Sruta Sarita

SR No.: 001940
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 310
Language: English, Prakrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Articles
File Size: 18 MB

Page 130

JAINA THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NON-VIOLENCE
121
"Thou art thy self the person to be killed......so one should not be the killer or the murderer."
(Acā. 1.5.5.4) Now let us see what the commentators and the other prominent Jaina Ācāryas have to say regarding the violence and non-violence.
Ācārya Siddhasena has clearly stated that though one kills the living being one does not have the sin of killing because of his apramāda (carefulness).8
Same sentiments are found in Oghaniryukti (748, 749) and in Ācārya Kundakunda's Pravacanasāra (3. 17) when they say that those who are careful (apramatta) to them there is no sin even though the living being is killed.
The most profound discussion of the theory of non-violence is done by Acārya Jinabhadra in his Visesavasyakabhāsya (Pub. L. D. S.) :
"One should not feat that because earth, etc. are so crowded with souls, there would be hiṁsā (injury) at every step whether one wills it or not. It has been pointed out earlier that what is struck by a weapon is not possessed of a soul. There will not be injury simply because the world is crowded with souls. It is the intention that ultimately matters. From the real point of view, a man does not become a ‘killer' only because he has killed or because the world is crowed with souls, or remain innocent only because he has not killed physically, or because souls are sparse. Even if a person does not actually kill, he becomes a killer if he has the intention to kill; while a doctor has to cause pain, but is still non-injurious, innocent, because his intention is pure. A wise man equipped with the five samitis and the three guptis and practising restraint thereby, is noninjurious; not one who is of just the opposite type. Such a man of restraint is not regarded as injurious irrespective of whether he kills or hurts or does not; for it is the intention that is the deciding factor, not the external act which is inconclusive. From the real point of view it is the evil intention that is himsā (injury) whether it materialises into an evil act of injuring or not. There can be non-injury even when the external act of injury has been committed and injury even when it has not been committed. (2217-2222).
Does this mean that the external act of killing is never injury ? Much depends on the evil intention. That external act of killing which is the cause of an evil effect, or is caused by evil intention is himsā (injury). But that which is not caused by evil intentions or does not result in an evil effect is not himsā in the case of the above-mentioned wise man. For example, sounds, etc. do not rouse the passions of a man free from attraction and infatuation because his mind or intention is pure, undefiled. A good man does not have infatuation for his