Ahimsa in Jainism

These five vows are called Mahāvratas (major vows) when observed by an ascetic.[27] Ahimsa is the first and foremost of all vows. Jain monks and nuns must rank among the most "nonviolent" people in the world. A Jain ascetic is expected to uphold the vow of Ahimsa to the highest standard, even at the cost of his own life. The other four major vows – truthfulness, non-stealing, non-possession and celibacy – are in fact extension of the first vow of complete nonviolence.[4][28]

The ascetic practices of total renunciation of worldly affairs and possessions, refusal to stay in a single place for a long time, continuous practice of austerities like fasting etc. are geared towards observance of Ahimsa. The Jain mendicants abide by a rigorous set of rules of conduct, where they must eat, sleep and even walk with full diligence and with an awareness that even walking kills several hundreds of minute beings. Jain ascetics sweep the ground before them to avoid injuring the most minuscule forms of life. They generally brush the ground clear of insects before they tread. Digambara monks do not wear any clothes and eat food only when it is not prepared for themselves. Ascetics of the Śvētāmbara tradition wear a small mask to avoid taking in tiny insects. The observation of three guptis or the controls of mind, speech and body and five samiti are designed to help the monks in observing the vow of Ahimsa faultlessly. A monk is required to cultivate the habit of carefulness (samti), in respect of the following five particulars:-[29]

1. walking, so as not to injure any living being;
2. speech, so as not to cause pain to any one by offensive, disagreeable language, or by a careless use of words having a tendency to incite others to violent deeds;
3. eating, so as not to cause injury to any living being;
4. handling things – the water gourd, books and the feather whisk, with which there is a great danger of injury to small insects; and
5. evacuation and disposal of faeces, urine, and the like.

The entire day of a Jain monk is spent in ensuring that he observes his vow of ahimsa through mind, body and speech faultlessly. This seemingly extreme behaviour of the monks comes from a sense that every action, no matter however subtle, has a karmic effect which can bind soul and inhibit liberation, especially those that result in hiṃsā (injury).[30]

A Jain layman, on account of his household and occupational compulsions, is unable to adhere to the five major vows of ascetic. Hence he observes aṇuvrata or minor vows which although are similar to the major vows of the ascetics are observed with a lesser severity. It is difficult to avoid some violence by a lay person to single-sensed immobile beings in the process of occupation, cooking, self-defense etc. That is why he vows not to kill without a necessary purpose and determined intention, a moving sentient being, when it is innocent. Tying up, injuring, mutilating, burdening with heavy load and depriving from food and drinks any animal or human being, with one's mind polluted by anger and other passions are the five aticāra or transgressions of the vow of ahimsa.[31] However, it is to be understood that ultimately, there is limited spiritual progress and no emancipation unless the major vows are adhered to.

Jainism is perhaps the only religion in the world that requires all its adherents to follow a strict vegetarian diet.[32] Vegetarian food that also involves more harm to the living beings such as roots, bulbs, multi seeded vegetables etc. are avoided by strict Jains. The importance of ahimsa manifests in many other ways in the daily life of Jains. For a layperson it means participating in business that results in least amount of violence to living beings. No furs, plumes or silk are worn. Use of leather is kept to a minimum and must in any event be from naturally dead animals. Food is usually eaten during the day unless unavoidable, since there is too much danger of injuring insects in cooking at night. The Jain will not use an open light nor leave a container of liquid uncovered lest a stray insect be destroyed; even with this precaution, liquids are always strained before use.[32] Through the ages Jains have sought to avoid occupations that unavoidably entail injury, and this accounts for the disproportionate number who have entered banking, commerce and other mercantile trades.[32]

Jain text list down five transgressions of the vow of ahimsa:[33]

1. Tying up animals too tightly,
2. Beating them mercilessly,
3. Cutting their limbs,
4. Overloading them,
5. Neglecting to feed them properly.

A king who fights in defending his empire, however, does not violate the vow of ahimsa, for his motive is to protect his subjects. The same is the case with the judge who punishes to maintain law and order.[34]

While Jainism enjoins observance of total nonviolence by the ascetics, it is often argued that the man is constantly obliged to engage in destructive activities of eating, drinking, breathing and surviving in order to support his body. According to Jainism, life is omnipresent with infinite beings including microorganisms pervading each and every part of the universe. Hence it may still be possible to avoid killing of gross animals, but it is impossible to avoid killing of subtle microorganisms in air and water, plant life and various types of insects that may be crushed by walking.

However, the Jain conception of ahimsa is quite different from what is commonly understood by violence. The violence is defined more by the motives and the consequences to the self rather than by the act itself. Furthermore, according to Jain Scriptures, destruction of less developed organism brings about lesser karmas than destruction of developed animals and karmas generated in observance of religious duties faultlessly disappears almost immediately. Hence, it is possible to observe complete nonviolence with right knowledge, even when some outward violence occurs to living beings in the course of performing religious duties by observing carefulness and pure mental disposition without any attachment.

According to Jainism, a monk who is careless in his activities is guilty of violence irrespective of whether a living being remains alive or dies; on the other hand, the person who is ever vigilant and careful in observing the samitis experiences no karmic bondage simply because some violence may have taken place in connection with his activities.[35] Carefulness came to be seen as a defence for the monks against violence in Jainism. Tattvārthasūtra defines hiṃsā or violence simply as removal of life by careless activity of mind, body and speech. Thus action in Jainism came to be regarded as truly violent only when accompanied by carelessness.

Ahimsa does not merely indicate absence of physical violence, but also indicates absence of desire to indulge in any sort of violence.[6] Jains have strongly advocated vegetarianism and nonviolence throughout the ages.[7] Ahimsa being central to the Jain philosophy, Jain Ācāryas have produced, through ages, quite elaborate and detailed doctrinal materials concerning its various aspects. Paul Dundas quotes Ācārya Jinabhadra (7th century), who shows that the omnipresence of life-forms in the universe need not totally inhibit normal behaviour of the ascetics:[36]

It is the intention that ultimately matters. From the real point of view, a man does not become a killer only because he has killed or because the world is crowded with souls, or remain innocent only because he has not killed physically. Even if a person does not actually kill, he becomes a killer if he has the intention to kill; while a doctor has to cause pain but is still non-violent and innocent because his intention is pure, for it is the intention which is the deciding factor, not the external act which is inconclusive.

Thus pure intention along with carefulness was considered necessary to practice Ahimsa as Jains admitted that even if intention may be pure, careless activities often resulted in violence unknowingly.

The Jains also considered right knowledge as a prerequisite for practising Ahimsa. It is necessary to know what is living and what is non-living to practice Ahimsa faultlessly. A person who is confused between Living and non-living can never observe non-violence. Daśavaikālika Sūtra declared:[37]

First knowledge, then compassion. Thus does one remain in full control. How can an ignorant person be compassionate, when he cannot distinguish between the good and the evil?

It further declares:[37]

Knowledge of living and non-living alone will enable one to become compassionate towards all living creatures. Knowing this all aspirants, proceed from knowledge to eternal virtues. What can an ignorant do? How does he know what is noble and what is evil?

The knowledge is also considered necessary to destroy Karmas. Samaṇ Suttaṁ declared:

The ignorant cannot destroy their Karmas by their actions while the wise can do it by their inaction i.e. by controlling their activities because they are free from greed and lustful passions and do not commit any sin as they remain contented

— 165

Anekantavada is the principle of relativity of truth or the doctrine of multiple aspects.[38] Jains hold that truth is multifaceted and has multiple sides that cannot be completely comprehended by anyone. Anekantavada describes the world as a multifaceted, ever-changing reality with an infinity of viewpoints relative to the time, place, nature and state of one who is the viewer and that which is viewed. What is true from one point of view is open to question from another. Absolute truth cannot be grasped from any particular viewpoint alone, because absolute truth is the sum total of all different viewpoints that make up the universe. Because it is rooted in these doctrines, Jainism cannot exclusively uphold the views of any individual, community, nation, or species.[39] It recognises inherently that other views are valid for other peoples, and for other life-forms. This perception leads to the doctrine of syadvada or sevenfold predication stating the truth from different viewpoints. Anekantvada is the doctrine and Syadvada is its expression. According to Jaina philosophers all important philosophical statements should be expressed in this sevenfold way in order to remove the danger of dogmatism (ekanta) in philosophy.[40]

The concept of syadvada allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspectives, thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path.[32]

Ācārya Amṛtacandra has described as to how the consequences of violence (karmas attracted) differ from person to persons for similar and different types of acts. A small violence may bring serious consequences to one person, while to another person grievous violence may bring about lesser consequences. For instance, a person hunting and killing only one small animal suffers severe consequences while a person who is building a temple or hospital suffers milder karmic consequences even though its construction kills many animals. Even when violence is jointly committed by two persons, the same act may result in severe consequence for one person and mild consequence for another person. This may happen in the case where the leader and planner of violence binds severe karmas, while a follower binds much lesser karmas. One who actually does not commit violence may be responsible for hiṃsā while one who actually commits violence is not responsible for hiṃsā. For instance, a burglar who fails in his robbery is still a felon but a diligent surgeon who is trying to save a patient is not responsible for violence even if a patient dies during the surgery. Persons who have not committed violence may become responsible for violence committed by others. This may happen when a violence which is carried out by someone is approved and instigated by someone else.Ahimsa often gives result of himsa to one and himsa may sometimes give result of ahimsa to another. For instance, one person saves another from oppression by use of violence and hence enjoys consequences of ahimsa although resorting to violence, while another does not act to save someone wishing that the other person is not saved and thus suffers the consequences of violence although he may have not actually done anything.

While the Jain ascetics observe absolute nonviolence, so far as a Jain householder is concerned, the violence is categorised as follows:

1. Sankalpinī hiṃsā or intentional violence – Intentional violence knowingly done is the worst form of violence and is a transgression of the layperson's vow of nonviolence. Examples of sankalpinī hiṃsā are killing for hunting, amusement or decoration, or butchering for food or sacrifice or killing or hurting out of enmity, malice or mischief. sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be totally renounced by a householder.[41]
2. Virodhinī hiṃsā or Self-defence – One is allowed to practice self-defense against a robber, murderer, or any other criminal. This self-defense is necessary when evil attacks.[41]
3. Āṛambhinī (Graharambhi) hiṃsā or domestic or household violence – This violence is unavoidably committed in the course of preparing food, household cleanliness, washing, construction of houses, wells, etc.[41]
4. Udyoginī hiṃsā or Occupational Violence – This violence is connected to occupational undertakings like agriculture, building and operating industries, etc.[41]

While sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be avoided at all costs, the other three types of hiṃsā, although unavoidable in some cases, should not exceed the strict requirements of fulfilling the duties of a householder. Furthermore, they should not be influenced by passions such as anger, greed, pride and deceit or they take the character of sanpalkinī hiṃsā.[41]

Violence (Himsa) gouache on paper, 17th century, Gujarat depicts animals of prey with their victims. The princely couple symbolises love, which is another occasion of violence.

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that Ahimsa only prohibits physical violence. An early Jain text says: "With the three means of punishment – thoughts, words, deeds – ye shall not injure living beings."[32] In fact, violence can be committed by combination of the following four factors:

1. The instrumentality of our actions. We can commit violence through

a. body i.e. physical action,

b. speech i.e. verbal action, or

c. mind i.e. mental actions

2. The process of committing violence. This includes whether

a. we only decide or plan to act,

b. we make preparations for the act e.g. like collecting necessary materials or weapons, or

c. we actually begin the action

3. The modality of our action, whether

a. we ourselves commit violence,

b. we instigate others to carry out the violence, or

c. we give our silent approval for the violence

4. The motivation for action. This includes which of the following negative emotions motivate the violence.

a. Anger

b. Greed

c. Pride

d. Manipulation or deceit

In Jainism, "non-manifestation of passions like attachment is non-injury (Ahimsa), and manifestation of such passions is injury (himsa)." This is termed as the essence of the Jaina Scriptures.[42]

The belief that animals were created for yajna (sacrifice) and hence it was not considered a slaughter, as it elevated not only the person making the sacrifice, but also the animals was also denounced by the Jains. Ācārya Amṛtacandra of Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya condemned this practice by stating that it is a misconception to hold that Gods are pleased at sacrifices of living beings and there is no wrong in committing hiṃsā for the sake of religion.[54]

Ācārya Amṛtacandra says that animals should not be killed for guests or persons deserving respect as often advocated in certain scriptures.[55] It is also a wrong belief that wild animals that kill many other animals should be killed.[56] This is often justified in the name of hunting of ferocious animals like tigers for sport. Another wrong belief forwarded to justify killing of ferocious animals is that, these kill many lives and accumulate grave sins and hence killing them is an act of mercy. According to Jainism, killing can never be an act of mercy. It is also a misconception to believe that it is advisable to kill those who are suffering so that they may get relief from agony. These sorts of arguments are forwarded to justify killing of those animals that may have become old or injured and hence have become commercially useless.

Other wrong beliefs are killing those who are in state of happiness or those who are in meditation under wrong belief that the mental state at the time of death will be perpetuated in future lives. It is also a wrong belief that killing of self and others is justified as the soul that is imprisoned in the body will be permanently released and achieve salvation.[57]