________________
Some Noteworthy Features...
15
15
they prove to be no protection, no shelter to him; and he too proves to be no protection, no shelter to them.”
5.
Whenever the text speaks of violence and as already noted, it does so frequently enough -- it is always understood that the possible victims of violence are the six types of living beings; at times (e.g. 10.1, 33.23) that is even said in so many words. But an elaborate defence of the thesis that the types of living being are just six in number occurs in chapter 1. Naturally, the text here takes pride in the discovery that the rival monastic communities, since they do not uphold the thesis in question, are invariably guilty of so much violence (2.3 etc.); but in the rest of the chapters the point is not made much of.
The four moral vices that were later on called kaşāyas viz. krodha, māna, māyā and lobha are collectively mentioned at several places (e.g, 14.6, 18.4, 26.22) but they are never given the common designation kaşaya (or any other common designation). Nor are they ever subjected to any detailed description. And though each one of them crops up here or there in cons nection with some discussion or other, no technical significance attaches to the performance; (e.g. 6.20 mentions lobha, 6.33 mäna, 7.1 krodha, 9.19 maya)
And of the 5 moral vices later called maha-avrata it is only ärambha (later more usually called himsü or prānāti pāta) and parigraha which are here treated in details. As for the rest, they occur rarely and in a stray fashion and the impression is created as if they are meant to be of a coordinate states with ärambha and parigraha; (e g. 8.8, 17,24,20.17 mention abrahma, 14.1 mrşāvada, 27.8 adattadana).
7.
The 22 hardships of monastic life later called parīşaha are not met with in our text. But four of them- viz. trnasparśa, śitas parśa, tejahsparsa (= uşna psaría), damśamaśakasparsa-are mentioned repeatedly (e.g. 24.19, 35.18); at some places (e.g. 18.19.26.1,32.13, 33.17, 35 19) we also hear of sparsas in general and from that it can be gathered that the common designation originally interded to be given to the hardships in question was sparsa rather than parīşaha. The words parişaha and upasarga too occur there (e.g. the former in 32.19, the latter in 35.22, both in 32.20) but they do not appear to be technical usages.
As for the defects of alms' the later authors divide them into several groups but our text is acquainted with just 6 (of the 16 belonging to the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
