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.




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.




The Canon


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.




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



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.