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 439

434
S. B. DEO ments which were fast changing, were also influencing the normal rules of ascetic discipline.
Satya :
The Vimsativimsikā261 lays down 'vacanakşanti' (absence of anger in speech), 'vacanārjava' (gentleness of speech) and 'vacanamukti' (unattachment in speech), as the fundamental requirements of a monk's speech. He was never to speak a lie, or use an injurious speech.
We have, however, already seen that the 'gītārthas' themselves violated this rule when they pretended that they had used pure water to wash clothes, when they actually used any water and dipped their milk-dried clothes (kholla) in it. The same was the case regarding the 'gulikā’.262 Even though such practices were resorted to with the good intention of not allowing the raw novice to indulge in improper behaviour regarding water, yet the ‘gītārtha' also came a step lower in his moral qualifications to gain a worthy end.
Harsh words could be addressed to a novice who had done a grave offence so that he left the gaņa.263
Asteya:
Against the theoretical existence of the vow of 'adattādāna', the stealing of requisites was perhaps a very common offence among the monks as is clear from the various punishments ascribed to different types of stealing.
The Brhatkalpabhāsya264 prescribes punishment for the ācārya who stole valuable or ordinary requisites of his co-religionists, a monk who gathered for him excess requisites secretly besides those for the gaccha, the monk who acquired another set of requisites on the false pretext that his old set was burnt, and the monk who appropriated for himself the requisites which he was asked to hand over to somebody else.
Stealing the requisites of a monk of rival sect was deemed a greater offence. If the monk was exposed in this attempt, and if a case was filed against him, then he was punished by the Church with 'cheda'. If the king expelled him from his kingdom, then the Church punished the offender with pārāñcika'.265
261. 11, 7-8. 262. See above page. 263. Brh. kalp. bhā., Vol. I, 756. 264. Vol. V, 5064-87. 265. Ibid. 5091,