Adda Or Oldest Extant Dispute Between Jains And Heretics

This document is the second part of W.B. Bollee's article "Adda Or the Oldest Extant Dispute Between Jains And Heretics," focusing on the second chapter, sixth section (2, 6) of the Jain text Suyagada. This section details a debate between Jain ascetics and "heretics," primarily Buddhists, regarding the concept of intention versus action in determining sin or merit.

The core of the dispute revolves around the Jain understanding of hiṃsā (violence) and its consequences, contrasted with the views of other religious groups, particularly Buddhists. The text presents dialogues and arguments where the Jains, represented by a speaker named Ardraka, condemn practices and beliefs they consider harmful to living beings.

Here's a breakdown of the key themes and arguments presented in the excerpt:

• Intention vs. Action (The "Oil-Cake" Analogy):

  • Verses 2, 6, 26-28 present a central argument concerning a hypothetical situation: If someone mistakes an oil-cake for a man or a gourd for a baby and skewers it for roasting, is that person guilty of killing?
  • Buddhist View (as presented by Jains): The Buddhists are depicted as believing that the intention (buddhi) prevails over the act. Therefore, if the intention was to roast an oil-cake or a gourd, the act of roasting a man or a child (mistakenly) would not result in the same level of sin for them. This is summarized in verse 2, 6, 28: "IF (ca) SOMEONE PUTS A MAN OR A CHILD ON A SPIT AND ROASTS IT ON A FIRE TAKING IT FOR A LUMP OF OIL-CAKE, IT WOULD BE FIT FOR BUDDHISTS TO END THEIR VOW OF FASTING WITH."
  • Jain Rebuttal: The Jains strongly disagree. They argue that regardless of mistaken identity, the act of causing harm or death to a living being is inherently sinful. Verses 2, 6, 26 and 2, 6, 27 articulate this: "IF SOMEONE PUTS A BALL OF OILCAKE ON A SPIT AND ROASTS IT WITH THE IDEA: THIS IS A MAN... HE BECOMES FOR US SOILED/SOILS HIMSELF FOR US WITH KILLING A LIVING BEING." Conversely, the "non-Aryan" (Buddhist) who mistakes a man for an oil-cake is presented as not being soiled by killing, highlighting the perceived flawed logic of the opposing view.

• The Importance of Knowledge and Awareness:

  • Verses 2, 6, 30-31 emphasize the Jain ideal of acting only with full knowledge and awareness of the consequences for all living beings. Verse 2, 6, 31 states: "ONE MAY SPEAK OR ACT (only) IF ONE KNOWS THE NATURE OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE BEINGS ABOVE, BELOW AND HORIZONTALLY... AND ABHORS ENDANGERING LIVING BEINGS."
  • The Jains consider it improper to cause harm, even unintentionally, and criticize those who teach or practice otherwise. Verse 2, 6, 30 declares: "OUR RECLUSES CONSIDER IT ABSOLUTELY IMPROPER TO USE FORCE ON LIVING BEINGS AND THUS HARM THEM. THOUGH THOSE WHO TEACH IT AS WELL AS THOSE WHO HEAR IT MAY NOT KNOW (doing harm) IS BAD FOR BOTH."

• Criticism of Other Ascetic Practices:

  • The text criticizes certain practices of other ascetics, such as feeding large numbers of monks. Verses 2, 6, 29 and 2, 6, 36 highlight the Jain view that those who feed "stainless monks" (interpreted as being involved in non-Jain practices) gain merit but lack true control and incur blame.
  • Verse 2, 6, 37 and 2, 6, 38 describe the Buddhist practice of preparing meat meals, criticizing them as "unworthy people; fools; desirous of sensual enjoyments" who claim not to be stained by evil even when eating meat.
  • The text also mentions and criticizes the practice of "elephant ascetics" (hatthi-tāvasā) who kill an elephant annually out of pity for other beings and live on its flesh for a year (verse 2, 6, 52). The author views this as an extreme example of misapplied compassion and a deliberate attempt to make Jain monks abhor meat-eating unbelievers, possibly highlighting odium theologicum.

• Jain Ethical Principles:

  • The text reiterates core Jain principles: the avoidance of violence (ahiṃsā), the importance of compassion (dayā), and the pursuit of purity and moral conduct (śīla).
  • Verses 2, 6, 40-41 emphasize the Jains' pity for all living beings, their avoidance of blameful faults, and their abstention from specially prepared food.
  • Verse 2, 6, 42 describes the ultimate Jain goal: reaching deep meditation, practicing with equanimity, observing moral conduct, and achieving fame.
  • Verses 2, 6, 49-50 contrast those who teach ignorant doctrines with those who teach the right doctrine based on "unlimited vision" (kevala-nāna), saving themselves and others from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).

• Debate with Brahmins/Vedantins:

  • Verse 2, 6, 43 presents the Brahmin perspective, stating that feeding two thousand "stainless Brahmins" earns great merit and leads to becoming gods, attributing this to Vedic teaching.
  • Verse 2, 6, 44 criticizes feeding men of good family, leading to hell.
  • Verses 2, 6, 46-48 touch upon a discussion with a Vedantin or someone with similar beliefs about the nature of the self or Purusa. The Jain perspective contrasts with a belief in an unmanifest, eternal Purusa, arguing that such a doctrine would negate distinctions and the process of transmigration.

In essence, this excerpt from Suyagada highlights the rigorous Jain ethical framework centered on non-violence and the absolute condemnation of causing harm to any living being, regardless of intent. It positions Jainism as a philosophy that demands complete awareness and responsibility for one's actions, contrasting sharply with what it perceives as the laxity and flawed reasoning of other contemporary religious groups, particularly Buddhism. The text serves as an early polemic, outlining and refuting the theological positions of opposing schools of thought from a Jain perspective.