________________
Four Old Chedasutras
doubted in the case of a nun) [Kalpa 1,6-9] (The later commentators of the Chedasutras understood this to mean that a monk should not stay for less than one month in a moderately big town and for less than two months in a quite big town, an understanding which should enable one to appreciate the direction in which the Jaina theoretician's mind was moving from the oldest days down to the latest.)
The treatment of another problem in Chedasutra also throws some light on an aspect of the evolution of Jaina thought. This is the problem of prayaścitta or atonement. The problem could not assume a very great importance in the days when a monk would wander about all alone. Not that such a monk was not expected to abide by the rules that were presribed for him by his school, but the only thing that he could do in case he happened to violate such a rule was to see to it that the mistake was not repeated; the task con'd well have proved arduous enough but this is where matters would end. The things became different when a monk would move about under the spiritual supervision of a gana-leadership; for now in case he happened to violate some rule of conduct he would also be awarded due punishment by this leadership. Two types of punishment were designed by the Jaina theoreticians-one was called 'cheda' and consisted the in an appropriate reduction in the offender's seniority among church membership, the other was called 'parihara' and consisted in the oflender being excluded from the rest of the church membership and made to undertake appropriate penances. In the case of very few of their rulings do Kalpa and Vyavahara make an explicit mention of the atonement due for violation but when they do so their prescription is mostly to the effect that the offender is to be punished either by way of cheda or by way of parihara; in several cases (mosty occuring ia Kalpa) this prescription is to the effect that the offender is to be punished by way of 'anudghatima parihara running for four months', in rare cases it is to the effect that he is to be punished by way of 'udghatima parihāra running for four months'. What anudghatima and udghatima mean is explained nowhere though Kalpa 4.1 says about three particular offences that they are of the nature of anudghatima. About three other offences Kalpa 4.2 says that they are of the nature of parañcika, while about three others Kalpa 4.3 says that they are of the nature anavasthapya. In Vyavahara 2.18-23 things are said about anavasthapya and pārāmcika and from them we gather that one undergoing these types of punishment is compelled to lead the life of a householder before he is allowed re-entry in the gana but that he might be relived of this obligation by the gana concerned, The later commentators of Chedasutras often speak as if the three offences enumerated in Kalpa 4.2 are the 7
Jain Education International
49
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
