________________
109
When there is a question of "fundamental merits" or of “additional merits”, they distinguish two types of transgressions : some are caused by the presumption of the subject (darpa) and others arise in the exercise of the Rule (kalpa) :
ekk ekkā vi ya duvihā dappe koppe ya nāyavvā (Bh 1, 38 b).
It is specified that these last (kal pika) bave a cause (infra): the resurgence of the karman previously accumulated (karmôdaya, cf. Bh 1, 41 f.)
One might perhaps wonder how a zealous monk could transgress. It could happen that he stumbles on a rough road, that he slips in the mud etc. (Bh 1, 39 f.). The fault arises then on the very path of virtue: from this comes its name of kal pika "a sin<involuntarily committed while carrying out the rule.” On the other hand, the offence which does not result from the karman is "without cause" - deliberately committed by a person who
displays no zeal at all, it is a "sin of pride" (darpika) (yā kāraṇam antarena · pratisevanā krizate să darpika, yā punaḥ kārane sā kalpikā (Vav T II 14 b .. 4 f.). It can be seen then that the first sort of offence contributes - indireci tly, it is true - to the apnjbilation of the karman (kamma-kkhaya-karani)
and that the second gives rise to it (kanıma-jaṇanī) (Bh 1, 42). This particular case contradicts the general theory (recalled by Bh 43), according to wbich the fault and the karman, like the grain and the plant, beget one another indefinitely.
From the foregoing distinction, there follow four types of sins defined by the commentaries: 1. kārane yatanayā; 2. kārane ayatanaya; 3. akārane yatanayā; 4. akārane ayalanayā (cf. Bh 1, 425). It is true that there is no trace of these combinations in tbe Vavahāra-sutta. But they are not superfluous in the Bhāsa and Tikā : they permit the correct assessment of the penance appropriate to any fault. For it is well known that, in the theory
of the atonements, all cases are particular pşthag anyo 'nyo dana-vidhih (scil. i prāyascittasya dāna-v., Vav Ţ III 50 a 11 f.). ó: 128. There is hardly room for doubt that the authors of this casuistry attach
great importance to the intentions of the monk.
The Vay. Pith mentions other forms of the act which are likewise found in the Than, Viyah (and recorded by Deo, History, 152). Certain acts are committed through carelessness, lack of thought, etc.; others are caused by adverse circumstances (āvai). It is known that in the case of circumstances
beyond one's control, the Jainas have no more hesitation than the Hindus " ip lifting the usual prohibitions (cf. K 6, 3-12; supra 97.)
........Moreover, they lay it down formally that the responsibility of the
" religious is directly related to his freedom of action. He is not considered
