Aspects of Jaina Monasticism

SR No.: 001332
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Nathmal Tatia, Mahendramuni
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 175
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 10 MB

Page 55

In Buddhism
23
Buddhism, the offence of killing is (pramatta-yogāt ptāņavyaparopanam very precisely defined by Vasuban- himsā). The expression 'pramattadhu in his Abhidharma-kośa. Tak- yoga' represents the essence of the ing away of life (prāņātipāta), definition. The concept of pramāda according to him, is an aforethought is very wide as it comprises eight killing of another person unerr- factors, namely, (1) ignorance, (2) ingly. This definition clearly sets doubt, (3) wrong notion, (4) attachforth three factors of genuine ment, (5) hatred, (6) unsteady vigiloffence of killing, namely (1) fore- ance, (7) disrespect for principles of thought, (2) separate identity of the righteousness, and (8) perversity of person to be killed, and (3) killing mental, vocal, and physical actiof the iniended person. If any of vity. 12 The scope of pramāda, thus these factors is wanting, it will not interpreted, is so wide that any be a case of genuine killing.
mental or moral lapse, however In this connection, Vasubandhu small or covert, on the part of the enters a caveat against the Nirgran- doer is bound to make him incur tha philosophers who attributed the offence of violence (himsā). An sin to the killer of a living being act may be voluntary or involuneven if such killing was not preme- tary. The moral character of a ditated on the analogy of fire that voluntary act is obvious, but that burns the limb of a person, whether of involuntary acts not is so. he puts it into fire intentionally or They may spring forth from subconunintentionally. 10 This definition of scious propensities that are rooted in killing would, according to Vasu- passions and perversities. The Jaina bandhu, make sin a mechanical philosophers characterize such invoaffair bereft of any spiritual signi- luntary acts as covertly immoral ficance. Simply looking at a beauti- and as such make its perpetrator ful maiden or touching her without incur offence. Thus, for instance, any mental pollution would be an if a person has not taken the vow act of sin. The example of fire is of desisting from violent activities absurd according to him. It can- through thought, speech, and body, not prove the validity of the defini- he incurs offence for all kinds of tion.
activities that he may be engaged Vasubandhu's definition of prān- in voluntarily or involuntarily or ātipāta appears to be influenced by even tacitly at the subconscious the early Buddhist conception as level. The vow, according to the explained above on the basis of the Jaina philosophers, brings about a Vinaya Pitaka.
sort of moral purity which saves Let us now see how the Jaina him from perpetrating sinful acts thinkers look at the problem Umā- even in thought, much less in pracsvāti in his Tattvärthasütra, 11 tice. This is a very wholesome moral defines himsā (violence, injury) as principle accepted in some way or taking av ay of life under the sway other by all systems of thought beof non-vigilance rooted in passions lieving in spirituality and asceticism.