ISJS Jainism Study Notes E5 Vol 03

Author(s): International School for Jain Studies
Publisher: International School for Jain Studies

Page 55

treatment. By harming another soul, in a way, we are harming our own similar souls. Ācārānga Sutra again sums up this idea:
"That which you consider destroyable is (like) yourself. > That which you consider disciplinable is (like) yourself. ► That which you consider worth harming is (like) yourself. → That which you consider worth subjugating is (like) yourself. ► That which you consider worth killing is (like) yourself. ► The result of action done by you has to be borne by you, so do not destroy anything".
The principle of equality of souls however is at times applied wrongly. In Jaina canons the synonyms of "Himsā" or violence is the expression “prāņātipāta" which means that the sin of killing is in proportion to the "prāņās" taken. It is a subtle aspect, which needs to be explained. Soul or “Jīva" is indestructible and what can be killed is only the body. For bodies Mahāvīra gives a five-fold classification. According to him bodies are one - sensed, twosensed, three-sensed, four-sensed and five-sensed. The micro level creatures in air, water earths etc are one-sensed. On the other hand man or other large creatures have fivesenses. The level of "prāņā” in these categories of life forms increases with the number of senses. For example man has ten "prāņās”. According to Mahāvīra the killing of a man is far more sinful than the killing of lower forms of lives possessing lesser number of "Karmas” by being a vegetarian rather than a meat eater.
There is yet another aspect. Violence is an expression of power and not ethics. Violence is possible with means of confinement, punishment, destruction etc. but such instrumentalities have little ethical justification except possibly in case of self-defense. Taking a subjective and insular view, some philosophies and doctrine tried to make man the center of universe and reduced all other beings as subordinate ones, required to sub serve him only. However there is no ethical or rational basis of such a proposition. But resultant rituals (as distinguished from ethics) arising out of such man-centric arrogant views are unfortunately projected as mandatory principals to be followed and even fought for.
Rhetorically Max Heindel asks, "We cannot create so much as one particle of dust, therefore what right have we to destroy the very least form?"
Page 42 of 273
STUDY NOTES version 5.0