgranthas wearing a single garment. The Digambara tradition strongly advocated for nudity, while the Śvetāmbara tradition discontinued it.
The author posits that the integration of Ājīvika ascetics into the Digambara tradition, given the Ājīvikas' strong advocacy for nudity, might have intensified the insistence on achèl-tā within the Digambara lineage, potentially disrupting the harmonious balance that Lord Mahavir had established.

5. Pratikramaṇa (Repentance/Confession):

For Lord Parshva's followers, pratikramaṇa (confessing and rectifying any transgression) was not mandatory at both dawn and dusk. It was performed only when a fault occurred.
Lord Mahavir made pratikramaṇa mandatory at both dawn and dusk, regardless of whether any transgression had occurred.

6. Avashthita (Fixed) and Anavashthita (Optional) Kalpas (Rules/Practices):

The history of the differences in the teachings of Parshva and Mahavir is found in ten kalpas.
For Lord Parshva's followers, four kalpas were avashthita (fixed/obligatory):
1. Shayyāntara-pinda (not accepting food from the house of the upāśraya provider).
2. Adherence to Chaturyaama Dharma.
3. Considering men as senior (in seniority).
4. Bowing to senior monks during the period of initiation.
Six kalpas were anavashthita (optional/voluntary):
1. Achèlta (nudity).
2. Audēśika (accepting food from anywhere).
3. Pratikramaṇa (confession).
4. Rājpinda (accepting alms from royal households).
5. Māsakalpa (monthly vow).
6. Paushana Kalpa (vow of Paushana).
For Lord Mahavir's followers, all these kalpas were avashthita (fixed/obligatory).
Parihāra Vishuddha Charitra (pure conduct with exclusions) was also a contribution of Lord Mahavir, similar to Chedopasthāpanīya Charitra, and was considered an avashthita kalpa.

In essence, the book details how Lord Mahavir, while respecting the foundational teachings of Lord Parshvanatha, adapted and refined the Jain doctrine to address the evolving spiritual needs and challenges of his time, particularly in dealing with subtle rationalizations of vows and ensuring a more structured and universally applicable spiritual path.