Positive Non-Violence- Canonical and Practical Bases of Compassionate Aspects of Ahimsa

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Basically, the concept of non-violence is found mentioned in every religion. So much so that the religions, such as the Vedic and the Judeo- Christian Zoroastrian, that supported ritual sacrifices, even animal sacrifices, have also emphasized the concept of non-violence. Whether in the form of the Vedic hymn, 'Puman pumamsam paripătu viśvataḥ' (Rgveda, 6.75.14), in which universal mutual protection has been advocated or one-Mitrasyaham cakṣuṣā sarvāni bhūtāni samikşe' - in Yajurveda, which goes a step further and wishes for universal friendship for all living beings. Animal sacrifice had not only been practiced but was justified by saying that violence committed in the practice of Vedic sacrifices was no violence (Vaidiki himsă himsā na bhavati). Similarly, in the Judeo-Christian scripture - Old Testament - one of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill'. Even then the meaning of this commandment cannot be taken as the same as in the case of 'Savve satta na hantavvä (all living beings are not to be in the Jaina tradition. Here, we have to clearly understand that the development of consciousness about non-violence and its meanings have been gradual. Literally, 'Thou shall not kill' and 'Savve satta na hantavva' mean the same thing - 'Don't kill any creature'. However, the meanings drawn of these two explicit commands in these two traditions have been widely different. For a Judeo-Christian it means not to kill or hurt his own kind in caste and creed whereas for a follower of Jainism its meaning is not limited only to his own kind or even the moving creatures but also extends to the invisible micro-organisms of the earth-bodies, water-bodies, air-bodies, fire-bodies and vegetable life forms. Thus, the development of the meaning of these commandments, that has come about over centuries, in the Jaina and the Judeo-Christian traditions is quite different. Here, we ought not to forget that this journey of the development of the meaning of non- violence has not progressed according to any one progression but has come about differently in different sections of humanity in accordance with the progress of social consciousness and sensitivity to different life forms. The section of human race that was more sensitive to various life forms, gave non-violence a wider meaning. This development (of the meaning of non-violence) is also not one-dimensional but three- dimensional. On one side it has developed from avoidance of violence towards own kind to that towards six categories of gross living beings such as humans, animals birds and fishes as well as insects, and invisibly fine creatures of micro-organisms and earth, water, air, fire and vegetable origins. On the other hand, it has developed from its external form of prohibition of destruction of vitality, dismemberment, beating and bullying, and confinement to its internal sense of avoiding evil disposition and negligence. Here, it was averred that harbouring ill will or evil disposition towards anyone or acting negligently might not have resulted in any of the external forms of violence, but its very possibility was considered as violent. Yet again, the meaning of non-violence developed from its proscriptive or injunctive form of 'don't kill or hurt' to its positive form of mercy, kindness, compassion, co-operation, service etc.

In this discussion, our main subject is that positive aspect of non- violence in the form of mercy, kindness, compassion, co-operation. service etc., which appears in front of us in the form of trying to save life and save the living from pain and misery. It is true that, in itself, the word 'non-violence' is injunctive and etiologically its meaning seems to be confined to an injunction not to practice violence, but leaving a few, the sixty synonyms of the word ahimsa (non-violence) that appears in the primary Jaina canonical treatise, Praśnavyakarana, all refer to the positive or practical aspect of non-violence.

In India there are innumerable religions and sects. All of them believe in non-violence. Non-violence can be interpreted in two ways -1. Negatively, and 2. Positively. In the negative sense non-violence means not to commit violence and in the positive sense it means to undertake altruistic activities like mercy, charity, service, benevolence, etc. Almost all religions and the laity accept both these aspects proscriptive in proscribing violence and prescriptive in prescribing the activities like mercy, charity, service, benevolence, etc - of non-violence as lawful religious pursuits. However, there are some sub-sects of Jainism that do not consider the positive-prescriptive aspect of non- violence as religious. They consider them as meritorious activities and that these activities do not result in karmic separation, which is an essential feature of religious activities, but result in karmic bondages albeit of the auspicious types which fructify in pleasurable fruition, an essential feature of meritorious acts. They also emphasise that even these meritorious karmic bondages of the auspicious types result in continued worldly transmigration and hence defeat the very purpose of religious pursuits, which is nothing but seeking spiritual emancipation and resultant liberation by bringing the worldly transmigration to a halt. Such cessation of worldly transmigration is possible by complete karmic separation and as these meritorious activities of positive non- violence do not result in karmic separation but in fresh karmic bondages, they are contraindicated as religious activities. In other words they consider them as irreligious activities. Therefore, these ought not to be pursued by religious persons. They lay so much emphasis on this belief of theirs that they consider those that do not fall in line with them as false-visioned, and do not consider them as fit to attain spiritual emancipation and liberation. According to them, the very reason for the souls' continued worldly transmigration and lack of liberation is nothing but the false belief that meritorious acts are not deplorable and fit to be abandoned. "If the living beings had considered these meritorious activities of service, kindness, compassion, co-operation, helping, etc., also as deplorable, in their right perspective, and abandoned them, they would have been liberated long-long ago", they say. Some of them even go to the extent that these activities result in violence towards living beings of the one-sensed type, etc and these are, therefore, sinful and irreligious. To consider irreligious acts as religious is the false viewpoint.

**Contents and Sample Pages**