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.
V. 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.
