Agam 10 Ang 10 Prashna Vyakaran Sutra Sthanakvasi

SR No.: 002907
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Amarmuni, Varunmuni, Sanjay Surana
Publisher: Padma Prakashan
Publication Year: 2008
Total Pages: 576
Language: Hindi, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Book_English, Agam, Canon, Conduct, & agam_prashnavyakaran
File Size: 19 MB

Page 406

455 456 457 455 456 457 451 455 456 457 455 456 457 4554545454545455 456 457 455 456 457 455 456 457 458 455 456 457 451 450 5 practice the vow of non-stealing this principle is essential. But the $i question may arise that a monk may suddenly find a straw which he
needs when he is in a forest away from a village or a town during his wanderings what should he do then ?
The reply to it is that in scriptures, there are five beings who can grant permission. They are (1) god Indra, (2) a king, (3) the owner of the house or the state, (4) a householder devotee, and (5) a co-religionist. In the above said condition, in case an insignificant thing like stone or straw is needed by the monk. He can accept it with the permission of 41
Indra.
听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听乐乐555555听听听听听听听
To distinctly express it in the aphorism the words 'datt manunnaya samvaro' have been used. Simply the word 'datt Samvar' has not been used. It means that the articles such as stool, beds and the like which belong to a householder should be accepted only if their owner offers them and the articles such as dust or stone, which do not belong to anyone, and which are free for use of the common men, should be take by a monk with the permission of god Indra. By accepting in this manner, he does not transgress the vow.
There are some other doubts relating to the vow of non-stealing namely when a monk acquires Karma or no-Karma, which is not offered. Why then it is said that he does not transgress the vow?
In respect of the said doubt, the reply is that stealing is in respect of that article which can be given and taken. In case of Karma and noKarma such an activity is not possible. So to accept it is not stealing.
Another doubt is that a monk enters the gate or gate of the town during his wanderings. Why cannot it be termed as 'adattadan'.
The reply to it is that the road and the gate of the town is common for all passers-by. It is for the monks also in the same fashion as it is for 5 others so it should not be considered as adattadan (act without
permission of the owner). The fault of adattadan is only where there is $ slackness. A monk which coming to a road from any side is not in a state 4
of slackness. So he is not committing the fault of stealing (adattadan). In a nutshell adattadan is only in that condition) where any activity is with bad contemplation or planning whether the external object concerned is taken away or not.
因听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听FFFFFFFFFF5555555 $5听听听听听听
श्री प्रश्नव्याकरण सूत्र
( 328 )
Shri Prashna Vyakaran Sutra
$144145144555441414141414141414141414141414141414145454545454545