[First Last Name]
[Date Month Year]
Ahimsa: From the Perspectives of Buddhism and Jainism
Introduction
The concept of ahimsa is a concept of nonviolence with roots arising from the belief system of Hinduism. Nevertheless, Gandhi (169) and Kaur (2) suggested that all religious traditions worldwide agree that ahimsa can be a profound basis of human survival. However, historically, it has experienced certain variations as understood and practiced in latter belief systems such as Buddhism and Jainism.
In the next section, the general but essential concept of Ahimsa will be presented in its entirety as contributed and reinforced in Buddhism and Jainism. It will be followed by two sections, which describes the unique perspective of Ahimsa in Buddhism and in Jainism, respectively. A discussion between the four primary differences with the unique perspectives of Ahimsa from the two Eastern traditions.
The Notion of Ahimsa
The term ahimsa (a Sanskrit word meaning ‘the intention not to harm) (Meijer 2, 5) is currently, but apparently broadly translated into ‘nonviolence’. It negates himsa, which means ‘to do harm or violence’. Since himsa is a derivative of han, which means ‘desire’, it thus must be understood as the ‘desire to do harm’. Thus, ahimsa is the ‘absence of the desire to do harm’. Conceptually, it means the absence of any intention to do harm particularly to others, whether or not these ‘others’ are living or nonliving. In effect, though, the central emotional connection of nonviolence towards ‘the others’ resides in that emotion ‘desire’; that is, the rejection of the inner predisposition to violence (‘inner violence’ or ‘violence of the spirit’) (Meijer 7). Apparently, without that ‘desire’, doing harm or no harm cannot be effectively carried out.
Historically, though, ahimsa, as in other Eastern religious concepts, experienced a wide variation in interpretation, often conditioned by local cultural translation. In the renouncer traditions of India, it is understood as the identification of the self with all others, which may have later developed into the Gandhi’s sarvoday, which orients the self to all others. This conception of identity, however, had its roots from the Vedic (Hindu) tradition of understanding the universe, which is the other outside the self, as intimately and mutually connected, related, and dependent (Meijer 6; Gandhi 166). Conversely, the yogic tradition emphasizes that interconnectedness with the nonhuman beings (Meijer 6; Sinha 119), admonishing for the renunciation of the traditional slaughtering of animals for sacrificial purposes or even for food (Meijer 6; Sinha 119). In fact, this concept of non-harm had been extended not just to action but also to thought and speech.
Saskia van Goelst Meijer (2) attributed the contemporary concepts of ahimsa to the contributions of Mohandas Gandhi who received the common distinction as the originator of the idea of nonviolence. From this perspective, nonviolence comprised of five fundamental elements: ahimsa (‘the intention not to harm’); sarvoday (‘the welfare of all’); satya (‘truth-seeking’); swadeshi or swaraj (‘authenticity and autonomy’); and tapasya (‘self-suffering’). Each element represents a complex and layered conceptualization of nonviolence but equally essential to its broader understanding.
Incidentally, Gandhi derived its conception of ahimsa from his foundational roots in Hindu but with important influence from Buddhism, from Christianity, and, more especially so, from Jainism, particularly to his commitment to act accordingly (Meijer 2). In fact, his conceptual blend came from diverse concepts of world religions, including contemporary political theorists (e.g. Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Ruskin) (Meijer 6). Overall, though, the Gandhian tradition of nonviolence defines the concept as the approach towards other people or conflict that upholds authenticity and autonomy of the self in seeking for the truth and for the welfare of all with no intention of harming others even to the point of self-suffering. Gandhi transformed the traditional Indian concepts of ahimsa as a new sociopolitical orientation, which became an effective weapon for Indian freedom without shedding blood (Gandhi 171). Gandhi himself lived ahimsa fully, believing that equality breeds nonviolence.
In effect, in the Gandhian universe of nonviolence, ahimsa is an important notional component but only one of many (i.e. of five components). It provides a direction towards the non-self (i.e. the others) through the relationship of the self to the non-self or the other and calls for the capability to deal with this ‘otherness’. Being so, ahimsa is essentially an attitude of the self towards others in a manner that will not (or avoid) the chances of harming the others’ valid and just chances of ‘being’, particularly their dignity and changes to effectively develop (Meijer 2). It views reality as relational; thus, not a misanthropic point of view.
Ahimsa in Buddhism
In the traditional manuscripts of Buddhism, the term ahimsa often occurred merely sporadically, indicating that it was only one of so many religious precepts (Meijer 6). In the sacred text Dhammapada, self-restraint rooted in ahimsa can bring about sanvutta (immortality) and moksha (liberation) (Gandhi 167, 172; Sims 2). However, certain authors (Grabenstein 2013) talked of killings in the context of Buddhist principles and never even mentioned ahimsa as a foundational concept, indicating the inconsistent association of ahimsa and Buddhism.
Nevertheless, consistent with most of the Buddhist traditions, it was connected with the transformation towards the transcendent mental states, which frees from those mental states that lead to violence in behavior and the support of himsa (Meijer 6). Thus, causing harm is only considered as himsa only when performed intentionally and not when the harm was unintentional (cf. Kaur 2). Moreover, Buddhism had no issues with killing microorganisms using antibiotics because treatment is an act of mercy (Grabenstein 2013).
Moreover, Walton and Hayward (24-25) pointed out that violating the code of ahimsa had precedence in Buddhist history when himsa was performed to defend Buddhism. Sri Lankan monastics, for instance, argued in favor of a Buddhist “just war” to defend the use of violence for the protection of Buddhist communities from non-Buddhist insurgents and foreigners and of Sri Lanka as a Buddhist homeland (Walton and Hayward 25; Zhao 372). The justification for these principles appeared to reside in the Theravadin wherein Buddhism essentially has no single nonviolence principle (Walton and Hayward 25). The authors concluded that short-term himsa is sometimes justified among Buddhists to justify a righteous goal, particularly self-defense.
Ahimsa in Jainism
The term Jaina is derived from the word Jina, which means ‘conquerors’ or victors in the sense of destroying bad karmas personal religious practices, including ahimsa (Gandhi 172). In the Jainist traditions, ahimsa played a central part of religion and life, oftentimes in a highly radical and profound manner (Meijer 6; Sims 1). Moreover, it means a complete reverence to all forms of life, avoiding violence altogether in thought, word, and deed (Gandhi 172).
In fact, its scope was extended to all living beings both those in human and non-human forms. Thus, it is focused more on actuating ahimsa and behaving consistent with it. From this action-oriented perspective, ahimsa takes the form of prevention of harm (Meijer 6; Sinha 119) as well as the reparation of harm or choosing positive actions (Meijer 6) that, in the imperfections of human beings, can still result to benign negative effects. It recognized, though, that total ahimsa cannot be achieved in life.
In fact, two of the Gandhian principles of nonviolence – ahimsa and satya – came from the five main principles (known as Mahavratas) of Jainism (Pokharna 260; Sinha 119; Sims 1). Thus, for Jainism, ahimsa constitutes its primary principle of nonviolence. Although the original source in Jainist literature is unclear, Pokharna (264) extended the meaning of ahimsa to the concept of interdependence (Gandhi’s sarvoday). This extension is apparently based on the Mahavira teaching of parasparopagraha jivanam (‘all life is bound together’) (Gandhi 166).
Beyond mere philosophizing, Jains upholds ahimsa at the level of religion; in fact, even the “supreme religion” (Sinha 119; Kaur 1; cf. Francione 9). Moreover, Jain monks made a significant effort to practice ahimsa in their every action. Its observance involves the thought, the word, and the deed towards other individuals and the community or society.
Its application, however, extends beyond humanity, but also to all living beings (i.e. animals, plants, and even microbes) and even nonliving beings: “everything one finds on earth” (e.g. soil, sand, oceans, fires, etc.) (Sinha 119). This explains the Jain preferences as vegetarians and fruitarians, eating only the by-products of living beings (e.g. fruits, nuts, and milk) (Sinha 120). It considers pulling up of a plant (e.g. carrot or potato) or tree as an act of violence towards a living being. However, there seems to be a hierarchy established in relation to the living beings, such as according mobile beings more protection than the immobile ones (Grabenstein 2013). Thus, plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, a violence that must be done only because it is indispensable to human survival. However, even with such hierarchy, some levels of constraints continue to exist. Jains avoid eating root vegetables as cutting the roots of plants is tantamount to killing it, which does not apply to certain parts of the plant (e.g. leaves, fruits, seeds, etc.) or animals (e.g. milk, wool, leather, etc.) that does not result to killing it. It includes boiling of water to kill disease-producing microorganism in order to prevent human death (Grabenstein 2014; Francione 9).
Moreover, Jain monks and nuns wear masks over their mouth and nose, at times carrying whisks to brush their chairs before sitting. In practice though, expectations in living ahimsa is less strict for lay Jainist than for Jain monks (Grabenstein 2013).
In fact, ahimsa is the fundamental value of Jainism, the first vow that Jains take whether as members of the community or as monks (Sinha 119). To Jains, ahimsa constitutes the highest point of the development of human civilization and culture, an exact opposite of himsa, which is considered of no part in human development (Gandhi 167).
Main Differences between Buddhism and Jainism
In summary, there are fundamental differences between Buddhism and Jainism in relation to the principle of ahimsa. First, ahimsa in Buddhism is a peripheral concept, which does not constitute a defining characteristic in its way of living, while, in Jainism, it is central to the way Jainist disciples live. It is one of the five main principles of Jainism, a place of distinction that does not exist in the Buddhism. Second, Jainist ahimsa is conceptually and practically far deeper and more profound than the Buddhist counterpart.
Conclusion
Ahimsa has far profound impact in contemporary challenges that nonbelievers could ever understand. Underlying it is a deep respect for life, an invaluable creative resource that no human being are given the right or privilege to take simply because mankind cannot create it. And Ahimsa, particularly the way Jainism lives it, can help solve many ills in today’s society.
Works Cited
Francione, Gary L. “Ahimsa and Veganism”. Jai Digest 2009: 9-10. PDF file.
Grabenstein, John D. “What the World’s Religions Teach, Applied to Vaccines and Immune
Globulins.” Vaccine 2013, 31(1): 2011-2023. PDF file.
Kaur, Bir Inder. “Violence in Modern Society and Jainism – A Remedial Relevance.”
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Feb 2013, 3(2): 1-6. PDF file.
Meijer, Saskia val Goelst. (2015, September 15) For the Love of All: Ahimsa in Nonviolence and
Radical Ecology. Web. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282148676_For_the_Love_of_All_Ahimsa_in_Nonviolence_and_Radical_Ecology>
Pokharna, Surendra Singh. “Exploration of General Systems Theory (GST) and Jainism May
Provide New Frontiers of Knowledge and Evolution.” Syntropy 2013, 2013 (2): 243-279. PDF file.
Sims, Lana E. “Jainism and Nonviolence: From Mahavira to Modern Times.” The Downtown
Review 2015, 2(1): 1-8. PDF file.
Sinha, Indrani. “Ethical Thoughts that Is Reflected in Jainism.” International Journal of Sanskrit
Research 2015, 1(4): 119-121. PDF file.
Walton, Matthew J. and Susan Hayward. Contesting Buddhist Narratives: Democratization,
Nationalism, and Communal Violence in Myanmar. Honolulu, Hawaii: The East-West Center, 2014. Print.
Zhao, Dong. “Buddhism, Nationalism, and War: A Comparative Evaluation of Chinese and
Japanese Buddhists’ Reactions to the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). International Journal of Social Science and Humanity Sep. 2014, 4(5): 372-377.
