 introduce our second speaker in this panel, Dr. Kazuyoshi Hotta from Otani University. Well, unfortunately, I haven't yet met. It's so delighted to see you. Have you got everything you need? I am Kazuyoshi Hotta from Otani University, Kyoto. It's my great pleasure for me to read my research paper on this conference. The title of my presentation is On Corresponding Sanskrit Words of Prakrit Posa, with special reference to Shravaka Achara texts and Buddhist texts. I would like to use several slides during my presentation showing the main points of this presentation. Section 1, Introduction. In Brahmanism, the Babasata purification light has been practiced on the day prior to the performance of a Vedic ritual. We can find descriptions of this purification light in Brahmanic texts. For example, Shatapata Brahmana states as follows. This is the English translation of Julius Ehring. For assuredly, he argued, the gods see through the mind of man. They know that when he enters on this vow, he means to sacrifice to them the next morning. Therefore, all the gods take themselves to his house and abide by him or the fires of Babas in his house. Hence, this day is called Babasata. This light has been incorporated by Jainism and Buddhism in different ways, where it is known as posatha, or posatha, et cetera, in Prakrit and Pali. On this point, Dr. Hayanthu discussed before my presentation. And Buddhism has developed the light mainly as a ritual for mendicants. Many descriptions of the light can be found in Buddhist texts. Furthermore, this light has been practiced until today throughout the East Asia. On the other hand, Jainism has employed the light mainly in the form as a practice for the lady. Therefore, descriptions of Jaina posatha are found in the group of texts called shrabaka achara, which contains cause of conduct for the lady. In this presentation, we will survey the corresponding Sanskrit words for Prakrit posatha and their etymological meaning as seen in the shrabaka achara texts. The volume that has to be mentioned as the most sophisticated work in this field is a study by Robert Williams, Jaina Yoga. However, it has been over 50 years since its publication. And it is time to re-evaluate some of its findings. Firstly, we will examine his two assessments in section 2. One is that there have come into existence a number of first Sanskritizations, such as paushada, proshada, poshada, for the Prakrit posatha. The second one is that the word form poshada seems to have attained the most general currency. Secondly, in section 3, we will examine the influence of differences between texts and authors on the use of the above three word forms. Previous research has not yet addressed this point. Finally, in section 4, we will survey the etymological interpretation about the respective word forms seen in shrabaka achara texts, comparing it with the etymological interpretation seen in Buddhist texts. Section 2, a survey of Williams' assessment concerning the word poshada. One, in this section, we will examine Williams' assessment that there have come into existence a number of first Sanskritizations, paushada, proshada, and poshada, for the Prakrit posatha. The fact that the Prakrit posatha corresponds to the Sanskrit word upabhashada can be confirmed linguistically. The bollu at the beginning of the word upabhashada drops, because it does not have an accent. Furthermore, by changing abha into o, and the consonant tu between two bolls into fu, it became the word form poshada. After the Agama period, China monks, who had more opportunities to write texts in Sanskrit, needed to identify Sanskrit word forms, corresponding to the Prakrit posatha. However, they completely lost sight of the verb prefix upabhashada, and three word forms were assumed. Namely, paushada, proshada, poshada, as Williams argues. In the following, we will outline the meaning and usage of each word by also referring to the texts not used by Williams. On paushada, the word form paushada is found in the text as follows. In Umas Bhati's commentary on Tattvarta Sutra, it is used in the compound paushadopabhashada. And the meaning of the word paushada is interpreted as synonymous with the word parban. That means the dates corresponding to the four phases of the moon. Therefore, this compound is interpreted as paushadesh upabhashah, and saptamita purusha. And Haribadura's commentary and Shrita Senagani's commentary, which sub-commentaries to Umas Bhati's commentary on Tattvarta Sutra also interpret the word in the same way. In Prashamarati Prakarama, the word paushada is used with the gerund of root kri. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted simply as a synonym for the word parban. In these cases, it is reasonable to interpret the meaning of the word paushada as a kind of bow or practice. On the other hand, Shravakapura Jnaptibriti interprets the word paushada in the compounds ahara paushada and sarirasakara paushada found in Shravakapura Jnapti as synonyms for the word parban. Just like sub-commentaries of Umas Bhati's commentary on Tattvarta Sutra do, but this interpretation is also not appropriate. In such a case, it seems to mean abandonment or something in this vein. Next is on prashada, on the word from prashada. The following texts use the word from prashada. As in the case of paushada, many of these texts also state that the word paushada is a synonym for the word parban. Similarly, the compound paushada is also frequently used. As another example, we can find compounds like paushada dina, paushada brata, paushada vidi. It is possible to interpret these compounds as synonyms with the word parban, and also as a kind of bow or practice. Furthermore, although only in a single case, there is also a text which interprets the word paushada as sakrit bhukti, which means eating only once a day. Next is on the word from paushada. Ubasaga dasaubhivarana, Haribadras sub-commentary on Tattvarta Sutra, dharma-bind, dharma-bind brit, shraddadina krityavrit, yogashastra, and yogashastra brit use this word form. These texts generally interpret the word paushada like other word forms as a synonym for the word parban. Further, the compound paushada dopabasa is frequently used. In addition, compounds such as paushada brata kubiyapara nisheda paushada, brahmacharya paushada, paushada shara, paushada pratyakiana can be seen. In the case of these compounds, paushada cannot be simply interpreted as a synonym for the word parban. The word form paushada is also seen in these texts. We will discuss this point briefly later. The above is an outline of three word forms. As Williams stated, it is mainly these three forms that are found in many of the editions currently in circulation. Therefore, in regard to the first point, his assessment is mostly correct. But we can add that the word form paushada is seen in the printed edition of Brattdiotana Shravakachara. As the only exception, however, this example is limited to the standard 107. And in other parts of this text, the word form paushada is used. In addition, this is a very rare form because it keeps the verb prefix upa, which was lost in all three other word forms. Taking the above points into consideration, we need to base our judgment carefully on whether the word form can be traced back to the manuscript and whether similar examples can be found also in other texts. Section 3, a survey of Williams' assessment of the word paushada 2. In this section, we will examine Williams' evaluation too. That is, the word form paushada seems to have attained the most general currency. I referred to 52 kinds of Shravakachara texts for this presentation. These texts can be classified as follows. According to the Sanskrit word form, corresponding to the Prakrit Posa, as you can see from the table above, in the texts which I have referenced, the word form paushada is most common. There is the possibility of bias due to the nature of the texts that were concerted. So we should refrain from saying that the form paushada has attained the most general currency. In any case, we cannot say unqualifiedly that the word form paushada is most popular as Williams does. Next, we will survey the influence of several factors, such as difference between texts and authors on the difference between these word forms. This is an issue not addressed by Williams. First, please consult the table above from the perspective of sect. From this point on, we will exclude the Prakrit Posa and the exceptional form paushada. We can clearly see the following facts. All texts using the word paushada belong to the Digambara sects. On the other hand, all texts using the word forms paushada and paushada belong to the Shubetaambara sect. Please see note 9. Court 2001, Fuss Fieldwork is mainly focused on the Shubetaambara sects because the original word of this, of that ball, as paushada or paushada. This fact supports the idea that the difference in word forms is related to difference in sectarian affiliation. Regarding the difference between the use of paushada and paushada, clear understand cannot be seen. Based on Williams' argument, many scholars have so far regarded the word form paushada as the representative Sanskrit corresponding to the Prakrit form paushada. For example, Jain in 1979, Wadi 2009, Bore 2010, et cetera, use this word form. To give another example, the Jain's written by Professor Pordandas also uses the word form paushada. If I remember rightly. But it is somewhat unnatural that Jain belonging to the Digambara sect would use the word form paushada, which is not found in Digambara texts. Furthermore, Bore has collected the word paushada seen in Digambara text, Ratona Kalanda, Shroudhava Kachara, to paushada, which is only seen in Shibetambara texts. However, there is no reliable basis for that immigration because the word form paushada cannot be found in any other manuscripts and editions of Ratona Kalanda, Shroudhava Kachara. On the other hand, Indian scholars seem to be using the word forms prevalent in their own sect. For example, Sogani and Bargaba use paushada, and Mehta, Mohandad Mehta uses paushada. In cases of scholars without specific sectarian background, it is better to clarify the texts and texts which use that word form. Section 4, etymological interpretation of paushada. Finally, I would like to give an overview of the etymological interpretation of corresponding Sanskrit words for the prakrit pausha, seen in Shroudhava Kachara texts. One of them is as follows. The word pausha means nourishment. The thing which brings that day the nourishment pausha to dharma in order, that is paushada. The meaning of paushada brahata is that paushada, itself, is a bow, bow, brahata. That means completely paushada. The above sentence is an example for William's failing to identify his sources. In addition, similar examples can be seen in texts such as dharma-binda-bhriti and nabapada-prakarana-bhriti and shraddha-dinakritya-bhriti, which are not mentioned by William's. These are all Shweta-ambhara texts. They divide the word paushada or paushada into two parts and understand pausha as meaning, enhancement, nourishment, development, et cetera, derived from root pausha. And they interpret dha as being derived from root dha. Such an interpretation cannot be found in Digambara texts using the word paushada. As one of the few instances in which William draws on Digambara texts, he gives an example taken from Acharo Padisha. This text is difficult to obtain, so I could not reference. But a similar example is also found in Lati Sanhita. The bow, which is called paushada, is the best medicine, tramaushada, skilled in destroying births, death. The word from paushada, seen in Shravakachara texts, is found not only in giant texts, but also in Buddhist texts. In particular, it is seen in Buddhist tales such as Divya Badana, Mahabhast, et cetera, which are written in Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit. But no etymological interpretation is provided in these texts. But from the Chinese translation of the other texts, it can be seen that the translator considers the word to be derived from root pausha, as in the case of giant texts. The Shravakachara texts also contain an etymological interpretation of the word upabhasa, derived from the same root as pausha. These texts also provide an etymological interpretation, which keeps the content of the giant bow in mind. On the other hand, in Brahmanic texts, we can find an etymological interpretation, which is conscious of the purification lights performed before Vedic rituals. These comparisons are an interesting topic in itself. But due to space constructions will be omitted in this presentation. I intend to examine this subject on a future occasion. Section 5, Conclusion. In conclusion, the main points of this presentation can be summarized as follows. William states that there are several Sanskrit word forms like paushada, paushada, paushada, corresponding to the placrid pausha. In addition to that, the only exceptional form, paushada, is found in editions currently in circulation. However, it is necessary to carefully consider whether this form can be traced back to the original manuscripts. Many scholars have followed William's opinion that paushada has attained the most general currency. But we cannot accept this statement unqualifiedly. For example, as I argued in this presentation, the word form paushada is actually the most common. However, an important factor in this regard is the fact that Digambara over-filmingly has more shrubbaka-chara texts than Shubetambu. With regard to these three word forms, paushada, paushada, a difference in usage in accordance with sectarian affiliation can be clearly discerned. That is, Digambara uses paushada, the word form paushada, while Shubetambu uses paushada or paushada. The etymological interpretation of the word forms paushada and paushada used by Shubetambu sect is often employed. Because it is easy to assume root push as the word origin. In addition, the word form paushada is also found in Buddhist texts. And the fact that Chinese translators of Buddhist texts, too, assumed root push to be behind that word made it easy to reach this conclusion. And the etymological interpretation that Ubabasa derived from Ubabasa, just like in the case of Posaha, is also commonly found in shrubbaka-chara texts. Although I only touched on this point briefly in this presentation, interesting differences can be seen between the etymological interpretation found in shrubbaka-chara texts and Buddhist texts. I would like to discuss this point in the future. That's all for my presentation. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Thank you very much indeed. You've definitely advanced our understanding of this term. The nuance between Shwetambara and Digambara usage was not known to me, and I'm really very grateful to be told this. We have a group photograph taking place fairly soon. Peter, have we got time for questions, or would you feel we ought to go and look after the photographer? I know you've got a question, I always do. But what do you think? At all? Well, is it a question or an observation? Right, it's unrelated. Well, Ampana, why not? Of course, of course. We definitely want you to be happy, Ampana. So anybody else? Otherwise, I think we should break for photograph and lunch. So thank you very much to our speakers. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. Dr. Peter Fulger asked me to conduct the third session of this workshop. Here we have three speakers. First, Dr. Yumi Fujimoto from Sendai. She studies in Sendai, Japan, and continues it in Pune, India. And she got the PhD there. So today, she'll talk about Basti in Biharabashya 1 and 2 in comparison to Buddhist texts. About Basti in Biharabashya 1 and the second chapter in comparison to Buddhist texts. In this presentation, I would like to discuss the characteristics of Basti with some relevant words based on Biharabashya 1 and the second chapter and the Malayagiri's commentary. In the last part in discussion, I will rehearse. I will make a small comparison to Buddhist texts. I have been reading these texts with some Japanese scholars here, there, and some others in Japan. And we completed the first chapter and the second chapter. So I will quote from these two chapters. First, Basti. 1.1, the definition of Basti in Biharabashya and the Malayagiri's commentary. According to the following goddess, Basti is a place where sadhus, monks stay and synonymous with Shaya. In the commentary, Dattasadu janaita roba yatara ni basatisa basati, 959, Shaya is a basati. Then let's see other examples of basati, 1 by 1. 1.2, the rules on storing implements for those who undertake agarabihara pratima. According to the following goddess, monks who will undertake agarabihara pratima are not allowed to store their implements in their dwelling place. Atomi abasati in the Malayagiri's commentary. Acharya's are allowed to do so, probably in their dwelling place. Atomi abasati, although the storage site is not mentioned. 796 in the commentary. Basti, Saka, Shaa, and the Nirgama, are allowed to store implements. In the commentary, Dattasadu janaita roba yatara ni basatisa basati, 959, Shaya is a place where sadhus, monks stay and synonymous with Shaya. In the commentary, Dattasadu janaita roba yatara ni basatisa basati, 959, Shaya is a place where sadhus, monks stay and synonymous with Shaya. Then let's see other examples. The 1.3, shunya basatiruna karutabu ya. I have difficulty translating this sentence in English. Not all the monks should be absent from their basati. According to Gata, 996, three monks are the minimum number of monks to go for bihara, roaming. If two monks are roaming, sometimes they have to go separate ways and possibly commit faults. However, if they do everything together, they sometimes have to be absent from the basati where they are staying and there can be faults too. Therefore, not all the monks should be absent from their dwelling place where they are staying there. 997, hoi basudosa basahi. In the commentary, Dattasadu janaita roba yatara ni basatisa basati, ko-biksha-al-tam-gata-ha. Basatiparas, yahindamanad, basatiru-basudosa-babatti, page three. If two monks are roaming and if they go out of basati, they can be fault-listed in 998, mitchata-badeyacarana-badeyamarana-tirikkamanayana, aesabaranikkeya-neya-sunne-babedosa. Because there can be these faults, bihara should not be undertaken by two monks or not all the monks should be absent from basati. In these doshas listed in 998, the first two words are illustrated in detail with some occurrences of basatiru, so I quote it here. Please read if you like. And one point for regarding the facilities. There are a few gathas which are helpful to know the facilities of basatiru. The following gathas show the situation where monks are going out or resting home, basiura or basati to wash a bowl or to go for begging alms. This indicates that basati does not include a place to wash. In addition, a place to boil the stools does not seem to be included in basati. Here, I collected examples in which a monk goes out of basati or basiura to go for begging alms or to wash a bowl. Please move down to 1.5. The following gathas are quoted from the basiura on the Biharvahara Sutra 2.7, second chapter, Sutra number seven. If among who is undergoing Parihara becomes six, he should not be expelled but should be given a place to stay in basati. As long as the basati is free from faults. This is mentioned in gatha 1,035, niju hana karanan tana bana de basahi e in the commentary, niru yu hana nama baya buriti asya karanam yadi bhava satau dosha bhave yattos tana nada dati. If among undergoing Parihara becomes alone with some reasons, he comes to another gacha and join it. Among these reasons, for the case in which among undergoing Parihara is captured as shiva, something auspicious. Rules are provided in more detail. They are 1,041 onwards. When either gacha or among who is undergoing Parihara is captured by something auspicious, the among undergoing Parihara is not allowed to join the gacha because it can be another pointless for the other. If both are captured by sadorisha asiva, he is allowed to join the gacha and given a place to stay in a basati. If the sariyatara of the basati feels desacified and a partiality arranged for him, either outside the village or far from the dwelling place. Let's see this in Mariah Gilles' commentary on 1,042. This is repeated again in the commentary on 1,044. I think I should have quoted more. After begging the upashiraya, the monk undergoing Parihara is sent there and another monk attends him. And if monks make the householder very displeased, please move down to 1.6 shariyatara. A shariyatara is a person who has given a lodging to a monk or nun. Monks and nuns are not allowed to accept food given by the shariyatara. The following letters are quoted partly from an explanation of Parishvasta and Yatacandha. According to 847, Parishvasta is shariyatara pinda. And the following letters are given it's shariyatara pinda. And Yatacandha's selfish monk says this. Shariyatara pinda is a person who has given a lodging to a monk or nun. The shariyatara is a person who has given a lodging to a monk or nun. The shariyatara is a person who has given a lodging to a monk or nun. Number two about upashiraya. Upashiraya upashiraya is defined as monastery in some pre-setting studies. However, as in the Ghatas quoted below, sometimes upashiraya does not seem to be a monastery, but it conjures an image of a small temporary shelter or resting place. Although it is difficult to explain the difference between upashiraya and upashiraya, I think it's certain that upashiraya cannot be replaced with upashiraya in the following Ghatas. Upashiraya will be a town which covers a wider concept. We have seen some examples of upashiraya earlier in the example of upashiraya. In addition to them, I quoted some Ghatas here. The Marayagiri's commentary, which follows Ghatas 184, here this commentary is about Burihat Karpasutra, Udeshaka 1st Sutra number six. And this example may be different. I translated here in a resting home, but resting home or monastery both are possible, I think. But 771 and others, upashiraya seem to be a small temporary shelter or resting place. 771 padama upasaya me biyabahin. As for Sattva Bhavana, the first one is performed in a resting home. The second one is performed outside a resting home. 900, please come to page nine. The Marayagiri's commentary. Upashiraya Sya Antahamadaya Lingasya Chattana Pratiyagahakriyate Yadibabahir Upashiraya to Atabah Gramma Madaya Yadibah Grammasya Parishbhe Asanne Pradese Atabah Tatraibacharyasamipe. And 178 in the Marayagiri's commentary. Yatah Atraetasmi Upashiraya Asmakan Raksatan Asyapisha Chahagrathirahakadachito Spitati Apagachati Sa Parikusitab Yaha. Parilakusitab Yaha. About other examples, see 1.5. Number three, Abhishaya and Naishediki. Based on Marayagiri's commentary, the following are suggested as characteristics of Abhishaya and Naishediki. First, both are secondary to Abhishaya and placed separately from Abhishaya. Either inside or outside the fence of Abhashati, Ekabriti Parikushepa. Monks are allowed to go there with permission when there is a reason. Archers are not allowed to go there with some exceptions. Sometimes they are far from Abhashati. However, Abhashiyaka should be performed in Abhashati. Let's check one by one. First, outline. They are the places which monks are allowed to go in a group, horse-body area, etc. with permission. The difference between Abhishaya and Naishediki depends on whether monks spend a night there or not. If monks return Abhashati at night, the place is called Abhishediki. And if they spend a night there, the place is called Abhishaya. Under the situation where there are several places to stay, lodging which is primarily used with Abhashati and other such as Abhishaya and Naishediki, secondary to the Abhashati. Then I'd like to think of the architectural form of them. Not many passages are available regarding this. Based on 670 to 173, I'd like to suggest two points. Abhishaya and Naishediki can be located either inside or outside the fence of Abhashati. Abhishaya shares the same Pristavansha with Abhashati or it has its own Pristavansha. Naishediki always has Pristavansha individually. Page 11. Please come to page 11. Number two. The reason to go to Abhishaya and Abhishediki. Because there can be holds, monks are not allowed to go Abhishaya and Abhishediki without reason. The appropriate reasons are given in 638. I coded in footnote and I summarized as below. The reason to go to Abhishaya and Naishediki. Subhadyaya cannot be performed in Abhashati or secret teachings are given. The reason to go to Abhishaya when there is not enough space for all monks to lie down to sleep even in shift in Abhashati or San Satte San Satte Pranaja Dibiru Pashurage I had difficulty in translating this. And the last one, there is a leak in a dwelling place. Number three. The rules regarding Abhishaya and Abhishediki for Acharyas. According to the following orders and Acharyas are not allowed to go Abhishaya and Abhishediki. The reasons for this prohibition are also explained there. For example, women may seduce him. Chayattara may feel displeased or opponents in debate may catch him. However, there is an upper bada. If he is not recognized as an Acharya if there can be no fault because of people of good nature and Acharyas are allowed to go there. I think this exception seems to be applicable only in the situation where Abhishaya or Abhishediki is outside of the hands of Abhashati. Please come to page 12. The third line. Acharya. There are 142 lists of other monks who are not allowed to go there. Acharya is not allowed to go there when he has something to do for Acharya. Not all monks should go there for the risk of thieves. Strong monks can protect his Acharya and therefore is not allowed to go there. And some others. The monks mentioned here will be allowed to go Abhishaya and Abhishediki. Number four. Regarding a situation where Abhishaya is far from Abhashati Gata 688 provides a rule for following three cases. First, Acharya cannot be performed in Abhashati and the guru has gone to place to avoid the stools etc. Number two. There are many guest monks coming while he is going to place to avoid the stools. Number three. A monk here that knows about Acharya is performed in Abhashati while he is going to place to avoid the stools. In any of these three cases under conditions that there is no time to take permission because Abhishaya where he is going to is far from Abhashati. He is allowed to go there without permission. Number six. The Abhishaya also seem to be distant from Abhashati. Gata 674 onwards and the Malayagis commentary explains the time to go to Abhishaya with reference to Abhashayaka. Monks go to Abhishaya after performing Abhashayaka in their dwelling place and next morning they return to the Abhashati and perform Abhashayaka in the Abhashati. Number four. Kshetra. Kshetra has several meaning land, property, field, place, region etc. In the following Gata the Malayagis commentary Kshetra is used in the sense of a village or town city. However in some passages Kshetra is used in the sense of a site or territory of Gana Gacha 4.1 Kshetra a place or region such as town, village or city. Kettei Gama in the commentary Kshetra is a Malayagis with the next example 240 153 Alas, a lazy monk should not be admitted if he comes for admission. He is illustrated in Gata 253 and the commentary as before. He is a monk who complains that he had to walk a long distance to correct terms as the Kshetra where he stayed was Kshurlaka or Karukasha. In this Gata and commentary Kshetra is used in the sense of a village or town, city. Then please come to 4.2 Kshetra in the sense of a site or territory of Gana. According to the following Gata a monk who is undergoing Parantita stayed outside Kshetra. Although the Kshetra can be interpreted as a place such as a village or city Kshetra in the sense of the site or territory of Gana is more possible. First Kshetra in the sense of the site where Gana is established. Malayagi's commentary on 13193 Burihas Taha Kintu Agata Karishwate 1057 in the commentary Abarokana Nili Kshana Kshetra Bahistasya Parantitasya 1097 Shubhasya Tata Abakushetra Yatura Gatcho Abatistate Tatora Samupagachati Samagachati Nambatu Kshetra in the sense of a territory of Gana Saganoya Padutose Aban no Tantcha Karana Nati Eihin Karaneihin Agihibute Batabana Please please see Malayagi's commentary in the second line Here Kshetra seems to be used in the sense of a territory of Gana. Number 5 Discussion The characteristics of Basatiya are discussed here with reference to the relevant towards the focused area. A comparison to the Buddhist text is also made here to reveal the characteristics. The word Upashiraya in the Biaba Harabashya first and the second chapter and the Malayagi's commentary is used mainly in the sense of a temporary resting or retiring place. When compared with Upashiraya, Basatiya will be a town which covers the wider concept. Upashiraya is sometimes used as a place where a single monk stays while the Basatiya is used as a place where a group of monks stay. Abishayana Aminaishi as the secondary place is for monks to spend a night or to perform Subadhyaya which are used when they have difficulty doing so on the other hand, Basatiya is the primary place for them as well as the place where there are chariots stays. Those who go to Abishayana should perform Abashiyaka in the Basatiya before departing and after returning from there. According to a definition, Abishayana Aminaishiya can be either inside or outside the fence of Basatiya. Kushiatra can be interpreted as either the site where Gana is established or the territory of Gana in a few passages. Basati seems to indicate a site of lodging where Kushiatra indicates a territory. Kushiatra further studies needed. Basati does not seem to include a place to wash a pot or a place to boil the stoves. Although the distance between them is not clear. Basati does not seem to be a monastery where monks can live in seclusion. It can be suggested that Basati is the main lodging house for monks in a region and is the place where chariots always stay. Basati will be similar to Abhasa or Bihara in the sense of monastery in the Buddhist text. Although Basati does not seem to have as many facilities as the Bihara in the Buddhist text has. Abashiyaka, Abishayaya, and Aminaishiya are similar to Vinaya, which are places to stay but does not necessarily mean the site of a group of monks, Sangha. As they are the difference between Basati and the other places to stay. Similar distinction is seen in the Pali Vinaya. For instance, Pali Vinaya Mahabagga 2nd chapter 5 points from 3 to 6. The Buddha encourages big Mahakappina, who has stayed alone at Madakuchi, Megadaya to go to a formal act of the order and go to observance. In Mahabagga, in another part for the situation where several Abhasa have the same boundary it is regulated that the observant should be carried out in the Abhasa where Taylor stays. According to Mahabagga 2nd chapter, another part monks should carry out the observance. Having agreed up on the observance hall which is any of 5 kinds of rena. This is regulated because some monks have carried out the observance in a different room every time in their Abhasa. In short, when there are several places to stay in a region or in a site, one becomes the main place and the the rest becomes the secondary. Along with the characteristics of Basati, the concept of kushetra should be considered. In Buddhist order, all monks in a boundary are required to attend a formal act of the order and the observance. Therefore, when some monks need to perform them separately, they have to go out of the boundary in which they stay. The phrase is nishimangantva. No strict rules regarding the territory of Gana or Gaccha are found in the Biharabashya, the 1st and 2nd chapter and the commentary. However, there was a scene which suggested that Jain monks had a similar practice. Kuanacharya, who had fallen into Paharanchita Hall 3 and come to another Gana, monks in the Gana went out of the territory so that they can initiate the archery without making him a householder. It's supposed that the Jain monks also had the concept of the territory of Gana or Gaccha, although it's not as strict as in the Buddhist text. That's all. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Fujimoto. Now, we have time to accept two or three questions. Anyone, do you have no questions or any suggestions? This text does not mention for sad viz and I don't know whether we can apply this rule to Jain nuns or not. Dr. Solis, do you understand? Okay, one more question, Peter. I don't know if monks stay in temple or not. I don't think they stay in temple, but but that is a place to stay. I think it's a suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. You may have, other people may have a question, but we don't have enough time to discuss this matter here. So, afterwards privately you can ask to Dr. Fujimoto. Thank you very much. Now, I'd like to invite Dr. Kawasaki to our stage from University of Tokyo. He studied, study in Buddhism and Jainism in Osaka University, Japan and now he's teaching at University of Tokyo. So, today he's going to discuss Haji Badra series on the property, property ownership by the Buddhist mendicant. Hello, I'm Yutaka Kawasaki at University of Tokyo. So, today I prepare the handout of my presentation, but I don't know where it is now. I prepare the handout of my presentation, but now I don't know where it is. So, my English, sorry. So, today I would like to talk to you mainly about the property ownership by the Buddhist mendicant. It is preserved in Haji Badra Yakiniputra's Dhammasangahani of 8th century. So, one of the needed qualities for the renouncers in ancient India was to have freedom from attachment of worldly things. The Jains have treated the attachment and aramba. It means the intentional activity or violent activity or violence itself as a couple of the most fundamental things. And Aparigraha non-attachment has been one of the five vows of Brattas. So, the word Aparigraha can denote renouncing any material possessions, but the Dassave area, one of the seniors of the Shwetambara Jain scriptures says, so Dassave area 4th and 6th chapter versus 20 and 21. So, garment, ball, woolen cloth, or broom. The Jain mendicants keep and carry touch scenes for their restraint and the sense of shame. Nayaputa the Saviour said that such a garment etc. is not Aparigraha. The great sage, that is Mahavira said that Aparigraha means Murcha that is Aparigraha means infatuation. So, this psychological interpretation of Aparigraha was inherited by Umaswati. Murcha Aparigraha. And this definition is carried through as the authority to the present day. On the other hand, Buddhism has neither used Aparigraha as a technical term, nor included the practice of Aparigraha into their 5 or 10 sealers. But the Buddha Shakyamuni himself Buddha Shakyamuni using the very word Aparigraha stressed the importance of freedom from attachment. For example, the Steipata one of the old part Buddhist scriptures called Steipata three ninth theories. So, now on the other hand, I shall tell you the way of life of a householder and how acting he becomes a good disciple. For the entire big group, practice cannot be carried out by one of who has possessions, that is Aparigraha. Or Steipata verse 815 People grieve for their cherished things. For Aparigraha are permanent. Seeing that this separation truly exists one should not live the household life. So, while giants basically have maintained the ideal of attachment, it has made the, it has made the mendicants keep the life side of poverty and wandering. But the scholars have exemplified that Indian Buddhism gradually accepted the settled way of life. The Buddhist mendicants living at the monastery got much larger donations and accumulated various kinds of properties. The Dhamma Sangha Honey which was composed by the Shibetabha monk Halibhadra Yakiniputra of 8th century tells such a Buddhist monastery life. And it also depicts the grounds for their possessions of properties. So, the Dhamma Sangha Honey 986 says that some fools, some fool persons think that even the possession in the villages etc. is faultless because it is a cause of growth of three jewels, Ratna Toraya. These fools are evidently the Buddhists because the next verse says that the three jewels are Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Against this opinion Halibhadra Yakiniputra says so, but the possession in the villages etc. is neither beneficial to nor gives present results to these three jewels. You should understand that the possession in the villages etc. is harmful for such a possession brings forth intentional activity that is Arambha. So the point is Halibhadra's assertion is that the possession sets off the intentional activity or Arambha which inevitably conduces to the violence. In other words, Halibhadra's criticism is based on the ethos of non-violence. Then the Buddhist opponent argues back that even the mendicant who commits Arambha is faultless. He says when being free from possessiveness Mamatova, Rahita, one engages in intentional activity only for the sake of the three jewels he should be regarded as faultless. Even if he is a Buddhist mendicant that is big shoe. The point we should notice here is that the Buddhist opponent refers to being free from possessiveness Mamatova, Rahita and only for the sake of the three jewels Pratitwara Ratantrayam Eva. So whether or not the mendicant really possesses properties does not mean much. What is important is that his mind is free from possessiveness and that's the purpose of his possession and Arambha is only for the three jewels. These two are essential to make the possession of a mendicant and the subsequent Arambha faultless. However, Haribada denies as follows. He says so having stopped meat eating. One names meat eating because of the difference of the word. Having abandoned the intentional activity. A full person practices the very intentional activity because of the different expression. When an act is essentially sinful it is prohibited absolutely to do it even if one expresses it in a different name which does not represent its true nature. For instance, even if one names a poison as sweet it never becomes harmless or even if one names hot water are cold it burns his skin in the world. So this criticism reminds me of a by name of alcohol in Japan. So Japanese Buddhist mendicants and laypersons often have called alcohol Hanyato which means hot water for wisdom. And they have drunk it justifying that what we were drinking is not alcohol but hot water for wisdom. So unfortunately alcohol never changes. Never transmutes into non-alcohol even if one gives a new and different name to alcohol. After all, one who drinks Hanyato hot water for wisdom transgresses the Buddhist precept which prohibits the consumption of alcohol. Similarly, even if the Buddhists give new names to their possessions and the subsequent intentional activities they cannot avoid committing faults originating from possessions and arambas. So then the Buddhist opponent argues that the possession in the villages is beneficial because it enables even the children to render the service viability for the Buddhist mendicants. In Haribada's opinion, the virtuous ones should engage in service based on the irrefutable matter. But the possession in the villages is blameable and spoiled ones virtue. Having taken account the merit and the demerit of oneself and others one should engage in service. Or one may fall into the vinaigra or it is difficult to translate this word. So maybe the absolutism of courtesy. So then the Buddhist opponent insist that the Buddha does not allow the possession in the villages. But does the generous givers or dana party voluntarily do so for the sake of their roots of well-being that is kusharamura? Haribada's question is simple. Even so why could both the givers and the mendicants be free from pain in the next world when they commit a deed which the Buddha does not allow? The Buddhist opponent argues next the Buddhist opponent argues that the Buddha allows the Buddhist mendicants to receive the outcome from the possessions only when their mental condition is pure. While the generous givers are given approval to possess properties in the villages. So why should they suffer in pain in the next world? Against this insist Haribada questions the definition of true mendicant or true big shoe. He says that the big shoe is called big shoe because he is free from expectation makes it a habit to beg arms and shans three kinds of evil in three ways. So although no comment is given by the author himself it is evident that the expression three kinds of evil in three ways in Prakrit, Tibiharm, Tibihen and Parban derived from the older passage like in three ways that is with mind, speech and body. I abandon three-fold action I do not perform any evil acts nor I cause another person to perform them nor I allow another person to perform them of the superior chapter four chapter four. In the light of these two triplets the Buddhist mendicants cannot be mendicants because they do allow the givers to possess properties. Thereof Haribada says it is because they allow it is unreasonable that they have the state of being mendicant when the mendicants enjoy the terms which are brought to completion through the intentional activity that they allow. Then according to the Buddhist opponent while one who dedicates one self to the group of Buddhist ascetic practices that is Dufthanga or Duta or Dufthanga is regarded as a mendicant as a general rule but even if one consumes what is brought to completion by the Aramba or intentional activity there is an exceptional case that he is regarded as a mendicant. According to the Buddhist opponent if an action does not destroy the Charana Parinama Bija which may be translated as the seed for the change into the good conduct then this action should be understood as an exception. The Buddhist opponent envisages the property ownership by the Buddhist mendicants as the action which does not destroy the Charana Parinama Bija. Based on such a thought it is natural for them that a mendicant who possesses properties is exceptionally regarded as a true mendicant. But Haribadra denies it because this exception inevitably produces an unwarranted overextension in Sanskrit, Artipurasanga so Artipurasanga to lay persons what Artipurasanga here means so the Buddhist opponent must admit that the lay person who possesses properties is exceptionally regarded as a mendicant if even a mendicant who possesses properties is exceptionally regarded as a mendicant because there is no difference between the lay person and the mendicant in that both of them possess properties. Furthermore Haribadra does not accept the opinion that the possession in the villages does not destroy the Charana Parinama Bija because from the possession in the villages the activity originates in the villages and from the activity a mental defilement Chitta Parikulesha inevitably arises in one mind, one's mind and because of the mental defilement the seed for the change into the good conduct Charana Parinama Bija disappears. The Buddhist mendicants as such are not different from a king who owns the villages in his fief. Thus the Buddhist mendicants are the ones who are according to the Haribadra Buddhist mendicants are the ones who are imitative of king's sport and are dropped from the way to revelation Moksha Marga even when the exception is applied it is unreasonable that the Buddhist mendicants have the quality of the true mendicants. But the Buddhist opponent does not agree with Haribadra because there was one case which a very owner of properties did not destroy the Charana Parinama Bija in giant history. So the Buddhist opponent says well, when Barata the owner of 960 million villages was in the pure mental state he attained omniscience thanks to the seed for the change into the good conduct, thanks to the Charana Parinama Bija. Both I and you so the Buddhist opponent and the giants Haribadra, Admit that the possession in the villages does not destroy the seed for the change into the good conduct. Why don't you realize it? So that means so Barata is surely the character who appears in the so-called universal history in Jainism. He was the eldest son of the first Thiru Tankara Rishabhadeva and was the first universal emperor that is the Chakra Baratin of this world era. The Shibetama tradition maintained that he attained omniscience without having renounced the household life. That is to say that Barata was the owner of the 60 million villages that is there was possession, there was a Parigraha in the villages by him, never destroyed the Charana Parinama Bija which was a trigger of his attaining Kevala Juniana omniscience. Therefore the giants should admit the the giants should admit the opinion of the Buddhist opponent. If they accept their universal history the historical facts. So based on the giant definition of a Parigraha mentioned in earlier, so that is Mulcha Parigraha so Parigraha means infatuation Haribadra insists on the validity of his assertion. He says on that occasion that is so when Barata attained omniscience on that occasion the seed for the change into the good conduct surely exist when Barata's infatuation went away and he did not act at all for that possession in the villages but you are not you mean the Buddhist opponent but you are not gone away by the infatuation because you act such and such for the possession in the villages. That means although Barata owned 960 million villages he was not infatuated by the villages in other words mentally he did not he did possess nothing that is a Parigraha thus he did know about the possessions in the villages so he can he could attain the omniscience of the Buddha. At first glance being free from infatuation of Chinese and being free from possessiveness Mamatoa so I touched earlier being free from possessiveness of Buddhism which I touched earlier seemed to indicate the same condition but it should be noted that there is a key difference in China thought one who is free from infatuation Murucha cannot commit arambas at all therefore there can't be any violence originating in him but according to Haribada Suri Buddhism admits that even the one who is free from possessiveness may act intentionally for the sake of for example three jewels or he may cause someone to commit arambas or he may allow someone who commits arambas this is why Haribada criticizes the possession in the villages by the Buddhist mendicants who are said to be free from possessiveness for Haribada being free from possessiveness of Buddhism is not the true state of the known attachment then the Buddhist opponent argues that this practice of possession in the villages is faultless because it is prescribed in the Buddhist scriptures which is the authority in this case just like the practice such as Chaiti Abandana are authorized by giant scriptures Haribada questions why could that be a scripture it prescribes the practice which the which sorry why could that be a scripture it prescribes the practice which is a seed for the impure change this is a classification of scripture even when only the lay people even when only the lay people keep up a vigil at the possession in the villages the Buddhist mendicants are also sinful because they enjoy the products which are prepared especially for the mendicants that is a giant technical term Adakaraman so finally the Buddhist opponent says such a mere fault is not regarded as a fault because it is outcome of this bad era but why can one be faultless when he commits the sinful activity which can be removable so while this dispute while this dispute recorded in the Dharma Sangha seems to reflect some historical facts of Buddhist monasteries in the medieval period I cannot say for certain whether or not such a dispute actually happened between Haribada giants and the Buddhists but at this point I'm not sure about the name of Buddhist sect or school also Dharma Gupta Kaur was Sarabha Sivada etc which Haribadra criticized so as a future task whether or not Haribadra correctly tells about the Buddhist opinion must be judged so it is imperative to fully collect the account found in the Hinayana or Mahayana Buddhist texts or inscriptions which depict the possession of properties by the Buddhist mendicants and try to identify each passage with a relevant record of the Dharma Sangha Honey so despite such shortcomings of my presentation if this is of any help to those concerned I would be glad so human beings must fight the sleepiness after eating delicious lunch so thank you very much for your attention thank you very much Dr. Kawasaki now we have about 10 minutes for our discussion do you have any questions or suggestions yes so on the second question I have no idea but I think Mahabira and the Buddha do not think that his disciples or monks and nuns are not their possessions so okay it's sorry I can't understand about the first question we okay any other question yes please do you follow do you follow thank you of course so you discuss this matter later okay with the with the tea so any other question Peter Aramba itself Haribara does not define the word Aramba itself so I refer to the commentaries of Tatevartha Sutras and Shubhettanvar Shubhettanvar commentary definition so in the older meaning so Aramba means violence itself but in the course of time the Arambas meaning a change Arambas means intentional activity but at the same time intentional activity itself is violent violenter in giant interpretation but in this text Haribara does not define the word Peter do you understand yes there is no yes okay we have another three minutes so yes please no so Haribara uses the words Gama Adi Padigaha Parigaha that is in Sanskrit Gama Adi Parigraha and this is and this compound is interpreted by Haribara himself as a locative Tatevartha so that is a position in the villages that is not a position of the villages yes so there is no reference to the temples yes so my handout is fade away so I apologize you must hear my terrible pronunciation of English I'm sorry we are prohibited to have anything even the handout we can't have so I think now is the time for this portion thank you very much Dr Kawasaki thank you very much