Lord Mahavira Vol 02

SR No.: 023277
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S C Rampuria
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati Institute
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 244
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 21 MB

Page 219

210
=
:
Lord Mahâvîra life, it probably must be interpreted in the light of VII 13 288 b, where we learn that a layman, even if he practises what we might\ call the temporary retreat into religious life, performs a samparaiya action, not an iriyavahiya action. Both in its wording and its tenor the latter text again is closely connected with VIII 51=367a. Here for the first time we meet the Ajivikas VIII 5 in point of fact is the only place in the Viy.--except of course Viy. XV, the well-known story of Mahâvîra's dealings with Gosala Mankhaliputta-where the otherwise anonymous anyatirthikas are actually mentioned by name. (We may only suppose that the anyatirthikas in VII 101=323b and XVIII 74 750b are Ajivikas, because at least three of the proper names recorded there are found among the names of Ajivika laymen mentioned in VIII 53=369b) The point they raise, addressing the Theras, is of a particular interest. It comes to the insinuation that Jaina laymen lose every claim to their property, and even their wives, during the said temporary retreat into religious life. Now this almost exactly corresponds to what also the Buddhists reproached Jaina laymen for taking account of Viy. VIII 51 we consequently cannot say that the passage Anguttara Nikaya III, 70, 3, discussed by H. Jacobi in vol. XLV of the Sacred Books of the East (p. xviii seq.), 'contains some mistake or a gross misstatement'.
:
Mahâvîra's idea of the iriyavahiya action seems to have met with a great deal of incomprehension of the part of his contemporaries. It sometimes even puzzled his own disciples, for instance Mandiyaputta in III 31=-182b. One of its implications was the obligation, for the monk, to move carefully while discharging such religious duties as the begging-tour etc. (X 21=495b). Apparently the Jaina conception of this so-called iriya-sami was often attacked by the anyatirthikas (VIII 71-380a and XVIII 81=754b), although Mahâvîra's explanation of its real tenor sounds reasonable enough (XVIII 81=754a): if a monk hurts some small living being while walking in the prescribed way, the action still is in agreement with his religious duties. In my opinion texts such as Viy. XVIII 81-and in another context dealing with the laity. VII 13-288b somehow put the old controversial issue regarding the unconsciously committed sin (that divided, as is well known, the Jainas and the Buddhists in quite a different light. 10 As against the Ajivikas the Buddhists have not been