________________
47
ahālahusa
JAINA MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE - nivvīya - giving up dainties like
ghee, etc. in food.
Thus ultimately the combination of the period and the nature of the fast, formed the punishment. For instance, 'guru-guru' was the practice of the fast upto the 8th meal (astama) for a period of one month: 'qurulaghu', a fast
e 6th meal for a duration of one month, and 'gurulahusa' would be the practice of 'egūsaņa' for one month. Out of these flowered out a variety of combination of shortterm prāyaścittas. These were further adjusted in relation to the various seasons so as to suit the constitution of the person. Thus, out of these a number of permutations and combinations could be had. These, however, seem to have been brought into force during the period of the bhāsyas and the curņis as none of these is referred to in texts of the canon proper.
With these details about the various types of prāyascittas, we now pass on to the persons who were authorised to pronounce the punishment and the process and procedure of implementing it.
IV
The Implementation of the Punishment The Executors
Normally the monks lived in groups under an ācārya. Each individual monk had to confess and report the transgressions he had committed to his superior who was the judge in this matter.
However, certain categories were such that only the ācārya was deemed fit to decide whether that particular fault was to be punished with a severer form of punishment. For instance, it was only the ācārya who was authorised to decide whether a particular transgression was to be met with by 'cheda' or 'parihāra'. Similar was the case with regard to 'pārāñcika'. Here also only the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
