Two Definations Of Ahimsa

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text "Two Definitions of Ahimsa" by Dr. Unto Tahitnen:

The article "Two Definitions of Ahimsa" by Dr. Unto Tahitnen explores the contrasting interpretations of the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) within Indian thought, categorizing them into two primary streams: "Śramanic" and "Vedic."

The Śramanic Definition of Ahimsa:

• This definition, found in texts like the Sandilya Upanishad and championed by Jainism, Buddhism, and Yoga, defines ahimsa as not causing suffering to any living being at any time, through any mental, vocal, or bodily activity.
• The core principle here is that any intentional act causing harm or suffering constitutes himsā (violence).
• Therefore, ahimsa in this sense is universal, applying to all living beings without exception.
• Jainism, in particular, elaborates on this definition, viewing himsā as the hurting of life-principles (prāna-vyaparopana) due to passionate activity (pramatta-yoga). Even injury to life is not considered himsā if it's not motivated by passion and is performed with careful adherence to righteous conduct. Conversely, actions driven by passion, even without killing another being, are considered himsā.
• Furthermore, the Śramanic tradition often views ahimsa as "internal purification." It is achieved through the absence of attachment (rāga) and other passions, and the renunciation of both external and internal possessions (aparigraha). This emphasizes the purity of mind as the predominant moral characteristic.

The Vedic Definition of Ahimsa:

• This perspective, originating from Vedic sources like the Chandogya Upanishad, presents a different understanding. It states that one who practices ahimsa towards all creatures, except at holy places (tirtha), does not return to this world.
• "Holy places" in this context refers to the sites of animal sacrifice.
• Texts like the Manusmriti and the Mahabharata further articulate this view, suggesting that violence prescribed in the Vedas or performed for maintaining worldly affairs (loka-yātrā) can be considered ahimsa. This includes actions like killing an enemy in war, executing a criminal, or sacrificing an animal, provided they are performed according to scriptural commands.
• The Vedic conception of ahimsa is therefore not universal. It is defined as "refraining from causing harm to a living being in the way not enjoined by the Vedas."
• This definition is motivated by social concern, whereas the Śramanic idea is rooted in individual motivation.

Criticism of the Vedic Definition:

• The article highlights that proponents of the Śramanic definition, particularly Jain thinkers like Hemacandra, have strongly criticized the Vedic concept of ahimsa. Hemacandra even labels Vedic texts that permit violence as "himsa-śāstras" (sciences of violence), arguing that they abandon true dharma for the sake of sanctioned violence.
• This criticism is not limited to Jainism. Thinkers within "orthodox" thought, such as the Samkhya school, also oppose Vedic injunctions for sacrifice. They argue that these practices, involving the killing of animals and destruction of living sprouts, lead to impurity, destruction of moral merit, and only temporary benefits, thus falling short of true liberation.
• The core of this criticism is directed at the approval of exceptions to the universal principle of non-violence. The Jainas, Samkhya, Yoga, and Buddhists are presented as sharing this critical stance, emphasizing that the statement "na himsyāt sarvabhūtāni" (do not violate all living beings) should have no exceptions.

In essence, the article argues that the term ahimsa carries distinct meanings depending on the philosophical tradition, with a fundamental divergence between the universally applied, internally motivated Śramanic ideal and the contextually limited, socially motivated Vedic practice.