Jain Journal 1990 04

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 34

APRIL, 1990
prevention of diseases, or with the ostensible object of protection and prosperity of agriculture, horticulture, arboriculture, and pomology. And the result is that the world is deteriorating day by day, in physical prowess, intellectual strength, and spiritual development.
Is Killing Ever An Act of Mercy?
There is yet another form of himsa, however, which is commonly considered to be an act of mercy, and applauded as such, and it may well be considered here. It is a prevalent practice these days to shoot a horse, a cow, or a dog, which has been seriously injured or which has contracted a dangerous or incurable disease; and such killing is acclaimed an act of mercy. Is not the unfortunate animal killed because it is not profitable from a mercenary or economic point of view to spend money and attention over it, and the sight of its sufferings is too painful to be tolerated. If killing under such circumstances be an act of mercy, why should not charity begin at home, and why should it not be extended to one's own relations, friends and mankind in general. We hear of suicides under such conditions, which means moral weakness. We have heard that soldiers hopelessly wounded in battle, and passengers mortally injured in railway accidents have been thrown in a hollow and buried, or hurled in a river or sea to be washed away; but barring such exceptional cases, every possible effort is made to preserve human life as long as possible. One can understand the practical difficulty in bestowing the same care, attention, and expense on animals as in the case of human beings, and it may be pleaded in extenuation; but to call such killing an act of mercy is to cheat one's own inner conscience. It is himsā, pure and simple. We have of course left out of consideration the other reason based on philosophy, the reality of things, that every soul is the maker, and the master of its destiny, its own tempter and seducer, and its own redeemer; and it must suffer and work out the resulting effects of its own previous acts, committed whether in the present or prior births, or conditions of its existence. No other soul can suffer for it vicariously, and no other can act as its redeemer or saviour. And further the destruction of the present body, diseased or injured, does not sever the connection between the soul and the body, for ever hereafter, and the next body which the soul on leaving the present one must immediately inhabit is not likely, in the circumstances, to be better, healthier, or stronger. Man's duty clearly is to help a soul in distress, to alleviate and mitigate its suffering by attention, service, and assistance, but not to destroy the body under the false notion that such a destruction would terminate the sufferings which the embodied soul has to endure as a matter of pre-ordained certainty. The agony is thereby really, and truly
145