In 1124 CE, a fierce debate between
Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras happened. The background of the debate goes back to the 1124 CE
cāturmāsya of Ācārya Vādidevasūri, a celebrated disciple of Ācārya Municandrasūri, a Śvetāmbara monk. Vādidevasūri was popular for winning debates against several philosophers in Western and North-Western India. Vādidevasūri was in Karnavati (modern-day
Ahmedabad's old city) for his 4 months-long stay during the rainy season. During the same time, Kumudcandra, a Digambara monk and the preceptor of Jayakeśi, a Kadamba ruler, was also in the city for his 4 months-long stay during the rainy season. As per medieval Digambara records, Kumudcandra was of formidable intellect and very popular in the Digambara community. As described in Ācārya Prabhācandrasūri's
Prabhāvakacarita, Kumudcandra and his disciples tried creating several problems in Vādidevasūri's sangha there. This was probably because the former could not digest the popularity of Vādidevasūri in the Śvetāmbara sangha there. The latter, however, maintained equanimity and did not retaliate. The situation got serious when Kumudcandra and some of his disciples harassed Sādhvī Sarasvatīśrījī, a senior nun in Vādidevasūri's sangha, while she was walking on the road. After mocking her, some disciples and palanquin-bearers of Kumudcandra demanded she dance if she wanted to pass. After the humiliation, she requested Vādidevasūri to take appropriate action and that if this went unanswered, the entire Jaina sangha would crumble. Apart from her, Kumudcandra was also supported by several courtiers and laymen.
Prabhāvakacarita names Keśava as one of his supporters, while it names poet Śrīpāla and Bhānu as Vādidevasūri's supporters. Thāhaḍ and Nāgadeva, two
Śrāvakas of Vādidevasūri's sangha expressed their wish to spend as much wealth as required for this event. However, Vādidevasūri informed them that spending of any wealth was not required for this event. Thāhaḍ informed him that Kumudcandra's disciples had offered bribe to Gāngila, a minister in
Jayasimha Siddharaja's court. Vādidevasūri did not pay attention to it and told him that it would surely be won by the one who has the blessings of God and his preceptor. The terms set by Rājamātā Minaladevi were unfair. If Vādidevasūri lost, all Śvetāmbaras would have convert to the Digambara sect. If Kumudcandra lost, the Digambaras would have to leave
Jayasimha Siddharaja's kingdom. On
Vaiśākha Pūrṇimā of 1124 CE, the debate began. Kumudcandra mocked a young
Hemacandrasūri, who was accompanying Vādidevasūri, by calling him an infant and unfit for this debate. A witty Hemacandrasūri responded by saying that he was dressed, while an infant is one who is naked, aiming at Kumudcandra's Digambara lifestyle (staying nude) and that Kumudcandra, and not he, was an infant. Several exchanges took place between both Vādidevasūri and Kumudcandra. The former was very well-versed with Jaina scriptures and tenets and made sure that no possibility was left unexplored during the debate. Within mere 16 days of the debate's conception, and several instances where Kumudcandra and his disciples faltered, the debate moved towards the subject of women's emancipation which Śvetāmbaras firmly believe in, while Digambaras don't. Digambaras, unable to provide a strong reason to support their heretical belief that women could not achieve emancipation, lost. Similar faults were observed when the subject of kevalins' hunger came up. Vādidevasūri was well-learned and astute and eventually, he triumphed. Vādidevasūri reminded
Jayasimha Siddharaja that it was his duty to ensure no one insulted the defeated. The king ordered all Digambaras to immediately leave his kingdom and carried a royal procession to a nearby temple. Śvetāmbaras celebrated this victory and several devotees donated lakhs of gold coins in the temple. As a mark of respect, the ceremonial parasol over Vādidevasūri was carried by the king himself. This record is accepted as historically true, due to its narration found in
Prabhāvakacarita, a historical text. While Vādidevasūri went on to write several scriptures and consecrate several major pilgrimage sites, Digambaras, once again, lost all presence in the kingdom of Gujarat. Previously, Digambaras had lost another debate against
Ācārya Bappabhattisuri over the ownership of
Girnar Jain temples. Other than rejecting or accepting different ancient Jain texts, Digambaras and Śvetāmbara differ in other significant ways such as: • Śvetāmbaras believe that Parshvanatha, the 23rd
tirthankara, taught only Four restraints (a claim, scholars say is confirmed by the ancient Buddhist texts that discuss Jain monastic life). These are as follows 1. Ahimsa – nonviolence, non-injury, and absence of desire to harm any life forms. 2. Satya – truthful in one's thoughts, speech and action. 3. Asteya – non-stealing". One must not steal, nor have the intent to steal, another's property through action, speech, and thoughts. 4. Aparigraha – the virtue of non-possessiveness or non-greediness. Mahavira inserted 5th vow ie Brahmacharya – sexual restraint or practice of celibacy. Renunciation of sex and marriage. This was thought to be understood to within 4th vow of Aparigraha, but was more specified as 5th vow of Brahmacharya. Mahāvīra taught Five vows. The Digambara sect disagrees with the Śvetāmbara interpretations, and reject the theory of difference in Parshvanatha and Mahāvīra's teachings. However, Digambaras as well as Śvetāmbaras follow Five vows as taught by
Mahavira. The difference is only that Śvetāmbaras believe
Parshvanatha taught one vow less (the Four vows except
Brahmacharya) than
Mahavira. However, monks of Śvetāmbara sect also follow all 5 vows as stated in the
Ācārāṅga Sūtra. • Digambaras believe that both Parshvanatha and Mahāvīra remained unmarried, whereas Śvetāmbara believe the 23rd and 24th tirthankar did indeed marry. According to the Śvetāmbara version, Parshvanāth married Prabhavati, and Mahāvīraswāmi married Yashoda who bore him a daughter named Priyadarshana. The two sects also differ on the origin of
Trishala, Mahāvīra's mother, as well as the details of Tirthankara's biographies such as how many auspicious dreams their mothers had when they were in the wombs. • Digambara believe Rishabha,
Vasupujya and
Neminatha were the three
tirthankaras who reached omniscience while in sitting posture and other tirthankaras were in standing ascetic posture. In contrast, Śvetāmbaras believe it was Rishabha, Nemi and Mahāvīra who were the three in sitting posture. • According to Śvetāmbara Jain texts, from
Kalpasūtras onwards, its monastic community has had more
sadhvis than
sadhus (female than male mendicants). In
Tapa Gacch of the modern era, the ratio of
sadhvis to
sadhus (nuns to monks) is about 3.5 to 1. In contrast to Śvetāmbara, the Digambara sect monastic community has been predominantly male. • In the Digambara tradition, a male human being is considered closest to the apex with the potential to achieve his soul's liberation from rebirths through asceticism. Women must gain karmic merit, to be reborn as man, and only then can they achieve spiritual liberation in the Digambara sect of Jainism. The Śvetāmbaras disagree with the Digambaras, believing that women can also achieve liberation from
saṃsāra through ascetic practices. • The Śvetāmbaras state the 19th Tirthankara
Māllīnātha was female. However, Digambara reject this, and worship Mallinatha as a male. • According to
Digambara texts, after attaining
Kevala Jnana (omniscience),
arihant (omniscient beings) are free from human needs like hunger, thirst, and sleep. In contrast, Śvetāmbara texts preach that it is not so. ==Criticism==