________________
123
seems one of those most severely condemned by the Jaina (cf. Suya 2, 2, 20). It must be expiated - before the offence itself by an additional month (cf. paliuñciya, Vav 1, 1-16). It is also reproved by the Buddhists (Vin II 40-58) since it is a deliberate lie, intentional deceit is barely expiable (Vin I 103-4; compare Kane IV, 75; 63; Gampert, 236).
Among the various faults that one risks commiting during the cere. mony, the commentaries pick out offences against precedence which is here complicated by the fact that it is neccesary at the same time to mark the superiority of the confessor over the one confessing, and to show the hierarchical relationship normally existing between two individuals present (T III 43 ff.; cf. infra 151 ff.).
It will be recalled that confessors fall into two categories, agamavyavaharin, śruta-vyavahārin (supra 89). The first, who possess in some ways superhuman knowledge, can immediately detect any lapses of memory which disfigure the confession. If they judge it beneficial, they jog p. 143 the memory of the offender; and if they know him to be capable of reforming, they prescribe a penance for him. If not, they do not waste their time on him, since they never undertake anything which would be a mistake (TII 43 a-b; cf. Bh 1, 136).
The technique of the second sort of confessor is well established. To satisfy themselves that the confession is sincere and truthful, the confessors cause it to be repeated three times. The first time, they pretend to be asleep1: "I dropped off to sleep. I heard nothing. Begin your confession again". The second time they say: "I was not paying attention and I did not understand you very well. Start again." If the third version is identical with the other two, one concludes that the religous has not lied (apratikuñco amāyāvī) :
...aloyāventi te u tikkhutto
saris'attham apaliuñcī visarisa pariņāmato kuñcī
(Bh 1, 137 Nis Bh:6 395). It is in this fashion, apparently, that the secular judge proceeds (dandaka, karaṇa-pati) when he questions himself about the good faith of those who appear before him. He causes the event to be related three times running :
tinni u vārā jaha dandiyassa...
(Bh 1, 138 a = Nis Bh 6 396; cf. Nis cunni IV, 304).
The doctor śruta-vyavaharin does his best, besides, to interpret the behaviour of the penitent. He recognises the rascal by his uneasy air, the 1. Note this untruth-But it is pure (cf. supra 98).
