Similar was the case regarding the
selection of a proper residence. Apart from the non-acceptance of
notorious places, the reasons for which are based on commonsense, the
Jaina texts hold that too much extensive or too small a residence was not
to be accepted by a monk. An extensive lodging was normally the resort of
indifferent elements in the society like guards, beggars (karpatika)
and unmarried males and females (vantha). The very presence of
such people was likely to disturb a monk in his daily routine of study as
also his answering the normal calls of nature for which he would have to
go to a distant place which might lead to hinsa. If he suppressed
such calls, then he was likely to fall ill. Then at night, if he tried to
find out his own place or his requisites and in doing so happened to touch
the bodies of other persons mentioned above, these were likely to take him
to be an eunuch or a thief or a person having an appointment with his
beloved. This would definitely lead to trouble. Moreover, if the monk
happened to be healthy, he was likely to be kidnapped by women and
eunuchs, in which case it was not possible for him to get help. (Oha.
N. 21724). On the other hand, too small a residence left meager space
for moving about which was likely to lead to quarrel by others and
breaking up of requisites. Such rules, therefore, display the deep
foresight in judging the possibilities, in knowing the nature of the bad
elements in the society and last but not the least the utmost precaution
in maintaining the puritanical rigor of monastic life.
Besides the purely ethical basis of
the structure of Jaina monastic rules, other considerations were also
there. For instance, take the normal rule of not initiating a boy under
eight. This is found in the Thanangasutta (p. 164b). However, by
the time of Nisihacunni we find that six types of children could be
initiated.
uvsante vi mhakule nranteevagge vi
sanrri sejjatre
ajja karanrjate anrunrata balpvvajja
- niseehchunrri
For our discussion here, two
categories are worth notice. First is that of 'karanajata'. In
explanation of this, the commentary says:
'karanrjate ti kul-ganr-sanghkajje
annmmi va gcchadite kajje 'sachivo' mantee so bhanrejja - "aham vo tujjham
imam kajjam karemi, jaee me imam balam alakkhanram
moolnrkkhatiyam, va pvvaveh," tahe
pavvavejjnra.
- (tritya vibhag, pri. 236)
Here is, therefore, a clear
instance of the practical foresight of the Jaina church, so characteristic
of its later stage of development. If, therefore, the church or the
Gana or the sampha was likely to be benefited by such an
initiation, then, there was found to be no harm in allowing entry to such
a child, which normally could not be permitted. Similar was the case
regarding an eunuch who was not normally to be initiated. But if he were
to be in the good books of a king or was one who was an expert physician
or able to manage the well-being of the gaccha in cases of royal
disfavor, then such an eunuch could be allowed entry to the fold. (Brhatkalpa
bhasya V, 517374.) In these cases it is fairly apparent that the
church took quite a practical view of the situation and avoided incurring
the displeasure of the royal power. On the other hand, refusal to initiate
a person who has been inimical to the king (rayavagari) or one who
is a dasa (Nisihacunni, Vol. III, pp. 261-64) shows in the case of
the former, avoidance of royal trouble and the disengagement from
political affairs, and in the case of the latter the failure of the church
to violate the bonds of slavery current in the society.
On the other hand, the liberal
humanitarian and reasonable attitude of the church in the formulation of
rules and their exceptions is evidenced in the case of the child of a
raped nun. Such a nun was kept in the monastery was well looked after, was
fed by co-nuns and when well advanced in pregnancy was handed over to a
devoted layman. All her duties as a nun were suspended till her child
sucked her; even her child could be initiated. The most remarkable aspect
was that those who teased or condemned her were compelled to undergo
expiatory punishment. (Brh. kalp. Bha., 4129-46). For this
liberalism and sense of realism, the masters of the organization deserve
praise.
VI.
Meaning! of Transgressions and Exceptions
From the discussion of the structure of
monastic rules, their basic ethics, the principles underlying their
formulations and the deviations from these, it will be clear that the
rules of monastic conduct of the Jainas were formulated as a blending of
monastic purity as a major part with the reading of and adjustment with
social etiquette and traditions. Thus though in a major part, they were
quite rigid, yet they could be elastic as well.
The question arises as to how the
exceptions are to be interpreted and under what circumstances are they to
be resorted to? Simultaneously we have to make clear the difference
between a transgression (aiyara) and the practice of exception (apavaya).
It will be readily accepted that it would be incorrect to resort to 'apavaya.'
often, as also not to resort to it under any circumstances. Extremes in
both are wrong. The real danger lies here. A lax monk would like to resort
to exceptions often, whereas a die-hard puritan would go to the extent of
accepting death rather than resort to exceptions. What is needed is the
relative evaluation of the circumstances under which one happens to be,
and the clear-cut understanding of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the
exceptions to a general rule.
Upadhyaya Amara Muni in his
Hindi preface to Nisihasutta has dealt with this problem in a masterly
ways. 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 well- versed in monastic conduct (agiyattha) has
no right to decide whether a particular behavior or reaction to
circumstances can be adopted as an exception or 'apavada'. 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 (giyattha.). 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 favored in abnormal
circumstances, for if otherwise he died, no question remained about
self-control.
savvtth sanjmam, sanjmao appanrmev
rakkhija
muchei eivayao, punro visohee na
yavirei -46
sanjmheum deho dharijjei so kyo u
tadbhave
sanjam phainimitam, dehparipalanra
ittha -47
-ohnrijjuti
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 self-control. 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�
mool men jain prampara ko bahye
drishyman vidhi-vidhano ka utna agrh hai. sadhak na keval utsarg ke liye
hai. veh donon ke liye hai, aur na keval upvad ke liye hai.
This, then, is the spirit of Jaina
monarchism and the rules of discipline that guide it. Therefore, if in the
following of such rules, one has to resort to exceptions, One should do it
out of extreme necessity of protecting the body, which becomes the vehicle
in attaining the ideal of self-control. Thus for the proper carrying out
of self-control one should resort to exceptions. The resort to exceptions
for any other reason than that of self-control amounts to deliberate
transgression. Therefore the circumstances under which a person resorts to
exception and the aim for which it is done are the main pillars over which
the edifice of monastic jurisprudence has been erected by the Jaina
church.
