Sambodhi 1980 Vol 09

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 67

The Main features of Mahavira's contribution
65
and klesa. Satya, asteya and abrahma, which later formed 5 mahāvratas along with ahimsă and aparigraha, were commonly taught by both masters. These ethical principles must have been recognized by MV as worthy of Espoving kaşaya in order to achieve anārambha or akarma. Although we are not getting into the details of the disciplinery rules of the ascetics prescribed by MV, the rules such as not to use cold water, not to use medicine, penance of fasting, etc. which were made on the basis of the doctrine of anārambha seem to have been common with the Ājivika rules to a great extent. 23
MV stated that the unintentionally committed action is outside the hope of sin, obviouly because it is not motivated by kaşāya. In all probability, this was practised by the then Pārsva's followers also. Acara I. 5. 4. 301 reads that if any living being coming in contact with one's body were killed (without intention or from mere carelessness), he has to suffer a due fruit it this life; and if it were done intentionally, he has to perform viveka. Sūtrakrta I. 1. 2. 52. says that a mere intention of violence unaccompanied by physical action or violence committed without intention is blameless, even though touched (byvaira or sin). Unintentional action when made also binds vaira. A mere intention of action unaccompanied by the commitment of physical action, however should not cause the victim to emit vaira, therefore this rule above is likely made under the influence of the Buddhists who advocate the motivation of violence as heavier than the physical violence. Viveka must have been imposed upon a convict so that the sin already committed by him could be purified by performing due punishment. Viveka should be thus a type of punishment, however how it was actually practised is difficult to know.24 .
Then MV further restricted the scope of the responsibility of sinful action by creating a rule of the later so-calied karaṇa-triplet that a monk is sinful if he commits sinful action by himself, if he causes another person to commit sinful action for his sake, and if he approves sinful action committed by another person for his sake.25 That is, the aspirant is not responsible for his action beyond this limit. In all these cases, the agent is immediately responsible for the action committed by his own will regardless whether it is done directly by himself or indirectly by the third person. This rule must have been created on the basis of vaira theory that in case violent action is really committed, vaira gets bound with the agent who intended as well as who committed it. This karana-triplet is persistently propounded in the Acāra I, wherein yoga-triplet by body-speechmind makes no appearance. On the otherhand, triplet of body-speach-mind makes its consistent appearance in the early Buddhist texts, and it
Sambodhi Vol. IX(9)