The Doctrine of the Jainas, Described after the Old Sources c10.84

c10.84

are treated with consideration not only in point of food (K. 5, 49-52; Ṭhāṇ. 138a) but also in general respects (K. 3, 22; 5, 47f.; Vav. 2, 6; Nis. 10, 36-39; Āyār. I 36, 22). Nor is a monk allowed to accept any alms given by a prince or his retinue, the rāya-piṇḍa (Āyār. II 54, 53)¹; Nis. 9, 1-6; 8, 13-15; Viy. 231a; Dasav. 3, 2). As is demonstrated in detail by Nis. 4, 1-6; 9, 7ff. the monks must not enter into relations with potentates, and, accordingly, Āyār. II 83, 16; K. 1, 38; Nis. 11, 71 forbid their come and go in anarchic provinces and times in order that all complications be avoided.² Some exceptions are referred to by Ṭhāṇ. 311b. Even he who lives in the woods or passes them in travelling may not contribute to their sustenance (Nis. 16, 12), and this probably accounts for the kantāra-bhatta (Viy. 231a; Uvav. 96 III). The alms, above all, must not be prepared in advance, neither for receivers of alms his general (āhākamma³) nor for him personally who is expected to ask for them (uddesiya), no more than they may be sent for (abhihaḍa) or bought (kiya-gaḍa) or set aside from one's own meal (ceiya K. 2, 25-28; Dasā 2, 4; Nis. 10, 4; Āyār. I 36, 20; II 50, 20; Dasav. 3, 2). There is danger of such alms being offered when the monk calls on relatives or acquaintances (nāya-vihim ei, Vav. 6, 1; Dasā 6 XI; Āyār. II 55. 30; 65, 10) or when attending a public feeding (saṃkhaḍi Āyār. II 52, 19; Nis. 3, 14). Nor may he visit a house where he is sure to get some (nitiya piṇḍa) or a certain part of the meal (Āyār. II 61, 6; 56, 16; Nis. 2, 32-36). The substance of the alms—in correspondence with the component parts of a modern Hindu meal—may consist (comp. Ṭhāṇ. 219b) in a main course (asaṇa), liquids (pāṇa), sweets (khāima) and spices (sāima). As a matter of course it must be of course free of life⁴ (comp. Āyār. II 50, 1; 63, 5; K. 1, 1ff.; Nis. 15, 5-12; 16, 4-11; Dasav. 5, 2, 14-24). These passages and others refer to vegetables and fruit only, but it is evident that meat and fish in a live state were not less forbidden. Whether or not they were allowed to be eaten in a lifeless condition is a matter of interpretation. The vegetarian standpoint is strongly maintained.² Thus the words *bahu-y-aṭṭhiya mamsa* and *bahukaṇṭaga maccha* or *aṇimisa* are meant to indicate a "flesh" of fruit and fish interspersed with kernels and stings. On the other hand we learn from Āyār. II 65, 33 (=II 1, 9, 3: Ācār. 321a) that in the interest of a sick monk or nun some meat or fish just being prepared for a guest may be asked for by a monk passing incidentally. In the case of Āyār. II 67, 23 (=II 1, 10, 5) acc. to the Cuṇṇi (344b) a layman or a lay woman must not rebuke a monk asking for meat or fish for the same medical reason. And Dasav.-cuṇṇi (184 b) as well as Haribhadra (Dasav.-ṭīkā 176 b) would not have justified Sūtra 5, 1, 73 by referring to peculiar circumstances (*kamci kālam desam paḍucca*, resp. *kāl’ādy-apekṣayā*) if cases of non-vegetarianism were considered to have been totally excluded in those remote times. But, of course, the old scholiasts are anxious to put aside the literal meaning of *mamsa* and *maccha* in favour of the metaphorical one as fruit or trees, and Śīlānka (Ācār. 323 b) goes to the length of taking them as prescribed by an able surgeon for exterior application (1) to cure a cutaneous eruption.