Ahimsa : Jainism : MoralityUpdated: June 14th, 2017
Created: 14/06/17Morality is not to be confused with compassion. Although the act of compassion may be the consequence of a moralistic view.
The moral imperative not to consume clearly would amount to non-violence in all matters of survival. Self preservation as a moral being does not include any rights to being on this earth so compassion cannot be for the object of compassion but for the being that consumes.
The non-consumption of an animal, as compassionate as it appears is self compassion in that I wish to cause no harm and practice that in not consuming animals. Logically this would stretch to plants and perversely the conscious body must also be free from harm, so body(self) preservation is relative to other bodies preservation.
The apparent conflict is only a problem when there is no moral view of compassion and that it is for the soul to practice an increasing mediation upon the bodies demands. It is not a concern for the longevity or suffering of any specific other but a general concern that any damage caused to the environment to creature or matter is a denial of morality based on the bodies fear of lack of future comfort and consumption.
Ahimsa is a term meaning 'not to injure'. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. cause no injury, do no harm. Ahimsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings-including all animals-according to many Indian religions . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaAncient texts use ahimsa to mean non-injury, a broader concept than non-violence. Non-injury implies not killing others, as well as not hurting others mentally or verbally; it includes avoiding all violent means—including physical violence—anything that injures others.
Where I draw the line is self preservation. I have no intention of causing harm and consequently those creatures that are weaker than me or dumber than me are usually not a threat. However dumb and small I will not be attacked or bitten by mosquitoes and horseflies etc. As it is counterproductive to run and hide then I will swat them if they are within arms reach.
I have noted Buddhists waiting for westerners to come kill the local pests, do they equally wait for others to build walls for themselves to hide from the wild habitat?
.
Undoubtedly there may be a few people who tolerate pests and prey but even then I wonder if they live next to a hungry tiger or other wanting creatures.
It may also be possible to protect oneself with a cloaking device, some light, sound or smell barrier but that just deprives the hungry from their food.
Self Preservation seems reasonable but when is it recognised. Before the bite, before the flight or during the fight. With the degree of strength in the masses and the manipulation acquired fro intellect, those with a degree of intellect with pre-empt and attack.
Most or many people will not see an impeding call to be violent and consider themselves peaceful and non-violent but whilst a consumer it is only a matter of time, for the space that I dwell in does not belong to me.
However in the ideal mind there can be a moral imperative:
The earliest reference to the idea of non-violence to animals ("pashu-Ahimsa"), apparently in a moral sense, is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda (KapS 31.11), which may have been written in about the 8th century BCE
wikipedia Ahimsa page Jainism section
Pages: 1· 2