Some Aspects of Jaina Monastic Jurisprudence

Author(s): S B Deo
Publisher: Z_Vijay_Vallabh_suri_Smarak_Granth_012060.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250308/1

Page #1

SOME ASPECTS OF JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
Dr. S. B. DEO, M.A., Ph.D.
Jaina monachism has a long career full of periods of progress as well as of days of adversity. Right from the days of Pārsvanātha to date it has developed and maintained its hold on a considerable mass of people, unlike Buddhist monachism which was wiped out from the land of its birth.
The development of any monachism depends principally on two factors, viz., the forces of its own internal development and the external forces of society trying to influence the monastic practices. The former includes philosophical dissension or slight deviation in the rules of monastic practices, each party justifying its own stand, or the impact of the zeal of a strong church-leader impelled by the idea of organising and stabilising the church. The social forces affecting monastic practices consist of royal interference, peculiar circumstances, orthodox social structure or a powerful laity.
It is to the credit of Jaina monachism that inspite of its tussle with both these factors it has maintained its orthodoxy in monastic practices and formulated the rules of its monastic jurisprudence retaining the orthodox core through centuries of its survival in India.
In dealing with the rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence, however, two things may be borne in mind. First is that the entire Jaina canonical literature is said to have undergone series of redactions before it was finally reduced to a systematic grouping at the council of Valabhi. Moreover, there are differences about this version of the canon between the Digambaras and the Svetämbaras. This aspect handicaps a systematic study of the development of monastic jurisprudence from a historical point of view. Another thing is that in only a few cases we get circumstantial details that led to the formulation of rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. For instance, the Cheda Sütras simply present a list of rules of monastic behaviour and punishments for their violation without giving us any other details. Of course, the commentaries do come to our help, but the actual texts dealing with monastic jurisprudence of the Jainas fail, in many cases, to provide us with the background that conspired to the formulation of a particular rule. The Buddhist texts, like

Page #2

42
ACĂRYA VIJAYAVALLABHASŪRI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
Mahāvagga and others, do give us details regarding the formulation of the rules of Buddhist monastic jurisprudence.
Inspite of these limitations, however, rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence show a steady growth impelled by both internal and external influences. These influences increased as Jaina monks, giving up their isclation, came more in contact with the society at large.
The Angas which are considered to be the oldest stratum of Jaina canonical literature, consist of some texts viz., Ācāränga, Sütrakstānga etc., which depict Jaina monachism more as a philosophical and ethical system rather than as an organised and stabilised church, controlled by a church hierarchy. It was but natural in initial stages to concentrate more on ethical basis-as the Jaina church even now does—with a view not only to attract new recruits, but also to emphasise the purity of monastic behaviour in contrast with other prevailing systems. The Angas, therefore, do not give many details about Jaina monastic jurisproduce as are found in the Cheda Sūtras and the Niryuktis.
What, then, is the picture that we get in the Angas?
The Angas do mention various officers in the Jaina church hierarchy, such as seha, samanera, thera, uvajjhāya, ayariyauvajjhāya, pavattī, ayariya and gani. Though the Țhānanga gives a list of ten different types of Thera, the qualifications of an āyariya, the five privileges of an ayariyauvajjhāya, various types of ayariya,* and the gaṇāvacchedaka, nowhere do we get detaiis regarding their church-duties and the legal position they held in church disputes. No doubt the qualifications of a ganin, ācārya and a ganadhara are found in these texts, but these qualifications are more of a general ethical nature rather than of a person equipped with the power of wielding his authority over his subordinates. As said above, in the initial stages of Jaina monachism, more emphasis was laid on ethical stardards which were taken to be the primary qualifications of an officer of church hierarchy.
Regarding the persons disqualified to enter the monastic order, it is to be noted that the Thānangas gives but three such persons while the commentary adds seventeen more to the list.
Along with this, we do get references to various church units such as a gaña, kula and sambhoga. It is stated that ayariyauvajjhāya could leave his gana under five reasons, to wite: if he was unable to main

Page #3

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
tain moral discipline of the group, if he could not wield control over the members of the gana, if he was unable to recollect and preach sacred lore in a proper manner and at the proper time, if he was attached to a nun, and lastly if he was unable to pull on due to his friends or relatives leaving the gana. In this case also it is to be noted that inspite of these rules, the Anga texts do not give the actual process of the dismissal of an officer of the church. Moreover, the texts of the Angas as also of the Mülasütras are not very much informative regarding the relation of these church units.
Within this framework of church units and church officers, the monks led their religious life. But sometimes they did commit transgressions. The Bhagavatī7 says that the monks committed transgressions either out of pride, or carelessness, or under influence of bodily pains (äure), or under calamities, or in a place which had a mixed group of heretics and other (sankinna), or due to unexpected circumstances (sahasakkāra) or out of fear, or hatred.
Any transgression done out of any of the above reasons had to be confessed and a suitable prāyaścitta had to be taken for it. The Bhagavatisūtras and Thānanga', out of the Anga group of texts, refer to the ten prāyaścittas. They are, alocană (confession), pratikramana (condemnation of the transgression), tadubhaya (confession and condemnation), viveka (giving up of transgressions), vyutsarga (making kāyotsarga), tapas (undergoing fasts), cheda (cutting of the paryaya or the seniority), müla (re-consecration), anavasthäpya (temporary expulsion) and pārāñcita (expulsion from the Order).
It is to be noted that inspite of these various prāyaścittas, the texts of the Angas fail to give concrete examples of the actual execution or test cases of these rules of monastic jurisprudence. Moreover, whatever details are found regarding the prayascittas are to be found mostly in the commentaries. For instance, the confession of faults was to be done not in a way as to create sympathy in the mind of the teacher so that he might give less punishment (äkampaittä). The monks were not allowed to go to another guru who was known for his liberality in giving less punishment (anumänaittä). Confessing only those faults which were seen by the teacher (jar dittham), confessing only the major faults (bayara) or only the minor ones (suhuma), confessing in a way as was not likely to let the ācārya hear properly. (channa), doing so in a very

Page #4

44
ÅCARYA VIJAYAVALLABHASŪRI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
loud voice (saddaulayar), confessing the same fault before different ācāryas (bahujana), doing so before a person who was not well-versed (avvatta), and confessing a fault before the guru who has done the same fault himself (tassevi)-all these were deemed as faults of improper alocanā.10
Besides this, some details regarding the ninth prāyaścitta are found.11 It (anavatthappa) was prescribed for committing the theft of coreligionists, or of heretics or for striking somebody with a slap. The last -pārāñcita-was threefold : duttha, pamatta and annamannam karemane. The first was committed when a monk harassed or condemned the ācārya or the gañadhara or the sacred canon, or had intimacy with the nuns, or murdered the king or had illicit relations with the queen. The second was committed by a monk who was extremely careless regarding rules of food and sleep (pañcamanidrāpramādavān), and the third was done when the monk indulged in homo-sexuality. Besides these, masturbation, sexual intercourse, taking a night-meal and accepting food from the host or from a king were deemed major faults. It may be noted that these explanations are based on the commentaries. The texts proper do not give such details. They only refer to the various punishments.
The way of dealing with the transgressor who had again committed a fault while he was undergoing a punishment for a previous one, was called arovanā. In this case, it seems, the punishment was increased either by a month (masiyā ārovanā), or by thirty-five days (sapancarãi mäsiyā), or by forty days, or by two months, or by sixty-five days, or by three or four months. The maximum period was of six months. No details, however, regarding the faults under which this increase was made, or regarding the treatment given to the transgressor, are to be found.12
Another method of purifying the transgressor was called the 'parihara-viśuddhi'. The commentators explain it as follows : 13
In a group of nine monks, four underwent the parihāra, the other four waited upon them (anupariharika) and the ninth acted as the guru.
The undergoing of parihāra involved fasts of various magnitudes in different seasons for a total period of six months, and the whole group was purified in eighteen months.
From the foregoing details one thing is clear and that is that even though the ten forms of prāyaścittas are named in the texts of the Angas,

Page #5

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
no detailed explanation about the nature of the punishment, the mode of implementing it and the authority vested with the power of implementing it, is to be found. Only the commentaries, which are later than the text, come to our help.
The picture changes and assumes a fullness when we come to the Cheda-sutras and the Niryuktis. In these texts we have details about the qualifications of various officers, the standing (paryaya) necessary for different posts, the list of faults for which different punishments are to be given, the method of implementing these and so on. In short, these texts present-as the following discussion will show-an organised Jaina church with a codified manual of rules of monastic jurisprudence.
45
For instance, a monk of sixty years was called as jäithera, one wellversed in the Thaṇanga and the Samavayanga was termed as suyathera, and he who had twenty years of monk-life was designated as pariyāya thera.14 Thus, considerations of age, learning and standing as a monk were at the basis of this classification. An upadhyāya was a person who had at least three years' standing in monkhood to his credit besides other academic and moral qualifications.15 The āyariyauvajjhāya was one who had five years' standing and the knowledge of the Cheda-sutras like Dasă, Kappa and Vavahāra. Besides this, at the time of appointing an ayariyauvajjhāya, if no other proper person was available, then a person who was fit for that office but whose standing in monkhood was cut short (nivuddhavasa-pariyae) due to some transgression committed by him, was reinitiated the same day, and made the ayariyauvajjhaya. But he was to show good conduct and had to earn the confidence of other monks. Thus, conduct by the person as well as confidence in him by others were the chief items that were taken into consideration, and the principle of not imposing an officer unpopular to the rest of the members of the church was very wisely carried out.
16

Similarly, various other rules regarding the misbehaviour and the suspension or dismissal of ayariyauvajjhaya are to be found for the first time in the Vavahärasutta." Thus, if he broke the vow of celibacy while holding office, then he was debarred from holding any post in the church hierarchy throughout his life. The same was the case if he became worldly while holding office, or turned out to be liar, deceitful, sinful or impure. If, however, he broke celibacy after leaving his office, then he was suspended for three years.

Page #6

46
ÅCĂRYA VIJAYAVALLABHASŐRI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
Similar details are to be found regarding the Gaņāvacchedaka.18 This officer and the acārya required eight years standing, the knowledge of Thānanga and Samavāyanga and excellent moral conduct. Further, a distinction was made between acāryas some of whom either confirmed or initiated candidates.
The offers in the church hierarchy were bound by explicit rules of seniority and succession. The term used to denote seniority was paryāya and it was based on the number of years spent in the order as a monk. In order to avoid conflict between age and seniority, certain rules had to be framed to avoid bad feeling between different members of the church. With a view, therefore, to put this into practice, the ayariyauvajjhāya waited for four or five days if during that period another monk older in age completed his studies. Then he first confirmed the elder and then the younger even though the latter had completed his studies earlier. Such superiors who deliberately confirmed the younger earlier than the older monk even though both had completed their studies, had to undergo the punishment of Cheda or Parihara.19 So also if two monks of different paryāyas wandered together and if the monk with greater paryāya had no disciples while the other with less paryaya had, then the latter with his disciples had to remain under the control of the former who had greater paryāya to his credit.20
Inspite of these rules of seniority, the acārya was allowed to appoint his successor if the former was seriously ill, or had entered householdership again. But in order to have no occasion for favouritism by which there was a chance of unfit persons stepping into the 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 quitted the office, well and good; then he was not to undergo any punishment for that. But, if inspite of the request of the rest of the monks, he persisted to hold on, then that person had to undergo Cheda or Parihara 21 Thus the working of the church went on on purely democratic lines in those days.
Besides this, changing the gaña also was confined within the framework of certain rules. For instance, those who wanted re-entry or had come from another gana after committing moral faults, were first to undergo confession, condemnation of faults, had to determine not to repeat' these faults again, undergo a prāyaścitta for it, and then be the member of the old gana or a new one.22

Page #7

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
The person who was punished with either the anavatthappă or pārāñciya could be consecrated again at the express desire of the gaña (ganassa pattiyan siya), irrespective of the fact whether that punished person had followed the life of a householder or otherwise after his dismissal. Thus a vote of confidence in him by the rest of the members of the gaṇa was taken as a sufficient qualification of that person for his claim to re-enter his old group. Along with this power of re-admitting a person to the gana, the right of driving out (nijjūhana) a person from the gaña was also exercised by the members of a gaņa.23
As noted elsewhere, the same list of ten prāyaścittas is to be found even in the Cheda-sūtras. But the elaboration of the vavahära (procedure towards a transgressor) is to be found in these Cheda-sūtras where concrete cases are cited and different prāyaścittas are prescribed for them. Especially, the last four, viz., cheda, müla, aṇavatthappa and pārāñciya come to prominence.24
Cheda has been explained by Schübring as "the loss of a part of the monk's ecclesiastical rank among his brethren, which dates from his second reception, the definitive consecration to the vow".25 This cut in the paryāya differed with the rank of the person in authority. For instance, the minimum cut in the case of a monk was of five days while for an acārya it was fifteen days.
Complete cheda led to mūla. In the mūla, the monk lost all his period of monkhood right since his entering the order, and he had to begin anew his career as a monk. . It should be noted that the Cheda-sútras seldom refer to mūla, while the Jitakalpa does not give much details about it. : Anavatthappă was that in which the monk's entire paryaya was wiped out. In this case, before the monk was re-initiated, a period was given to him in which he had to make sincere efforts for qualifying himself for re-entry to monkhood. If he failed to do so, then he was not allowed to enter monkhood again.
This "temporary excommunication" (anavatthappa) was inflicted on such monks who stole something belonging to their co-religionists, or belonging to persons of other sects, or those who struck others with a fist.26 5. Parañciya was the final and the greatest punishment. It denoted the expulsion of the monk from the order and thus putting an end to his

Page #8

48
ÅCĂRYA VIJAYAVALLABHASŪRI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
life as a monk. Those who were of a criminal nature (duttha), indifferent to rules of behaviour (pamatta), and sodomites were punished with parāñciya.27
In this matter, three terms may be distinguished from one another, viz., parañciya, samukkasaņa and nijjühaņa. The first denoted the driving out of a person from the order of monks, the second implied the expulsion of a person holding office if he lost the confidence of his followers, and the third term represented the omission of a person from a particular gaņa or group of monks.
Another term often found in the Cheda-sūtras is "parihara”. It was twofold: ugghäiya and aņugghāiya. These are explained by Schübring as follows: "The expressions ugghăiya and anugghaiya .... denote conditional sentences passed on persons for transgressions. They represent the intervention of a period (udghata), in which the punishment is softened or made mild between the different periods of expiation, perhaps also the pronouncement of the sentence and its carrying out”. 28
The monk who was undergoing the parihara was completely isolated from the rest of the monks. No common begging of alms or taking food together with other monks was allowed. One who did so had himself to undergo parihāra for a month.29 Due consideration, however, was shown to the transgressor undergoing parihāra if he fell ill.30
It is to be noted that at every time, the accused was given the opportunity to explain his own position. Therefore, it was laid down that the church officers should put more faith in him who confessed the fault of his own accord rather than in some others who reported the fault to the elders. For it was said that the procedure of dealing with the transgressor was based fundamentally on truth (saccapaiņņā vavahärä).31
These rules were guiding the communal life of not only an ordinary monk as a member of an ascetic community, but more so the life of officers like an upadhyāya or an ācārya. For instance, deliberate postponement of confirmation of a novice, the violation of morals when holding office, refusing to leave office when others justifiably demand for it, changing the nature of a fault and giving less punishment for it-all these were liable for punishment.32
Thus the Cheda-sūtras and the Niryuktis supply us with more details about the rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence and their actual applica

Page #9

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCES
tion. These groups of canonical texts give us the impression that the Jaina church was organising itself on a planned basis.
The post-canonical texts present a still wider horizon, a still more consciousness for public opinion in the form of the laity and an admirable adjustment to circumstances.
Formerly, generally children below eight years of age were not allowed entry to the church. But the Nischa-cunni expressly states that six types of children could be ordained, viz., if all the members of a family wanted to join the order, if all the relatives of a monk were dead and only a child was left over, an orphaned child, an orphaned issue of a sejjāyari, the issue of a raped nun, and if there were chances of benefitting the kula, gana or the samgha through state officers, then also a child could be initiated.33
Eunuchs were not normally allowed entry to the church. But if he was dear to the king, or able to look after the welfare of the gaccha in cases of royal disfavour, or if such a one was an able physician who could look after the ill, then he was initiated. But even then by hook or crook he was to be driven out of the gaccha.34
It seems, therefore, that the church tried to please the ruling power and avoided, as far as possible, enmity with the king. On the contrary, it did not lose any opportunity of getting benefit out of it for the spread of the Order.
It is to be noted that, besides the moral and academic qualifications of various church officers, some other necessary qualifications were expected of them. For instance, an ācārya was to be a person, according to Brhatkalpa-bhāsya, who had knowledge of regional etiquettes. He was expected to have toured through various regions at least for twelve years.35
The other officers seem to have remained the same, though there seems to have been a slight degradation in the academic qualifications in later period. For the Brhatkalpa-bhäsya speaks of "half-instructed goblins” hurrying up to pose like an acārya.36 This might have been the case probably due to the rise of several gacchas which were headed by ācāryas.
These gacchas were also bound by certain rules. The acārya looked to the upkeep of the morale of the members of the gaccha. If, inspite

Page #10

50 ACARYA VIJAYAVALLABHASURI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
of repeated warnings, the disciples indulged in bad ways then they were driven out. If, however, they begged pardon, they were re-admitted after having undergone the punishment of masa-laghu.
If the dissenters were in a majority, and they refused to fall out, the minority-group left the place without the knowledge of the majority group.$7
The post-canonical texts, besides describing the principal ten prāyaścittas, bring to prominence an elaborate system of fasts (as punishment) like the caturlaghu, masalaghu, masaguru (which were further distinguished as kalalaghu, kalaguru, tapolaghu and tapoguru etc.), and the pañcarăindiya which the transgressor had to undergo for purification.
The Curni to the Bṛhatkalpa-bhāṣya (v. 359), according to Schübring, explains vavahara (the procedure of treating the transgressor), as expiatory fasts of varied durations which were divided into nine categories like the following:
Name of punishment
Guruo
Gurugatarão
Aha-guruo
Lahuo
Lahutarão
Aha-lahuo
Lahusao
Lahusatarão
Aha-lahusao

Duration
1 month
4 months
6 months
30 days
25 days
20 days
15 days
10 days
5 days
This system of expiatory fasts was further elaborated by complex distinctions as follows:
A monk was not expected to accept any raw fruit, but if he accepted it: in a settlement (niveśana), then he had to face catväro laghavaḥ;
in a pataka, then catvaro guravaḥ;
in a row of houses,....saḍlaghavaḥ;
in a village,....sadguravaḥ;
at the gates of a village, .... cheda ;
outside the village,... müla;
at the boundary of the village, .... páráficika.
Nature of the fast
Atthamena
Dasamena
Duvalasamena
Chatthena
Cautthena
Ayambilena
Ega-ṭṭhanena
Purimaddhena Nivviena

Page #11

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
52
Not only that but these punishments increased the more, the higher the position the person held in the church hierarchy. For instance,
Normally, monks were not allowed to stay in a place full of seeds. But if they stayed there then the following prāyaścittas were prescribed : 39 Designation Prāyaścitta
Nature Acārya
Laghuko masa Tapaså kålena ca laghukah Upadhyāya
Tapasā gurukah Vrşabha
Kalena Bhikṣu
Tapasā kālena ca laghukah The details regarding other types of prāyaścittas were more or less the same with the difierence that the last three or four prāyaścittas are further elaborated. For instance,
Cheda was prescribed for the following offences : 40
(a) getting proud of one's penance, (b) being unable to carry out penances, (c) having no faith in penance, (d) losing control over oneself even after penance, (e) indulging in sexual intercourse and (f) frequently breaking the uttaragunas.
Müla was prescribed for the following offences : 41
(a) breaking any of the five great vows, (b) constantly breaking the müla and uttarguņas, (c) accepting householdership or heretical faith out of pride, and (d) causing impregnation or abortion.
Anavasthāpya items remained the same, but the monk who was punished with this sentence had to undergo various fasts upto the fourth or the sixth meal. He had to undergo this mode of life for the maximum period of twelve years. Moreover, he had to bow down to all, had to live in one corner of the monastery and no verbal contact was allowed to him with other monks.
The BỊhatkalpa-bhâsyat2 gives details about pārāñcika which are the same as those given in the Thānanga.
Both the Jītakalpa-bhäşya43 and the Bșhatkalpa-bhāşya44 give more details about the implementation of pārāñcika. For instance, the monk who was accused of āśatanā pārāñcika stood out of the gaccha for a minimum period of six months and a maximum period of a year. On the other hand, he who had to face the pratisevana pärañcika had to go out for a minimum period of one year and a maximum period of twelve years.

Page #12

52
ACĀRYA VIJAYAVALLABHASŪRI COMMEMORATION VOLUME
It may be noted that only the acārya could pronounce the punishment of parāñcika against a monk. The defaulter had to lead a secluded life for twelve years. If, however, he fell ill, then either the acārya or the upādhyāya had to wait upon him.
Under certain cases, the punishment of the monk punished with pārāñcika, was commuted. If such a monk was successful in pleasing the king who on that account stopped giving trouble to the monks, then at the request of the king, the Samgha could even go to the length of setting the defaulter free from the blot by cancelling the rest of the punishment.
The most important thing to be noted is that the Jitakalpa and its Bhāșya seem to refer to the fact that anavasthāpya and pārāñcika went out of use after Bhadrabāhu, the caturdaśapūrvadharin. This can be corroborated by the fact that these texts mostly refer to fasts of various magnitudes as punishments for transgressions of different types committed by the monk, and the Bșhatkalpa-bhäsya often refers to them. In cases of transgressions regarding improper company,45 using improper roads,46 seeking improper residence, selecting improper clothing, 47 wearing them improperly,48 improperly coating the bowl,49 and in several other matters we find that these smaller expiatory fasts were mostly prescribed. One instance50 will suffice here. Normally a monk was not to eat raw fruit. But if he took with permission the fruit belonging to a heretic then he had to undergo caturlaghavah, and if belonging to the Bhogika.......
Caturguru if belonging to the Grāma.......
Şadlaghu if belonging to the Vaņik........
Şadguru if belonging to the Gosthi.
Cheda if belonging to the householder....
Müla if belonging to the police....
Anavasthāpya if belonging to the king........
Parañcika One more aspect of these later texts should be noted and that is that they give abundant exceptions to the general rule in cases of peculiar circumstances-either social, political or climatic. Due to these, the monks had to adjust their behaviour without transgressing the core of monastic life. It is quite likely, therefore, that due to that such a system of expiatory fasts for transgressions came in vogue. On this basis, rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence took a new look, and they were made more accommodative.

Page #13

DEO: JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE
Coming to the rules of jurisprudence as applicable to Jaina nuns, one finds that the nuns were always taken to be subordinate to the monks. It is laid down that "a monk of three years' standing may become the upādhyāya of a nun of thirty years' standing; and a monk of five years' standing can become the upādhyāya of a nun of sixty years' standing". 51 This reminds one of a similar rule from the Buddhist text Cullavagga (X, 1,4,) where it is stated that a nun even of a hundred years' standing should bow down to a monk who has quite recently been initiated. This explains the utterly subordinate position of the nuns of both these sects in their church organisation. The Vavahara-sutta52 again lays down that "the ācārya, upādhyāya and the pravartinī—these three are the protectors of the nuns".
The rules of jurisprudence as applied in the case of nuns were not radically different from those of the monks, hence they need not be repeated here again. One thing, however, may be noted, and that is regarding parihāra—i.e. keeping the transgressor separate from the group. According to the Vavahāra-sutta (5, 11-12), the nuns underwent this punishment while the Brhatkalpa-bhāsya (V, p. 1561) prohibited the nuns from undergoing it.
A survey of these rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence, however disconnected it may appear, brings one or two aspects to prominence. The first is that, unlike the Buddhist texts, the Jaina texts fail to give exhaustive details regarding the circumstances that led to the formulation of rules. Secondly, the list of the principal ten prāyaścittas is the same in both the canonical and non-canonical or later texts. But the Cheda-sūtras and later texts show attempts of codification of rules of monastic jurisprudence and possibly organisation of church. For details, however, we have to depend mostly on commentaries. Even in these, details regarding the process of appointing church officers, the method of trying a monk before an assembly of monks, etc. are not to be found exhaustively. Thirdly, later texts lay more emphasis on expiatory fasts. Possibly the major prāyaścittas were rarely used. Fourthly, the position of nuns always remained subordinate to monks. And lastly, whatever rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence are to be found were formulated solely with a view to retain the core of orthodoxy and purity of monastic life undisturbed. This orthodoxy and purity are still the coveted merits of Jaina monachism.

Page #14
54 ACARYA VIJAYAVALLABHASURI COMMEMORATION VOLUME REFERENCES 1. p. 516a. 2. Bhag. p. 382a; Than. p. 142b. 3. Ibid., p. 329ab. 4. Ibid., pp. 239b, 240a. 5. p. 164b. 6. Than. p. 331b. 7. p. 919ab; Than. p. 484a. 8. p 920b. 9. p. 484a; 355b. 10. Than. p. 484a. 11. Ibid., pp. 162b-164b. 12. Sm0, p. 47b; Then pp. 199a ft. 13. Bhag. comm. pp. 351-52; Than. comm. pp. 168ab. 14. Vav, 10, 14. 15. Ibid., 3, 3-4. 16. Schubring, Die Lehra der Jainas, article 141. 17. 3, 9-25. 18. Vav. 3, 7. 19. Ibid., 4, 15. 20. lbid., 4, 24. 21. Ibid., 4, 13-14. 22. Ibid., 6, 10-11. 23. Ibid., 2, 6-17, 24. For exhaustive details, see the author's thesis "The History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Literature". 25. 1.A., 39, p. 262, f.n. 25. 26. Brh. Kalp. 4, 3; Jitakalpa 87-89. 27. Brh. Kalp. 4, 2. 28. Introduction to German edition of Vavahara and Nisiha Sutta. 29. Nis. 4, 112. 30. Vav. 2, 6. 31. Ibid., 2, 24-25. 32. Nis. 16, 16-24. 33. Nis. Cun. 11, pp. 717ff. 34. Brh, Kalp. bha. Vol. V, 5172-89. 35. Vol. III, 3005ff. 36. Vol. I, 373-75. 37. Brh. Kalp. bha. II, 1272-73. 38. 1.A., 39, p. 267, f.n. 45. 39. Brh. Kalp, bha. IV, 3304. 40. Jat, bha. 2280-87; Vim. 16, 13. 41. Jit. bha. 2288-2300; Vim. 16, 14. 42. Vol. V, 4971-84; Jit. bha. 2463ff. 43. 2578ff. 44. Vol. V, 5032ff. 45. Brh. Kalp. bha. Vol. II, 886-888. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid., Vol. I, 607-31. 48. Ibid., 758. 49. Ibid., 471-529. 50. Ibid., Vol. II, 906. 51. Vav. 7, 15-16. 52. 3, 12. N -