Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 159

148
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 1
His ingenious reply will not fail to amuse the discerning reader : sūkṣmā na pratipidyante prāņinaḥ sthūlamūrtayaḥ/ ye sakyas te vivarjyante ka himsa samyatātmanaḥ//
- Ibid.
That is, the micro-organisms are, by nature, unamenable to molestation, and the macroscopic beings that are liable to torture are carefully avoided, and this leaves no occasion of himsa for the self-restrained ascetic.
The Jaina laity is required to desist from all kinds of himsa that is capable of being avoided and is unnecessary for the maintenance of life. Intentional taking away of life of beings higher than the onesensed is stictly prohibited for all. Meat-eating is forbidden, because it is not unavoidable and involves killing of animals, which is not permissible even for a householder. Nobody however is absolved from sin consequent upon himsă, whether it was avoidable or unavoidable, the degree of seriousness of the sin committed varying with the intensity of passions at the moment of perpetrating the act. Even the unselfish or benevolent acts of himsa are not considered free from sin. Some Jaina thinkers have of course defended construction of temples, and other charitable acts as religiously meritorious, but others have unambiguously denounced them as sinful activities. As regards a Jaina layman's participation in war, of which there are many notable instances in history, specific prohibition is not available, though the martial acts of violence are ipso facto incompatible with the Jaina philosopher's concept of ahimsa, and the Bhagavatisutra (VII. 9) categorically rejects the notion that the fearless warrior dead in the battlefield attains heaven. The moral and religious sanction that wars enjoy in orthodox Brahmanism is conspicuous by its absence in Jainism. Justification of the means by the end is not accepted by the Jaina thinkers as a morally valid argument. A good end cannot be achieved by a bad means. The behaviour must be as pure as the intention. The Jainas consequently came to be regarded as staunch advocates of the philosophy of external behaviour as distinguished from the Buddhist and the Brahmaṇical thinkers who were the protagonists of the doctrine of internal intention. The moral difference between an injury done to a superior life and that inflicted on an inferior creature (Aṭṭhasalini, p. 80; Manusmrti, XI. 140-1) was not recognized in Jainism. The Jainas did not accept the utilitarian view of ahimsa. These considerations however did not stand in the way of a Jaina layman's participation in the activities of social and national welfare which were pursued by the Jaina laity as zealously as by the followers of other faiths.