Gaina Sutras, Part II (SBE45) [1895], at sacred-texts.com
O long-lived (Gambûsvâmin)! I (Sudharman) have heard the following Discourse from the Venerable (Mahâvîra). We now come to the Lecture called 'Renunciation of Activity.' The contents of it are as follows:
It is the Self that may 1 not renounce (activity),that may be accustomed to act, that may adhere to errors, that may be prone to sin, that may be thoroughly ignorant, that may be thoroughly stolid 2, that may not consider the operations 3 of mind, speech, and body, that may not avoid and renounce sins.
The Venerable One has said, 'He (i.e. the Self) is uncontrolled, unresigned, does not avoid and renounce sins, is active, careless, prone to sin, thoroughly ignorant, thoroughly stolid. Though a fool does not consider 4 the operations of his mind, speech, and body, nor does see even a dream 5; still he commits sins 6. (1)
The opponent says to the teacher: 'There can be no sin, if (the perpetrator of an action) does not possess sinful thoughts, speech, and functions of the body, if he does not kill, if he has no internal organ, if he does not consider the operations of mind, speech, and body, if he does not see even a dream.'
[paragraph continues] What is the meaning of the opponent in making this statement? 'When there is a sinful mind, there is sin of the mind; when there is sinful speech, there is sin of the speech; when there is a sinful body, there is sin of the body. When one kills, possesses an internal organ, and considers the operations of mind, speech, and body, when one sees even a dream, then there is sin. Only he who has these qualities can commit sin.' The opponent goes on to say, 'Those who say: There is sin, though (the perpetrator of an action) does not possess sinful thoughts, speeches, and functions of the body, though he does not kill, though he does not possess an internal organ, though he does not consider the operations of mind, speech, and body, and though he does not see even a dream,--those who say this, are wrong.' (2)
Here the teacher says to the opponent: 'It is true what I have just said: there is sin, though (the perpetrator of the action) do not possess sinful thoughts, (&c., all as above, down to) though he do not see even a dream.' 'What is the reason thereof?' (The Âkârya says) 1: 'The Venerable One has assigned the six classes of living beings as the reason: the earth-lives, (&c., all down to) movable beings. With regard to these six classes of living beings, the Self does not avoid and renounce sins, he is wicked and does harm through cruelty: (this holds good with regard to the five cardinal sins ) killing of living beings, &c. (and the passions): anger, &c. (down to) the sin of wrong belief.' (3)
(The Âkârya says): 'The Venerable One has illustrated this by the example of a murderer:
a murderer (who hates) a householder or his son or the king or his servant, resolves, on an occasion offering, to enter (the victim's house) and to kill him when he finds an opportunity 1. Is not this murderer who has formed this resolution 2, (a man) who, day and night, whether sleeping or waking, is full of hostility and wrong; who is wicked and does harm through cruelty? An unbiassed opponent before whom this is laid, will answer: Indeed, he is!' (4)
(The Âkârya says): 'As this murderer who has formed the above resolution is a man who (&c., all as in § 4, down to) does harm through cruelty--(and this holds good with regard to the five cardinal sins:) killing of living beings, &c. (and the passions:) anger, &c., (down to) the sin of wrong belief--so it has been said of him by the Venerable One: he 3 is uncontrolled, unresigned, he does not avoid and renounce sins, he is active, careless, prone to sins thoroughly ignorant, thoroughly stolid. Though a fool does not consider the operations of his mind, speech, and body, nor does see even a dream, still he commits sins. (5)
As a murderer who entertains (murderous) intentions towards a householder, &c., is a man who (&c., all as in § 4, down to) does harm through cruelty; so an ignorant man who entertains (cruel) intentions towards all sorts of living beings, is a man
who (&c., all as in § 4, down to) does harm through cruelty. (6)
(An opponent might object): This is no good reasoning. (For) there are many living beings which one, during one's whole life, never saw, nor heard of, nor cared for, nor took notice of. Towards these beings, therefore, one cannot (be said to) entertain (murderous) intentions, nor to be one who, day and night, whether sleeping or waking, is full of hostility and wrong, (&c., the rest as in § 4). (7) 1
(The Âkârya says): The Venerable One has refuted this by two illustrations, one of a sentient being, the other of a senseless being. The first is as follows: A sentient being, possessing five organs of sense and a developed internal organ, may with regard to the six classes of living beings, viz. earth-bodies, (all down to) movable beings, impose some restriction upon himself; (e.g.) that he will meet his wants, or have them met by others, by means of earth-bodies only. His intention is: I shall meet my wants, or have them met by others, by means of earth-bodies only. His intention is not (to make use of) this or that (particular earth-body): he meets his wants, or has them met by others, by means of earth-bodies in general. With regard to them,
therefore, he is uncontrolled, unrestrained, does not avoid and renounce sins. The same applies to the remaining five classes of living beings.--Some one may meet his wants, or have them met by others, by means of the six classes of living beings. His intention is: I shall meet my wants, or have them met by others, by means of the six classes of living beings; it is not: by means of some particular beings. He meets his wants, (&c.) by means of living beings in general. With regard to them, therefore, he is uncontrolled, &c. (This holds good with the five cardinal sins): killing of living beings, &c., (and with the passions): anger, (&c., all down to) the sin of wrong belief. The Venerable One has said that such a creature, (&c., all as in § 1, down to) commits sins. (8)
The illustration of senseless beings is as follows: Senseless beings, viz. earth-bodies, (&c., all down to) plants, to which must be added, as a sixth item, some movable beings, which have no reason nor consciousness, nor intellect, nor mind, nor speech, in order to do something, or to have it done by others, or to consent to others’ doing it; these benighted creatures (are to be considered as murderers), are full of hostility and wrong (all as in § 4) 1 against all
sorts of living beings. (This holds good with the five cardinal sins:) killing of living beings, &c., (and with the passions, all down to) the sin of wrong belief. Know this: though these beings have neither mind nor speech, yet as they cause pain, grief, damages, harm, and injury, they must be regarded as not abstaining from causing pain, &c. (9)
Thus even senseless beings are reckoned instrumental in bringing about slaughter of living beings, (&c., all down to) the sin of wrong belief. Beings, whatever their origin, who were sentient (in one existence) will become senseless ones (in another) and vice versâ. Not getting rid of, nor shaking off, nor annihilating, nor destroying their Karman, the thoroughly wicked and ignorant wander from the body of a senseless being into that of sentient ones, or from the body of a sentient being into that of senseless ones, or from the body of a sentient being into that of another, or from the body of a senseless being into that of another. The sentient beings and the senseless ones, both are wrong in their conduct and commit sins through cruelty. The Venerable One has said that such a (creature) is uncontrolled, (&c., all as in I, down to) commits sins. (10)
(The opponent asks): 'What must one do or cause to be done, in order to become controlled and restrained, to avoid and renounce sins?' (The Âkârya answers): The Venerable One has declared that the cause (of sins) are the six classes of living beings, earth-lives, &c. As I feel pain, so they do. Therefore they should not be injured or killed 1.
This constant, permanent, eternal, true Law has been taught by wise men who comprehend all things. Thus a monk abstains from (the five cardinal sins): slaughter of living beings, &c., (and of vices, all down to) the sin of wrong belief. He does not clean his teeth with a tooth-brush, he does not accept collyrium, emetics, and perfumes. Such a monk does not act nor kill, he is free from wrath, pride, deceit, and greed, he is calm and happy. The Venerable One says that such a (monk) is well controlled and restrained, does avoid and renounce sins, is not active, but careful and thoroughly wise. (11)
Thus I say.
399:1 'May' is to render yâvi = kâpi. This word is used here to indicate that the reverse is true in other cases. This paragraph emphasises the Gaina doctrine that the Self or âtman is the direct cause of all actions of an individual being, in opposition to the Sâṅkhya philosophers who maintain the absolute inactivity of the purusha, and to the Bauddhas who deny the existence of a separate âtman altogether.
399:2 Literally, sleeping (sutta = supta).
399:3 Literally, speeches (vakka = vâkya).
399:4 We ought, perhaps, to translate: if he is not conscious of, &c.
399:5 I.e. when consciousness is fainter than in a dream.
399:6 The doctrine of the Gainas is that Karman is the result of the action of every being, even of those whose intellect or consciousness is not developed, as with the êkêndriyas or beings who possess but one organ of sense. The opponent, however, maintains that only conscious actions of intelligent beings bring about Karman. This question is discussed in the following paragraphs.
400:1 These words here and in the sequel are in Sanskrit; they probably are a gloss.
401:1 The Nâgârgunîyas have another reading (where, is not stated by Sîlâṅka): If he sees no opportunity, or his proposed victim is always on his guard, he does not kill him, but he resolves in his mind: If I get an opportunity, or I find that man off his guard, I shall certainly kill him.
401:2 The original repeats the preceding passage in full. I abridge it here and in the sequel.
401:3 I.e. every soul, even that of a being with but one organ of sense.
402:1 Sîlâṅka here makes it clear that the discussion, in the preceding paragraphs, is carried on in the form of a syllogism of five parts established in Hindu logics. § 1 contains the proposition, pratigñâ, § 3 the cause, hêtu, § 4 the exemplification, udâharana or drishtânta, § 5 the upanaya or that part which shows that the hêtu is in the subject of the syllogism, and § 6 the conclusion, nigamana. We thus see how deeply rooted in, and how genial to, the mind of the Hindus was the pañkâvayavam anumânam or syllogism of five parts; for the author conforms to it, I dare say, unintentionally.
403:1 If the passage were printed in full, the most glaring contradictions would stare the reader in the face. The cause hereof is not that the passage cannot correctly be rendered, but that the authors of the Sûtras always make use of set phrases whether all parts of them suit the case in hand or not. Sometimes we can avoid downright nonsense by selecting a somewhat different rendering from what was given in another part of the book; and so I do in the last sentence of this paragraph. But this is only a makeshift.
404:1 I here abridge the text which is identical with II, 1, 48 ff., p. 351.