(Non-Violence) in Jainism and Metta-Karuna (Loving-Kindness and Compassion) in Theravada Buddhism1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa (non-violence) in Jainism and Metta-Karuna (loving-kindness and compassion) in Theravada 1 Buddhism Archphurich Nomnian2 1บทความนี้ไดถูกเสนอในที่ประชุม Fourth International Summer School for Jain Studies, India มีนักวิชาการดานศาสนาและ ปรัชญาจากประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา, แคนนาดา, คิวบา, อนเดิ ีย และไทย 2อาจารยอาชวภูริชญ นอมเนียน, วิทยาลัยศาสนศึกษา มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล ภาพสิงโตและวัวรวมดื่มน้ําในภาชะเดียวกัน (บางแหงมีรูปลูกวัวดูดนมแมสิงโตและลูกสิงโตดูดนมแมโค) พรอมอักษรภาษา ฮินดีอานวา อหิงสา ปรโม ธรฺม แปลวา อหิงสา (ความไมเบียดเบียนทั้งทางกาย วาจา และใจ) เปนบรมธรรม (ธรรมะอัน ประเสริฐ) คําสอนนี้พระติรถังกรพระองคที่ ๒๔ พระมหาวีระไดแสดงกอนที่จะเสด็จสูนิรวาณเปนคําตอบที่สาวกไดกราบทูล วาธรรมบทขอใดสําคัญที่สุด – ผูเขียน วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121 107 บทคัดยอ รายงานฉบับนี้เปนการอภิปรายแนวความคิดเรื่องอหิงสา (ความไมเบียดเบียน)ในศาสนาเชนและ ความเมตตากรุณาในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาทโดยศึกษาจากตําราของทั้งสองศาสนา ถึงแมวาศาสนา พุทธไดถูกวิจารณเกี่ยวกับฆาสัตวเพื่อบริโภค แตก็เปนที่ประจักษวาสองศาสนานี้มีคําสอนที่เหมือนกันคือ การไมเบียดเบียน การปรารถนาใหผูอื่นพนจากความทุกขและชวยเหลือใหผูอื่นออกจากความทุกขเพื่อใหเกิด สังคมแหงสันติภาพสําหรับมนุษยชาติ จึงเปนความสําคัญยิ่งที่ศาสนิกชนชาวพุทธและเชนพึงปฏิบัติโดยการ เปลี่ยนจากความรุนแรงหรือการสรางความทุกขใหแกผูอื่นไปสูสันติภาพโดยการมีสวนรวมแลกเปลี่ยนความ คิดเห็น ความรูกับผูอื่นและใสใจกับสิ่งแวดลอมอันจะนําไปสูสังคมที่ดีขึ้นสําหรับอนุชนรุนหลัง 1. Introduction Buddhism and Jainism, two important religions of India, have contributed greatly to the development of social and ethical norms. Although the former spread beyond the confines of India – land of its birth and the latter is confined to India territory, their noble doctrines have remarkably influenced our society and social institutions (Santini, 1975). Among the sublime ethical doctrines which these two great religions advocate are Ahimsa (non-violence) and Metta-Karuna (loving kindness-compassion), the former put forward by Jainism and the latter by Theravada Buddhism. Clothey (2006) claims that one of the most significant contributions of the Jains to the Indian landscape is the principle of non-violence itself. Apparently they are the first people in the world to espouse such an ethic, and its practice is adapted by Buddhists and selectively appropriated by Jain and Buddhist dynasties alike. Although one appears to be negative in approach and the others are positive, there are commonalities in both of these doctrines. The present paper discusses both these concepts presented by Jain and Theravada Buddhist scholars in our literature. This paper is divided into five sections. Following the introduction section, section two explores the concept of ahimsa in Jainism. The concepts of metta-karuna in Theravada Buddhism are discussed in section three. Section four 108 A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism compares these two concepts in relation to the killing of animals. The last section summarises key concepts and provides some recommendations. 2. Concept of Ahimsa (non-violence) in Jainism This section explores the concept of ahimsa in Jainism, which has been variously viewed by different scholars. According to Koller (1982), Jainism is viewed as a way of compassion and ascetic self-restraint designed to liberate the jīva or soul from the bondage of karmic matter (p.109). Koller (1982) views ahimsa as non-hurting which is considered to be the basis of Jaina morality, for ultimately all questions of good and evil and right or wrong come down to whether or not the thought, speech, or action in question hurts any life-form. Based on linguistics, Malasekara (1997) defines the term ahimsa by distinguishing it into two parts: ‘a’ and ‘himsa’; the former is a negative prefix meaning ‘no’ or ‘not’, whereas the latter is derived from ‘han’ meaning ‘to kill’ and ‘to injure’, and thus the term ‘ahimsa’ means ‘not to kill’ and ‘not to injure’. Gopalan (1973) also comments that the term himsa is injury or violence caused to the living organism due to carelessness and negligence, and actuated by passions like pride, prejudice, attachment and hatred. Gopalan (1973, p.160) further claims that ahimsa as non-killing and non-violence is generally associated with ‘acts’, which are always preceded by an intention and a will, i.e. a mere avoidance of the act may not necessarily mean that there is no intention. The mind (manas), therefore, must be completely free from evil intentions to kill or commit violence. D.N. Bhargava (1975, p.125) summarises the idea of non-violence in Jainism as the following presumption: everyman is basically non-violent; non-violence falls outside the inter-relationship of one member of the society and other member of the society; the idea of inter-relationship or ownership is incoherent with the idea of non-violence; and any statement and every statement can be interpreted both วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121 109 ways – rightly or wrongly. Wrong interpretation leads to violence, whereas right interpretation removes all disputes. We can see that Jainism views the relationships between physical acts and mental attitudes as mutual and reciprocal. Gopalan (1973) notes that co- ordination between the mind and body is considered necessary for the practice of non-violence, and this should be accompanied also by proper speech derived from the heart. It is clear that the principle of ahimsa in Jainism naturally implies purity of thought, word, and deed and is a result of universal love and sympathy towards all living beings. Ahimsa, therefore, implies both action and intention. According to Koller (1982), hurting is defined as harming other living organisms either deliberately, or by carelessness or neglect, or through actions motivated by pride, greed, hatred, prejudice, or desire. But the very intention of harming others, even if the physical action is not carried out, is regarded as hurting them. All actions rooted in anger, pride, hatred, greed, and dishonesty are regarded as forms of violence and must be renounced and abandoned. Of course, since the whole universe is alive, it is impossible to completely avoid injuring life-forms if one is to act at all. But the degree and extent of hurtful activity can be greatly reduced, and the higher life-forms, which are capable of greater suffering, can be treated with special care and kindness (Koller, 1982). Koller (1982) further explains that every Jaina takes vows not to injure any living beings, but the monastic community carries its vows to a further extreme than do laypersons. Both groups refrain from occupations and acts that are particularly hurtful, such as, hunting, fishing, making war, or dealing in drugs and alcohol. But monks do not dig in the earth for fear that they hurt earth bodies; they avoid swimming and bathing or walking in the rain in case they hurt water bodies; they neither light nor extinguish fires for fear that they injure fire bodies; they avoid sudden movements in case they injure air bodies; and they are extremely careful in walking to avoid injuring vegetation growing along the path. 110 A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism Usually, they sweep the path ahead of them to remove small living beings so that they do not get trampled, and they wear a cloth across their nose to avoid breathing and destroying life-forms in the air. Jainas also avoid alcohol and honey, which are regarded as literally swarming with life-forms. Figs and other fruits with many tiny seeds and plants with sweet sticky tissue are not eaten because they are regarded as hosts for millions of life bodies. Undoubtedly, the widespread practice of vegetarianism and the general aversion to alcohol in the larger Indian community owe much to the Jaina elevation of non-hurting to the position of the central moral virtue. Jain Bhaskar (2001) views non-violence and religion as integral and inseparable, and thus Jain’s views of the entire world including plants, trees, birds, animals, water, etc., is possessed of life. It is, therefore, our prime duty to protect them as we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. Clothey (2006, p.39) also notes that the best-known of all the Jain vows is that of non-violence. Monks are to eschew the taking of any life altogether, while laymen are selective in the observance of this vow. Non-violence, for the monk and layman, entails the avoidance of: a) occupational violence – one should avoid occupations that can cause one to take life (i.e. butcher, fisherman, hunter); in some cases, kings are exempted from this vow, insofar as war is understood to be the last resort; b) protective violence – one should refrain from taking a life even if attacked, again more carefully followed by monks than laymen; c) intentional violence – any intentional harm to a living being is considered detrimental to the pursuit of liberation; d) accidental violence – monks, in particular, have been known to use a whisk broom to sweep the path before they take a step or to wear gauze over the mouth lest an insect be inadvertently swallowed. วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121 111 Clothey (2006) further explains that the rationale behind these vows is self-discipline and the burning off of ajīvas. By non-exploitation of others and the purification of one’s own lifestyle one is thought to be able to attain ultimate liberation. As the Jain community takes its place on the subcontinent in subsequent centuries, the community