________________
48
Jaina Philosophy and Religion
complishing these acts, no doubt living beings are killed, but the householder does not directly kill them. This means that he does not kill them intentionally, but performing his daily acts they are being killed without his intention to kill them. On the other hand, in the intentional violence (sankalpī himsā) the main objective is the killing of living beings. There the act of killing is done intentionally. The killing done with intention is intentional violence. In a difficult situation, when one is violently attacked by a wicked person, the former is constrained to kill the latter with determined intention. But this intentional killing has a just cause. Hence it is differentiated from the intentional killing without a just cause (sankalpi hiṁsā), it is recognised as an independent type of violence and given a separate name 'virodhi himsā', and it is not to be avoided in the observance of the householder's vow of non-violence.
It goes without saying that violence committed without intention through mere negligence or carelessness should be avoided.
It is necessary to say something about the purpose of inserting the adjective 'innocent' in the statement of the householder's vow of partial or limited non-violence. If a wicked tyrant does not stop his oppressive wrong, unjust and outrageous acts by non-violent means, a householder is free to resist and oppose him properly by other means and in doing so he does not do any harm to his vow of non-violence. On the contrary, it is his duty to do so. In such difficult times under special circumstances if even a monk becomes ready to take proper steps for the good of the people, his decision and consequent action are considered to be fair and just.
Entire universe is tightly filled with living beings. So, every activity involves violence. Though there does occur inevitable violence in the performance of activity, a man remains untouched by the defilement of violence provided his mind is permeated through and through with the feeling of non-violence and he undertakes activity with utmost care and vigilance. On the other hand, a negligent and careless person is soiled with the defilement of violence on account of his negligence and carelessness even though he may not actually commit violence (gross violence), while doing careless activity.
No activity is free from violence. This is the reason why more emphasis is laid on the renunciation of activity. The following seems to be the logic: Every activity involves violence. From this follows the principle—the less the activity performed, the less is violence committed. But how can we
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
