________________
48
S. B. DEO
ācārya could pronounce this punishment upon the trans
gressor.
The ācārya had full powers regarding this in the case of the order of nuns as well.
The Procedure
Unlike the texts of the Buddhists, the texts of the Jainas are silent on the actual procedure of enacting and enforcing the laws of monastic jurisprudence. There is no reference to the calling up of an assembly to decide the nature of transgression.
According to the Vavahara Sutta (X, 2) the 'procedure towards a transgressor' was of five kinds, to wit, that based on the canon (agame), or on tradition (suè), or on law (āṇā), or charge (dhāraṇā) or on the convention handed down (jié). It will at once be realised that these are the five pillars of jurisprudence even in the nonmonastic field. [Also Angd., p. 671].
It has already been seen that the transgressor himself was to report about his fault to the senior. However, if he did not do so then some of his co-monks reported it to the head of the group. In spite of this report, the officers or the elders were asked to give the person accused, full scope to prove his innocence. The principle which underlay this provision was to put faith more in the person who has been accused rather than in one who reports about him. As is well-known even today this forms the basic principle of modern law which agrees with the dictum that 'saccapainņā vavahārā', (Vav. II, 24-25).
Along with this, the circumstances under which a particular transgression was committed were also taken into consideration by the seniors. For instance, the committing of a transgression with the full knowledge of it was met with a more severe form of punishment than the one which was done unintentionally or under unavoidable circumstances. In such cases, the punishment meted out to the transgressor was comparatively lenient. If a monk who was practising austerities due to which he went out
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
