________________
six days (purva-prasthāpitāś ca ṣaṇ māsās leṣu eva ṣaṭsu divaseşu gateṣu vyuḍheṣu parisamaptaḥ kriyante, ibid 7 b 4 ff,). The six months made necessary by the second offence are imposed but with the effective suppression of six days, because the total time of a penance is limited to six months. Second case: out of the first six months, there are still six days to run. A new offence which deserves six months is committed. These months are then imposed, always in such a way as not to exceed six P. 180 months in all; they are thus in fact reduced to six days (with cancellation of five months 24 days of the second penance and six days of the first: teṣām ṣannām masānām ṣat divasaḥ prayaścittam, sesam samastam api jhoşitam. purva-prasthāpita ṣāņmāsām api ṣat divasaḥ jhosilaḥ T III 7 a 7 f) If there is no remission, the procedure is as follows (cf. Bh 1, 312= Nis Bh 6 552).
1
157
-
First case (T III 7 a 10 ff.): the first penance should count six months. After six days, a new offence deserving six months is committed. The five months 24 days remaining are cancelled (jhoşitah) and the six following months are imposed in full. Total: six months six days.
- Second case: (7.6) after five months 24 days of a first penance, there is a relapse necessitating a further six months. These last are maintained in full, while the six remaining days from the first offence lapse. Total: twelve months, less six days. It is the highest penance imposed - there is none more severe (nataḥ para tapo' rhe prayaścitta utkṛṣṭatara prasthapana'sti).
As with the preceding penance, this atonement is imposed only on robust religious
The commentaries foresee the accusation of favouritism, and refute it > (Bh 1, 313-Nis Bh 6 553, T III 7 b-8 a).
The fictitious opponent accuses the teacher of favouring the first penitent because he sees that he is still strong enough to be able to serve him agreeably; and he accuses the teacher of being severe on the second, who is too weakened. by his penances to be useful to him. "Thus, you close one eye and open the other;...you raise up the one and you kill the other." The teacher replies that he does nothing of the kind. He compares the penitents to two fires-the weak one to a fire which is scarcely alight and cannot burn large logs, the strong religious to a fire which is well alight. Or, again, he compares them to two servants: to one is given, in one month, enough food for four, and to the other, for four months, enough food for a single month. One dies of indigestion and the other of hunger. In the same way, the first penitent would succumb under a penance which was too heavy, while the penance which was too light would not be sufficient to rurify the second. The teacher concludes: in distributing the penance in each case as has been described, we remain
