The
origin, growth, working, and decline of a monastic community is an interesting
and complex socio-ethical phenomenon. An important aspect of monasticism is the
problem of rules of basic precepts and exceptions to those rules which invariably
arise in the process of growth and expansion. One of the best examples of this
process is found in Buddhism as recorded in the Vinaya Pitaka. After attaining
Bodhi or Supreme Knowledge, Buddha was at first reluctant to share it with
others since he found most people incompetent to receive it. He was, however,
persuaded by gods to preach it for the good of humanity. Buddha then preached
his fundamental doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. As
the number of disciples increased, he framed more rules for the guidance of
monks. As the monks started living together and interacting with the society at
large, new situations and problems began cropping up. New rules had to be
introduced or the old ones modified at every step and, as a result, a large
number of rules and subrules were framed. Although Buddha himself allowed many
exceptions to those rules, he always stressed that the morsels of food given in
alms, robes made of ragas taken from dust-heap, the dwelling at the foot of a tree,
and the decomposing urine as medicine are the ‘four resources’ for a monk; thus
must he endeavor to live all his life. All else must be considered extra
allowances.1
Origin of Jain
rules
Something
similar occurred in Jainism also. Being a monastically oriented religion,
Jainism lays great stress on right conduct. Jain scriptures are overloaded with
the finest details of right conduct, rules and regulations, possible pitfalls
and penance for default. The principal scriptures, the angas, said to be the teachings
of Vardhaman Mahavir as recorded by his apostles, describe the basic tenets and
fundamental precepts of conduct. But they do not describe the process of
gradual modification as found in the Vinaya Pitaka. It seems that only a few
important modifications and exceptions were allowed by Mahavir himself. Most of
the alterations in rules occurred later.
The
third section of the second part of Acaranga Sutra, (acara=conduct), the most
important among the angas, describes the five great vows (mahavratas) with
their twenty-five clauses, which are the bedrock of the mighty and complicated
edifice of monastic rules. The Uttaradhyayana Sutra, which is considered the
last sermon of Mahavir, contains more rules and regulations, the restrictions
(guptis) and precautions (samitis)2 which
help monks keep their vows.
All
the rules and subrules regarding food, clothing etc. were meant for the perfect
and unbroken observance of the mahavratas, with special emphasis on ahimsa or
non-violence. There are some interesting exceptions. The general rule for the
monk is that he must not touch greenery or step upon grass since it also
contains life, which he has vowed not to injure. But, according to the
Acaranga, ‘ the mendicant might stumble or fall down; when he stumbles or falls
down, he might get hold of trees, shrubs, plants, creepers, grass or sprouts to
extricate himself.’3 It will be observed that
in the final analysis this exception supports ahimsa inasmuch as on falling,
the monk may injure other creatures, and on being hurt he may engage in
unwholesome thinking related to pain, illness etc. (raudra and arta dhyana), thus triggering a train of events not
conducive to the ultimate goal.
A
monk is debarred from leaving the place of this residence while it is raining.
This is the general rule. But as an exception he may go out in rain for
answering calls of nature.4 Forceful
restraint of calls of nature is harmful for health and leads to mental unrest,
which is undesirable.
Let
us take another example. Observance of truth is one of the mahavratas. In the Acaranga an exception is described thus:
While going on a road if a hunter or some such person with suspicious intention
asks the monk whether he has seen any animal or human being around, the monk
should first try to evade the answer and keep quiet. But if it is not possible
to remain silent or if silence is likely to be construed as affirmation then
‘although knowing, he should say that he does not know.’5
Under
the vow of non-stealing, monks as a rule cannot stay at a place without prior
permission. But as an exception, if it is not possible to stay outside or in a
forest, and if the monks reach an unknown village at night, they may stay at a
suitable place at night and seek permission . Later, a monk vowed to practice chastity
in thought word and deed must not touch even a newly born female child. But
there is this exception: he can catch hold of a drowning nun and pull her out
to save her life.7
From
the above illustrations it is evident that the possibility of exceptions can
never be denied and even the founders of monastic rules were conscious of this
fact. It must, however, be noted that these exceptions pertain only to
temporary situations. The monk is expected to revert to the practice of basic
precepts as soon as the specific situation is over.
Later
modifications in rules
Jain
monastic rules in their pristine pure form are extremely rigorous. Only a few
monks dare to observe them to the letter. These uncompromising ascetics are
called Jinakalpas.8 They believe that the written word of
the Tirthankar Mahavir must be honoured and followed to the letter, and that
there is no scope in them for interpretation or explanation. They however
forget that it is not the question of lack of faith in and disregard for the written
word of the Founder but the ability of the follower to practise them. The
majority of aspirants, although possessing complete faith and having a sincere
desire and true aspiration to follow the path, are not sufficiently competent-
physically or psychologically- for the most austere way of a literal observance
of the law. Out of untempered zeal if they were to practise the rigorous
discipline, they may break down physically or mentally and incur more harm than
good. The later Acharyas, who had vast knowledge and lifelong experience of
problems of spiritual life and the complexities of human nature, therefore
proposed certain exceptions which were of an almost permanent nature. This led
to the development of alternative modes of monastic life. Those who adopted the
less rigorous path were called Sthavirakalpas.
In contrast to Jinakalpa or the
solitary mendicant, the Sthavirakalpas
lived in a community. Here we see an exception to the original rule itself
becoming a rule. The acceptance of garments in place of nudity, as done by the
svetambara sect, is the best example of this. Originally done for protection
against cold and for social reasons, this exception led to the branching out of
a major sect.
Modifications
in rules in the post-canonical period
As
the monastic order (sangha) spread and began to play its social role, the
leaders of the monastic community were faced with the conflict between
upholding the original tenets on the one hand and the need to preserve the
prestige and safety of the Sangha on the other. They tried their best to
reconcile the spiritual welfare of the individual aspirant with the welfare of
the Sangha, but at times they were forced- at the expanse of the individual- to
relax the rules in order to glorify the Sangha and to ward off danger to the
monastic community.
In
the post-canonical period, when Jainism spread to various parts of India
including the South, monks were allowed to deviate from general rules according
to place, time and situation. They resorted to magical practices and spells to
demonstrate their prowess to kings whose goodwill mattered much for the
survival of the Jain community.9 They even
entered into politics and dethroned kings if it was profitable for the Jain
community. Monks had to organize religious congregations and engage themselves
in writing books. All these made relaxation of certain rules inevitable. At
times even improper acts were permitted for the sake of the Sangha. A few
examples may be cited.
A
monk is prohibited from inflicting injury to a clay-image of an enemy after
infusing life into it with the help of incantations. But he was allowed to do
so if the person concerned was an enemy of the Sangha.10
Once a group of monks had to pass the night in a forest infested with wild
beasts. An exceptionally robust monk was deputed as a guard. The monk on duty
killed three tigers and saved the Acharya and others.11 His act, though blatantly against the
vow of ahimsa, was not condemned. According to another exception, monks were
permitted to take recourse to violence, if need be, to protect nuns.
These
are extreme illustrations, but they highlight to what extent changes in basic
concepts can occur in the course of history. Mahavir was prepared to and
actually did undergo untold suffering inflicted by an enemy, without resisting.
But his monastic followers resorted to the common dictum for the laymen that an
enemy of Dharma (atatayi) must be
punished. It also demonstrates the fact that a stage comes when the welfare of
the Sangha and the propagation of the Faith become more important than the
personal salvation of the individual. The individual does not then hesitate to
do something for the Sangha which he may never do for himself. His act is
justified on the ground that the Sangha is essential for the propagation of the
only right path. Such acts also suggest the belief that the ends justify the
means, as against the basic ethical postulate that means are as important as
the ends.
In
spite of such unusual exceptions, the moral conduct and character of the monks
on the whole remained good.12 But it
is obvious that such relaxation cannot be conducive to any permanent good.
Monks gradually started relaxing rules on the false pretext of serving the
Sangha. Overemphasis on catering to the religious needs of lay-devotees led to
the entaglement of monks in secular matters. They started living in permanent
dwellings (catiya-vasa) with the
associated ills.
To
summarize, the basic rules laid down by the first founders of the Jain monastic
order underwent change in a stepwise manner. Initially, the founders themselves
postulated some important exceptions for specific situations. The subsequent
heads of the Order laid down some exceptions for the larger section of less
competent aspirants which became an alternative but equally valid path for the
majority. The next stage was marked by exceptions introduced for the
propagation, glorification and welfare of the monastic order, the Sangha. In
the final stage, changes of such magnitude occurred in the monastic conduct that
a reform was called for. This is not the story of the only Jain monasticism,
but is true of the monastic communities of other religions too.
2
UTSARGA AND APAVADA
THE
BRIEF historical survey presented above warrants a deeper study into the
concept of rules and exceptions in a monastic system. In Jainism the technical
terms used for them are Utsarga and Apavada. Utsarga is a general rule or precept, and Apavada is a particular rule or exception. In terms of ethics, Utsarga represents the absolute, ideal,
inviolable aspect of the moral code, while Apavada
represents the relative, practical and flexible aspect. In any healthy
ethical system, both are essential. They balance and complement each other.
Definition
Etymologically,
Utsarga means leaving, abandoning. Hence the word generally denotes a
prohibitory or inhibitory law.13 The
injunctions fall under Apavada. Utsarga deal with the ‘don’ts’ while Apavada deals with the `dos’. The path
of a Jain ascetic is essentially one of renunciation and strict restraint (samyama). The five great vows (mahavratas) are by their very nature
prohibitory. They can be observed faithfully only by the avoidance of Vitarkas,14 i.e their opposite tendencies violence,
falsehood, stealing, lust and possessiveness- committed, caused or approved and
mild, moderate or intense. The whole of Jain ascetic conduct consists in strict
avoidance of every shade of these evil tendencies in thought, word and deed.
Thus there have arisen innumerable rules dictating what a monk must not do.
According
to Acharya Haribhadra15 Utsarga
is the right conduct with regard to procurement of food etc. followed by a
competent aspirant when conditions of time and place are favourable. On the
other hand, Apavada is the apparently imperfect conduct performed by a less
competent aspirant under unfavourable circumstances, but with the full
awareness (yatana-purvaka) of this
fact and with the same ultimate end in view. Jain Acharyas conider both Utsarga and Apavada equally important.
Overemphasis on any one is not conducive to greatest spiritual gain and is
decried as lopsided(ekanika) view
which is against the basic teaching of Mahavir, who always stressed the
multifaceted view of reality (anekantavada).
No rule or exception is good in the absolute sense. It is always relative and
valid with reference to the place, time, prevalent conditions, and attitude of
the individual (desa, kala, dravya, bhava).
The important point is that both are means for the attainment of the common
goal, ekartha-sadhana, and a judicial
combination of the two leads to optimum spiritual gain and makes the path
easier. Both are paths; if Utsarga is
the highway, Apavada is the byway or
diversion taken to overcome an obstruction. This means that although Apavada does not contradict Utsarga, it can neither replace nor
violate the fundamental nature of Utsaga.
When and how long?
Utsargas are the general precepts and
must be always followed by all. They cannot be given up permanently and even
when they are bypassed occasionally, there must be valid reasons for doing so.
Medicines are used only when there is some ailment and are discontinued after
you are cured. Similar is the case with Apavadas.
If a monk resorts to exceptions under special situation but does not revert to
the rules after the situation is over,
he is either insincere or has a wrong concept of rules and exceptions. An
aspirant must, therefore, be extremely cautious so that he is not deceived by
his subtle desires which may urge him to take permanent shelter under the
exceptions. The minimum possible exception must be made only for the shortest
period of time and that too when no other alternative is available, because
there is always the danger that one may want to resor5t indefinitely to
exceptions to suit one’s convenience. Those who have neither the sense of
proportion nor the knowledge of the limitations of exceptions fall headlong
like a ball rolling down a staircase. For such people exceptions are never a
help but hindrances. The real spirit of an exception is well demonstrated in
the following story.16
During
a prolonged famine, a learned monk wandering in search of food came across a
group of people sharing a common meal. When he begged for a little food they
told him that the food was unfit for consumption by a monk because it was
impure (ucchista). The monk cited the
scriptural except that during a calamity such restrictions do not apply and
said he would accept the impure food. After eating, however, he refused to
drink water, saying that it was impure! He explained that when he had begged
for food he was dying of hunger and there was no immediate possibility of
getting pure food approved by scriptures. So he made the exception. But now he
was no more dying of hunger and could wait for pure water which could be had
elsewhere. Why should he then break the rule for water?
Similar
precautions must be observed while relaxing the rules for the welfare of the Sangha. Such relaxations may not prove
spiritually detrimental if the spirit of renunciation and total dedication to
the fundamentals of monastic life are kept alive. In the absence of these, even
the strictest observance of rules may be nothing more than lifeless pretention
or mere ostentation.
Tests for
validity of exceptions
An
exception made without valid reason is technically called darpa-pratisevana and the one made with valid reason is called kalpa-pratisevana.17 The ultimate test of validity is
whether a specific course of action, a rule or an exception, conduces to the
ultimate goal of liberation or not.
Right
Faith, Right Knowledge and Right Conduct are the three pillars of Jainism.
Since all the three are interrelated, any Conduct which goes against Right
Knowledge and Right Faith cannot be considered Right. Those exceptions which
neither go against Right Faith nor in the long run obstruct Right Knowledge
fall under the category of kalpa-pratisevana.
Exceptions in the rules of procurement of food during famine etc. fall under
this category.
Another
test of valid exception is ahimsa. Before making an exception a monk must
carefully consider whether the particular exception would lead in the long run
to greater ahimsa or not.
It
must be understood that these tests also apply to basic precepts or rules.
Under unusual situations, when observance or rules is neither possible nor in
any way beneficial, dogmatically sticking to them would fall under darpa-pratisevana. But it is always safe
to follow the rules, since it is the natural way, the royal road. The path of Apavada or exceptions is difficult like
waling on the razor’s edge and, though apparently easy, is beset with great
dangers. Only a person well-versed in scriptures, the rules and subrules of
monastic conduct, and having a good knowledge of the variables governing the
exceptions, can prescribe or practise exceptions safely. Time, place, specific
situation, and individual strength and temperament are the variables. Since
such extensive knowledge of the canonical texts and the variables is not
possible for all, the Acharyas have laid down rules and exceptions in detail
for the guidance of those who lack such knowledge. Ultimately, the individual
is the best judge of the path to be chosen, and much depends upon his
discrimination and sincerity.
Conclusion
Rightly
has it been said: ‘ An exception proves the rules.’ Rules and exceptions are
the obverse and reverse of the same coin. Under certain situations, exceptions
itself becomes the rule. Both are meant to lead the spiritual aspirant beyond
all rules. They are the hedges protecting the tender plant of spiritual life.
Once the plaint is grown, hedges are no more required. On the attainment of
spiritual maturity, an aspirant no more remains bound by prohibitory or
injunctory laws, but spontaneously performs the right action according to time,
place and situation. He never takes a wrong step.
References:
1 Mahavagga,
1.3.4
2
‘Uttaradhyayana Sutra, translated by H.Jacobi in ‘Jain Sutra’(Part 2) Sacred
Books of the East Series, Vol. 45, Ch. 24
3 ‘Acaranga
Sutra, translated by H. Jacobi in ‘Jain Sutra’ (Part 1) Sacred Books of the
East Series, 1980, II.32.11, p. 144
4 Yogo Shastra
Svopajna Vritti, 3.89, quoted by Upadhyaya
Amarmuni Sri Kanhaiyalal ‘Kamal’, in Nisheeth Sutra III, Bharatiya Vidya
Prakashana, Delhi
5 ‘Acaranga
Sutra,’ op.cit., 2:1,33,129
7 ‘Brihadkalpa
Sutra,’ 6:7, quoted by Upadhyaya Amarmuni, op. cit., cit., p.23
8 Malvaniya,
Pandit Dalsukha, Nisheeth Ex Adhyayana (Hindi), Sanmati Jnana Pitha, 1959, p.54
9 Deo, S.B,
History of Jain Monachism ( from inscriptions and literature), Deccan College
Dessertation Series, No. 17, Deccan College Research Institute, Poona, 1956,
p.438
10 ‘Nishcetha
Gatha,’ 167, quoted by Malvania, op. cit., p.59
11 Malvania,
op. cit., p.59
12 Deo, op.
cit., p.439
13 Malvania,
op. cit., p.54
14 Yoga Sutra
of Patanjali, II. 34
15 ‘Upadesha
Pada,’ 784, quoted by Upadhyaya Amarmuni, op. cit., p.3
16 Upadhyaya
Amarmuni, op. cit., p.9-10
17 Malvania,
op. cit., 55-56
