________________
238
S. B. DEO It should be noted that pārañciya, samukkasaņa and nijjūhana were different terms.
The first denoted final driving out of a person from the order of monks, the second implied the expulsion of a person holding office if he lost the confidence of his followers, and the third term represented the omission of a person from a particular gana or a group of monks.
Besides these ten prāyaścittas, circumstances arose which required a different mode of punishment. For instance, if a monk practising austerities “goes out of the service of the elders and there perchance commits a fault, and the elders hear of it, either coming themselves or hearing it from others, then one may proceed towards him in the lightest way" (ahālahusaë nāma vavahāre).132
The principle underlying these rules of monastic jurisprudence was based on the sound view of giving all concessions to the guilty to refute the charges levelled against him. Therefore, it was laid down that the church officers should put more faith in him who. confessed the fault of his own accord, than in some others who reported the fault to the elders. For it was said that the procedure of dealing with the transgressor was based fundamentally on truth (saccapaïnnā vavahārā). 133
The Executors of Punishment :
This being the case, the necessity of having a head-supervisor above a group of monks was all the more necessary and no monk was allowed to wander or remain alone. If while wandering from village to village, the leader of a group of monks died, then the monks were immediately to select and appoint another head. Those who chose to remain without a superior over them, had to undergo 'cheda' or parihāra '.134
It should be noted that these executors of judgment, in the persons of the ācārya and the upādhyāya, were also bound by certain rules. Deliberate postponement of confirmation of a novice, the violation of morals either when holding office or after leaving it, and refusing to leave office when others demand for it were looked upon as grave offences, and the Church officers had to undergo a more severe punishment than ordinary monks. So also calling an 'ugghāïya' fault as 'aņugghāïya' and vice versa,
132. Byh.kalp. 5, 53; Engl. Transl., 1.A., Vol. 39, p. 267; see fn. 45 on the same page, where according to the Cūrni the 'ahälahusao' is explained as being a fast of five days of the nirvikstika mode.
133. Vav. 2, 24-25. 134. Ibid., 4, 11-12.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
