Krut Karit Aur Anumodan Me Se Adhik Pap Kisme

This Jain text, "Krut Karit aur Anumodan me se Adhik Pap Kisme" by Acharya Shri Nanesh, explores the comparative gravity of sin committed through doing (Krut), causing others to do (Karit), and approving of (Anumodan) sinful actions. The article, compiled from his work 'Jin Dhammo', emphasizes that the extent of sin depends heavily on an individual's intentions and state of mind.

Key Points:

• The Individual's Intent Matters: While all three – doing, causing, and approving – lead to sin, the magnitude of the sin is determined by the individual's inner disposition (bhav). Sometimes, causing an action might be more sinful than doing it oneself, and at other times, mere approval can carry greater sin.
• Layperson's Vows (Shravak Vrat): Laypeople typically take vows with "two causes, three yogas" (two types of actions they abstain from, and three modes of execution: mind, speech, and body). Exceptionally devout laypeople might take vows with "three causes, three yogas." However, those burdened by household responsibilities can only renounce two causes, as complete renunciation of all three is often impractical.
• The Challenge of Anumodan (Approval) for Laypeople: A layperson cannot completely renounce approval because they often have to interact with people who engage in sinful activities (like eating meat) or have not renounced them. It's difficult to completely sever ties with family members who might engage in violence. While a layperson refrains from verbally or physically permitting sins, their mere association can imply silent approval. They may not engage in gross violence themselves or cause others to do so, but their family ties might prevent them from completely disassociating from those who do.
• Practicality and Influence: The text provides examples like the story of Abhaykumar, who befriended the son of a butcher. Abhaykumar, a Jain layperson, maintained the friendship to influence the son's life towards righteousness. Similarly, the story of Mahashatak and his cruel wife Revati illustrates that sometimes, maintaining relationships can be a path to guiding others, even if it involves some level of "sanvasanumodan" (association-based approval). Severing ties completely might lead to greater sin for the other person.
• The Hierarchy of Renunciation: Laypeople typically renounce doing a sin first, then causing it, and are allowed some leeway in approving it. This is because engaging in sin directly is often more complicated, causing others involves less direct involvement, and approval is the furthest removed.
• Vivek (Discretion/Consciousness) is Paramount: The article strongly emphasizes that the degree of sin (minor or major) is not solely dependent on whether one does, causes, or approves. It is primarily determined by vivek (discretion, consciousness, wisdom) or the lack thereof. Where there is vivek, the sin is minimal; where there is a lack of vivek, the sin is grave.
• Examples Illustrating Vivek:
  • Makkhi Harvest: The story of Acharya Jawaharcharya's childhood experience highlights how lack of vivek on the part of his uncle, and his own childish immaturity, led to a greater sin in causing the collection of an excessive amount of bhang. If the uncle had acted with vivek, he would have specified the quantity, thus minimizing the sin.
  • The Farmer and the Servant: A wealthy layperson sending a servant to fetch water, which results in the crushing of vegetation, demonstrates how the master's lack of direct involvement and vivek in instructing the servant can lead to greater sin for him than if he had personally fetched the water with more care.
  • King Udāyana: The text mentions King Udāyana, who ruled sixteen countries but was considered "alpārambhi" (minimal initiator of harm) because he acted with vivek. This shows that even powerful rulers can adhere to Jain principles with discretion.
  • The King, the Executioner, and the Spectator: The example of a king sentencing a criminal to death, the executioner carrying out the sentence out of duty, and an enthusiastic spectator cheering for the execution starkly contrasts the levels of sin. The king and executioner act under compulsion and without malicious intent, while the spectator, with no vested interest, indulges in sinful approval and instigation, incurring great sin due to lack of vivek.
  • The Surgeon: The analogy of a skilled surgeon who refuses to operate due to disgust and assigns it to an incompetent compounder highlights that causing a more grievous harm through an unskilled agent constitutes a greater sin than if the surgeon had performed it with skill. Conversely, a less skilled doctor commissioning a skilled one incurs less sin. Performing an action without knowledge, even if successful, is sinful.
• The Scope of Karit (Causing) and Anumodan (Approval): The article points out that while doing is limited by one's own capacity, time, and place, causing others to do can involve vast numbers of people, extensive time, and wide geographical areas. Approval can be even more extensive, as one can approve of sins happening anywhere in the world without physical presence.
• The Tendulamachha Example: The text refers to the example of Tendulamachha from the Bhagavati Sutra, who went to the seventh hell not for doing or causing violence, but solely for harboring a malicious thought: if he were in the place of the fish, he would have eaten all the other fish. This illustrates that even without direct action, negative thoughts and approval can lead to immense sin.
• The Centrality of Mind (Man): The primary basis for karmic bondage is the mind and its intentions. Even if actions appear similar, the underlying mental disposition is crucial.
• Conclusion on Comparative Sin: The article reiterates that the extent of sin in doing, causing, or approving is highly dependent on vivek (discretion). While causing and approving generally have a wider scope (in terms of dravya, kshetra, kaal - substance, place, time) than doing, it is the presence or absence of vivek that ultimately determines the magnitude of the sin. This principle also applies to the accumulation of merit and virtue.

In essence, the text argues that while the scope of harm can escalate from doing to causing to approving, the most critical factor determining the severity of sin is an individual's conscious discretion and intention. A lack of vivek can transform even the smallest act into a grave transgression, while vivek can mitigate the sinfulness of actions.