________________
programmatic attempt to make soteriological progress in the light of the Jaina doctrine of karma, and tends to be for limited periods only. Moreover, it hardly needs pointing out that the comprehensive or near comprehensive non-violence of the ascetic is predicated on, and only possible because of, the violence perpetrated by non-ascetics in their preparation of the monk or nun's suitably 'pure' food and water. From one perspective, it is the duty and the privilege of the laity to take this violence upon themselves and suffer the karmic consequences. But another perspective, which I shall investigate below. shows that what would be disastrous violence for the monks and nuns (because they are monks and nuns) is nothing of the kind for the laity, precisely because they are laity.
To anticipate my argument a little, it is not just the case that the negative, violence-induced karmic consequences for a lay person of giving alms (dāna) to a monk or nun are easily compensated by the positive but, nevertheless, embodying karma accrued from this act of charity; in the modern era, at least, dāna (preparing and giving food, drink, and clothing) has come to be viewed as actually destructive of karma. This shift is evident if we look at the relevant passages in the Tattvärtha Sūtra (which probably dates from the second or third century CE). There, giving or charity (dana) is named as one of the causes of the influx of a kind of positive karma known as 'pleasureproducing' (TS 6.13 = SS 6.12). It is defined specifically as: 'the act of giving I something) away for the purpose of conferring benefit on one's self (anugrahärtham svasvatisargo dänam) (TS 7.33 = SS 7.38)'. In fact, the two earliest commentaries on this passage describe charity (dāna) as the act of giving something away for the benefit of oneself and others. One of these, the Digambara Sarvārthasiddhi, differentiates between the benefit acquired by the lay donor, which is a store of merit (i.e. positive karma or pulya), and that acquired by the recipient monks, which is advancement along the path to liberation as a result of their worldly needs being taken care of for them (SS 7.38). However, the most recent translator of the Tattvārtha Sutra, Dr Nathmal Tatia, basing his interpretation not simply on these two early commentaries, but on their successors, and, it seems, on contemporary Jaina self-understanding, writes here (as a summary of the commentarial tradition on this verse): 'The giver gives for his own benefit with a sense of gratitude to the recipient. Charity practised with a pure heart helps weaken karmic bondage' (Tatia 1994: 183). This formulation gives a different nuance, at the very least, to the results of däna. By giving to ascetics, you can acquire some of the karmic benefits of actually practising asceticism. And as I hope to show, this tendency to make positive. lay activity actually destructive of karma is even further advanced by some accounts of the