________________
K. K. Dixit
standard string of words mentioning both being fully translated by Dr. Calllat herself on P, 117. But may be De Caillat's reference was not to that statement of Malayagiri but to the three types of alocana spoken of by the classical commentators and introduced by Dr. Caillat on p. 138 (of the French edition), but this concept of threefold confession 18 a typical classical concept unknown to the old disciplinary texts Really, this threefold confession, so elaborately described by Dr. Caillat on pp. 124–32, is as much marked for its ceremonious character as the classical authors' 'repentence' always is-a specimen of the latter too being helpfully provided by Dr, Caillat on pp. 136-38 So the point is not that either confession or repentence was unknown to the early Jainds and became known to the later Jainas but that unlike the early Jainas the later Jainas turned both into so much of a ceremonious affair. From a broader point of view, however, that is a relatively minor matter. For the point that needs even greater emphasis is that with the Jaloas confession and repentence are not just two or three) types of church-punishment by the side of other types but a necossary preliminary to all church-punishment which usually has to be of the form of some physical torture or other; this point so evident in the case of the old disciplinary texts on account of ther relevant formula expressed through that standard string of words get somewhat blurred in the classical texts with their position that confession, repentence and confession-cum-repentence are three types of church-punishment by tho side of seven others. However, even the classical Jaina authors did not wilfully underestimated the significance of confession and repentence as we can easily learn from the so many of their charcteristio pronouncements on the subject quoted by Dr Caillat in her chapter under consideration. As a matter of fact, all religious authorities--the Jalnas being no exooption-award church-punishment primarily with a view to morally reforming the offender and secondarily with a view to deterring him (and others) from committing an offence-just opposite being the attitude of all state-authorities while awarding judicial punishment. This happens because one's membership of state is compulsory and based on no moral conviation whereas ono's membership of a religlous sect 18 voluntary and based on one's conviotion that the philosophy of life upheld by this scot is tonable and wholesome. This however is tho ideal while in real world religious authorities aro often faced with problems simllar to those faced by state-authorities. Thus for example ariges what might be called the problem of 'cunning confession', a problem taken note of by the Jainas in the way reported by Dr. Calllat on p. 122.
The fourth prayascitta-type enumerated in the classical list is viveka or 'separating out the improper from the proper alms'. Nobody ever gave much about it and Dr. Caillat too simply doscribes it as we have done carlier,
