________________
i.e. (1-3) not to do violence through mind, body and speech, (4-6) not to order for violence through mind, body and speech and (7-9) not to recommend violence through mind, body and speech. So far as the conduct of house-holder is considered, he has been prohibited only from the intentional violence of mobile beings.
In Pāli Tripitaka, Buddha himself prohibited the meat-eating to the monks, if it is seen, known or heard that the animal was killed for them. Though, Buddha allowed his monks to accept invitations for meals i.e. to accept the meal which is prepared for them. Buddha also not prohibited his monks from eating raw vegetable and drinking the water of well or river. All this shows a development in the meaning of the term non-violence. This development did not take place in a chronological order, but through the cultural and rational development of human society. The development in the meaning of the term non-violence is three dimensional: (1) to refrain from the violence of human beings, to vegetable kingdom and life existing in the finest particles of earth, water, air and fire (2) to refrain from the external act to the internal will of violence i.e. from outward violence to inward violence and (3) to refrain from the violence of other self to the violence of one's own self.
RELIGIOUS SANCTION FOR VIOLENCE: A JAINA VIEW
The acceptance for the ‘inevitability of violence in the social and individual life is something different from giving it a religious sanction, Though Jaina thinkers accept that complete non-violence as they consider it is not possible in this worldly life. Yet neither had they given the religious sanction to the violence nor did they degrade this ideal of non-violence by saying it as impracticable. Even if some sort of violence is permitted to the house-holders and in some cases to monks in the Jaina scriptures such as Niśithacurni
Jainism and its History 240
