________________
16
S. B. DEO Upadhyāya AMARA MUNI in his Hindi preface to Nisīhasutta has dealt with this problem in a masterly way. The gist of it being relevant to our problem may be summarized for the proper understanding of the rules of Jaina monastic jurisprudence
First and the foremost point is that a person not wellversed in monastic conduct (agīyattha) has no right to decide whether a particular behaviour or reaction to circumstances can be adopted as an exception or 'apavāda'. The decision as to the judging of an exception to a rule and the consequences related to it were the sole responsibility of a senior who was well-versed and experienced (gīyattha). This practice thus checked the tendency of a lax monk to resort to exceptions for his own convenience.
Secondly, even in the case of well-behaved monks, resort to exceptions was favoured in abnormal circumstances, for if otherwise he died, no question remained about selfcontrol.
सव्वत्थ संजमं, संजमाओ अप्पाणमेव रक्खिज्जा । मुच्चइ अइवायाओ, पुणो विसोही न याऽविरइ ।।४६।। संजमहेउं देहो धारिज्जअि सो कओ उ तदभावे । संजम-फाइनिमित्तं, देहपरिपालणा इट्ठा
1801/
-- Tefusafa. These verses clearly tell us that a person should pursue self-control by all means. If it, however, means death for him in abnormal circumstances, then one should protect oneself, even if it means a deviation from selfcontrol. A monk who protects his life by resorting to exceptions is not guilty of transgression, if his mind is pure. Moreover, by remaining alive he can undergo expiatory punishment for such a transgression. For the proper following of self-control, the protection of the body is essential.
The author referred to above puts the whole argument in a nutshell when he says--
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
