________________
HISTORY OF JAINA MONACHISM
433 Minuteness of details regarding everything seems to have, however, led to a difference of opinion among the various leaders of the Church. Against the rule not allowing the monk to do any activity near the proximity of water (udakatīra), the Brhatkalpabhāşya257 refers to a number of interpretations regarding the exact definition of the 'udakatira'. This may suggest the existence of some members of the Church who favoured liberalism in interpretation and were inclined to have a liberalisation of moral discipline than the others.
This liberalism is corroborated by some statements of the commentators also. It was said that even though the normal rule of choosing a path devoid of living beings was to be followed, under exceptional circumstances touring along a 'sacitta' road was also allowed, and the rule was that 'vastvantaramāśritya vidhih pratişedho vā vidhīyate',258 i.e. the exceptions were to be adjusted to the circumstances. On this basis, the monks who were the victims of royal displeasure were allowed to disguise and eat that food which was normally not allowed.259 The view prevailed that only he was a 'hiņsaka' who was 'pramatta' (careless).
When there was no occasion for exceptional conduct the monks behaved according to the normal rules of monastic discipline, and had to care much for the social condemnation as will be clear from the following case :
The monks were not allowed to eat raw fruits. But if a young man saw a monk accepting it then the monk had to face 'caturlaghu'. If that young man had a doubt regarding the exact thing the monk had accepted--for he was likely to doubt whether the monk had accepted gold—then the monk had to undergo 'caturlaghu'. If he was sure of it, then 'caturguru'. If the young man told his wife about it, and if she repudiated it, then 'caturguruka'. If she did not repudiate his statement, then 'sadlaghavah'. If he told about it to his friends or his parents and if the latter did not repudiate it, then 'cheda'. If he told it to the guards, and if they put faith in it, then 'müla'. If they repudiated the man's statement, then 'cheda'. If the king came to know of it through his ministers, and if he repudiated it, still the monk had to face 'anavasthāpya'. But if the king also believed in it, then the monk was punished with 'pārāñcika'.260
Inspite of these precautions, the post-canonical literature reveals rules more for the exceptional circumstances, which possibly suggest that environ
257. Vol. III, 2385. 258. Ogha-N. comm. p. 37b. 259. Mis-C. 9, p. 518.
260. Brh. kalp. bha. Vol. II, 866. BULL. DCRI.--55
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
