History of Jaina Monachism

SR No.: 001727
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S B Deo
Publisher: Deccan College Research Institute
Publication Year: 1956
Total Pages: 616
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Principle, & History
File Size: 12 MB

Page 400

HISTORY OF JAINA MONACHISM
395
Cutch).121 Among these householders, weavers, potters and blacksmiths seem to have been favourite hosts of the monks.122
Supervision and Protection of Residence:
Having once accepted a residence, the monks inspected it at least thrice a day because of the possibility of unchaste women leaving their children there, or the robbers depositing stolen property, or a murderer leaving the corpse there.123
Apart from these possibilities, there was a likelihood of a courtesan entering the monastery. In that case, the monks requested her to go. If she persisted, she was bound and was handed over to the police next morning.
Having handed her over to the police, the monks requested the king to inflict on her the highest punishment as laid down for one who stole a necklace from the king's treasury (śrīgrha), for the prostitute had attempted to steal the jewel of celibacy from the monk. From this it appears that younger monks were sometimes accosted by courtesans,124
For such reasons, therefore, the monks were asked not to leave the residence empty when going to the begging round. An able and well-versed monk was left behind.
Reasons given for this show a minute observation of human psychology and a keen judgment of possibilities. For instance, it was argued that if all the monks left a particular place, then the owner was likely to become 'mithyāvādin', or some heretics or animals were likely to enter, or somebody die uncared for. Moreover, if all the monks went without asking the owner, then the latter was likely to take them to be ungrateful and discourteous, and once prejudiced the owner of the lodge was likely to stop their food. The public in general, also, was likely to ask them the reason of their all-out exit, and was likely to suspect that the monks were perhaps driven out. They therefore, refused to offer another lodge, and absence of a suitable lodge was likely to lead to acts of injury to living beings and the violation of celibacy by the monks. If an animal died uncared for in the deserted monastery, the people were likely to remark that the monks were living in a cemetery even though in the town !125
121. Ibid. Vol. II, 1239. 122. Avašyaka-c. p. 285; Tika (Haribhadra) pp. 484ff. 123. Brh. kalp. bha., Vol. IV, 4747-49. 124. Ibid, Vol. V, 4920-25. 125. Ibid. Vol. I, 544-46.