Harmless Soul

Author(s): W J Johnson, Dayanand Bhargav
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 56

42 Harmless Souls
religious duties'.116 Furthermore, according to Deleu, such passages as this 'somehow put the old controversial issue regarding the unconsciously committed sin (that divided as is well known the Jainas and the Buddhists) in quite a different light'. 117
There are a number of points to consider here. First, it is not certain that the Viyahapannatti reports the actual words or doctrines of Mahāvira. Even if it does, it is clear that the oldest canonical texts (Āyāramga 1, etc.) contain material which is less sophisticated doctrinally and is probably even older. (If that is the case, it may be that here Mahavira is reforming a previous Jaina or proto-Jaina position, or simply excluding, through unambiguous formulation, what had been a matter for debate in earlier practice.) Moreover, regarding the controversy with the Buddhists, the Jain view is that if a monk is following the discipline properly he cannot, by definition, unconsciously commit a sin. For himsā done while the monk is conforming to irya-samiti is tolerated, not because it is unconscious, but because it is a special case, sanctioned by the monastic rule. The total amount of karma accrued from such actions is agreed to bind for a short enough time to do no real damage to a monk's prospects of liberation, providing he continues to adhere to the discipline. This, of course, allows ascetics a realistic chance of achieving liberation, and may represent the loosening of some previously very tight rule.
The idea that unavoidable injury perpetrated while following the monastic rules, i.e. while acting with rigorous carefulness or awareness, is less karmically significant than injury perpetrated through neglect of the monastic rules, i.e. done out of carelessness, can be found in isolated passages in the early canon. For example, Ayāramga
1.5.4.3 states that:
116 Ibid., referring to Viy. XVIII 8.1. 117 Ibid. Cf. pp. 11-20, above.