The Doctrine of the Jainas, Described after the Old Sources c11.34

Language: English

c11.34.1

§171. The formula of the layman has: *jāvajjīvāe duvihaṃ tiviheṇaṃ: na karemi na kāravemi maṇasā vayasā kāyasā* (Uvās. 13ff.). In other words, the layman renounces not only all directly but also all indirectly forbidden activity so far as it consists in one’s actively causing it. Nor is it possible in the frame of civil life to adjure the approval (*aṇujāṇai* or *samaṇujāṇi*) of what others are forbidden to do, though in monkhood this is obligatory. Hence the monastic vows (*maha-vvaya*, *Thāṇ.* 290a; *Samav.* 10a) have the phrase of *tivihaṃ tiviheṇaṃ*, and moreover, they equally pertain to what is done by “heart, mouth, and hands.” With regard to their subject they are no less unconditional and comprehensive. They are quoted by *Āyār.* II 15 end and are repeated by *Dasav.* 4 beginning.² For a brief treatment of the same see *Dasav.* 6, 9-26. The 10th Anga (*Paṇhāvāgaraṇāiṃ*) is a monography not only on these five self-restrictions but precedingly also on their five counterparts (*pāṇi-vaha, aliya-vayapa, adinn’ādāṇa, abambha, and pariggaha*). With the latter we confront the ethical fundamentals of monkhood. The vow asking for the preservation of life (*pāṇivāyāo veramaṇaṃ* Dasav.) comprises life manifesting itself in any form or shape, either immaterial or material, either of a superior or inferior kind. The sermon by which Āyār.

c11.34.2

17, 16 starts is a counterpart to the explanations commenting on the acts of consecrating laymen, since here the performance of power suggested to be exercised by the Kevalin is described fivefold. Practically parallel to them, however, are the *bhāvaṇā* (Samav. 44a), instructions for right understanding, which in Āyār. II 15 follow every vow.¹ We find the same in Paṇhāv., though here some Bhāvanās have changed places, and several ones have a different, if cognate, content. Apart from demanding the highest possible care to be taken in all monastic affairs they ask for abstention from malevolent thinking and speaking. The "reverence towards life" (as Albert SCHWEITZER has put it) by which the realm of life was so immeasurably extended, permeates the discipline of Mahāvīra's Order in a way no other ethical prescription does. We can observe its entering into the field of sexual abstention which alone equals it in importance.² 2. The vow of truthful speech (*musāvāyāo ver.*) discovers sources of untruthfulness in the main passions represented by anger, pride, fraud, and greed along with fear and joy and asks for a considerate mode of expression. Truthful speech causing pain must be equally avoided. It is treated in detail along with the allowed modes of expressing oneself by Āyār. II 4 and hereafter by Dasav. 7. For what is being understood by "true" and "wrong" comp. § 74. 3.

c11.34.3

The vow of non-appropriation (*adinn’ādāṇāo ver.*) comprises all that is not expressly given as a present (*adinna*) regardless of its kind and size and wherever it be. Since a monk is not allowed possessions of any kind (s. 5) this merely refers to his outfit and to alms. The exemplifications concern the monk's quarters (§ 147). 4. The vow of chastity (*mehuṇāo ver.*) has, as was mentioned above, an extremely vast effective range. The prescriptions cohering with it do not refer to normal sexuality only, but they frequently also indicate events of sexual pathology. Among the cases resulting from frustrated desires we find the apparitions of godly persons of opposite sex to which either monks, or nuns surrender (K. 5, 1-4). 5. The vow of being void of property (*pariggahāo ver.*) concerns the abandonment of all one’s belongings down to the smallest item including even the preservation of food for later use. The outfit necessary for monks and nuns is not considered as property (Dasav. 6, 20 ff.). The desire for possessing something is roused by pleasant impressions forcing themselves on the five senses. That is why the five interpretations of this vow demand indifference towards them as well as towards their negations which on their part naturally rouse desires, if only in the direction of warding off temptations.¹