________________
H. BHATTACHARYA
purview of the former. From the moral stand-pout, the mere baying of a Kasaya and all acts without exception, prompted by it, are sinful. The pegal code, however, does not judge a mere intention, unless and until it 18 followed by an overt act Then again, all acts prompted by improper motives are not criminal Some are trivial, some do not cause injury to others' persons or property; these are beyond the scope of the penal code, although they are impure acts according to the moral standard
In fact, the great point of distinction between a moral judgment and an estimate of the criminality or otherwise of an act, 19 that while the former is mainly and primarily concerned with the motive and the intention of the agent, the latter considers the overt act True it is that the moral judgment does not lose sight of the overt acts, but its business 18 to consider the innerself, it passes judgment upon it, and it shows how much the subjective spirit of the man is uplifted or lowered by the motive and the intention The penal code on the contrary considers the overt act, it looks to the motive of the man, just to estimate the nature of the act and it decides bow in consideration of the act be has committed, the man's relations to his society, bis surroundings, the State, are to be re-adjusted
All criminal acts are immoral but all acts, bad from the moral standpoint need not be criminal We have seen, how having a Kasāya lovers the spiritual nature of a man, it is morally bad, but it is not a crime to have the Kasāya e g of Soka or grief So far as injury to others is concerned, it is to be seen that until and unless an actual injury to others' persons or property is caused, the criminal court will punish a man for merely harbouring an ill-will against his neighbours But 11l-will against others is itself immoral, according to the moral judgment The Jaro Moralists point this out by referring to the two modes of Himsä, so far as other persons are concerned. The first 18 Abiraman or Abirati and the other is Parinamana In the case of the former, one is not guilty of actually hurting another but continues in cherishing ill-will against him, while in the Parizamana mode of Himsã one actually wounds another The penal code takes cognisance or the Paginamana of Himsā but not the Abirati. According to the Jarn moral philosophy. Abiramana 18 as bad as Parigamana in as much as both are based on Kasaya or Passion
From the foregoing, it is not to be supposed that the subjective aspect of Ahimsa is all in all and that an act us to be considered moral, provided there 18 a0 ill-will behind it. The Jain philosophers point out that there may be acts which may not proceed from any selfish or active ill-will against others but yet may be bad acts as they are actuated by improper motives. In other words, motives are to be subjected to a thorough and searching examination. One, for example, may honestly believe like Hamlet.
