________________
APPENDIX IV
The dispassionate examination of the above remarks, I am sure will lead us to declare that Jainism does prohibit flesh-eating. Consequently, it remains to be seen, if it allows it as an āpad-dharma, i.e. to say under circumstances when no other food is available to sustain life. I have not come across any passage or quotation in the sacred works of the Jainas which supports this view in an unchallengeable manner.
Let us see if it is quite safe to infer from Haribhadra Sūri's commentary to Daśavaikālikasūtra (V. 1, 73–74) that 'the monks in the days of the Sūtras did not have any objection to eat flesh and fish which were given to them by the house-holders'.
Firstly, it should be borne in mind that Haribhadra remarks [236] that the monks in times of famine, etc. had to take flesh and fish, in order to live; but he does not mention the name of a single monk of that type. On the contrary we come across a passage in Titthogāliya paiņņā, one of the Jain āgamas, which runs as under: when the Madhyadeśa was affected by famine, some saints went away to another province (vişaya) and some who were afraid of violating their holy vows willingly gave up food and drink (and died).
Secondly, other commentators referred to by Haribhadra himself do not interpret the words poggala and aạimisa as meaning flesh and fish but they consider them to signify varieties of fruits.
Thirdly, if flesh-eating were permissible as āpad-dharma will there be any place for samlekhanā,352 recommended in Jainism? Has not Samantabhadra defined sallekhanā as giving up body for the sake of dharma, when it is not possible to abide by dharma in cases like a calamity, a famine, an old age and an incurable disease? Does not Jainism proclaim that body is to be cared for so far as it helps us in observing dharma? What is the earthly use of supporting body by auctioning dharma? Does not a country when its honour is at stake, expect its citizens to preserve it even at the cost of their life?
Lastly in this connection, it may be mentioned that even Prof. Jacobi who had formerly translated māņsa and maccha occurring in Acārānga as flesh and fish has now modified his opinion. As his letter353 is likely to throw much light on this burning question, it is being fully reproduced as under:
352 For its explanation see the Bhāşya (p. 95) of Tattvārthādhigamasūtra
(VII, 17). In the Digambara works we have sallekhaņā in place of samlekhanā, which should not be confounded with suicide as the latter
is denounced in Jainism. 353 I have to thank Mr Motilal Ladhaji for the permission he has given me
to utilize this letter addressed to him.
167 For Personal & Private Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
