Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
TWO DEFINITIONS OF AHIMSA
Dr. Unto Tahitnen University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
There are two different ideas of ahimsa in Indian thought. We may name them "Śramanic" and "Vedic". The former is for instance mentioned by SandilyaUpanisad.] It means not to cause suffering to any living being at any time either by mental, vocal or bodily activities. The Jainas, Buddhists and Yogins approve the idea of ahimsă in this sense. The point is that any intentional act causing harm or suffering to any living being is to be named as "himsā". Therefore also ahimsā as a concept is applied to all living beings.
However, the moral tradition based on the originally Vedic sources is different. In the Chandog ya-Upanisad we find an important Vedic statement regarding the meaning of ahimsā. He who practises ahimsā towards all creatures, except at holy places (tirtha), does not return to this world again.2 "Holy places." refers here to the place of animal sacrifice.
Manu says that the himsă prescribed in the Vedas should be construed to mean ahimsā, because moral duties spring out from the Vedas. 8 This Vedic conception of non-violence appears in a clear form also in the Mahābhārata: the violence done to an evil-doer (asādhu-himsā) for maintaining wordly affairs (loka-yātrā) is ahimsa.4 This appears to mean that "violence to an evil-doer" is bracketed into the concept of ahimsā.
The Vedic conception af ahimsā is hence not universal. It means "refraining from causing harm to a living being in the way not enjoined by the Vedas". We can draw the (rather surprising) conclusion that according to the Vedic concept of ahimsā killing an enemy in a war, executing a criminal or killing an animal in a sacrifice are indeed all acts of "ahimsa" provided they are performed according to the commands of the authorative scriptures.
Thus there are two different definitions of ahimsā. The term when used does not simply mean the same in all contexts. There are other differences of opinion also. The Vedic idea is motivated by social concern, whereas the sramanic idea refers to an individual motivation.
The Jainas have very laboriously dealt not only with ahimsā but also with the meaning of himsā. Himsā, to them, means the hurting of life-principles (prāna-vyaparopana) due to the passionate activity pramatta-yoga). Another later 71
-561 -
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Jain text says that himsa is any injury whatsoever to the material (dravya) or conscious vitalities (bhāva-rüpa) of life caused through passionate activity (kasayayoga).6 Even when there is injury to life, it cannot be considered himsā if the person is not motivated by any kind of passion and carefully follows the code of right conduct. On the other hand, if one acts out of ignorance motivated by passions, violence takes place irrespective of whether another being is killed or not."
Further, some texts treat ahimsā as “internal purification”. A Jain text says that the absence of attachment (rāga) and other passions is ahimsā.8 Renunciation of both types of possession, external (bahya) as well as internal (ābhyantaraaparigraha), is also said to be ahimsā.9 These references point out a concept of ahimsa in which purity of mind is the predominant moral characteristic.
Thus the
Thus the bramanic or ascetic ahimsā differs from the Vedic concept of ahimsa. The supporters of the former have ardently opposed the Vedic idea of ahimsā. The Yoga-Sastra by Hemacandra makes a covert reference to Manusmrti and some other brahmanic writings as "himsa-śāstras” (sciences of violence).10 While referring to Manu and Jaimini, he acidly states that “these dulls, having given up the dharma based on restraint, morality and compassion meant for the welfare of the universe have declared even himsā as a duty.11 It is better to be a poor materialist (cārvāka) who is an open heretic rather than a demon in disguise like Jaimini, preaching the Vedas. 1 2
However, the critics of the Vedic idea of ahimsă are not confined to Jainism. Also within the 'orthodox” thought there are representatives of the sramanic ideas. The Samkhya-Kārikā opposes scriptural means sanctioned by the Mimāmsā system for terminating suffering only temporarily, and not completely either, because it involves impurity (avifuddhi) in the form of himsā, destruction of moral merit (kşaya) and surpassability (atif aya) in the result. 18 Impurity is ascribed to the killing of animals as well as the destruction of the living sprouts for purposes of completing sacrifices such as soma or others. 14
A later but authentic commentator on the Samkhya-Sutra says that the scriptural means of the Mimāmsā are in truth equal to the wordly means because they are full of sin caused by himsā, and the result is also only a temporary good (vināsi-phala), and is unequal to that experienced hereafter. The critic adds that there is no proof of limiting the scope of the general statement na himsyāt sarvabhūtāni (not violating all the living beings).15
The above references demonstrate that the peak of criticism of the Vedic ahimsā is directed against the approval of exceptions to the universal principle. In this criticism the Jainas, Şarkhya, Yoga and the Buddhists appear to take the same side.
562 -
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ References 1. Sandilya-Upanisad 1.I, 2. Chandogya-Upanisad 8.15.1. 3. Manusmrti 5.44 4. Santi-Parva 15.49. 5. Tattvartha-Sutra 7.13. Sravakacara by Amitagati 6.12. 6. Purusartha-Siddhyapaya 3.43. 7. Ibid, 3.45-46. 8. Ibid, 3.44. 9. Ibid, 3.118. 10. roga-Sastra 2.37, also slokas 33-36. 11. Ibid, 2.40. 12. Ibid, 2.38. 13. Samkhya-Karika 2 14. Vacaspati Misra on Samkhya-Karika 2 15. Vijijanabhiksu on Samkhya-Satra 1.6. लेखसार अहिंसा की दो परिभाषायें डा० अन्टू टाहिटनेन, जीवस्केला विश्वविद्यालय, फिनलेण्ड भारतीय विचारधारा में अहिंसा के संबन्ध में दो प्रकार की विचार-धारायें-श्रमण और वैदिक-पाई जाती है। जैन, बौद्ध और योग के समान श्रमण विचारधारा में किसी भी प्राणी को मन, वचन और काम से किसी भी प्रकार के कष्ट न पहुँचाने की प्रवृत्ति और क्रिया को अहिंसा कहते हैं / इस धारा का स्रोत शांडिल्य उपनिषद् में पाया जाता है / वैदिक विचारधारा को छान्दोग्य-उपनिषद् में बताया गया है / इसके अनुसार तीर्थस्थानों को छोड़कर अन्यत्र अहिंसा का अभ्यास किया जाता है / मनुस्मृति और महाभारत में भी कहा गया है कि बुरा काम करनेवाले के प्रति की गई हिंसा भी अहिंसा का ही एक रूप है। अहिंसा के संबन्ध में यह वैदिक मान्यता सार्वभौमिक नहीं है। इसका कारण यह है कि यह मान्यता सामाजिक परिवेश से संबंधित है जबकि श्रमण-मान्यता व्यक्तिगत चरित्र पर आधारित हैं / जैनों ने हिंसा-अहिंसा पर परिश्रमपूर्वक विचार किया है। उन्होंने इसे भाव-प्रधान माना है / यह अन्तरंग के शोधन का एक उपाय है। राग, द्वेष, परिग्रह (अन्तर्वाह्य) आदि के त्याग से अहिंसा प्रकट होती है / ये सब मानसिक प्रवृत्तिर्या हैं / फलतः जैनधर्म में मन की शुद्धता नैतिकता का प्रमुख लक्षण माना गया है। जैनों ने वैदिक अहिंसा की मान्यता की काफी आलोचना की है / इसकी आलोचना सांख्य, योग और बौद्ध भी करते हैं / उनका कथन है कि 'न हिंस्यात् सर्वभूतानि' का कोई अपवाद नहीं होना चाहिये / -563 -