Harmless Soul

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

Page 86

72 Harmless Souls entirely with physical activity and the himsā caused by it. In other words, the list of ajīva-adhikaraṇa is based on the canonical rules for those wandering ascetics whose primary concern was not with a particular attitude of mind, or intention, but with the avoidance of any physical action which might cause harm to any of the myriad jīvas by which they were surrounded. The latter (jiva-adhikarana) is added by Umāsvāti to account for the proliferation of karmic positions that less than perfect ascetics, or lay people, can find themselves in.
2.5. Parigraha: the householder and the kaṣāya doctrine
In the developed kaşāya doctrine (the one which is presented by Umāsvāti) what was once a single instrument of bondage (viz. violent or harming activity engendered by lobha and parigraha) has now become two: bondage is caused by passion (kaşāya) and harming activity. It is no longer simply the case that passions, or lobha, etc., lead to violent activity, rather violent activity is now not even considered 'violent' unless it is accompanied by passion; and thus, without passion, it is no longer binding either. The notion, expressed in the earliest textual layers, that even accidental himsā is binding, has been removed. How is this development, which is at the heart of the tension between later doctrine and practice, to be explained?
As has been shown, in the earliest texts parigraha or lobha is considered, along with violence (ārambha), to be the worst kind of behaviour, and such parigraha or 'greed' is inextricable from the life of the householder. Indeed, for the composers of monastic texts such as the Dasaveyāliya Sutta, parigraha is precisely what defines the state of being a householder. Thus, according to these sources, there is very little possibility other than a bad rebirth for a householder. The householder's state is one of parigraha, and thus of ārambha, simply because he is a householder;