________________
( 99 )
Pascājjāyeta nā vā hinisā pränyantara parh tu."
Both, non-abstinence from Him sa, and indulgence in Hörnsa, constitute Hirosa; and thus whenever there is careless activy of mind, body of speech, there is always injury to living being. Mere possession of a sword would not make one guilty of Him sà. Even then such possession can be the cause of some injury to somebody. Therefore, to prevent all possibility of Himsa, one should not entertain even the desire for the possession of such objects as are likely to cause injury. 12
Thus all these references indicate that intention is the main source of injury in Jainism and if injury is caused by body intentionally, it will be considered more blamable. If killing of living beings is made an offence even when it is without intention, no one on earth can be an Ahimsaka, for the entire world is full of vitalities of all types which a man may kill in large number without knowing tliem at all :
Visva gyivacito loke kva caran ko'pyamoksyat. Bhavarkasadhanau bandhamokşau cennabharisyatam.13
As regards the eating of flesh, the Vinaya Pitaka has a good record of the Jaina point of view. It is said there that Siha, a General of the Licchavis and a follower of Nigantha Nataputta, had served meat to the Buddha. Knowing this Niganthas, waving their arms, were murmuring from road to road in Vaišali : Today a fat beast killed by Siba Senāpati has been served into a meal for the Buddha. The Buddha made use of this meat, knowing that it was killed on purpose for him.''14 This incident took place immediately after Siha was converted to Buddhism, The Niganthas, therefore, might have tried to blame both, the Buddha and Siha. Whatever that may be, this reference indicates clearly that the Jainas were completely against the eating of flesh. The followers of the Buddha appear to have been influenced by this idea of the Jainas. Jivaka visits the Buddha and asks if it is true that animals are slain expressly for the Buddha's use. The Buddha replies that he forbids the
