________________
-: 498:
Bhagavai 7:1:6-7
The lay follower of the Sramaņa Order, O Lord! has already abstained from the acts of violence to the mobile beings, (but) he has not abstained from the act of violence to the earth-bodied beings (which are not mobile beings). Now, while digging the earth, if he happens to kill any of the mobile beings, does it, O Lord! amount to the transgression of his vow (of not killing mobile beings)? Such assertion is not consistent (O Gautama!) (i.e., his act does not amount to his transgressing the vow), because he did not intentionally indulged in
acts of killing the mobile being. 7.7 samanovāsagassa ņam bhamte! puvvāmeva vanapphaisamārambhe paccakkhāe.
se ya pudhavim khanamāne annayarassa rukkhassa mulam chimdejjā, se nam bhamte! tam vayam aticaruti? no inatthe samatthe, no khalu se tassa ativāyāe āuttati. The lay follower of the Sramana Order, O Lord! has already abstained from the acts of violence to the vegetation-bodied beings. Now, while digging the earth, if he happens to tear the root of any tree, does it O Lord! amount to his transgressing the vow (of not killing a vegetation-bodied being)? Such assertion is not consistent (O Gautama!) (i.e., his act does not amount to his transgressing the vow), because he did not intentionally indulged in acts of killing the vegetation-bodied being.
Bhāsya 1. Sūtras 6,7
There are many varieties of violence. Among them, the principal two are
(1) Wilful violence-to indulge in violence
(2) Unwitting violence—to indulge in violence unwittingly.
The background of Gautama's query in the sūtra is: A lay follower, takes the vow of abstaining from acts of killing wilfully any mobile beings. Now, while digging earth the soil in a mine, he happens to kill (accidently) a mobile being. With reference to such events, it was asked whether he was not the transgressor of his vow. In reply, it was said that there did not occur any transgression of the vow, as he had renounced only intentional killing. Exactly similar is the case of the lay follower of the śramanas who took the vow of abstaining from cutting the tree intentionally.
This time, the person, while digging the soil in a mine, happened to cut accidentally the root of a tree. Again, in relation to this event, it was asked whether the vow was transgressed or not. The same reply was given he did not transgress his vow; as the cutting of the root of the tree was not at all a wilful act-it was violence indulged in unwittingly (accidently). As this was not "wilful violence", it did not amount to the transgression of his vow. Unintentional killing is also a variety of violence; so if a mobile being is killed or a tree is cut even unintentionally, that is an act of violence. But such violence does not result in the transgression of the vow of abstinence from killing a living being wilfully.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org