DNS wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:28 pm
I had thought the Jains considered any himsa to be wrong, even if unintentional.
When some of the authors call nonoccupational himsa intentional himsa it's misleading, or at least the translation is, because it implies that the occupational himsa is unintentional, as if by mistake or ignorance. Asi himsa and virodhi himsa and some types of grharambhi himsa (like harming instects, and plants) are obviously directly intentional, and Jainism would also say that eg krsi himsa or himsa via building a building are also intentional, in the sense you are intentionally doing an action which you know (or should know because it's pretty obvious) will do harm to some beings. Buddhism would say there is no bad kamma in the process of agriculture because the person isn't tilling the soil in order to kill worms and moles and other beings there, but to grow crops, and the killing of small animals there is just a side effect. Jainism says that even if it a side effect, it's still bad karma, because the action is done intentionally (and it's easily knowable that some harm will be done). Also, i remember that the monastic rules in Buddhism have an example of a monk sitting on some clothes not knowing there is an child in the clothes, and the child dies, and that the monk isn't guilty of killing, because there was no intention to kill; or also an example of throwing a stone somewhere not knowing there are people there, hitting someone with a stone, and that person dying. Jainism disagrees, and would say that in both cases the monk is guilty of killing a person, and incurs bad karma for a killing; in the first case he could have avoided himsa by being careful, and in the second case he could have avoided himsa either by carefulness or by not doing the action at all (minimizing activities being a valued thing in Jainism).
When talking about "unintentional" himsa, we could say that Jainism actually differentiates between four things:
1. side effect harm avoidable through moderate asceticism, which is expected from lay people to avoid, that's why eg they are barred from eating at night, so as to avoid accidentally harming beings, that's also why they are barred from drinking water which isn't strained, or getting drunk, also that's why they have vows of limiting consumption, movement, and frivolous activities;
2. side effect harm avoidable through full asceticism, ie by becoming a monk, which is allowed to lay people (with the idea, as i said, that they will 'make up' for that bad karma through good works, asceticism, and finally becoming a monk), but which monks avoid - by avoiding most activities, they don't build buildings, don't till the soil, etc;
3. side effect harm avoidable through carefulness (samiti), which is what monks are expected to do always, and lay people in a limited degree; eg if one accidentally harms a being by stepping or siting on it, and it was avoidable if the person have been careful, the full harm is counted as the person fault. And
4. purely unintentional harm, which couldn't have been avoided through any asceticism or even carefulness (like eg crushing a bug while sleeping, or harming some being through mistake or accident even though one was practicing samiti).
Only the fourth kind is thought to *actually* not incur bad karma, the former ones are all thought to be ultimately wrong, though the 2nd and partly 3rd are allowed to lay people, with the idea i mentioned.