A New Contribution to the Discussion of a Problem of Jaina Monastic Discipline

Summary

K. K. Dixit’s long paper tackles a thorny issue in the vast body of Jaina monastic law. The canonical disciplinary texts lay down countless prescriptions and prohibitions intended to guide monks and nuns on the path to liberation. Over the centuries the interpretation of these rules has generated debate, especially when different sects or commentaries disagree on how a particular injunction should be put into practice. Dixit reopens one such debate concerning the circumstances under which a mendicant may accept or retain items such as clothing, alms bowls or medicines without violating the vow of non‑possession (aparigraha). The paper begins by surveying the primary sources, including the Ācārāṅga, Sūtrakṛtāṅga and Vyavahāra‑bhāṣya, and the medieval commentaries of Śīlāṅka, Haribhadra and Malayagiri. Dixit shows that earlier scholars often relied on a narrow set of sources and ignored variant readings. He collates manuscript evidence and notes how the Digambara and Śvetāmbara traditions sometimes preserve divergent recensions. The main problem under discussion is whether a monk is permitted to take temporary possession of additional robes or utensils in specific emergency situations, such as illness, severe weather or travel. One side argues that any deviation constitutes a breach of strict asceticism; the other contends that compassion and pragmatism justify limited exceptions. Dixit’s contribution is to unearth a neglected passage in the Ācārāṅga‑niryukti that explicitly allows a monk to accept a second garment when the first is soiled by unavoidable circumstances. He analyses the verse linguistically to show that the conditional clause has often been misread, leading to overly rigid interpretations. He then examines how later authors like Devendra and Yasovijaya reconciled the rule with the broader ethical framework. The article argues that the purpose of monastic discipline is not the performance of mechanical austerities but the cultivation of inner detachment. Therefore the temporary use of an item to preserve health or modesty does not violate the vow, provided the monk relinquishes attachment. In the course of his discussion, Dixit also explores how Jaina law views intent (bhāva) as more important than external action (dravya), a principle that differentiates culpable possession from pragmatic use. He concludes by suggesting that modern monastic orders might revisit rigid customs in light of the compassionate, context‑sensitive approach enshrined in the canonical texts. His essay thus combines philological detective work with a broader reflection on the spirit of ascetic discipline.