________________
Doctrinal and Social Context of Non-Violent... : 63
2012 b: 200). It includes not only humans, but all living beings and even more than that: according to the Jain metaphysics, there are jīvas also in sthāvaras, one-sense beings (air, water, fire, earth and vegetation), who are living but not appearing to move. The Jain concept of ahiṁsā, however, is markedly wider than that of Quakers also in another respect. Not only physical acting on it but evil thoughts are also hiṁsā. No hiṁsā should be committed by mind, speech, or body. Moreover, the basis of violence is the intention to hurt (bhāva-himsā), not actual causing of hurt (dravya-hiṁsā). The discussion of the state of mind is by no means unfamiliar to Quakers, 16 but attaching more importance to thoughts and feelings than to actual deeds would be very unusual for them and maybe even unacceptable. Nevertheless, exactly this sequence of importance is substantial in Jainism: “The coverage of non-violence is so vast that it does not only refer to our external activities (like hurting or killing by physical means only) but it refers more strongly to the internal activities of mind, both physical and psychic." (Jain, Shugan 2012c: 191) Or - as Johnson put it - "it is the mental component, the underlying attitude, which is karmically significant, not the harming act itself.” (Johnson 1995: 176)"? - “In other words, the basic strategy for (correct) conduct, as prescribed in early Jaina doctrine, has been retained but internalised: physical inactivity, the antidote to external himsā, has been internalised to mental inactivity, i.e. to the attainment and maintenance of an inactive and therefore pure, consciousness. Not even compassion must disturb this uncompromising stasis.” (Ibid.: 177) In this way, we come back to the topic of compassion, discussed above and may understand it better. The admirably wide scope of beings protected by the concept of ahimsa in Jainism obviously demands exceptions. As the householders cannot abstain completely from violence, they concentrate primarily on their non-violent state of mind. In fact, the strength of the monk's vow concerning ahiṁsā is what distinguishes him most clearly from the lay person in classical Jainism. (Johnson 1995: 84) While "monks are required to observe non-violence completely throughout their life for all types of living beings, (...) the householders are required to observe complete non-violence for mobile living beings (...) and minimize (...) violence for stationery/ immobile (sthāvara) living beings." (Jain, Shugan 2012c: 193; comp. Williams 1983: 65-66) As the non-violent state of mind is of highest importance for householders, the basic division of violence (hiṁsā) is related to intentional (saṁkalpi) and occupational (ārambhi) himsā. While the former himsā is strictly condemned, the latter is excusable although - naturally - karmically binding, too. There are three basic kinds of occupational hiṁsā: vocational hiṁsā, hiṁsācommitted in carrying out the domestic duties and defensive (virodhi) hiṁsā. (Tukol 1980: 205; Jain, Prakash 2011: 43-44; comp. Williams 1983: 66ff.) In respect to the importance of ahiāsā for the Jains, it might be surprising to find a soldier (or officer) among those six occupations that a householder can follow (Tukol 1980: 205). But during their long history, the Jains used to be not only under royal patronage of a great number of kings and royal dynasties but they were playing a decisive role in establishing kings and
