________________
[9] Even if only the lay followers keep up a vigil at the possession of properties in villages and the Buddhist monks never do so, they are sinful because they enjoy the products which are prepared especially for them (ähäkamma / ädhäkarman),51
[10] Finally, the Buddhist opponent says that such a practice is not regarded as a fault since it is due to the bad era. But Haribhadra questions: why can one be faultless when he commits a sinful activity which he can remove even in the bad era?52
[11] While this dispute recorded in the Dhammasamgahani seems to reflect some historical facts of Buddhist monasteries in the mediaeval period, I cannot say for certain whether or not such a dispute actually happened between Haribhadra and the Buddhists. At this point, I am not sure about the name of Buddhist sect or school which Haribhadra criticized. As a future task, whether or not Haribhadra correctly tells about the Buddhist opinion must be judged. It is imperative to fully collect the accounts found in the (Hinayana / Mahāyāna) Buddhist texts or inscriptions which depict the possession of properties by the Buddhist monks and try to identify each passage with the relevant record of the Dhammasamgahani.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Dasaveyāliya. Ernst Leumann & Walther Schubring, The Dasaveyaliya Sutta, Ahmedabad, 1932.
Dhammasamgahani. Kalyāṇavijaya, Śrīmad Haribhadrasuriviracitā Acārya Malayagiripraṇītaya Ṭīkaya samalankṛtā Dharma-sangrahani, 2 Volumes. Mumbai, 1916 (Śresthi Devacandra Lalabhai Jainapustakoddhāra Granthänka 39 & 42).
Prasamaratiprakaraṇa.
Yajneshwar S. Shastri, Acārya Umāsvāti Vācaka's
50 On the meaning of this term, see Deo 1956: 283-4, 287-90.
51
siya tassuvāsaga cciya karemti padiyagganam na bhikkhu tti / tapphalaparibhogo vi hu āhākammam ti to duttho //1013//
52 kālaparihāṇidosā eddahamitte na ce havati doso I sakkaparihārasāvajjasevaṇe kaham adoso tu //1014//
10
