________________
K. K. Dixit
the question is as to how the classical authors could talk as if the six typea of parihara were six types of tapas. The answer to this question requires a historical Investigatton into the concept of paribara. Thus even a cursory study of the old disciplinary texts leaves one in no doubt that in thom parihara is treated as virtually the only type of church-punishment; this is particularly ovident from Nigyths where the entire mass of church-offences 18 arranged in terms of the four parihara types which constitute a proper corresponding punishment, & procedure which also suggests that the church punishment called cheda which is so often mentioned as an altornative to patihara and consists in a reduction in church-seniority could be understood without much ado wbile there was no difficulty in calculating as to how a particular amount of parihara is to be correlated with an equivalent amount of cheda Naturally therefore there are here numerous detalled references to paribara -one in Kalpa (426) and several in Vyavahara (1 21-24, 2.5-6. 2.27-30). A careful study of these references makes it clear that one andergoing parthara-panishment was excluded from the company of his fellow-monks and was subjected to certain specially harsh injunctions (e. g. not being pork mitted to beg for alms from more than one house). However, stipulations ate made that in case of emergency the paribara-offender is to be allowed the company of his fellow-monka while the harshness of the injunctions in queation is to be mitigated-In caso of growlog alck he even being proyd ided with a constant service-companion. Now the classical commentators found all this impracticable for two chlef reasons. Thus for them the exclusion of a paribāra-offender from the company of his fellow-monks would require the gaccha-leadership making a special staying-arrangement for him.-gomething apparently absurd. The alternative was to let the part bara-offender stay in the company of his fellow-monks and then exclude him from all collective monastic activity, but in the conditions prevalling this policy of making pariah of a church-offender sounded imprudent So the classical commontators came out with the view that paribyra-punishmont was to be awarded to monks equipped with certain such high physica) and Intellectual qualifications as ceased to be available long, long ago; to this was added that the same church-offence which would invito paribarapunishment in the case of these monks would invite a corresponding amount of usual self-mortification in the case of an ordinary monk. A view like this gave rise to two developments. Thus the classical commentators could utilizee all those old passages where a parihara-punishment or a parihara-offender was mentioned; nay, they themselves talked of parihara (moreover, six types of it instead of the old four) in the case of cach and overy church-offence they would consider--that is, in the case of oven those where the old texts are silent as regards the punishment due, For they now only required a list of church-punishment graduated in terms
