Book Title: Harmless Soul
Author(s): W J Johnson, Dayanand Bhargav
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 99
________________ Conclusions 85 co-exist. The latter does not replace the former. This reflects the way in which the two doctrines concerning bondage co-exist within the one religious system. There are two different authoritative references, depending upon whether one is a householder or a monk; but these only conflict when they are viewed together, theoretically; in practice, the perspective is always from within one or the other of these. Nevertheless, even within the new soteriological gradation, it is only necessary to look at the vows (vrata - literally, 'restraints') which constitute even the lay pratimā, in order to see what is considered important in terms of practice, as opposed to theory. The emphasis of these is heavily ascetic, i.e. they involve above all the restriction of physical activity. In fact they constitute a progression towards the full asceticism of the monk or nun, carrying the vratin further and further away from ordinary householder existence.12 So whatever the theoretical stress on internal discipline or dispassion, in terms of actual conduct there is no remission of physical asceticism; rather such conduct is extended into the lay sphere. The ladder is lowered from above, not erected from below. P.S. Jaini, commenting on the Chedasūtras, writes that they 'provide valuable insight into the numerous restrictions imposed upon itself by the [monastic] community, mainly in order to preserve its integrity in the face of increasing dependence upon the laity'.13 I would add to this that another way to annul such a threat is for the ascetics to encourage the laity to become more like them. more ascetic. Whatever one's internal 12 See JPP p. 187 for a list, and ibid. pp. 157-187 for a discussion of how these relate to the pratimā. Jaini relies here upon R. William's study of mediaeval śrāvakācāra texts, Jaina Yoga (1963) OUP. See also TS 7:19ff. for householder vrata; these have been identified by R. Williams 1963, p. 2-3, as essentially Digambara vrata, whereas the 'autocommentary' is markedly Śvetāmbara in tone (ibid. p. 2, fn. 1), providing further evidence that the TS and its bhāşya are not by the same hand. 13 JPP pp. 63-64. Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372