________________
356
THE ESSENCE OF JAINA SCRIPTURES
psychic-attention (read asadbhavasya), proved by the careful conduct, which occurs without it, the nature of hurting certainly does not belong, as is shown by the fact that the taking of another's life does not involve bondage : therefore internal negligence is the more serious, and not the external.
Even so, the external should be recognized, simply as being an occasion for the internal negligence.
Now he teaches that internal negligence must in any case be rejected:
III.18. A shramana of careless conduct in regard to the six bodies 133 is esteemed to be hurting them; but, if he always behaves carefully, then, like a lotus in water, he is un-assoiled. (218)
Since the existence of impure psychic-attention, proved by careless behaviour, which does not occur without it, is hurtful, inasmuch as bondage is known to result from the cause of taking the life of the six classes of bodies; and since non-existence of impure psychicattention, proved by careful behaviour, which occurs without it, is non-hurtful,-for, inasmuch as it has not the slightest bondage resulting from the “other,” it is known to be like a lotus luxuriating (durlalita) in the water, without assoil-for these reasons internal negligence, which has the form of impure psychic-attention, must be rejected in all cases where external negligence, in the form of taking another being's life, which is merely occasion of internal negligence, is entirely rejected.
Now he teaches that similarly appropriation (upadhi), since it is exclusively an internal negligence, should be rejected:
III.19. Bondage may arise or not arise when, in case of a bodily action, a living being is killed: but from appropriation or possessiveness (the Tatparya-vrtti paraphrases upadhi by parigraha) bondage certainly results; therefore shramanas have abandoned it entirely. (219)
Whereas in the taking of another being's life through a bodily action the negligence-quality is held to be variable,-because its character as bondage is variable according to the presence or absence of impure psychic-attention, with appropriation the case is different. Its negligence-quality is invariable, because its character as bondage is invariable owing to the invariable presence of impure psychicattention, which is proved by its non-occurrence without the same. Therefore the holy Arhats, the supreme shramanas, have themselves
