________________
K. K. Dixit
fire or the one who extinguishes it. The answer is based on the consi. deration that one who lights fire causes the death of the fuel-particles, the spot of earth where fire burns, and the like while preserving the life or fire. particles, whereas one who extinguishes fire does just the opposite. And the understanding is that the former person is guilty of greater violence than the latter,
(2) Similarly, in view of the notion that implements of violence like bow and arrow, ordinarily considered to be inanimate, are in fact animate beings the question is too often asked as to whether and bow far these are coparticipant in the act of violence in which they happen to be employed, For example, in case a person shoots at an animal an arrow from his bow and thus kills it then the understanding is that this person is guilty of all the above mentioned five types of kriya but his bow and arrow are guilty of all of them minus the last; on the other hand, 10 case an arrow set on his bow by a person accidentally falls on some animal and thus kills it the arrow is guilty of all the five types of kriya while the person and his bow are guilty of all of them minus the last, [[n this connection a bow or an arrow is treated not as one body inhabited by one soul but as a colony of bodies each inhabited by a distinct soul but that is a matter of details whose significance will become apparent in a moment. 1
All this throws considerable light on the specific Saina understanding of the phenomenon of violence. That the particles of earth, water, fire and air are animate beings and hence a possible victim of violence ever remained a distinct, and conspicious Jaina position. But the position that things like bop and arrow are animate beings and hence a possible agent of violence gradually receded into background-so much so that Abhayadeva, the late medieval commentator of Bhagavatt flods considerable difficulty in explaining the passages setting forth the position. And yet this latter position too is not a freak appearance within the body of Bhagavati. For it can easily be recognised as what the modern anthropolɔgists call a primitive animist position and the likelihood is most strong that the common Jaina notion that the particles of earth, water, fire and air are animate beings was a refined outcome of the primitive animist potions prevalent among certain circles of Indian populace. Thus instead of straightaway saying as would a primitive animist that a bow or an arrow is an animate being the Jaina authors of Bhagavatt would maintain that this bow or this arrow is a colony of ensouled bodies of the form of earth, water, fire or air. Something like this explains why the so cominon Indian doctrine of four or five bhūtas or physical elements was never accepted as such by the Jainas in whose eyes the particles of earth, water, fire and air were not sheer physical entities but ensouled bodies. So what these Jaidas in effect
