By
SHANTARAM BHALCHANDRA DEO
JAINA CULTURAL RESEARCH SOCIETY
BANARAS 5 (INDIA)
1960.
Being a course of three
lectures delivered before
THE JAINA CULTURAL
RESEARCH SOCIETY
(BANARAS)
on 9th, 10th & 11th
Nov. 1959
By
SHANTARAM BHALCHANDRA DEO,
M.A., Ph.D.
Reader in Ancient Indian
History, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Indian History University of
Poona
Deccan College
Post-Graduate and Research Institute,
Poona
Poona.
1960
First Edition, 750
copies
June, 1960.
Price Rs. 20
Printed at the Sangam
Press Private Ltd. Poona, by M. H. Patwardhan,
and published by Pandit
Dalsukhbhai Malwaniya, Hony. Secretary, Jaina Cultural Research Society,
Banaras, 5.
The Author is indebted
to the Secretary and Members of
THE JAINA CULTURAL
RESEARCH SOCIETY, BANARAS,
For sponsoring and
printing these lectures.
The following lectures
were the outcome of the suggestions by Dr. H. D. Sankalla, Dr. V. S. Agrawal
and Shri Dalsukhbhai Malwania. It was because of their encouragement and
goodwill that I thought of presenting the material on Jain monastic
jurisprudence in a more homogeneous and compact form.
I am quite conscious of
the fact that the core of these lectures is embedded in my 'History of Jaina
Monastery from Inscriptions and Literature'.
Yet the readers will readily agree that the information is systematized and
augmented. This forms the nucleus of the complete subject-wise codification of
the rules of Jaina monastic conduct, the transgressions and the punishments,
which is already under preparation.
Grateful thanks are due
to Drs. S. M. Katre and A. M. Ghatave and Shri G. B. Panse for valuable
suggestions.
20, May '60,
Deccan College,
Poona 6.
S. B. DEO.
To
For his manifold
courtesies
Though engaged in
various activities, Dr. S. B. Deo was kind enough to spare some time to come to
Banaras and deliver three lectures on 'Jain Monastic Jurisprudence' on the
invitation of Jain Cultural Research Society. These lectures were delivered in
the College of Indology, Banaras Hindu University, under the chairmanship of
Dr. V. S. Agrawala on the 9th, 10th and 11th November, 1959. I have great
pleasure in publishing these lectures so soon, and for that I have to thank Dr.
Deo for his hearty cooperation. I have also to thank Dr. V. S. Agrawala for his
kindly consenting to preside over the lectures. I am very much grateful to Dr.
R. B. Pandey, Principal, College of Indology, who gave us all the facilities
for the lectures in the College of Indology.
DALSUKH
MALVANIA,
Secretary,
Jain Cultural Research
Society.
Ahmedabad,
28-4-1960.
1. THE BACKGROUND TO
MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE. .
2. CUSTODIANS OF
MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE..
3. LAWS OF JURISPRUDENCE
AND THEIR WORKING
4. TRANSGRESSIONS AND
PUNISHMENTS
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND
INDEX
I. Preamble.
II. Survey of Jaina
Research.
III. The Canon.
IV. Jurisprudence:
Source texts for it.
V. The Spirit of Monastic Rules
VI.. Meaning of Transgressions and Exceptions.
I am indeed grateful to
you for the honor you have done me in inviting me to place before such a
distinguished gathering my views regarding Jaina monastic jurisprudence. I am
quite conscious of the fact that I happen to be as yet a novice in the field of
Jainology when compared to the stalwarts in the field. I would, however, not
offer an apology on that account. On the contrary, taking inspiration from the
work of the giants in the field, I would try to follow their footsteps with
youthful confidence.
II
Survey of Jaina Research
You are all aware that
the days when Jainism was taken to be an offshoot of Brahmans are a thing of
the past—and rightly so. For in recent years, especially during the last fifty
years, immense literature pertaining to Jainology has been brought to light.
However, the first gleanings of Jainism in English came as early as 1809' when
Col. Mackenzie gave us "The Account
of the Jainas". This was followed by a couple of others, which,
however, do not deserve any serious notice at all. It took nearly
three-quarters of a century after Mackenzie, when Baler gave us his masterly
presentation of "Indische Sekte den
Jainas" in 1887. This seems to have opened up a new interest in Jaina
studies and in the following decade or so critical editions of the canonical
texts of the Jaina Svetambaras Agama were brought out.
The opening up of the present century saw the development
of scholarly interest in Jainology among foreign and Indian scholars. The
researches were more homogeneous and planned rather than sporadic. Unlike the
early attempts of the previous century as evidenced by the edition of Kalpasutra by Stevenson (1848), the
fragments of the Bhagavati by Weber
(1886) and the German rendering of the Abhidhana-Cintamani
by Bothlingk (1847), the publications during our present century appear to
be more copious and systematic. Save for the biased account by Mrs. Stevenson
(1915) who could not find and understand the heart of Jainism, the other works
pertaining to Jainology were masterly, the most brilliant amongst them being "Die Lehre der Jainas" by
Schuring (1935) .
The above account need
not be taken to emphasize that work pertaining to Jainism was solely restricted
to foreign scholars only. Side by side, in India itself a galaxy of scholars
contributed to the study of Jainism. For along with Jacobi, Hertel, Hoernle,
Schubring, Glasenapp, Guerinot, Alsdore
Leurann, Weber Basham, and Charpentier, Dr. Upadhyle, P. L. Vaidya, Muni
Jinavijaya, Pt. Sukhalalji, K. P. Jain, Prof. Kapadia, Dr. Hiralal Jaini, Pt.
Nathu Ram Premi—to mention only a few amongst the many—have been solely
responsible for making available to the world of scholars a mine of information
regarding Jainism. Institutions like the Agamodaya Samiti, the Manikchandra Digambaras Jaina Granthamala, the
Devendrakirti Granthamala, the Singhi Jaina Granthamala, and others have been
helpful in sponsoring critical editions of several Jaina texts, and thus have
rightly earned the gratitude of scholars.
Besides the texts and
treatises, several pattavalis and
thousands of epigraphs have been brought to light during the last fifty years,
as a result of which the picture of the economic, religious, social and
cultural development of Jainism is emerging in clearer form. It is needless to
list the persons and the institutions that have been responsible for this, for
these are well known.
Jainism offers a rich
field for new research in yet one more field; and that is the vast mass of
manuscripts which lie deposited in scores of Jaina Bhandaras of all sects. I had the privilege of visiting quite a few
of these and I was amazed at this sealed wealth. The Bhandaras have been a
peculiar institution of signal importance. It is really remarkable how several
of these have been fed and fostered with devotion and understanding by the
Jaina laity.
III
The foregoing summary
would at once convince one of the immense work that has been done and the much
more that yet remains to be done. However, that which has been done is helpful,
if not enough, in studying the Jaina monastic institution, its day to day
working and the rules and discipline that governed such daily routine, which
forms the topic of these lectures.
In the light of this
theme it will at once be agreed that the sole basis for the building up of the
structure of Jaina monastic jurisprudence is the canon as acknowledged by the Svetambaras and the Angas, Angabhahyas and Anuyogas
of the Digambaras.
Before entering into a
detailed discussion of the sources for Jaina monastic jurisprudence—both of the
Svetambaras and the Digambaras—it would be worthwhile to
note a few points regarding the canonical texts, their development and nature.
It is needless to go into the controversy regarding the
canon. It is well known that the Digambaras
do not acknowledge the texts of the canon as approved by the Svetambaras. As is well known the story
of the canon of the Svetambaras is
the story of redaction’s, collections and loss. The Council of Pataliputra of
Mauryan times, another of Mathura of about the 4th Century AD and those at
Valabhi of the 5th and 6th Century A.D. were responsible for the collection and
redaction of the canonical texts. It is not unnatural if during such a long
period some texts, especially the Puvvas were
lost for good. From a historical point of view, it is not possible to say what
texts formed the canon at the Pataliputra Council and what was the final form
at the Valabhi Council. Thus a historical treatment of the development of the
canon is not practicable. This hampers a great deal in studying the various
facets, including that of monastic jurisprudence, of Jainism. What remains
ultimately, in a broad sense, is the picture of Jainism up to the 6th century
A.D. and that succeeding it.
Yet one more factor may
be noted regarding the Svetambaras
canon. Apart from the story of various councils and redaction’s, the number of
texts to be included in the Agama has
been a matter of fluctuations. Whereas the standard list comprises forty-six
texts grouped into Anga, uvangas, painnas
cheyasuttas, - mulasuttas and two miscellaneous texts, some scholars give a
list of as many as eighty-six texts comprising the canon. (Kapadia, Canonical Lit. of the Jainas, p. 58.)
Thus, leek of disciplined historicity and precision of number prove a major
stumbling block in dealing with the development of Jaina monastic
jurisprudence, the laws of which are solely and basically incorporated in the
canonical texts.
Well, this is the nature
of the evidence coming from the Svetambaras
sources. As for the Digambaras, as
noted before, they disown the canon as enunciated by the Svetambaras, and advocate the view that the canon was lost. It is
irrelevant for us here to discuss the stories and circumstances connected with
this matter; moreover they are well known. The Digambaras, on the other hand, advocate a canon comprising Angus, angabahiras, anuyogas, the last
being divided into four subdivisions. It may be pointed out that the texts
incorporated into these groups cover a wide range of period. For instance, the
first category e.g. the Angus contain
some texts which are akin to those of the Svetambaras,
as for instance, the Nayadhammakahao. The
second group comprises texts like Dasaveyaliya,
Uttarajjhyayana and Kappa-vavahara whose
names are familiar in the Svetambaras
canon though their grouping is different. The third group of annyogas contains texts belonging to
scholars like Kundakunda (1st century
A.D.), Umasvati, Vattakera and Samantabhadra
(8th century A.D.). It will at once be realized that the Digambaras canon comprises texts of widely different periods,
though it is not possible to assign each and every text in it to a definite
date.
The upshot of the whole
matter may be summarized now. We have seen that the canon of the Svetambaras was finally redacted at the
second council of Valabhi in about
the 6th century A.D. We have also seen that the Digambaras disown this canon and instead propose a list of texts
grouped under different categories. Even then, some of the names of the texts
of the canon of both agree. Moreover, the contents of some, e.g. Mulacara and Dasaveyaliya agree in some cases ad verbum. The Angas are
held in high esteem by both. Many of the details of monastic life and
jurisprudence—as will be seen later on—tally well in the texts of the Digambaras and the Svetambaras. And lastly, several of the authors like Umasvati, Siddhasena Divakara, and others who have contributed to the making up of Jaina
literature, are respected by both these sects.
These, in short, are the
salient features of the nature of evidence at hand for the proper understanding
of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. The very points of similarity, as noted above,
do not imply a wide divergence in the nature of material for the study of
jurisprudence. It would thus be possible to study monastic jurisprudence of the
Jainas as a whole without any sectarian approach. The following pages,
therefore, attempt to present the overall picture of the working of the
internal organizational discipline of Jaina monastery. The picture that will
emerge is hoped to be completely non-sectarian and unbiased. The author is
fully conscious of the fact that the texts available to him were mainly of the Svetambaras group. Yet the details
available have been checked from the Digambaras
texts as well, and wherever differences occur, they have been stated as
dispassionately as possible. I stand before you, not as a judge, but as one who
believe in paying homage to Jainism through its dispassionate study.
IV
Jurisprudence: source texts for it
Having seen the nature
of the canon and after expressing the nature of our approach, let us now take a
review of the actual texts that contribute most of the material for the study
of Jaina monastic jurisprudence.
As has already been
noted, the canonical texts form the core of the material for the study of Jaina
jurisprudence. Yet all the texts are not useful for this purpose. For our
purpose the most invaluable group of texts is that which goes under the name of
the 'cheyasuttas' of the Svetambaras Jaina canon and those
grouped under 'carananuyoga' by the Digambaras.
As is well known,
the cheyasuttas comprise six texts as
follows:
( 1 ) Nisihasutta
(2) Mahanistha sutta
(3) Vavahara sutta
(4) Dasasayakkhandha (or Ayaradasao)
(5) Kappasutta (or Brhatkalpa), and
(6) Pancakappa (or Jiyakappa).
Of these six, the Dash,
Kappa and Vavahara seem to be
closely related to one another in matter and treatment. They deal with various
transgressions and the punishments prescribed for these, in a very summary
fashion. These texts by themselves do not give any other background leading to
the formulation of the code of discipline. Neither do they give any information
as to the procedure of implementing a punishment against a transgressor. For
these details we have to depend solely on the cunnis and Bhasas going
with these which furnish us with the actual working of monadic, jurisprudence
in Jaina church.
Another point worth
notice regarding these texts is that their date is uncertain. Though the
tradition holds that Bhadrabahu, the sixth pontiff after Lord Mahavira was
responsible for the editing of these three texts on the basis of the
information given in the ninth Puvva
(Rsimandalastotra, 166), the evidence is inconclusive, for we do not know
what items contributed to make the ninth Puvva.
Moreover, it is well known that
there were more that one Bhadrabahu known to the Jaina church history. However,
as the case stands, we are not in a position to look beyond the tradition in
which case we have to assign these texts to 4th/3rd century B.C. as this
particular Bhadrabahu is said to have flourished a couple of centuries after
Mahavira, —the exact date of his death being 170 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira.
The date of Nisihasutta is again a problem and it is
not possible to be dogmatic about it. However, there is a remarkable similarity
between this text and the Vavahara sutta as
to the forms of punishment and the categories of transgressions. Emphasizing
the similarity between Nisiha and the
Culas of Ayarangasutta, Winternitz opines that both these texts probably had
a common source of origin. (Winterniz, Hil,
pp.464-65).
As to the Mahanisiha, we are on still more
unstable grounds. The nature of the language and the mention of Tantric practices and non-canonical
texts in this work are perplexing. On the strength of these points, Winternitz
puts it to a period later than that of Panda
and Oha Nijjuttis and goes to the
extent of questioning its position as a text of the canon.
One point regarding Dasasuyakhhandah
referred to: above, may be worthwhile mention. Here in this text is a
portion designated as the 'samayari' dealing
with the rules of rain-retreat etc. This has been attributed to Bhadrabahu. Yet
when we find references to persons and church units posterior to Bhadrabahu, we
have to conclude that only the-portion of 'samayari'
might be attributed to Bhadrabahu, while the rest may be a later addition.
Pancakappa is not extant now. So nothing can be said about it. The Jiyakappa, which
replaces it, has been attributed to Jinabhadra who is said to have flourished
in about the 6th century A.D. or a little prior to that. (Information kindly supplied by Dr. Upadhye. It is thus clear that Jiyakappa cannot be equated with other texts in chronology.
Even though basically
most of the information regarding monastic jurisprudence can be culled from
these texts, it does not mean that these are the sole repositories of such
information. For instance, the Thanangasutta
also mentions various payachittas and
some transgressions. The Pined and
the Oha-Nijjuttis, which are sometime
grouped with the cheyasuttas, give
abundant information regarding daily monastic life and the transgressions
connected with the requisites of a monk, whereas the rules governing the
formation of a unit of monks called the Gauche
and the working of it are incorporated in the Gacchayara Painnaya.
Besides these texts of
the canon itself, the commentary literature is of immense help in the study of
Jaina monastic jurisprudence. For instance the chunnis and the Bhasas provide
the details about the formulation of rules of monastic conduct, their working,
the exceptions, and the actual process of the enactment of procedure of dealing
-with a transgressor, so on and so forth. In this regard the Nisihacunni, the Brihatkalpa-bhasya - sutra and the Jiyakappa and its commentary prove to be invaluable. These
commentaries are so indispensable that without these it is not possible to go
to the core of the working of monastic jurisprudence. Besides providing
information in amplification of the rules of monastic discipline, these texts
give stories and incidents which throw a great deal of light on the then
existing social conditions under which the Jaina monk had to live and preserve
the purity of monastic standards.
This much about the Svetambaras
texts. Coming to the Digambaras
texts, we-have to depend chiefly on the texts grouped under the head 'carananuyoga'. Of these, the Mulacara of Vattakera belonging to about
the beginning of the Christian era is invaluable as it gives many details of
monastic life and the prayascittas.
Before entering into the
details Of monastic jurisprudence, it may be worthwhile to- summarize the main
characteristics of the nature of evidence for the study of the subject. We have
already seen that the texts contributing to such a study cover a very wide
period. We have, therefore, to present the picture of Jaina monastery as a
whole rather than treat it on historical principle. Besides this aspect, some
texts are such that they incorporate sometimes older and later strata of
contents, which make the historical treatment practically impossible, unless
critically edited editions are forthcoming.
Secondly, as will be
further amplified later on, the Digambaras
and Svetambaras texts do not differ
much in the treatment and working of monastic jurisprudence. For instance, the
list of prayascittas is more or less
the same, save two changes. The Digambaras
have 'parihara' and 'saddhana' replacing 'anavatthappa' and 'paranciya' as given in the Svetambaras
Cheyasuttas. The rest of the details
do not basically differ.
Well, we have so far
seen very briskly the history of research in Jainology, the nature and
controversy regarding the canon and lastly the nature of the source-texts for
the study of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. The survey has been very brief, as
we have yet to cover the major field that lies ahead of us.
The Spirit of Monastic Rules
We have now to see how
the rules of monastic conduct were formulated, their basic conceptions and the
features and considerations that underlay the making up of such
rules. These rules are
numerous and cover so many details for which the Jainas seem to have a peculiar
flair.
The rules, as remarked above, are numerous indeed. They
pertain to initiation, confirmation, church units, relations with the laity,
nuns, those who belonged to other sects, touring and residence, begging of
food, donors, study, clothing and nudity, requisites like pidha-phalaga- sejja-samtharaga, rules regarding daily routine,
study or sojjhaya, penance, fasting
and bodily mortification, death and death-rites and moral discipline.
It is not the purpose of
these lectures to detail out here all the rules. I would request the persons
interested to refer to my book "History
of Jaina Monarchism" for the details of such rules. Here we are
concerned with the basic considerations that were taken into consideration in
the framing of these.
A survey of Jaina
monarchism would reveal that all the rules of monastic conduct seem to
originate from the five great vows (panda
mahavvayas) that were expected of every Jaina monk. The five great vows are
Ahinsa (savvao panaivayao veramanam),
sacca (savvao musavayao veramanam), asteya (savvao adinnadanao veramanam),
apariggaho (savvao pariggahao veramanam) and bambhacera (savvao mehunao veramanam). These form the basis of
every field of Jaina monastic conduct. Even the sixth vow, as given in the Dasaveyaliya and consisting of the
abstinence from taking food at night (savvao
raibhoyanao veramanam) is apparently the corollary of the first vow.
These five vows were to
be followed in the thrice threefold way, inasmuch as, the monk was not to
transgress these himself, or make some other to transgress these or consent to
somebody else transgressing these, either mentally (manna), vocally (vaena) or
bodily (kana). Thus the following of
these basic vows which comprised the whole fabric of Jaina monastic life led to
the flowering up of numerous rules and conventions which have survived to this
day.
As remarked above, these
numerous rules and regulations arose out of the necessity of the proper
following of these great vows. And yet the network of the mass of rules based
on these basic vows arose also out of the considerations of human psychology
and its adjustment to environment. It may not be an exaggeration to say that
those who framed the rules of monastic conduct were keen observers of the
working of human mind in relation to the society at large. Accordingly, the
rules were so framed as to preserve the utmost sanctity and purity of monk-life
without grossly violating the existing social etiquette. It will not be out of
place here to amplify the statement. Take for instance the famous forty-six
faults to be avoided by a monk in the course of his begging round. The Pinda and the Oha-Nijjuttis furnish us with most convincing episodes that lay at
the back of these elaborate rules.
Take for instance, the
fault pertaining to ‘chaddiya’, which
disallows a monk to accept food, which has been so carelessly served that some
portion of it falls on the ground. Apart from the hygienic point of view, the
makers of this rule seem to foresee a lot of circumstances, which might lead a
monk into trouble. The story is told of a Jaina monk called Dharmaghosa who refused to accept alms
at the house of a minister Varattaka
whose wife came out in such a way that part of the food to be offered as alms
fell on the ground. Naturally Dharmaghosa did not accept such alms much to the
surprise of the minister who was watching from a distance. He remained, where
he was and decided to see what would happen further within a short time, flies
settled on the drop of soup. The flies were attacked by spiders that in turn
were: subjected to an onslaught by the chameleons. Soon the cats attacked the
latter, while the dogs fell upon the cats. Out of the fight between the dogs
arose the quarrel between their owners, which finally led to great excitement!
To many of us the contents of the story may appear farfetched and artificial,
yet the spirit of it is really remarkable. The monk is to foresee things and
extricate himself from such worldly bickering. (Pindanijutti, 623-25).
Another instance can be
had in the formation of the rule, which forbids a monk to accept food from the
daughter of his maternal uncle. On the face of it one might wonder why this
rule was enforced. But the commentator rightly points out that the violation of
this rule might lead to the affinity between the monk and the cousin sister
which may irritate the husband of the lady. The rule becomes significant when
we take into consideration the fact that the daughter of the maternal uncle
often married her cousin brother. In view of this, the husband of the lady
might suspect intimacy between the monk-brother and his wife, which might also
lead to trouble for all. Here is, therefore, an excellent example of the
formulation of monastic rules in consonance with social practices. It would
thus be clear that though purity—mental and physical— was at the basis of
monastic rules, other factors also were taken due cognizance of.
Such illustrations can
be had even in other facets of monastic life. Take for instance the rules
regarding study. The Uttarajjhayana
(XXVI, 12) clearly states that the first and the fourth porisi of the day should be utilized for
study by the monk. Yet in abnormal circumstances study was not to be done. For
instance, phenomena like the fall of meteors (ukkavaya), thunder of supernatural beings in the sky (nigghate), the appearance of goblins in
the sky (jakkhalitte), eclipses of
the moon and the sun (candovarate,
surovarate)—all of these being occasions of ill omen in the mind of the
people at large, were unfit for study. Besides this, some occasions which
involved political tension like the death of a king or a prominent person (rayavugghahae) also were deemed unfit
for study. (Thananga, p. 476b; ayar. II, 1, 3, 9: pp. 96-97, Nis. XIX, 8-12). The
considerations behind these were both psychological and political, if one may
be allowed to infer. Psychological in the sense that such times are abnormal
and are associated with excitement and tension-which are not conducive to
concentration in study: Secondly, if people see monks engaged in study at such
a time, they were likely to take it as a sign of indifference towards the
deceased personality, which was likely to arouse their frenzy. These rules,
therefore, reveal knowledge of social psychology coupled with the needs of
monastic life.
Similar was the case
regarding the selection of a proper residence. Apart from the non-acceptance of
notorious places, the reasons for which are based on commonsense, the Jaina
texts hold that too much extensive or too small a residence was not to be
accepted by a monk. An extensive lodging was normally the resort of indifferent
elements in the society like guards, beggars (karpatika) and unmarried males and females (vantha). The very presence of such people was likely to disturb a
monk in his daily routine of study as also his answering the normal calls of
nature for which he would have to go to a distant place which might lead to hinsa. If he suppressed such calls, then
he was likely to fall ill. Then at night, if he tried to find out his own place
or his requisites and in doing so happened to touch the bodies of other persons
mentioned above, these were likely to take him to be an eunuch or a thief or a
person having an appointment with his beloved. This would definitely lead to
trouble. Moreover, if the monk happened to be healthy, he was likely to be
kidnapped by women and eunuchs, in which case it was not possible for him to
get help. (Oha. N. 21724). On the
other hand, too small a residence left meager space for moving about which was
likely to lead to quarrel by others and breaking up of requisites. Such rules,
therefore, display the deep foresight in judging the possibilities, in knowing
the nature of the bad elements in the society and last but not the least the
utmost precaution in maintaining the puritanical rigor of monastic life.
Besides the purely ethical basis of the structure of
Jaina monastic rules, other considerations were also there. For instance, take
the normal rule of not initiating a boy under eight. This is found in the Thanangasutta (p. 164b). However, by the
time of Nisihacunni we find that six
types of children could be initiated.
uvsante vi mhakule nranteevagge vi sanrri
sejjatre
ajja karanrjate anrunrata balpvvajja
-
niseehchunrri
For our discussion here, two categories are worth notice.
First is that of 'karanajata'. In
explanation of this, the commentary says:
'karanrjate ti kul-ganr-sanghkajje annmmi va
gcchadite kajje 'sachivo' mantee so bhanrejja - "aham vo tujjham imam kajjam karemi, jaee me imam balam
alakkhanram
moolnrkkhatiyam, va pvvaveh," tahe
pavvavejjnra.
-
(tritya vibhag, pri. 236)
Here is, therefore, a clear instance of the practical
foresight of the Jaina church, so characteristic of its later stage of
development. If, therefore, the church or the Gana or the sampha was
likely to be benefited by such an initiation, then, there was found to be no
harm in allowing entry to such a child, which normally could not be permitted.
Similar was the case regarding an eunuch who was not normally to be initiated.
But if he were to be in the good books of a king or was one who was an expert
physician or able to manage the well-being of the gaccha in cases of royal disfavor, then such an eunuch could be
allowed entry to the fold. (Brhatkalpa
bhasya V, 517374.) In these cases it is fairly apparent that the church
took quite a practical view of the situation and avoided incurring the
displeasure of the royal power. On the other hand, refusal to initiate a person
who has been inimical to the king (rayavagari)
or one who is a dasa (Nisihacunni, Vol.
III, pp. 261-64) shows in the case of the former, avoidance of royal trouble
and the disengagement from political affairs, and in the case of the latter the
failure of the church to violate the bonds of slavery current in the society.
On the other hand, the
liberal humanitarian and reasonable attitude of the church in the formulation
of rules and their exceptions is evidenced in the case of the child of a raped
nun. Such a nun was kept in the monastery was well looked after, was fed by
co-nuns and when well advanced in pregnancy was handed over to a devoted
layman. All her duties as a nun were suspended till her child sucked her; even
her child could be initiated. The most remarkable aspect was that those who
teased or condemned her were compelled to undergo expiatory punishment. (Brh. kalp. Bha., 4129-46). For this
liberalism and sense of realism, the masters of the organization deserve
praise.
Meaning! of Transgressions and Exceptions
From the discussion of
the structure of monastic rules, their basic ethics, the principles underlying
their formulations and the deviations from these, it will be clear that the
rules of monastic conduct of the Jainas were formulated as a blending of
monastic purity as a major part with the reading of and adjustment with social
etiquette and traditions. Thus though in a major part, they were quite rigid,
yet they could be elastic as well.
The question arises as
to how the exceptions are to be interpreted and under what circumstances are
they to be resorted to? Simultaneously we have to make clear the difference
between a transgression (aiyara) and
the practice of exception (apavaya). It
will be readily accepted that it would be incorrect to resort to 'apavaya.'
often, as also not to resort to it under any circumstances. Extremes in both
are wrong. The real danger lies here. A lax monk would like to resort to
exceptions often, whereas a die-hard puritan would go to the extent of
accepting death rather than resort to exceptions. What is needed is the
relative evaluation of the circumstances under which one happens to be, and the
clear-cut understanding of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the exceptions
to a general rule.
Upadhyaya Amara
Muni in his Hindi preface to Nisihasutta has dealt with this problem in a
masterly ways. The gist of it being relevant to our problem may be summarized
for the proper understanding of the rules of Jaina -monastic jurisprudence.
First and the foremost point is that a person not well-
versed in monastic conduct (agiyattha) has
no right to decide whether a particular behavior or reaction to circumstances
can be adopted as an exception or 'apavada'.
The decision as to the judging of an exception to a rule and the
consequences related to it were the sole responsibility of a senior who was
well-versed and experienced (giyattha.). This
practice thus checked the tendency of a lax monk to resort to exceptions for
his own convenience.
Secondly, even in the
case of well-behaved monks, resort to exceptions was favored in abnormal
circumstances, for if otherwise he died, no question remained about
self-control.
savvtth sanjmam, sanjmao appanrmev rakkhija
muchei eivayao, punro visohee na yavirei -46
sanjmheum deho dharijjei so kyo u tadbhave
sanjam phainimitam, dehparipalanra ittha -47
-ohnrijjuti
These verses clearly
tell us that a person should Pursue Self-control by all means. If it, however,
means death for him in abnormal circumstances, then one should protect oneself,
even if it means a deviation from self-control. A monk who protects his life by
resorting to exceptions is not guilty of transgression, if his mind is pure.
Moreover, by remaining alive he can undergo expiatory punishment for such a
transgression. For the proper following of self-control, the protection of the
body is essential.
The author referred to
above puts the whole argument in a nutshell when he says—
mool men jain prampara ko bahye drishyman
vidhi-vidhano ka utna agrh hai. sadhak na keval utsarg ke liye hai. veh donon
ke liye hai, aur na keval upvad ke liye hai.
This, then, is the
spirit of Jaina monarchism and the rules of discipline that guide it.
Therefore, if in the following of such rules, one has to resort to exceptions,
One should do it out of extreme necessity of protecting the body, which becomes
the vehicle in attaining the ideal of self-control. Thus for the proper
carrying out of self-control one should resort to exceptions. The resort to
exceptions for any other reason than that of self-control amounts to deliberate
transgression. Therefore the circumstances under which a person resorts to
exception and the aim for which it is done are the main pillars over which the
edifice of monastic jurisprudence has been erected by the Jaina church.
I. Introduction.
II. The Custodians of
Monastic Discipline: The Hierarchy.
III. The Problems of
Seniority and Succession.
IV. The Units or Church
Groups.
Introduction
We have so far surveyed
the preliminary field for the study of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. We have
seen the nature of the canon, the controversy about it, the texts essential for
the study of the topic in hand, the spirit which underlies the formulation of
rules of monastic conduct and -the nature and meaning of transgressions and
exceptions.
We now get into the core
of the subject and see the nature of the principle prayascittas, the custodians and judges of monastic conduct or the
hierarchy, and the rules regarding their qualifications.
II
The
Custodians of Monastic Discipline: The Hierarchy
While dealing with the
nature and meaning of transgression and exception, it was made clear that only
a person who was a giyattha
(gitartha) or well-versed in monastic discipline could be taken to be the best
judge in deciding whether a particular transgression was committed or
otherwise.
Naturally the question
arises here as to who the person or persons were, who were so authorized by
virtue of their disciplined mode of life and seniority to act as custodians and
judges of the rules of monastic jurisprudence. What were the essential
qualifications for such persons? What were the rules about seniority? To what
factors was it related? The answers to all these questions will unfold the
nature of the Jaina church hierarchy, the various units and their
inter-relation.
Candidates fit for monastic life:
Let us begin at the
beginning and see which persons were fit for entry to the rigors and discipline
of monk life. The Thanangasutta ( p. 146b) gives a list of twenty persons who
were not allowed to enter the order. The list as it stands is based on
commonsense as also considerations, which avoided the entanglement of the
church into non-monastic affairs. For instance, rules which barred the entry of
persons such as eunuchs, very old persons, children under eight, the sick,
robbers, madmen, pregnant women etc., are obviously based on practical
commonsense as these persons are likely to be a nuisance to the smooth working
of monastic discipline. On the other hand, a person who was the declared enemy
of a king (rayavagari), a slave (dasa), a person in debt (anatta), an attendant (obaddha), a kidnapped person (sehanipphediya) and a servant, were
disallowed to enter monk-life for the obvious reason that their entry was bound
to be embarrassing in political, social and other fields which naturally fell
beyond the ambit of monarchism. It may be noted that this list of persons not
fit for entry to monkshood or nun-hood is identical for the Svetambaras and the Digambaras. (Jain, C. R., Sannyasa
Dharma, pp. 24-25.)
The Hierarchy:
A person having entered
monkshood remained as one under probation till he was confirmed ('uvatthaviya' Than. p. 240a). Such a seha,
antes or samanera had to prove himself worthy of monk-life and had to show
implicit obedience to his senior. The period of probation depended on his
behavior and his senior's opinion regarding it. This period lasted either for
six or four months or even for one week.
The Thananga refers to
four categories of antevasins based
on their initiation and confirmation by one and the same or other acarya.
The next to be mentioned is the Thera. He was elder Let us begin at the beginning and see what
persons to others both in age as well as in standing as a monk. This seniority
of standing as a monk was expressed by the term 'paryaya'. Another expression denoting the senior monk was 'rainiya'. The commentator to the
Thanangasutta explains the term 'rainiya'
as ratnanee bhavto gyanadeeni tai
vyvahrati iti ratnik pryajyeshth iti' (p. 240a). Thus seniority seems to
have depended mostly on the scholarship and self-control or the proper
following of discipline. From this point of view, a monk of less standing was
designated as 'omarainiya', whereas
one with a greater standing or seniority was termed 'aharainiya'.
That there was a
clear-cut evaluation of and differentiation between age and standing is further
corroborated by the terms 'jai Thera'
and 'pariyaya there', the former
denoting a monk of the age of sixty and the latter a monk of twenty years'
standing in monk-hood. Besides these
two important categories, other Theras
are also referred to. These include the kula-thera,
Gana-Thera, samgha-thera and the
saya-thera. The first three were those who were in charge of the management
of either a kula or a Gana or a samgha,
while the suya-thera was one who was
well versed in the texts like the Samavayangasutta,
etc. (Than., p. 516a).
These texts by
themselves are silent about the qualifications and differentiation between
these categories of a Thera. However,
the commentaries explain the various categories and that too briefly. As the
case stands, therefore, we are not in a position to state the inter-relation
between these various types of Theras
nor are we certain about the nature of duties assigned to them. Whatever they
might have been, the juniors were asked to show complete regard to the Theras. (Samavayanga, p. 59ab).
The next officer was the
uvajhaya. His chief duty was to give
proper reading of the sutra to the junior monks. (Upetyadheeyte smadityupadhya Than.,
p. 140a). It is evident that such a person was expected to be well- versed in
sacred texts. However, no details regarding him, his qualifications and his
exact relative position in the hierarchy are to be found in older texts like
the Ayaranga and the Suyagadanga.
The ayariya-uvajjhaya is again a problematic designation and it is not
clear whether it denoted two officers or one. However on the basis of the five
privileges (aisesa) he enjoyed by
virtue of his qualifications and position, he seems to have been an important
officer in the church hierarchy. The very nature of these privileges was such
that he seems to have been a man of perfect self-control and a master of
monastic discipline. For instance, he was allowed to stay outside the monastery
or to live alone in it for a night or two; he might or might not wait upon
somebody; he could clean and wipe his feet in the monastery and lastly he could
ease nature in the monastery (Than., p. 329ab).
That these things were not allowed to any other junior officer speaks for the
high confidence placed in the self-control and integrity of the person of the ayariya- uvajjhaya.
The next important
officer of the church was the ayariya. The
qualifications expected of him were of academic and moral nature. For example,
he was to be a person endowed with jnana-
acara, darsana-acara, caritra acara, tapa-acara and viryo-acara; besides equanimity of mind, character and intellect.
As such he stood at the head of a group of monks and all those under him were
expected to show him utmost regard. Besides this, he enjoyed the same
privileges as the ayariya-uvajjhaya. Front
the details given in the Thanangasutta (PP.
239b, 240a) it seems that besides controlling and guiding a group of juniors
under him, the acarya was to initiate
and confirm (pavvayana and uvatthavana) a candidate.
The gani is yet another officer. He was a person who was endowed with
the eight-fold ganisampad. These make
him ideal in conduct, scholarship, physique, intellect, instructions, debate,
organization and monastic discipline. The sangrohasampad
expects him to be a person with all the knowledge pertaining to ideal
residence for younger monks,-rules of begging alms and requisites and the code
of perfect moral conduct and self-control (Than.,
p. 422b). From the qualifications and the nature of duties assigned to him,
the ganin may be equated with the acarya. This is also supported by the
commentary to the Thanangasutta.
Along with all these,
there is mentioned yet another officer termed as Ganavacchedaka. The information regarding his qualifications and
duties cannot be had in the Anga texts
at all. The only information that is given is that he was the head of the part
of a Gana or a group of monks (Than., p. 245a).
Further amplification
regarding the qualifications and the duties of these various officers can be
had only when we come to the Cheyasuttas.
In these texts, all these— and some more, — officers of the church are
mentioned. For instance, the Vavahara (X,
14), gives three categories of a Thera.
First, the jai Thera: He was so
called because he was sixty years old. The 'pariyaya
Thera' was one who had at least twenty years' standing as a monk. The 'suya Thera' was well versed in the Thananga and the Samavayanga suttas. Besides this, the same text gives details of
the privileges, which were enjoyed by the Thera.
For instance, very old monks or jai
Theras were allowed to take rest while others begged alms for them. Similar
concessions regarding the deposition of requisites were also allowed to them in
case they were unable to carry these. (Vav.
VIII, 5).
In the case of the uvajjhaya, besides the knowledge of the
scriptures, monastic etiquette and practice of self-control, the person had to
be such as had at least three years' standing (tivasapariyaya). However, a mere three years' standing was deemed
of no avail if the person was not well versed in ayarapakappa or the code of monastic conduct. Moreover, he was to
be a person who was smart and organizational enough to enroll new members to
the fold. His duties were mainly academic, though he had to look after the nuns
as well. (Vav. III, 3, 4,12).
The ayariya-uvajjhaya
had to be endowed with at least five years' standing along with the
knowledge of the suyak khandha and
dasa-kappa Vavahara i.e. the three texts of the Cheyasuttas.
As the qualifications
and the length of paryaya stand, this
officer seems to have been senior to the uvajjhaya.
With all these details, however, the exact nature of the duties of this
officer are not clearly set forth anywhere. As I have suggested in my 'History
of Jaina Monarchism from Inscriptions and Literature' (p. 220), this officer might be acting in a dual capacity, both as an uvajjhaya
and an ayariya when need arose due to the absence of any one of these.
Eight years' standing
and the knowledge of Thananga and Sasnavayanga were required of a person to designate him as a Ganavaccheiya, (Vav. III, 7). However,
no clear statement about his duties is available.
The qualifications
required of an ayariya were identical
with those in the case of the ayariya
uvejjhaya given above. Besides this, a
high standard of moral conduct
was expected of him (Vav. III, 7).
The acarya seemed to act as the supreme head of a group of monks. For
the juniors had to take permission
from him for all the important items of daily routine. Besides that he was one
of the supervisors of the nuns as well. (Vav.
III, 12).
The cheyasuttas refer to other officers like vayaga, (Kappa. IV, 5-6) and pavatti (Kappa. IV, 15) whereas the Ohanijutti mentions 'vasaha' (V, 125). The 'vacaka'
probably gave reading of texts to the junior monks. The 'pravartin' probably looked after the administrative routine of a group of monks, whereas the vrsabha, on
the basis of the commentary, seemed to be a
person looking after the ill and waiting upon them. Save in the case of vacaka, who was to be a person of manners, who avoided excitement and
atoned for every transgression, the qualifications of others are not to be
found.
Besides those mentioned
so far, the Brhathalpabhasya refers to abbiseka' and 'spardhakapati' (IV, 433;
III, 213236) In the case of the former, he was sometimes equated with the Upadhyaya (III, 2405,
2411) and sometimes deemed fit for acarya-hood
as well (IV, 4336). The spardhakapati,
as the designation stands, seems to have acted as the head of a phaddaa or a small sub-group in a gaccha
(laghutaro gacchadega eva: Ova. p. 86). The Ovavaiyasutta tells us that this group was headed by a Ganavacchedaka. Does
it mean, then, that the spardhakapati and
the Ganavacchedaka were
identical?
The foregoing discussion
proves that the officers of the church were persons of moral discipline and
academic and practical scholarship. These qualities were essential for those
who were the custodians of monastic discipline and its proper working among the
subordinates.
The Officers of the Nuns:
The organization of the nuns was done under
their own officers all of whom were subordinate to the officers of the monk
order. The acarya, the Upadhyaya and the pravartin were the protectors (aryikapratijagaraka)
of the orders of nuns. This subordination was so supreme and final that a
monk even of three years' standing could become the Upadhyaya of a nun of thirty years' standing and a monk of five
years' standing could become the Upadhyaya
of the nun with sixty years' standing, as laid down in Vavaharasutta (VII, 15, 16). This echoes faithfully the smashing
rule of the Cullavagga of the Buddhists which lays down that a nun of even a
hundred years' standing should bow down to a monk of recent entry to the order!
The final blow comes from the Digambaras
who hold that a woman, even when she becomes a nun, is not eligible for
liberation unless reborn as a man.
(Pravacanasara, III, 7).
This avowed inferiority
is reflected even in the administration and control of the order of nuns. For
the rule held that the nuns were not
to live at any time without the association of either an acarya or an Upadhyaya or
a pravartin. The last of these stood
at the lowest stage, subordinate both to the acarya and the Upadhyaya.
(Vav. III, 12).
The hierarchical list
amongst the nuns corresponded to that amongst the monks. Just as there, were
officers like the acarya, ganin,
pravartin, Ganavacchedaka, abbiseka and Thera,
the order of nuns had ganini,
pravartin, Ganavacchedini, abhiseka and theri.
The ganini was the highest officer in the cadre and headed the Gana or the group or unit of nuns. She
practically did the duties, which an acarya
did for his group. She was expected to be a person of high moral standard,
equanimous, energetic and fond of study, able to execute stern discipline and
having organizational drive (Gacchayara,
127-28). No details regarding her paryaya
or academic standard are available.
The next in the cadre
was the pravartin often referred to
in the Cheyasuttas. The exact
position of her in relation to other officers, is a matter of uncertainty,
However, a nun aspiring for this office was required to have a full knowledge
of the 'ayarapakappa' as also
organizational tact and command. In spite of this, she was never allowed to
stay alone (shiv. V, 1, 2, 9, 10). With the help of an acarya, whose duty it was to let her know the details about
transgressions which nuns were not to commit, the pravartin was the officer who was responsible for the moral
discipline of nuns under her care.
The Ganavacchedin~ was one who controlled a part of a Gana as her male counterpart the Ganavacchedaka did. No details regarding
her academic qualifications or administrative duties can be had.
Similar is the case of
the ahisega. The Brhatkalpabhasya (III, 2410, comm.) sometimes identifies her with
the ganini, whereas sometimes she is
taken to be fit to occupy the office of the pravartin
(IV, 4339, comm.).
The theri, though not clearly evaluated, possibly had the same
qualifications as the Thera. Since
these designations follow closely the pattern of the monk-order, it would not
be wrong to presume that the same categories like the jai-theri, pariyaya-theri; so on and so forth, were possibly
current.
The mahattariya mentioned in the Gacchayara
(V, 118) was possibly a nun who was respected due to her learning and moral
integrity. She is not mentioned in any of the earlier texts. As for her duties,
we have no information.
The khuddiya possibly denoted the nun confirmed. She is explained as 'bala' in the Brhatkalpa-bhasya (IV, 4339).
Digambaras Hierarchy:
The Digambaras texts like Mulacara,
Pravacanasara, and others do not differ much in giving the list of the
officers of the church hierarchy. They refer to sahu, Thera, uvajjhaya, airiya, Ganahara, suri and pavatta (Pry. III, 47-52; Mull 7, 10; 4, 195, etc.). The term indicative of a senior
monk is referred to in the Anagaradharmamrita
(8, 50) and is the same as 'ratnika'.
However, in none of the
texts referred to above further details regarding the academic qualifications
and the nature of duties of these officers can be had. It is more than likely
that the duties and nature of qualifications of these various officers was
probably the same for the Digambaras
and Svetambaras texts.
III
The
Problems of Seniority and Succession
Thus the main
qualifications of the officers of the Jaina church hierarchy consisted of moral
integrity and the knowledge and proper practice of the rules of monastic
conduct.
It would be wrong, however, to suppose that the
organizers of the church hierarchy were indifferent to other considerations.
This is evidenced by the several rules and regulations that guided the
considerations of seniority and succession. These considerations were essentially
important for the proper working of the monastic order as also to keep up the
morale of the juniors and the seniors. For if nepotism, and favoritism succeed
in an ill, or had entered in house holding again. But in order to have no
occasion for favoritism by which there was a chance of unfit persons stepping
into office, the rest of the monks were given supreme powers to ask the newly
appointed successor to quit office if they thought that he was unfit for the
post. If he relinquished the office, well and good; then he was not to undergo
any punishment.... But, if in spite of the request of the rest of the monks, he
persisted to hold on, then that person had to undergo cut in seniority or
isolation. Thus it may be said that the working of the Church was based on
purely democratic lines even in the modern sense of the term."
Similar rules guided the
seniority and succession in the order of nuns. As in the case of monks, the
nuns also had a right to ask the unfit nominee of a pravartin to withdraw from office (Vav. V, 13-14). The appointment to office after re-learning the
texts, expulsion and debarring due to offenses done while holding office and
holding allegiance to the nun of senior standing by the disciples of one of
less standing,— all these rules tally ad
verbatim with those in force for the monks.
IV
The
Units or Church Groups
The various officers and
juniors bound by these rules of academic and moral qualifications and the laws
of seniority and succession, resolved themselves in different groups which
conformed generally to the rules of monastic jurisprudence as a whole but were
guided by their own rules of internal working.
These
groups facilitated the supervision of the systematic working of monastic
discipline as also the development of solidarity and the furtherance of the
proper study of texts by a group.
To start with, these
groups served the purpose very well. But later on with an enormous growth in
the Gacchas, it seems to have
resulted in differentiation of
Monastic practices as also
a sort of isolationism, which are not good for the homogeneity of any church.
Be that as it may, the
early texts of the canoes refer to various units or formations of monks under a
senior.
The first and the
foremost was the Gana which is said
to have consisted of three kulas (Bhag.
coma., p. 382b). Some texts do not give this specific number but say that a
Gana is a group of kulas. On the other hand, the Brhatkalpa says that a Gana was formed of several sambhogas (IV, 18-20). The Digambaras text Miblacara explains the Gana
as a group of three monks (traipqlrusiko
Ganah, Mill. 10, 92; comm. p. 193).
Whatever it may be, the
formation of a Gana under a senior
officer took place for the express purpose of gaining higher knowledge or to
practice a more rigorous mode of discipline, etc. Thus considerations of purely
academic and monastic discipline seem to have led to the formation of a Gana (Than., p. 381a).
Nobody was allowed to
change his Gana often. This was taken
to be a major fault. However, the change of Gana
after some period was allowed for several reasons For instance, for the
obtainment of alms jointly With the members of the other Gana, and for the sake of making an advanced study of a particular
text known to those who belonged to another Gana,
a monk or an officer was allowed to change his Gana with the express permission of his senior and after laying
down office in the present Gana. (Sm,v.
39ab, 40b; Kalp. IV, 18-24, V, 5).
None was allowed to
change the Gana for avoiding
atonement for a fault. Similarly a person could be allowed entry into the Gana after his dismissal for a grave
offense, only if the other members expressed their confidence in him. So also
the change over from a Gana of
greater standing to that of a less standing was prohibited (N:s. 16. 15).
The next group was designated as the kula, which however has not been satisfactorily explained in any
text. However, it has already been seen that the kulas formed the Gana (Aup.,
com -. 81). The Bhagavai commentary
(p. 382b) explains it as 'egayariyassa
santai' (also Mull I, p. 143), or
the disciples of a particular acarya. This,
however, fails to explain the kula and
the rules of its formation and working. It is likely that a kula was headed by a junior officer and
a group of such hulas and their heads
were responsible to the acarya.
The sambhoga is yet another
formation referred to in early texts. This has been variously explained as 'a
group taking food together' (Utter. comm.
p. 333a), or as a group having a common samacari
and taking food together' (Patga., p.
1062) or as "a group of monks begging alms in one district only"
(Jacobi, See, XIV, P. 167, In. 1). The unit is also referred to in the
inscriptions from Mathura.
The exact purpose for
the formation of the sambhoga is not
explicit though it is said that it facilitated exchange of requisites, common
study of texts, exchange of food, attending the ill, etc. (Smv. 21b). It is
doubtful whether it was a unit in the real sense of the term.
The most important unit
is the gaccha, which is even now
current in Jaina church. It is remarkable to note that it does not occur in the
early texts of the Svetambaras canon
but comes into constant reference in the Nijjuttis.
As a matter of fact an entire text among the Painnayas, the Gacchayarapainnaya,
deals with the gaccha.
There is no unanimity
regarding the information as given about the gaccha. For instance, the Ovavaiya
(p. 86) explains the gaccha so as
to mean the following of one acarya. The
Chedasutras do not mention the gaccha, whereas the Mulacara commentary makes it a group of seven monks (saptapurusiko: pt. I, p.133). In
several texts and commentaries, it is equated with the Gana. The information as given in the Marinara makes it a unit of bigger strength than the gang, as the latter required only five
people for its formation. On the whole it is not clear what relation gacchos and Gana had between them. Later on, however, the Gana went out of vogue, giving place to or identifying itself with
the gaccha, which arose in a fairly
large number. (DEO, op. cit., pp.
519ff).
The Ohanijjutti (116-117) enjoins every monk to be a member of some gaccha. Later inscriptions show that
there was an enormous increase in the number of the Gacchas, which were formed on regional, personal and incidental basis
as also on the strength of some monastic practice. However, since the Gana was equated with the gaccha in later days, it would not be
incorrect to assume that the rules and regulations pertaining to discipline
were the same.
There are other minor units,
which find mention in the Ovavaiyasutta. For
instance, it refers to 'gamma' and
the commentator explains it to be a part of a gaccha controlled by the Upadhyaya
(p. 86). No other information is available regarding this unit.
Similar is the ease of
yet another unit designated as ‘phaddaga’,
which was a small part of a gaccha and
was in charge of the Ganavacchedaka (Ova.
p. 86). This involves contradictions as it makes the Ganavacchedaka subordinate to the Upadhyaya whereas the Chedasutras
lay down identical qualifications for the Ganavacchedaka and the acarya,
the latter being definitely senior to the Upadhyaya. On the basis of this discrepancy, Schubring (Die
Lehre der Jainas, article 140) doubts whether these were technical
divisions at all.
Schubring’s remarks seem
to hold good even in the case of the mandali
(Ogha. N. 522, 547, 561). This implied the formation of a group of monks
for the purpose of waiting upon the ill or for helping the new young entrant to
the order etc. The Thera or the
elderly monk who headed such a group was called the mandali- Thera.
The Saka or sakha was not a
unit in the strict sense of the term. JACOB' points out that "it is not
quite clear what is meant by Gana, kula and
sakha. Gala designates the school
which is derived from one teacher; kula, the
succession of teachers in one line; sakhathe
lines which branch off from each teacher". (SBE, XXII, p. 288, In. 2).
The details so far
given, though not exhaustive, are sufficient to give an idea about the
custodians of monastic conduct, the qualifications required for various
positions in the church hierarchy, the rules and regulations which were
enjoined upon them and the various groups which formed the monk-order as a
whole.
Having known the
inter-relation between the various officers and the groups they headed, let us
now pass on to the actual enactment of the rules of monastic conduct and the
application or enforcement thereof by those who were qualified and authorized
to do so.
I. Introduction.
II.The Ten Prayascittas.
III. Some details about
these.
IV. Implementation of
the Punishment.
V. Laws of Jurisprudence
for Nuns.
VI. Salient Features.
VII. Comparison with
Buddhist Jurisprudence.
VIII. Epilogue.
1
Introduction
Having seen the
qualifications that led to the formation of the hierarchy, let us now go into
the core of the subject and see the details regarding the main prayascittas and the method or procedure
of dealing with a transgressor (vavahara).
II
The
Ten Prayascittas
The texts of the Svetambaras canon give the following ten
prayascittas. (Than.,p. 355b; Bhag., pp. 920bff; Ova. p. 78; etc. etc.).
1. Aloynra (alochana)- nivedana tllakshanran shudhim yadrhtyaticharjatam
tada lochanaaee' The reporting of the transgression to the guru. Such a
confession led to the mental purity of the transgressor as also gave him mental
courage of confession.
2. Padikkamanr (pratikarmanr)- mithyadushkritam- Condemnation of a
transgression committed. (aiyara)
3. Tadubhya - alochanamithyadushkrite - Confession and condemnation.
4. Viveg (vivek)-- ashudhbhktadityag
- giving up of transgressions like impure food etc.
5. Viyusag (viyutsarg) -
kayotsarga:— practicing kayotsarga.
6. Tao (tapas) - nirvikritikadi - penance in the form of fasting or
taking a particular kind of food.
7. Chhey ( chhed) - prvrjyapyary hasveekaranram — the shortening of seniority or insubordination.
8. Mool - mhavrtaropanram - re-consecration.
9. Anrvatthappa (anvsthapya)
krittapaso vrtaropanram — temporary expulsion.
10. Parinchya (paranchik) -
lingadibhedam - expulsion.
The last one has been explained by the Ovavaiya commentary as tapovisheshenraivati charpargamanam (p.
79), i.e., the overcoming of transgression by means of the practicing of a peculiar
kind of penance.
This list of the ten prayascittas
is the same in practically all the Svetambaras
canonical texts.
The list as given in the Digambaras text Mulacara differs
a bit from that cited above. For instance, the first eight prayascittas are the same, but the ninth is substituted by 'parihara' and the tenth by 'saddhana'. (Mul. 5, 165).
The former has been divided by the commentator as 'Ganapratibaddha' and 'apratibaddha', and explained as -being
the transgressions committed by a monk while leading the corporate life in a Gana, or the transgressions Committed by
him when he was alone in a region foreign to him, respectively. The tenth prayascittas 'saddhana' has been
explained to mean the determination on the part of the transgressor to give up
transgressions and his reaffirmation of faith in the true religion.
III
Some
details about these
Jaina monastic life laid
the utmost emphasis on mental -purity, which rested on self-control and the
courage to admit one's mistake. This being the case, the first two of the ten,
i.e. aloyana and padikkamana formed the most important items of daily routine of the
monks of all ranks.
Whatever be the reasons
for the mental, vocal or physical transgressions committed by a monk, he had to
confess and condemn them before his senior. Whether a transgression was
committed deliberately or otherwise, out of Pride or carelessness or illness or
fear or hatred or bad company of heretics, every member of the order had to
report it to the guru.
Every precaution was
taken that this reporting and condemnation was not formal or superficial. For
instance, the Thanangassutta (484a)
lays down that a monk should not so report his transgression as to create pity
or a feeling of sympathy in the mind of the senior that would tend to lessen
the harshness of the prayascittas inflicted
on him. So also monks were not to approach such a senior as was well known for his leniency, instead of
one's own senior. Reporting only the major transgressions, or those seen by
somebody, or only the minor faults, or in such a way that the senior fails to
hear it properly, or doing so in a very noisy way, or confessing the same fault
before different acarya, or
confessing before a person who is not competent in monastic discipline and its
rules, or doing so before a guru who had done the same type of
transgression—all these were not allowed. Not only that, such methods were
taken to be transgressions by themselves. It will be clear from these details
that in the formulation of confession no scope was left for the transgressor
either to avoid the responsibility of his faults or the proper expression of
these. Another point worth notice is that the senior himself must be a person
of ideal integrity and good moral conduct who would not try to lessen the facts
of the actual transgression committed. At the most, he was allowed to permit
the transgressor to undergo punishment in suitable parts. Moreover, he did not
expose before others the nature of transgression committed by a monk in order
to save his becoming the target of criticism and humiliation by the co-monks.
Here is, therefore, the example of the foresight on the part of the framers of
monastic laws, in the working of human mind.
The next prayascittas,
the 'pratikramana' or the
condemnation of transgression also formed an item of daily routine. The Bhagavati sutta and the Mulacara are
unanimous in stating that this condemnation of transgression became a
compulsory item of daily monastic routine during the tenure of the first and
the last Tirthankara whereas it was
not so during the lifetime of the rest of the Tirthankara. In the lifetime of the latter, condemnation was done
only when and if a transgression was committed. Whatever it is, the
condemnation forming a compulsory item of daily routine must have led to mental
purity. This is also emphasized by the rule that alocana and pratikramana must
be done with childlike simplicity without keeping back anything in the mind. (Mill., 2, 56-58) .
The pratikramana was either daily (daivasika),
nightly (ratrika), regarding
movement (airyapathika), fortnightly (paksika), four-monthly (caturmasika) or yearly (samvatsarika). Thus the insistence on
confession and condemnation of transgression daily and on several occasions
throughout the year was intended to contribute to mental discipline so
essential to monastic life.
Along with mental
control, control over the body was also essential. For that, kayotsarga was practiced. Along with alocana and pratikramana, this also formed part of daily routine of a monk. Not
only was this to be done daily and nightly but even at the time of taking food
or drink, after return from the begging round, in tour, after easing nature, at
study, so on and so forth. A definite table of the duration of the practice of kayotsarga at these various items was
laid down based on the uccavasas. (Mul. 7,
150-86). The act consisted in concentrating in meditation of an auspicious
nature without any movement of the body.
A number of rules
pertaining to the performance of kayotsarga
are found. Standing with movement of the body or with a blank mind or with
support of something or with movement of eyes or eyebrows or with change in
calm facial expression was not allowed. Thus the practice of kayotsarga tended to lead to mental
concentration and control over physical movements.
Another important prayascittas consisted of 'tapes'. Penance or bodily mortification
was either 'external' or 'internal'. The external penance consisted chiefly of
facing or the restrictions on eating or begging etc., which led to indifference
to bodily needs. The internal penance gave stress mostly on mental purity. All
the ten prayascittas cited above are
grouped under internal penance, the other items of which comprised modesty,
waiting upon others, study, meditation and non-attachment to the body (Than p. 364b; Titter. 28, 34; 30, 8).
The texts of the Anga do not furnish us with the details
about the other prayascittas and
their implementation. The only information we get pertains to anavasthapya and parancika, the last two in the list. However, the information so
given is purely theoretical and fails to satisfy the reader as to the actual
process of bringing it into effect.
The Thanangasutta (p. 162b) tells us that anavasthapya was prescribed on three occasions. If a monk steals
something from his own co-religionist, or if he does this in the case of those
who do not belong to his creed, or if he slaps somebody, then, in these three
cases he was to be punished with anavasthapya.
The last of the prayascittas was divided into three
categories. The duttha paranciya was
said to have been committed when a monk showed disrespect to the acarya or the Ganadhara or the Agama; or
developed intimacy with a nun or a queen; or murdered a king. If a monk often
violated the rules regarding food and drink due to carelessness, then it was
designated as 'pamatta paranciya'. A
monk with Homo- sexual tendencies was charged with the third type of paranciya. (Annamannam karemane).
It is only when we come
to the Chedasutras, that we get abundant
information about these various prayascittas
and the mode of implementing them. However, these details pertain mostly to
the last four or major prayascittas. [Also,
Angd., VII, 54-57 and comm.].
As regards the 'cheda',
the Jiyakappa (80-82) tells us
that the minimum cut enforced under this punishment was five days. This is also
corroborated by the commentary to the Ovavaiyasutta,
which explains it as dinpanchkadina karmenr pryaychhedanam
(P. 78). The Chedasutras often refer
to 'santara elder' which pertains to
the scale of the gradual increase in the cut in paryaya if another transgression is committed while undergoing
punishment for a previous fault. Another and most remarkable feature is that
the period of cut in paryaya increased
the more, the higher the status of the person in the hierarchy. Thus whereas in
the case of a monk the minimum cut was five days, in the case of an Upadhyaya it was ten and for an acarya it was fifteen days. It was in
the fitness of things that it was so resolved; for if those who knew the laws
and were supposed to be the custodians of it, broke the rules of monastic
conduct, then no ideal would have been left before the subordinates.
Another term connected
with monastic jurisprudence is
'parihara'. This occurs for the first time in the Thananga (p. 167b) and Bhagavati
Suttas (348b, 893b, 909a, A.), and has been amplified in the Cheyasuttas. The parihara-visuddhi or the purification of the transgressor by means
of penance in isolation, cut off from other members of the group, lasted for
one, four or six months.
This parihara punishment is qualified either
as 'ugghaiya' or 'unugghaiya' and has often been referred to in the texts of the Chedasutras. Schubring opines that these
expressions possibly denote the period in which the punishment is softened in
between the different periods of expiation or the period between the declaring
of the punishment and its execution (Vavahara
and Nisiha -Sutta: Leipzig, 1918, pp. 9-10).
The undergoing of 'parihara' involved the practice of different
kinds of fasting for a maximum period of six months. The fasts were so arranged
as to suit the different seasons. For instance, in summer, fasting from the 4th
to the 8th meal was prescribed, whereas in the rainy season it varied between
the 8th and the 12th meal and in winter it ranged between the sixth and the
tenth meal. (Than. pp. 168ab). In a
group of monks, the fasting was undertaken alternatively by smaller groups and
the one left over acted as the head to supervise.
As regards the 'anavasthapya', the Chedasutras lay down that when the complete 'paryaya' or standing in monk-hood
was wiped out, the person concerned was given some time during which it was his
duty to prove himself worthy of re-entry to the order again. Only when he
succeeded in qualifying himself for monk-hood,
he was re-consecrated.
A little digression is
necessary here to explain some terms connected with monastic jurisprudence
besides the ten prayascittas as
detailed above. For instance, we have seen that 'paranciya' involved the expulsion of a monk from the order. This
expulsion has to be differentiated from 'sammukkasana'
and '. Nijjuhana’. Whereas 'parancika' involved the expulsion of
the transgressor due to some fault committed by him, 'sammukkasana' meant the compulsory abdication of a person in
office who no longer enjoyed the confidence of his colleagues and followers. As
against this, the 'nijjuhana' meant
the deliberate omission of a particular
monk from a Gana or group of monks.
Having noted the ten
main prayascittas, we now pass on to
another set of these so often mentioned in the Bhasas and CurNis. These
are found elaborated in the Jiyakappa and
its bhasya. This text makes a
statement, which says that the last two of the ten prayascittas went out of vogue during the period after Bhadrabahu,
who was well versed in the fourteen poorvas.
This statement is corroborated by the contents of the other Chedasutras, which deal mostly with 'parihara'. The Bhasas seem to introduce a set of new prayascittas termed as caturlaghu,
caturguru and some others based mainly on short or long-term fasts as
punishment for transgressions.
The Jiyakappa sets
forth a very complicated system of such fasts of particular nature set in a
peculiar structure of different duration. The whole of the 'vyavahara' is divided into three categories as 'guru' or the excellent mode, the 'lahu' or the medium mode and the lahusa or the minimum one. Each of these
three categories is further divided into 'utkrsta',
'madhyama' and 'jaghanya'. These
are further subdivided each into three kinds such as utkrsta - utkrsta, utkrsta,-madhyama and utkrsta-jaghanya; utkrsta-madhyama, madhyama-madhyama and jaghanya-madhyama; and lastly utkrsta jaghanya, madhyama jaghanya and jaghanya- jaghanya. This can further be
grouped and re-grouped.
The 'guru', 'lahu' and 'lahusa' are further divided into guru, gurutara, ahaguru; lahu, lahutaru,
ahalahu; and lakusa, lahusatara,
ahalahusa. Now this division is fastened to a standard 'masa' of thirty days and also to the fasts of various duration’s.
Thus ultimately we have the following variations:
Guru-masa 1
month
Gurutara-masa 3
-4 months
Ahaguru-masa 5-6
months
Label mama 30
days
Lahutara-masa 25
days
Ahalahu-masa 20
days
Lahusa-masa 15
days
Lahusatara-masa 10
days
Ahalahusa-masa 5
days
This duration is coupled
with fasts.
Guruga
— atthamia fast upto 8th meal
Gurugatara—
dasamaa fast up to 10th meal
ahaguru barasama
fast up to 12th meal
lahu cheetah fast up to 6th meal
lahutara cauttha
fast up to 4th meal
ahalahu ayambila taking only boiled rice mixed with
any other thing
lahusa egasana taking only one meal a day
lahusatara purimaddha half day's fast
ahalahusa nivviya giving up dainties like
ghee, etc. in food.
Thus ultimately the
combination of the period and the nature of the fast, formed the punishment.
For instance, 'guru-guru' was the
practice of the fast up to the 8th meal (asthma)
for a period of one month; 'gurulaghu',
a fast up to the 6th meal for a duration of one month, and 'gurulakusa' would be the practice of 'egasana' for one month. Out of these
flowered out a variety of combinations of short-term prayascittas. These were further adjusted in relation to the
various seasons so as to suit the constitution of the person. Thus, out of
these a number of permutations and combinations could be had. These, however,
seem to have been brought into force during the period of the Bhasas and the curnis as none of these is referred to in texts of the canon
proper.
With these details about
the various types of prayascittas, we
now pass on to the persons who were authorized to pronounce the punishment and
the process and procedure of implementing it.
IV
The
Implementation of the Punishment
The Executors
Normally the monks lived
in-groups under an acarya. Each
individual monk had to confess and report the transgressions he had committed
to his superior who was the judge in this matter.
However, certain
categories were such that only the acarya was deemed fit to decide whether that
particular fault was to be punished with a severer form of punishment. For
instance, it was only the acarya who
was authorized to decide whether a particular transgression was to be met with
by 'cheda' or 'parihara'. Similar was the case with regard to 'parancika'. Here also only the Acarya could pronounce this punishment
upon the transgressor.
The acarya had
full powers regarding this in the case of the order of nuns as well.
The
Procedure
Unlike the texts of the Buddhists, the texts of the
Jainas are silent on the actual procedure of enacting and enforcing the laws of
monastic jurisprudence. There is no reference to the calling up of an assembly
to decide the nature of transgression.
According to the Vavahara
Sutta (X, 2) the 'procedure towards a transgressor' was of five kinds, to
wit, that based on the canon (Agama), or
on tradition (sue), or on law (and), or charge (dharana) or on the convention handed down (Jie). It will at once be realized that these are the five pillars
of jurisprudence even in the non-monastic field. [Also Angd., p. 671].
It has already been seen that the transgressor
himself was to report about his fault to the senior. However, if he did not do
so then some of his co-monks reported it
to the head of the
group. In spite of this report, the officers or the elders were asked to give
the person accused, full scope to prove his innocence. The principle, which
underlay this provision, was to put faith more in the person who has been
accused rather than in one who reports about him. As is well known even today this forms the basic principle of modern law
which agrees with the dictum that saccapainna
vavahara', (Vav. II, 24-25).
Along with this, the circumstances under which a
particular transgression was committed, were also taken into consideration by
the seniors. For instance, the committing of a transgression with the full
knowledge of it was met with a more severe form of punishment than the one,
which was done unintentionally or under unavoidable circumstances. In such
cases, the punishment meted out to the transgressor was comparatively lenient.
If a monk who was practicing austerities due to which he went out of the
service of the elders and happened to commit a transgression of certain rules
of monastic conduct, then in view of the circumstances under which such a fault
was committed, the elders 'proceeded towards him in the lightest way' (ahalahusae nama vavahare, Kelp. V, 53).
The severity or
otherwise of the punishment depended on the nature of the transgression
committed. For instance, 'kula-parancika'
was prescribed in certain cases, which involved the expulsion of the monk
from the kula. Similar expulsion from
Gana and samgha under parancika. Depended
on the severity of the fault (Brh. kalp.
Bha., Vol. V, 512). For instance, for covering the head with a garment in
the fashion of a turban, a monk was punished with 'masalaghu'; for covering both the shoulders like that of a nun 'catvaro laghavah' was prescribed; for
arranging the ends of a garment on two shoulders for decoration involved the
punishment to the extent of 'catvaro
gurumasah'; and for dressing up oneself like that of a householder involved
''mula' punishment (Brh. kalp. Bha., Vol. I, 152).
Besides this, the
severity of punishment increased with the responsible position, which the
transgressor occupied in the church hierarchy. For instance, monks were
disallowed to stay in a place full of seeds. But if a new entrant to the order
violated this rule then it was punished with 'laugh masa' which was not severe in point of either duration or
fasting, whereas the same fault done by an acarya
made him liable for the same punishment which was severe in duration as
well as in fasting. Thus persons in responsibility were punished the more
because they failed to carry out the proper rule in spite of full knowledge of
it.
The major prayascittas were prescribed and judged
only by the most senior member of the group who was well-versed in monastic
discipline. For instance, 'cheda' was
prescribed only for major faults like being proud of one's penance, or failing
to carry out penance’s properly, or for having no faith in austerities, or for
non-control even with austerities, or for indulging in sexual intercourse and breaking the main requirements of monk-hood. So also 'mula' prayascittas was declared when a monk broke one of the panca-maha-vvayas, or violated the
essentials of monk-hood, or accepted
worldly life or heretical faith or caused impregnation or abortion. These
indeed were serious faults and only the acarya
was competent to deal with such cases of transgression.
Life
under punishment
The persons punished
under the major- prayascittas had to
lead a very rigorous mode of life. The monk punished with anavasthapya had to go on practicing fasts up to the 4th or the 6th
meal for a period of twelve long years. During this period he led a completely
isolated form of life. He was to bow down to everybody but nobody bowed to him.
Nobody exchanged requisites or indulged in discussion with him. As a matter of
fact no verbal communication with him was allowed. (Brh. kalp . Bha. 5135-37; Vav.
II, 28-30).
Further
transgression
If a person undergoing
punishment for a previous transgression committed further transgressions during
this period, then his punishment was further increased either by thirty,
thirty-five, or forty days up to the maximum period of six months. It was
termed as the 'arovana' (Than. pp.
199a-200b).
If a transgression
happened to pertain to two different rules of one item then it was treated and
punished separately in which case the prayascittas
was termed as the 'samjoyana
prayascittas'. The Scare dealt
with all such cases.
The harshness of the punishment and the isolation of the
transgressor from the rest of his colleagues did not mean that he was not
cared. As a matter of fact, the acarya looked
after the transgressor every day during the period of punishment. In cases of
illness, necessary nursing aid was also offered to him. However no junior monk
was allowed to do him service or have contact with him.
Commuting
the punishment
As under cases of
illness, even otherwise the necessities of the situation were taken into
consideration. However, it was only the samgha,
and not anybody else,: who was empowered to do so. Sometimes, it is
remarkable to note, political considerations intervened. If the monk punished
under parancika could please the king
who was antagonistic to the monks, then at his request, the Samgha could lessen the parancika punishment. However, this
lessening was in a fixed proportion. In extreme cases, the Samgha was even empowered to absolve the punished of his punishment
altogether.
V
Laws
of Jurisprudence for Nuns
With the basic
inferiority of the order of nuns referred to above, the other rules of monastic
jurisprudence was the same, both for the monks and the nuns. As a matter of
fact most of the rules of monastic discipline begin with the phrase 'je bhikkhu bhikkhuni va' or 'niggantho nigganthi va'.
As in the case of the
monks, in the case of the nuns also the severity of the punishment increased
with the severity of the transgression and the seniority in the church
hierarchy.
The nuns were subjected
to all the ten prayascittas along
with the set of those like 'caturguru' and
others. Only in the case of 'parihara', the
Vavahara Sutta and the Brhatkalpabhaspa are at variance.
According to the former, 'parihara' could
be prescribed for the transgressor nun, whereas the latter opines against it.
VI
Salient
Features
After all these details,
it would be worthwhile to note down the salient features of Jaina monastic
jurisprudence.
The first and the
foremost characteristic of these monastic rules is the emphasis more on moral
values which formed the backbone of monarchism. However, coupled with that, due
consideration was also shown to age and academic qualifications as well. Thus a
fine blending of moral discipline, standing in monk-hood and academic superiority was given due consideration in
the formation of the hierarchy and the implementation of monastic discipline.
Another feature was that
the law was a great equalizer. For instance, the transgressions of a newly
initiated monk as also of an experienced officer, were punished irrespective of
position. Actually the higher the status of the transgressor in the hierarchy,
the more severe was the nature of punishment inflicted.
Third and the most
notable feature of Jaina monastic jurisprudence was that the accused was given
full scope to explain his position. This was useful in case some
mischief-monger, out of vengeance, made a false accusation against somebody. In
such cases, the elders put more faith in the accused who gave his defense
rather than one who reported about the transgression. After hearing his
defense, the elders gave their verdict.
Yet another feature was
that the transgressor was given due opportunity to improve his behavior. If
during that period, he showed his capacity to carry out the rigors of
monk-life, then he was allowed entry to the order again in case he had
committed a transgression, which wiped out his whole paryaya.
Due consideration was
given to the circumstances under which a transgression was committed. We have
already referred to the 'ahalakusaya
vavahara.' in this connection. Besides, the nature of punishment depended
upon the circumstances of each case of the delinquency. Extenuating and
aggravating circumstances were duly considered in inflicting the punishment.
For instance, touring with nuns of other faiths or with eunuchs, in a woman's
apparel at daytime was punished with 'laghukacheda'
or 'guru-ka-cheda'. Doing so at
night was sentenced with 'mule'. If,
however, a Jaina monk toured with a Jaina nun at day time then he was punished
with 'anavasthappa'; if he did so at
night time then he met with the highest punishment, that of parancika.. Here both the circumstances
under which the breach of rule of monastic conduct occurred as also the
considerations of maintaining the purity of monastic conduct of one's own creed
were critically and scrupulously considered by the framers of monastic laws.
Along with this, the makers of monastic laws were
conscious of the social, religious, economic and geographical peculiarities of
various regions. Hence suitable exceptions in these regions were provided for
by the church. Here was therefore flexibility as also the rigidity of the
spirit of the law. For instance, the monks and nuns are not to touch each
other's body under normal circumstances. This does not mean, however, that this
law is to be followed even under peculiar circumstances of distress. If a nun
or a monk is bitten by a snake and if there is no other way of outside help
then a monk could touch her body by way of treatment (Kalp., VI, 3). Similar is the case in which an ill monk was
allowed to overstay at one place (Nis.
cunni, 404), or in cases of going out to ease nature in rain instead of
suppressing such calls, crossing the river under emergencies, staying at a
proper place even without permission instead of living in a forest full of wild
beasts and intense cold, so on and so forth. In all such cases, these practices
were resorted to only as 'apaddharma' for
which suitable prayascittas were
undergone afterwards. Actually the Nisihacunni
(2684) allows the acceptance of 'adhakarmika'
food under such abnormal conditions as famine, wickedness of a king, great
fear or illness, etc. Not only this, but those who even when knowing the
emergencies that made a monk act abnormally teased or condemned him were
punished by the acarya. Therefore,
the motive behind the transgression and the tendency that led to the commitment
of in-discipline was to be punished, and not the helpless victim of
circumstances.
This insistence on the
practice of the spirit of the law and not the letter of it is reflected in the
provisos and exceptions to monastic conduct in peculiar regions as mentioned in
the Brhatkalpa-Sutra-Bhasya. For
instance, in the Maharastra region, people used the nilakambala in winter. The monks touring that region in that season
were also allowed to use that type of Kampala.
In the country of Thuna, people
used clothes whose ends (dashiki) were
cut, whereas reverse was the practice in the Indus region. In the Konkan
region, people were accustomed to eat fruits and flowers. In all these social
and geographical variations, the monks were allowed to adjust their practice
with the local habits for which, however, they had to undergo prayascittas later on.
The last and the most
important feature of the laws of Jaina monastic jurisprudence is their
heterogeneous arrangement. We have already seen that the study of the Cheyasuttas was compulsory for those who
aspired for a senior rank in the hierarchy. Their study would have been much
easier had the different transgressions been grouped under suitable categories
of monk life like dress, food, study etc. On the contrary what we find in the Nihihasutta is the grouping of various
acts of monk-life grouped under the categories of prayascittas. This, as the case stands, makes the reference to a
particular transgression not very easy to find out.
And the last but not the
least important point is the total absence of the mention of the background
that led to the formulation of a particular rule in Jaina texts dealing with
jurisprudence. What we find in the bare texts of the Chedasutras is the abrupt, matter-of-fact, heterogeneous list of
different transgressions that were to be dealt with under a particular prayascittas. Of course the cunnis and the Bhasas provide the necessary information which seems to robe the
skeleton of rules. As Schubring rightly points out in his introduction to the Kappasutta, "there is nothing of
legendary embellishing in the Jain ordinances".
VII
Comparison
with
Buddhist
Jurisprudence
The classification of
the Vinaya laws is also arbitrary. No
systematic grouping is to be found in any of the texts of the Vinaya literature. However, even such a
heterogeneous formulation dons the human touch as every rule is endowed with an
episode that led to its formulation. This helps one a lot in understanding the
background and the adjustment of monastic discipline to that background. The
laws of Jaina monastic jurisprudence do not by themselves explain such
background for which we have to depend on later commentaries.
Moreover, the
association of the Buddha in such a setting and the pronouncement of the rule
through his mouth tended to give a sort of grand solemnity to the utterance and
formulation. No such pronouncements are attributed to anybody in the Jaina
texts.
As against the ten main prayascittas of the Jainas, the two
hundred and odd offenses are grouped under seven categories in the Buddhist
literature. The lightest offense was 'Sekiyu'
and the highest parajika'.
Yet the nature of acts
on the part of the monks and nuns which could be termed as an offense is more
or less alike in both the Buddhist and the Jaina texts in a very broad way. For
instance, offenses, which involved behavior against celibacy and showing of
disrespect to the Buddha or the Tirthankara etc., are alike in both these
religions. Similarities can be quoted in a number of cases, which it is
needless here to list.
There is yet a
difference. In the Buddhist Church, the promulgation of a rule could be done
either by the Buddha or by the elders in the Samgha or by elderly and well-versed senior monks or by the Vinayadharas. Regarding such agencies of
the origin and formulation of different rules, the Jaina texts are silent. What
we find in these texts are that the seniors act more as judges than as originators
of law.
The prosecution of the
guilty was an elaborate affair in the Buddhist jurisprudence. Such trials were
to be held in the presence of a full assembly (Mahavagga, IX, 3). Besides this, the accused was to be allowed to
confess or defend if somebody else had accused him. The declaration of the
offense committed by the accused was done by a senior monk (Ibid., X, 3, 9). Opinions were allowed to be expressed by other
representative monks regarding the offense and whether the accused was involved
in it or not. In cases of grave offenses, such procedures as ballot and open
voting, and holding of a jury were also resorted to. In the case of minor
offenses, formal confession was deemed sufficient. The account of the trial of
Ananda, Devadatta and others makes a wonderful reading, which brings out the
elaborate procedure adopted in such trials.
Such elaboration of
trials is not to be found mentioned or described in any of the Jaina texts.
What we have is the reference to the Samgha,
which in some cases was empowered to commute the punishment inflicted on a
monk, under certain circumstances.
The picture that stands
before our eyes, on the basis of the information given in the Buddhist texts,
is that of a completely organized corporate life of the Bhikkhu sangha, which, though a feature even of the Jaina order of
monks and nuns, has not anywhere been graphically represented, so far as the
enforcement and administration of monastic jurisprudence is concerned, in the
Jaina texts.
VIII
Epilogue
Thus, in short, is the
rapid survey of the rules and working of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. With all
their Matter -of-fact enumeration, the rules definitely reveal the working of
the human mind in its wonderful adjustment and reaction to problems of this world
full of human beings, humane and cruel, haughty and modest, dauntless and
timid. It is a gallant tribute to the Jaina church and its elders that they
could see all these facets of the human mind and with all the knowledge of such
a complex field, tried to elevate a normal human being to a disciplined ascetic
striving for the summum bonum.
In the following pages
are grouped some representative transgressions covering the various fields of
monastic life and the punishments prescribed for these.
These are based chiefly
on the following texts:
Digambaras
(1) Mulacara (Mul. )
(2) Anagaradharmamrita (Angd.)
Svetambaras
(1) Vyovahara (Vav.)
(2) Nissha (Nis.)
(3) Kappa (Kalp.)
(4) Brhatkalpa-bhasya (Brh. kalp. Bha.)
(5) Jitakalpa (Jit.)
One remarkable feature
is that the texts and some of the Bhasas are
at variance in the nature of the punishment prescribed for the same fault. For
instance, faults listed under dhai-pinda,
malapahada etc. (under food) have to be met with caummasiya pariharatthana ugghaiya' according to the Nisihasutta; whereas for the same
faults, the Brhatkalpabhasy, prescribes
'masalaghu'. Does it mean that by the
time of the Bhasas, the nature of
punishment was made less harsh?
This list is by no means
exhaustive, nor it is attempted to be so, in view of the size of this
monograph.
Alocana, pratikramana and kayotsarga
were part and parcel of the daily routine of a monk's life. Besides the
routine practice of these, these were to be performed on the following
occasions.
Alocana
(1) Practicing penance
without the permission of the acarya,
(2) Taking requisites of others without
permission,
(3) Condemning those who
are not present,
(4) Disobeying the acarya,
(5) Moving out without the permission of seniors,
(6) Leaving the samgha without the knowledge of its
members and joining one's own,
(7) Forgetting to
perform the avasyakas.
—Anga. 7, 38 ff.
Pratikramana
(1) Touching the body of
the acarya,
(2) For quarrels,
(3) Transgressions
pertaining to study and service,
(4) Becoming passionate when on the begging
round, (5) troubling others.
—Angd.
pp. 503 04.
—Mul 7,
114-133.
—DEO,
op. cit., p. 350.
Kayotsarga
1. For performing
improperly alocana,
2. At the fall of worms,
3. Transgressions
pertaining to insects,
4. Walking over wet
ground or over grass or wet mud,
5. Crossing knee-deep
water for purposes not allowed by Law,
6. Crossing the river in
a boat,
7. After the fall of a
book or image,
8. After easing nature
on a non-scanned area.
—Ibid.
(1) If the nominee of an
acarya who has been nominated by the
latter in his illness refuses to quit the post when requested by his followers,
then he has to undergo — cheya or parihara.
(2) If the acarya and the Upadhyaya defer
the final consecration of a qualified monk for four or five days, then they
have to face—cheya or parihara.
—Vav.
IV, 16.
(3) If a group of nuns
lives without any head when the previous head-nun dies in tour, then cheya or parihara
—Vav.
V, 11.
(4) When the subordinate
nuns refuse to obey a qualified pravartin.
—Vav.
V, 14.
(5) Making friendship
with or worshipping or for one's own aims making use of the king or his
bodyguard or the caretaker of the city or of nigama or of the country or of the village or of the forest or
boundaries—masiyam pariharattanam
ugghaiyam.
—Nis.
IV, 1-18, 40, 48.
(6) Exchange of food or
requisites or residence or instructions with those who have separated
themselves out of a quarrel—caumma-siyam
pariharatthanam ugghaiyam.
—Nis.
XVI, 16-24.
(7) Calling a
self-controlled monk as lax and vice versa—c.
p. u.
—Nis.
XVI, 13-14.
(8) For one who gets his
feet wiped or cleaned by a heretic or the owner of the lodge—c. p. u.
—Nis.
XV, 13ff.
(9) Initiating or
confirming a known or an unknown person (secretly?)—Caummasiyam pariharatthanam anugghaiyam.
—Vav.
IV, 13.
(10) Calling an 'ugghaiya' fault as 'anugghaiya' and offering punishment likewise and vice versa—c. p. a.
—Nis. X, 9-10.
(11) For him who
appointed a person, who had not studied the chedasutras
or had forgotten these, as the head of a
gaccha—catvaro bharika masoh.
(12) For him who accepted the headship of a gaccha without studying the chedasutras or had forgotten these — calvaro masa gurukah.
(13) For him who
appointed an abahusruta and agitartha to head a gaccha—catur guravah.
(14) For him who
appointed an abahusruta but a gitartha to head a gaccha—caturguravah.
(15) For him who
appointed a bahusruta but an agitartha to head a gaccha—caturguravah.
(16) For him who being abahusruta and agitartha accepted the headship of a gaccha—caturgurukah.
(17) As (16) abahusruta but gitartha—Caturgurukah.
(18) As (17) but bahusruta and agitartha
—Caturgurukah,.
—Brh.
kalp. Bha. I, 703-04.
(19) For him who
kidnapped a Buddhist novice without his own or his relative's consent,—caturguru.
—Brh.
kalp. Bhas. V, 5095.
(20) If a monk manages
to enter another Gana without atoning
for an offense—pancaraindiya cheya.
—Kalp.
V, 5.
(1) If a monk lax in
behavior lives with a similar person and yet wishes to enter the Gana, he may be allowed to do so after
confession, atonement and undergoing the cheya
or parihara.
—Vav.
I, 29-32.
(2) Washing one's limbs
with hot or cold water— masiyam
parihdratthanam ugghaiyam.
—Nis.
II, 21.
(3) Dressing the nails
or hair or moustache—m.p.u. —Nis. III,
41-46.
(4) Brushing or cleaning
the teeth—m.p.u. Nis. III, 47- 49.
(5) Not scanning the ground for easing
nature; depositing the excreta in an improper manner; not cleaning the anus
properly—m.p.u.—Nis. IV, 102-11
(6) Depositing excrete
in a house, or at the front of a house or at the door or at the open verandah,
or in a house where there is a dead body (?), or on the ash of a burnt body or
on a pillar for the dead, etc., or in a temple or on mud; or in a new
earth-mine, or in a grove of umbara or
Banyan or asvattha trees; or in a sugar-cane field or rice-field or
cotton-field; or in a place where there are vegetables, groves, flowers, seeds
or leaves—m.p.u. —Nis. III, 70-78.
(7) Entering the nunnery
in an improper way or keeping the requisites in the path of the nuns—m.p.u. -Nis. IV, 24.
(8) Creating new
quarrels or re-raising old pacified ones—m.p.u.
—Nis.
IV, 25-26.
(9) Laughing with a
wide-open mouth—m.p.u.
—Nis.
IV, 27.
(10) For making sounds
through the mouth, teeth, lips, nose, armpits, hands, nails, fruits etc.— m.p.u.
—Nis.
V, 36-59.
(11) For practicing
masturbation, moving the penis by means of a piece of wood, pressing it,
massaging it with oil or ghee,
cleaning it with water, spraying powder over it, cutting it; trying to ejaculate
semen—masiyam pariharatthanam a
nugghaiyam.
(12) Dispelling the smoke in the house by
requesting a heretic or householder—m.p.a.
—Nis. I, 57.
(13) Sitting or sleeping
over a place which is full of living beings or which is unstable—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XIII, 1-11.
(14) For wearing garlands or girdles or
decorative clothes or furs or skins out of curiosity—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVII, 3-14.
(15) Looking at one's
reflection in mirror or in a bead or in oil or in fat etc.—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XIII, 30-41.
(16) Telling (of one's
own accord) one's own qualifications for the post of an acarya—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVII, 133.
(17) Seeing, pondering
over or getting attracted towards woodwork, sculpture, books, ivory-work,
jewel-work; beautiful wells, tanks; large festivals; horse-plays,
elephant-plays; horse-fights, buffalo-fights, etc., any scenes of merry-making,
scenes of quarrel or places where persons of all ages sing or dance putting on
ornaments or fineries—c.p.u.
—Nis. XII, 16-28.
(18) Breaking the vow of
'pratyakhyana' frequently
—Nis.
XII, 3.
(19) Pondering over the
feet of women when they are going or coming—c.
p.a.
—Nis. I X 8-9.
(19a) Causing a heretic
or the owner of the lodge to stitch the samghadi
of a nun—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XII, 7.
(20) If the monk
pondered over a nun—laghumasa.
(21) If he desired to
see her again—gurumasa.
(22) If he got fever due
to this desire—catvaro masah laghukah.
(23) If he got fever due
to this desire—catvaro masah.
(24) If he had burning
sensation—sanmasa laghavah.
(25) If he had no taste for food—sanmasa guravah.
(26) If he had swooning—cheda.
(27 If he had hysteria—mula.
(28) If he lost
understanding—anavasthapya.
(29) If he died—parancika.
—Brh. kalp. Bha. III, 2258-62.
(30) One who maintained
his livelihood by practicing medicine and astronomy and became a servant of the
king —mula.
—Angd.
7, 55, comm.
(31) One who did not
follow properly the 'vratas' due to
sway of passions and thus brought shame to the Samgha —mula.
—Anga. 7, 55 comm.
(32) One of lax morals, lazy in study and
ignorant of scriptures—mula
—Angd.
7, 55 comm.
(33) Violation of any of
the mulavratas—sraddhana.
—Angd.
7, 57 comm.
(34) Condemnation of the
Tirthankara, Ganadhara, ganins, the Agama, or samgha—parancika.
—Angd. 7. 56 comm.
(35) Enjoying a queen,
behaving against a king—
—Angd. 7, 57 comm.
(36) Using complete,
new, washed, or dyed pieces of garments for the sake of attracting women; or
eating vikritis for the above
purpose; making or wearing garlands of various materials for the above purpose,
or using excellent blankets, skins of deer, camel etc., or garments so soft
cotton or gold-embroidered clothes—c.p.a.
—Nis.
VII, 1-12.
(37) Telling stories at
odd times in the company of women—c.p.a.
—Nis. VIII, 10,
(38) Indulgence in
sexual intercourse by a monk or a nun with opposite counterparts
(39) Stealing something
belonging to the member of one's own sect—anavasthapya.
—Kalp.
IV, 3.
(40) Stealing something
of one belonging to other sect—anavasthappa.
—Ibid.
(41) Striking somebody
with the fist—anavasthapya.
—Ibid.
(42) For a criminal—parancika.
(43) For a careless
fellow—parancika.
(44) For a sodomite—parancika.
—Kalp.
IV, 2.
RESIDENCE
(1) If a monk goes to
another place either for study or sleep without the permission of the superior—cheya or parihara.
(2) Staying in a
residence which contains liquor or sour barley gruel, or a vessel with cold or
warm water, or where a torch burns throughout the night—santara chew -or parihara.
(3) Not accommodating a
co-religionist when space is sufficient—c.p.u.
(4) Accepting lodging in
condemned families—c.p.u.
—Nis. XVI, 29.
(5) Making a known or an
unknown person stay in 'the monastery either for a full night or for half a
night— p.a.
—Nis.
VIII, 12.
(6) Staying out for more
than three days—c.p.a.
—Nis. X, 13.
(7) One who was attached
to a particular residence and stayed there with lax behavior—mula.
—Angd. VII, 55, comm.
(8) If a bhikkhu stayed
in a place full of seeds then — laghako
masa tapasa kalena ca laghukah.
(9) —Vasaha—l.m., kalena gurukah.
(10) —Uvajjhaya—l.m., tapasa gurukah.
(11) —ayariya—l.m., taposa Elena ca gurakah.
—Brh.
kalp. Bha. IV, 3304.
(12) If the acarya,
while on tour, did not consult the members of his party regarding a proper
residence—then masalaghu.
—Ibid. II,
1456-63.
(13) One who was
attached to a particular residence and stayed there with lax behavior—mula.
—Angd. 7, 55, comm.
(14) For accepting a residence previously
occupied by heretics or that which was originally built by the owner for
himself and later on handed over to the monks— calvaro laghaka.
(15) For accepting a
residence where sinful fire activity was frequently done the Brahmans, or that
which was specially built for the monks, or that which was built for a
particular sect of monks—calvaro guravah.
—Brh.
kalp. Bha., II, 1456ff.
FOOD
AND BEGGING
Begging
(1) For begging food twice in a day— masalaghu.
(2) For begging food thrice—masaguru.
(3) For begging food four times caturlaghu,
(4) For begging food five times—caturguru.
(5) For begging food six times— sadloghu.
(6) For begging food seven times—sadguru.
(7) For begging food eight times—cheda.
(8)
For begging food nine times—mula.
(9) For begging food ten
times -anavasthapya.
(10) For begging food eleven times— parancika. —Brh. kalp. Bha. II, 1697-1700
Food
Udgama faults:
(1) Adhakarma—catvaro gurukah
(2) Auddesika—catvaro gurakah
(3)
Misra—catvaro gurukah
(4)
(Badara)—catvaro gurukah.
(5) Abhyahrta—catvaro gurukah.
(6)
Kita—masaguru.
(7)
Putika—masaguru.
(8) Adhyavapuraka—masaguru.
(9) Sthapita—masalaghu.
(11)
Pramitya—masalaghu.
(12) Krita—masalaghu.
(13) Parivartita—masalaghu.
(14) Svagrama abbyahrta—masalaghu.
(15) Pihita—masolaghu.
(16)
Malapahrta—masalaghu.
(17)
Itvara sthapita—pancaratrindinani.
(18) Suksma~prabhrtikayam;— pancaratrindinani.
For
the rest of the Udgama dosas—catvaro
laghukah;
Utpadana faults:
(1) Nimitta— catvaro gurukah.
(2) Mayapinda—masaguru.
(3) Cikitsapinda— laghuko masah.
(4) Vacanasamstava— laghako masah.
(5) Mula— laghuko masah.
(6)
For the rest— catvaro laghukah.
(7)
Accepting food from a leper or an eunuch— catvaro
laghukah.
Esana faults:
(1) Lipta—pancaratrindinani.
(2) Lipta with articles like wine, flesh, and excreta catvaro laghukah.
(3) Lipta with
oil, ghee etc.—catvaro laghukah.
(4) Purekarma - catvaro laghukah.
(5) Paicatharma— catvaro laghukah.
(6) Accepting food containing powdered bulbs,
roots, etc.—masalaghu.
(7) Accepting food from a leper or an eunuch— catvaro laghukah.
(8)
Accepting food from one who is spinning, cutting or pounding—masalaghu.
(9) Eating in excess—catvaro laghavah.
(10) Eating with hatred—catvaro laghavah.
11) Eating sadhuma—catvaro
laghavah.
(12) Eating niskarana—catvaro
laghavah.
(13) Eating food in the festival of heretics—caturlaghavah
(14) Taking with permission a fruit belonging to a
heretic—caturguru.
(15) -Do- a bhogika—sadlaghu.
(16) -Do-a vanik—sadguru.
(17) Taking with permission a fruit belonging to
the gosthi—cheda.
(18) -Do- the householder—mula.
(19) -Do- the policeman—anavasthapya.
(20) -Do- the king—parancika.
—Brh. kalp. Bha., I, 532ff.; V, 5089; II, 906.
—Jit.,
1087ff.
(21) Going to one's relatives for alms without
the permission of the Thera—santara cheya or parihara.
—Vav.
VI, 1.
(22) Going to the condemned families for alms
without knowing anything about them (beforehand) or without asking (them)—m.p.u.
—Nis.
IV, 22.
(23) Requesting a heretic for food—m.p.u.
—Nis.
III, 1-12.
(24) Visiting the same house twice for alms—m.p.u.
—Nis.
III, 13.
(25) Accepting food or-drink in new settlements,
villages, iron-mines, copper-mines, lead-mines, gold mines or
jewel-mines—m.p.u.
—Nis.
V, 34-35.
(26) Eating that which is not given to or by the acarya —m.p.u.
—Nis. IV, 20.
(27) Eating only the good items of food and
depositing the rest elsewhere—m.p.u.
—Nis. II, 43-49.
(28) For accepting a raw fruit in a settlement, catvaro laghavah.
(29)
-Do- in a pataka— catvaro guravah.
(30)
-Do- in a row of houses—sadlaghavah.
(31)
-Do- in a village— sadguravah.
(32)
For accepting a raw fruit at the gates of a village —cheda.
(33)
-Do- outside the village—mula.
(34)
-Do- at the boundary of a village—parancika
—Brh. kalp. Bha. I, 786.
(35)
Eating food in the vessels of a householder— c.p.u.
—Nis. XII, 10-13.
(35)
Seeking common alms together and then dividing it in the company of one who is
undergoing the parihara -tapa—m.p.u.
—Nis. IV, 112.
(36)
Receiving food in the first porisi of
the day and keeping it up to the fourth porisi and then eating it or giving it
to somebody else—c.p.u.
—Kalp.
IV, 11.
(37)
Buying, exchanging or making somebody to buy or exchange or bring on credit or
accepting bought vikritis—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XIX, 1-4.
(38)
Accepting food brought from the terrace or granary or by breaking the seal; or
that placed on living beings; or that, being hot, is being fanned by hand, fan,
cloth-end or by mouth; accepting hot food; accepting a wash of rice, sesamum etc.—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVII, 123-32.
(39) Accepting food or drink or eatables or
chewable" from condemned families—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVI, 27.
(40)
Obtaining food by acting as a nurse, or messenger or astrologer or beggar or
doctor; getting food out of anger, pride, deceit or greed; acquiring food
through magic, spells or incantations— c.p.u.
—Nis.
XIII, 60-74.
(41) Accepting food in a boat—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVIII, 17-20.
(42)
Seeking alms beyond the limit of half a yojana— c.p.u.
—Nis.
XII, 31.
(43)
Accepting food or drink offered by the householder by first doing a sinful
activity (purekada), or offered with
a hand, a pot or a ladle wet with cold water—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XII, 14-15.
(44)
Praising night-meal or eating food acquired by day at night and vice versa—c.p.a.
—Nis.
XI, 73-77.
(45)
Accepting food from those of non-vegetarian habits or those who are about to
start on or return from pilgrimages—c.p.a.
—Nis.
IX, 10-17.
(46)
Accepting royal food, or food meant for the beasts, horses, elephants; food for
the ill or for the guest; food meant to be distributed in famine, food taken
out for the royal persons or for the actors, wrestlers and such other people;
food for caretakers of horses, elephants, peacocks, deer, etc.; or for those
who bring under control horses, elephants etc.; food for those who massage
(other's) body, or for the umbrella bearers, or holders of weapons; or food for
the chamberlain or the doer-keepers or the female servants in the harem—c.p.a.
—Nis. IX, 1-6; 20-28.
(47)
Accepting nivedana-pinda—c.p.a.
-Nis.
XI, 81.
(48) Accepting food full of living beings, or
adhakarmika food, or eating deliberately
that food which involves major or minor faults—c.p.a.
—Nis. X, 5-6, 19-27.
(49)
Accepting food or drink from the Ksatriya
kings when they are in the uttara-sala, or
in the horse stable or in the elephant-stable or have gone to secret places,
counsel halls or private apartments —c.p.a.
—Nis. VIII, 13-17.
(50)
Accepting food that is given up or which is meant for orphans and beggars—c.p.a.
—I
bid.
STUDY
(1)
Omitting some words while reading—masala-
ghu.
(2)
Transgressing the sequence of the Tirthankara
—caturguru.
(3)
Mixing or adding words—masalaghu.
(4)
Having wrong faith—caturlaghu.
(5)
Transgressing the order of the guru—caturguru.
—Brh. kelp. Bha. I, 288-99.
(6)
Asking more than three questions regarding the kalikasruta and more than seven questions regarding the Ditthivaya—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XIX, 8-12.
(7)
Not studying at four times; studying at an improper time; reading only the
lower portions; reading in an indistinct tone; not reading the text in due
sequence or reading only one out of two identical passages—c.p.u.
—Nis. XIX, 13-23.
REQUISITES
Skins
(1)
Using complete and intact pieces of skins or clothes—masiyam pariharatthanam ugghaiyam.
—Nis. II, 22-24.
Broom
(2)
Obtaining the returnable payapunchana on
the condition of returning it the same night, but returning it the next day; or
returning it the same night when promised to return it the next day—m.p.u.
—Nis. V, 15-16.
Bedding
(3)
Taking out the returnable bedding or that owned by the householder without his
consent; or not searching the lost bedding, or not scanning the
requisites—m.p.u.
—Nis.
II, 50-59.
Sticks
(4)
Making, using or enjoying raw, colored or variously colored wooden, bamboo or
cane sticks —m.p.u
—Nis.
V, 25-33.
(5)
Using a broom which is bigger in measurements; or having fine thread-ends for
it; giving one tie to the broom; giving more than three ties to the broom;
binding it in a kadusaga way, holding
it loosely; keeping it as a pillow; breaking it —m.p.u.
—Nis.
V, 67-77.
Bowl
(6)
Expanding the mouth of the pot; binding it improperly; using a pot with many
ties for more than one and a half months—m.p.a.
—Nis. I, 41-45.
(7)
Exchanging the alms-bowl without the consent of the ganin; not giving it to him who is unable to procure one—c.p.u.
—Nis. XIV, 1-48.
(8)
Discoloring colored pots and vice versa;
Polishing
it with oil, ghee or butter; coating it with powder or paint, washing it with
water so as to give it a new appearance—c.p.u.
—Ibid.
(9)
Frequently demanding a bowl in the congregation by getting up—c.p.u.
—I bid.
(10)
For him who sent a person who had not studied the rules about the begging of
the alms-bowl, to bring the coating for a pot—calvaro gurakah.
(11)
-Do- who had studied it but did not remember the details about it—catvaro laghukah.
(12) For coating the pot without the
permission of the acarya—masalaghu.
(13)
For not taking the permission of the cart-owner for oil—masalaghu.
(14)
For taking oil at night and using it at night— calvaro laghukah.
(15)
For taking oil at dew- fall or when bulls or calves are tied to the cart—catvaro laghukah.
(16)
For taking oil when a dog is sitting below the cart
—Ealvaro gurakah.
(17)
For coating the pot for decoration—catvaro
Gurukah.
(18)
Accepting a mediocre pot when decided to accept the best—masika.
(19) Determining to accept the inferior one
but accepting the mediocre—masika.
(20)
For accepting an inferior pot when decided to accept the best—pancaka.
(21)
For determining to accept a mediocre pot but accepting an inferior one—pancaka.
(22)
For determining to accept a mediocre one, but accepting the best—caturlaghu.
(23)
For determining to accept the inferior one but accepting the best pot—caturlaghu.
-
Brh. kalp. Bha. I, 471-529.
Seat
(24)
Carrying the seat of the householder—c.p.u.
-
Nis. XII, 10-13.
CLOTHING
(1)
For transforming the best piece of cloth into a medium type—masalaghu.
(2)
-Do- into an inferior one—pancaratrindiva.
(3)
-Do- a mediocre one into the best type— caturlaghu.
(4)
-Do- into jaghanya—pancaratrindiva.
(5)
-Do- an inferior one into the best—caturlalaghu.
(6)
-Do- into medium type—masika.
(7)
For accepting a piece of cloth worth Pataliputra rupees 18—catvaro laghavah, or laghumasa,
or caturguru.
(8) Do —rupees 20 catvaro laghva
(9)—Do—rupees
49—sadlaghavah
(10) —Do—rupees 50—sadguru
(11) —Do—rupees 100—cheda
(12)—
Do—rupees 250—sadlaghavah
(13) —Do—rupees 500—sadguruvah
14) -Do—rupees 999—cheda
(15)
—Do—rupees 1000—cheda or mula.
(16)
—Do—rupees 10000 _ mula
(17)
—Do - rupees 50000—anavasthapya
(18)
—Do—rupees 100000—parancika
—Brh.
kalp. Bha. IV, 3893-98.
(19)
For wearing a garment like a turban— masalaghu.
(20)
For so arranging the garment on the shoulder that it hangs down like a cow's
tail—masalaghu
(21)
For covering both the shoulders like a nun—
Catvaro laghavah.
(22)
For so arranging the ends of the upper garment on the shoulders that it appears
like the garuda bird—catvaro
gurumasah.
(23)
For putting on the dress like that of a householder—Hula.
(24)
Putting on the clothes of a householder—c.p.u. — Nis. XII,
11.
(35)
Exchanging clothes without the consent of the ganin—c.p.u.
—Nis. XVIII, 21-64.
(26)
Coloring an uncolored cloth and vice versa— c.p.u.
—Ibid.
(27)
Getting the samphadi of a nun
stitched by a heretic or the
owner of the lodge—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XII, 7.
TOURING
(1)
Crossing or swimming the following five great rivers twice or thrice within a
month—Ganga, Jauna, Sarau, Eravai,
Mahi—c.p.u.
—Nis. XII, 42.
(2)
getting into the boat with bad intentions; buying, selling, bringing on credit
or exchanging the boat, or making others to do so; pushing the boat into water
from the ground or vice versa; helping in taking out a grounded boat; working
as a helmsman; getting into a boat which is going up or down the stream;
pulling or stopping the boat by a rope; taking out water from the boat by
either a pot or an alms-bowl or an earthen vessel; covering the hole in the
boat by means of hand, foot, leaves and bamboo in order to stop water getting
in; accepting food in the boat—c.p.u.
—Nis.
XVIII, 1-20.
(3)
Touring during regular rains—c.p.a.
—Nis. X, 40-43.
(4)
Frequently entering into or coming out of inimical, anarchical or
rebellion-infected regions, or approving of anybody else doing so—c.p.a.
—Nis. XI, 71; Ralph. I, 38.
(4a)
One who wandered alone and condemned the law of the Jina —Mula.
—Angd.
VII, 55, comm.
(5)
If out of attachment for a place, a party of monks stays there for more than
eleven days, then parancika.
—Brh.
kalp. Bha. II, 1555-59.
(6)
If a gitartha wandered alone— caturlaghu.
(7) If an agitartha wandered alone—
caturguru.
—Brh.
kalp. Bha. I, 694-5.
(8) For touring with a heretical nun in a woman's dress at day time—laghukaccheda
(9)
—Do—with an eunuch—gurakoccheda
(10)
—Do—at night—Mula
(11)
—Do with a Jaina nun at day—anavasthapya
(12)
—Do—with a Jaina nun at night—parancika.
—Brh. kalp. Bha., II, 886-88.
(13)
Resorting to a short cut by day—masalaghu
(14)
—Do—at night—masaguru
(15)
Walking carelessly at day—masalaghu
(16)
—Do—at night—masaguru
(17)
One who wandered alone and condemned the law of the Jinas— Mula
—Angd.
7, 55, comm.'
PENANCE
(1) if a monk, going out of the Gana for the sake of practicing the 'egallaviharapadima', returns without
completing it,—cheya or parihara
—Vav.
I, 25.
DEATH
(1)
Praising the types of death which are designated as 'balamarana'—c.p.a.
—His. XI, 92.
Bha. = Bhasya;
Comm.= Commentary;
C. = Curni;
N. = Niryukti;
T. = Tika;
Vr. = Vrtti.
BUDDHIST:
Anguttaranikaya 5 Vols., P. T. S., London, 1885-1900.
Dhanimapada Pocket Ed. N. K. Bhagwat, Bombay.
Dighanikaya 3 Vols., Ed. Rhys David and J. Charpentier, P. T. S., London, 1889-1911.
Mahavegga Ed. N. K. Bhagwat, Bombay University, 1944.
Majjhimanikaya 3 Vols., Ed. V. Trencher and R. Chalmers, London, 1888-99.
Milindapanha Ed. V. Trenckner, London, 1880.
Samyuttanikayas 5 Vols., Ed. M. Leon Feer, London, 1884-98.
Theragatha Ed. N. K. Bhagwat, Bombay University, 1939.
Theragatha Ed. N. K. Bhagwat Bombay University, 1937.
Vinayapitaka 5 Vols., Ed. Oldenberg, London, 1879-83.
JAINA:
(a) SVETAMBARAS CANONICAL:
Avassaya (Avasyaka)
Bha.
Comm. Haribhadra, Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1916.
Malayagiri,
Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1928.
N. by
Bhadrabhahu.
Ayaranga (Ayar.)
Comm. Silanka, Surat, 1935.
N. by
Bhadrabahu.
Transl.
by H. Jacobi, SEE., XXII, 1884.
Bhagavati (Bhag.)
Comm. Abhayadeva, Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1921.
Brhatkalpa (Bri. kalp. or kappa.)
Bha. Sanghadasagani.
Comm. Malayagiri and Ksemakirti, Atmananda
Jaina Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1933-38.
Kalpa-Vyavahara-Nisitha Sutra, Ahmedabad.
Transl.
in I.A., Vol. 39., pp. 257ff.
Dasasayakkhandha (Dasa.) Lahore, 1936.
Dasaveyaliya (Dsv.)
Comm. Ed. K. V. Abhyankar, Ahmedabad, 1938. Niryukti,
Bhadrabahu.
Isibhasiya (Isb.)
Surat,
1927.
Jiyakappa (Jit.)
Ed.
Muni Punyavijaya, Ahmedabad, V.S. 1994.
Ed.
Muni Jinavijaya, Ahmedabad, V.S. 1983.
Kappasutta (Kalp. )
Comm. 'Kalpalata-Vyakhya' by Samayasundara, Surat. Transl. Jacobi, SBE.,
XXII, 1884.
Mahanisiha (Mh. N.)
Ed.
W. Schubring, Berlin, 1918.
Nisiha (Nis.) Bihasya.
Ed.
W. Schubring, Leipzig, 1918.
Oghaniijutt', (Oha N.)
Bhasya.
Comm. Dronacarya, Bombay, 1919.
Ovavai
(aup. or Ova.)
Comm. Abhayadeva, Surat, V.S. 1994.
Painnaya
(Ten) Aurapacchakkana, Bhattapainna, , Gacchacara, Ganivijja, Mahapaccakhana,
Maranasamahi, Santhara, Tandulaveyaliya; Bombay, 1927.
Pindanij jutti (Pinda-N. )
Bha.
Comm. Malayagiri, Surat, 1918.
Samrayanga (Smv. )
Comm. Abhayadeva, Ahmedabad, 1938.
Suyagadanga (Sthr.)
Comm. Silanka, Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1917. N. by Bhadrabahu.
Trans.
by Jacobi, SBE., XLV, 1895.
Thananga (Than.)
Comm. Abhayadeva, Agamodaya Samiti, V.S. 1975.
3
Parts (Pothis).
Uttarajjhayana (Uttar.)
Comm. Nemicandra, Bombay, 1937.
Comm. Santisuri, Bombay, 1916. '
Ed.
J. Charpentier, Upsala, 1922.
N. by Bhadrabahu.
Transl.
by Jacobi, SBE., XLV, 1895.
Vavahara ( Vav. )
Bha. Comm. Malagiri, Bhavnagar, 1926.
Ed.
Schubring, Leipzig, 1918.
(b) DIGAMBARAS:
Anagaradharmamrta (Angd.) of Asadhara.
Comm. Kumudacandra, Manikchandra Digambaras
Jaina Granthamala (MDJG), 1919.
Aradhanasara MDJG, V.S. 1973.
Bhagavati
Aradhana (Bhag. Ara. ) of
Sivakoti. Devendrakirti Granthamala, Sholapur, 1935.
Mulacara (Mul.) of Vattakera, 2 parts. MDJG, Bombay, V.S. 1980.
Pravacanasara (Prv.) of Kundakunda.
Ed.
A. N. Upadhye, Bombay, 1935.
HISTORY: Literary, Political, Religious
and Social
Barodia, U. K., History and Literature of Jainism, Bombay, 1909.
Deo, S. B., History of Jaina Monachism; from Inscriptions and
Literature, Poona, 1956.
Dutt, N., Early History of the Spread of Buddhism, London, 1925.
Farquhar, J. N., An Outline of the Religious Literature of India,
Oxford, 1920.
Hertel, J., On the Literature of the Svetambaras of Gujarat, Leipzig, 1922.
Hiralal, H., Ancient History of the Jaina
Literature, Jamnagar, 1902.
Kapadia, H., A History of the Canonical
Literature of the Jainas, Bombay, 1941.
Law,
B. C., Buddhistic Studies, Calcutta, 1931.
India as Described in Early Texts of Buddhism
and Jainism, London, 1941.
Mahavira,
His Life and Teaching, London, 1937.
Saletore,
B. A., Medieval Jainism, Bombay, 1938.
Shah,
C. J., Jainism in North India., London, 1932.
Sharma, Har Dutt, History of Brahmanical
Asceticism, Poona Orientalist (PO), Vol. III,No. 4, Poona, Jan.
1939.
Winternitz, M., History of Indian Literature,
Vol. II, Calcutta, 1933, (HIL).
MISCELLANEOUS
Bhagwat, Durga, Early Buddhist Jurisprudence, O.B.A., Poona, 1939.
Buhler, G., The Indian
Sect of the Jainas, London, 1903.
Dutt, Sukumar, Early Buddhist Monarchism, London, 1924.
Glasenapp, H. V., Der Jainism~us, (Guj. Transl.), Ahmedabad.
Hardy, Spence R., Manual
of Buddhism, London, 1853.
Jaina, C. R., Sanrl~yasa
Dharma, Allahabad, 1926.
Kern, Manual of Indian
Buddhism, 1896.
Mehta,
R. N., Pre-Ruddhist India, Bombay, 1939.
Nahar and Ghosh, Epitome
of Jainism Calcutta, 1927.
Schubring, W., Die Lehre der Jainas, Berlin und Leipzig, 1935.
Sen, A., Schools and Sects in Jaina. Literature, Vishvabharati, 1931.
Stevenson, Mrs. Sinclair, The Heart of Jainism, Oxford, 1915.