[Advaita-l] Ahimsaa and Buddhism

[Anand Hudli]

Two vAkyas are mentioned as seemingly contradicting each other. "na hiMsyAt
sarvabhUtAni" and "agnIShomIyam pashumAlabheta" can be viewed as utsarga
and apavAda, ie. general rule and exception, and the exception is said to
be stronger than the general rule. However, bhAmatIkAra vAcaspati Mishra,
in commenting on shankara bhAShya 3.1.25 says it is not necessary to pit
the two vAkyas against each other at all. Says he- nahi balavadityeva
durbalaM bAdhate kintu sati virodhe. A stronger rule cannot prevail over a
weaker rule simply because it is the stronger of the two. There must be a
contradiction between the two for the stronger rule to overrule the weaker
rule. In the present context, there is no contradiction between the general
rule that prohibits killing and the rule that prescribes sacrificing an
animal in a Yajna. na cehAsti virodhaH, bhinnagocaracAritvAt. The two rules
have different contexts and subjects.

agnIShomIyam pashumAlabheta iti hi kratuprakaraNe samAmnAtaM
kratvarthatAmasya gamayati na tu apanayati niShedhApAditAmasya puruShaM
pratyanarthahetutAm| tenAstu niShedhAdasya puruShaM pratyanarthahetutA
vidheshca kratvarthatA ko virodhaH?

The animal sacrifice mentioned, by means of the rule "agnIShomIyam
pashumAlabheta", in the Yajna Prakarana is  meant for achieving the
kratvartha (the object of sacrifice), but it cannot remove the cause of
evil for the person resulting from (not obeying) the prohibition
against killing (outside Yajna). Due to the prohibition, killing becomes a
cause of evil for the person (outside Yajna) and within a Yajna it is for
the sake of (completion) of the Yajna. What is the contradiction?

The thrust of vAcaspati's argument is that killing/injury done for
purushArtha is prohibited but sacrifices done for kratvartha (for Yajna)
are not subject to this prohibition. He also cites a shloka from the
tantra-vArtika of KumArila:

yo nAma kratumadhyasthaH kalanjAdIni bhakShayet|
na kratostatra vaiguNyaM yathA coditasiddhitaH ||

The vedAntakalpataru offers the following explanation of the above verse.
kalanjabhakShaNAdiniShedhAnAM puruShArthatvAt tadatikrame puruShasyaiva
pratyavAyo na kratorvaiguNyam| yathAvihitasya tasya siddheH| nahi
kratusheShaH pratiShedho yatastadatilanghanAtkratuvaiguNyaM syAditi
bhaTTokterarthaH|

Since eating Kalanja is prohibited for a person, violation of this
prohibition by a person during a yajna leads only the sin on the part of
such a person, and does not constitute a defect in the yajna itself, which
is successfully performed as ordained. In this case, there is no violation
of a prohibition that is part of the yajna, which would have led to a
defect in the yajna. This is what KumArila bhaTTa's verse means.

Further, the kalpatarukAra says:

kratvartho hi pratiShedhaH kratvarthAM hiMsAM pratiShedhet| tatra yadyayaM
na hiMsyAditi niShedhaH kratvarthAM hiMsAM pratiShedhet, tarhyeva
kratvarthaH syAttacca nAstIti

Only a prohibition in the context of a yajna can prohibit animal
sacrifices. If the prohibition "na hiMsyAt sarvabhUtAni" had been mentioned
in the context of  a yajna, it would have meant prohibition of animal
sacrifices in the yajna. However, this is not the case.

The bhAmatI points out, and the kalpataru explains, that there is no
prohibitory rule against animal sacrifices in a yajna, as in the case of
speaking falsehood and the AjyabhAga ceremony in a pashu yAga. The
taittirIya saMhitA vAkya "nAnRtaM vadet" prohibits speaking of falsehood
during the yajna and the vAkya "na tau pashau karoti" prohibits the
AjyabhAga offerings for agni and soma during a pashuyAga, although the
AjyabhAgas are prescribed for the darshapUrNamAsa sacrifices.

bhAmatI- na caitat "nAnRtaM vadet", "na tau pashau karoti" itivat
kasyacitprakaraNe samAmnAtaM yena anRtavadanavadasya niShedhyasya
kratvarthatve niShedho .api kratvarthaH syAt|

vedAntakalpataru- "na caitaditi"| yena prakaraNAmnAtatvena anRtavadanasya
kratvarthatvena tanniShedho .api krtavarthaH syAd, yena ca tenaiva
prakaraNAmnAtatvena pashau niShiddhayorAjyabhAgayoH
kratvarthatvAttanniShedhasyApi kratvarthaM bhavet, tena prakAreNa na
hiMsyAdityetat kasyacitprakaraNe na samAmnAtamityarthaH|

The prohibition of speaking a falsehood is mentioned in the topic about
(darshapUrnamAsa) yajna and hence it prohibits speaking falsehood in the
context of the yajna. In a similar fashion, the prohibition of AjyabhAgas
in a pashuyAga is mentioned in the topic about yajna and hence it is
applicable in the context of a yajna. However, there is no similar mention
of a prohibition of killing (hiMsA) under any topic related to yajna. This
is what (the bhAmatIkAra) means.

Anand