Download 107 A Comparative Study of Ahimsa (non

A Comparative Study of Ahimsa (non-violence) in Jainism and
Metta-Karuna (loving-kindness and compassion) in Theravada
Buddhism1
Archphurich Nomnian2
1
บทความนี้ไดถูกเสนอในที่ประชุม Fourth International Summer School for Jain Studies, India มีนักวิชาการดานศาสนาและ
ปรัชญาจากประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกา, แคนนาดา, คิวบา, อินเดีย และไทย
2
อาจารยอาชวภูริชญ นอมเนียน, วิทยาลัยศาสนศึกษา มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล
ภาพสิงโตและวัวรวมดื่มน้ําในภาชะเดียวกัน (บางแหงมีรูปลูกวัวดูดนมแมสิงโตและลูกสิงโตดูดนมแมโค) พรอมอักษรภาษา
ฮินดีอานวา อหิงสา ปรโม ธรฺม แปลวา อหิงสา (ความไมเบียดเบียนทั้งทางกาย วาจา และใจ) เปนบรมธรรม (ธรรมะอัน
ประเสริฐ) คําสอนนี้พระติรถังกรพระองคที่ ๒๔ พระมหาวีระไดแสดงกอนที่จะเสด็จสูนิรวาณเปนคําตอบที่สาวกไดกราบทูล
วาธรรมบทขอใดสําคัญที่สุด – ผูเขียน
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
107
บทคัดยอ
รายงานฉบับนี้เปนการอภิปรายแนวความคิดเรื่องอหิงสา (ความไมเบียดเบียน)ในศาสนาเชนและ
ความเมตตากรุณาในพระพุทธศาสนานิกายเถรวาทโดยศึกษาจากตําราของทั้งสองศาสนา ถึงแมวาศาสนา
พุทธไดถูกวิจารณเกี่ยวกับฆาสัตวเพื่อบริโภค แตก็เปนที่ประจักษวาสองศาสนานี้มีคําสอนที่เหมือนกันคือ
การไมเบียดเบียน การปรารถนาใหผูอื่นพนจากความทุกขและชวยเหลือใหผูอื่นออกจากความทุกขเพื่อใหเกิด
สังคมแหงสันติภาพสําหรับมนุษยชาติ จึงเปนความสําคัญยิ่งที่ศาสนิกชนชาวพุทธและเชนพึงปฏิบัติโดยการ
เปลี่ยนจากความรุนแรงหรือการสรางความทุกขใหแกผูอื่นไปสูสันติภาพโดยการมีสวนรวมแลกเปลี่ยนความ
คิดเห็น ความรูกับผูอื่นและใสใจกับสิ่งแวดลอมอันจะนําไปสูสังคมที่ดีขึ้นสําหรับอนุชนรุนหลัง
1. Introduction
Buddhism and Jainism, two important religions of India, have contributed
greatly to the development of social and ethical norms. Although the former
spread beyond the confines of India – land of its birth and the latter is confined to
India territory, their noble doctrines have remarkably influenced our society and
social institutions (Santini, 1975). Among the sublime ethical doctrines which
these two great religions advocate are Ahimsa (non-violence) and Metta-Karuna
(loving kindness-compassion), the former put forward by Jainism and the latter by
Theravada Buddhism. Clothey (2006) claims that one of the most significant
contributions of the Jains to the Indian landscape is the principle of non-violence
itself. Apparently they are the first people in the world to espouse such an ethic,
and its practice is adapted by Buddhists and selectively appropriated by Jain and
Buddhist dynasties alike. Although one appears to be negative in approach and
the others are positive, there are commonalities in both of these doctrines. The
present paper discusses both these concepts presented by Jain and Theravada
Buddhist scholars in our literature.
This paper is divided into five sections.
Following the introduction
section, section two explores the concept of ahimsa in Jainism. The concepts of
metta-karuna in Theravada Buddhism are discussed in section three. Section four
108
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
compares these two concepts in relation to the killing of animals. The last section
summarises key concepts and provides some recommendations.
2. Concept of Ahimsa (non-violence) in Jainism
This section explores the concept of ahimsa in Jainism, which has been
variously viewed by different scholars. According to Koller (1982), Jainism is
viewed as a way of compassion and ascetic self-restraint designed to liberate the
jīva or soul from the bondage of karmic matter (p.109). Koller (1982) views
ahimsa as non-hurting which is considered to be the basis of Jaina morality, for
ultimately all questions of good and evil and right or wrong come down to
whether or not the thought, speech, or action in question hurts any life-form.
Based on linguistics, Malasekara (1997) defines the term ahimsa by distinguishing
it into two parts: ‘a’ and ‘himsa’; the former is a negative prefix meaning ‘no’ or
‘not’, whereas the latter is derived from ‘han’ meaning ‘to kill’ and ‘to injure’,
and thus the term ‘ahimsa’ means ‘not to kill’ and ‘not to injure’. Gopalan (1973)
also comments that the term himsa is injury or violence caused to the living
organism due to carelessness and negligence, and actuated by passions like pride,
prejudice, attachment and hatred.
Gopalan (1973, p.160) further claims that
ahimsa as non-killing and non-violence is generally associated with ‘acts’, which
are always preceded by an intention and a will, i.e. a mere avoidance of the act
may not necessarily mean that there is no intention. The mind (manas), therefore,
must be completely free from evil intentions to kill or commit violence. D.N.
Bhargava (1975, p.125) summarises the idea of non-violence in Jainism as the
following presumption: everyman is basically non-violent; non-violence falls
outside the inter-relationship of one member of the society and other member of
the society; the idea of inter-relationship or ownership is incoherent with the idea
of non-violence; and any statement and every statement can be interpreted both
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
109
ways – rightly or wrongly. Wrong interpretation leads to violence, whereas right
interpretation removes all disputes.
We can see that Jainism views the relationships between physical acts and
mental attitudes as mutual and reciprocal.
Gopalan (1973) notes that co-
ordination between the mind and body is considered necessary for the practice of
non-violence, and this should be accompanied also by proper speech derived from
the heart. It is clear that the principle of ahimsa in Jainism naturally implies
purity of thought, word, and deed and is a result of universal love and sympathy
towards all living beings. Ahimsa, therefore, implies both action and intention.
According to Koller (1982), hurting is defined as harming other living organisms
either deliberately, or by carelessness or neglect, or through actions motivated by
pride, greed, hatred, prejudice, or desire. But the very intention of harming others,
even if the physical action is not carried out, is regarded as hurting them. All
actions rooted in anger, pride, hatred, greed, and dishonesty are regarded as forms
of violence and must be renounced and abandoned. Of course, since the whole
universe is alive, it is impossible to completely avoid injuring life-forms if one is
to act at all. But the degree and extent of hurtful activity can be greatly reduced,
and the higher life-forms, which are capable of greater suffering, can be treated
with special care and kindness (Koller, 1982).
Koller (1982) further explains that every Jaina takes vows not to injure any
living beings, but the monastic community carries its vows to a further extreme
than do laypersons.
Both groups refrain from occupations and acts that are
particularly hurtful, such as, hunting, fishing, making war, or dealing in drugs and
alcohol. But monks do not dig in the earth for fear that they hurt earth bodies;
they avoid swimming and bathing or walking in the rain in case they hurt water
bodies; they neither light nor extinguish fires for fear that they injure fire bodies;
they avoid sudden movements in case they injure air bodies; and they are
extremely careful in walking to avoid injuring vegetation growing along the path.
110
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
Usually, they sweep the path ahead of them to remove small living beings so that
they do not get trampled, and they wear a cloth across their nose to avoid
breathing and destroying life-forms in the air. Jainas also avoid alcohol and
honey, which are regarded as literally swarming with life-forms. Figs and other
fruits with many tiny seeds and plants with sweet sticky tissue are not eaten
because they are regarded as hosts for millions of life bodies. Undoubtedly, the
widespread practice of vegetarianism and the general aversion to alcohol in the
larger Indian community owe much to the Jaina elevation of non-hurting to the
position of the central moral virtue.
Jain Bhaskar (2001) views non-violence and religion as integral and
inseparable, and thus Jain’s views of the entire world including plants, trees, birds,
animals, water, etc., is possessed of life. It is, therefore, our prime duty to protect
them as we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. Clothey (2006,
p.39) also notes that the best-known of all the Jain vows is that of non-violence.
Monks are to eschew the taking of any life altogether, while laymen are selective
in the observance of this vow. Non-violence, for the monk and layman, entails the
avoidance of: a) occupational violence – one should avoid occupations that can
cause one to take life (i.e. butcher, fisherman, hunter); in some cases, kings are
exempted from this vow, insofar as war is understood to be the last resort; b)
protective violence – one should refrain from taking a life even if attacked, again
more carefully followed by monks than laymen; c) intentional violence – any
intentional harm to a living being is considered detrimental to the pursuit of
liberation; d) accidental violence – monks, in particular, have been known to use a
whisk broom to sweep the path before they take a step or to wear gauze over the
mouth lest an insect be inadvertently swallowed.
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
111
Clothey (2006) further explains that the rationale behind these vows is
self-discipline and the burning off of ajīvas. By non-exploitation of others and the
purification of one’s own lifestyle one is thought to be able to attain ultimate
liberation.
As the Jain community takes its place on the subcontinent in
subsequent centuries, the community places a high degree of emphasis on
education – monks are the teachers and exemplars par excellence. Many lay Jains
go into occupations consistent with their vows – commercial enterprises,
craftsmanship, the study of language and literature, and the production of the arts
especially of miniature portrayals. They are advisors to kings; writers of lexicons
and producers of artistic expressions.
This concept of non-violence and non-hurting can be applicable to our
daily lives in terms of protecting the environments and ecosystem. Chapple’s
(2006) study focuses on the living nature of the world and the importance of
purifying oneself through respecting the existing life forms. It is claimed that at
the time of its inception and until recent decades, the protection of ecology and
environment was rather insignificant to Jain way of life that was more concerned
about the minimisation of harm on others. In the contemporary times, however,
Jain principles regarding non-violence and non-possession have been reinterpreted
as enhancing human-earth relations, which allow us to be more aware of our
consumption of foods and environments (Chapple, 2006, p.158).
To conclude, it is evident that Jainism can be considered as a ‘up-to-date’
religion aims to protect all human beings and living things in order to create
peaceful and tranquil society and environment in our contemporary world.
Saddhatissa (1970, p.90), however, claims that ahimsa (non-injury) has also its
positive counterpart, which demands not only abstention from injury but also the
practice of metta (loving-kindness), and karuna (compassion) to other livings.
These two concepts will be critically discussed in the next section.
112
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
3. Concepts of Metta (loving-kindness) and Karuna (compassion) in
Theravada Buddhism
This section discusses two related concepts: metta (loving-kindness) and
karuna (compassion), which allow us to understand the ways human beings can
create peace in our society through the lens of Theravada Buddhism. According
to Sumedho (1991), the concepts of metta and karuna are two of the four concepts
in Theravada Buddhism, including mudita (sympathetic joy) and upekkha
(serenity) of brahma-viharas which values qualities of unselfish human beings.
The concepts of metta-karuna are more relevant for the discussion of this study
because they reflect the positive aspect of ahimsa, and that can allow us to
compare these ideas between Jainism and Theravada Buddhism, which will be
discussed in section 4. The concept of metta will be firstly explored and followed
by the explanation of karuna.
Narasabho (1971, p.212) notes that the term metta chosen by the Buddha
for his teaching is from mitta, meaning a friend. It is one kind of love which is the
indispensable and the essential foundation of the growth and purification of the
individual as of the construction of a peaceful, progressive and health society. It
is a spiritual love that looks for guidance to the love of a mother for her child,
uplifts itself to the ideal of the pure fount of all safety, welfare and spiritual health.
Metta, however, can destroy others by mere disturbance of their minds through
anger. It is known that one who develops metta neither hurts himself nor cause
injury upon others, but lives satisfied and tranquil. As a result, individuals who
wish to develop metta should first have moral purity as their ethical standard
(Narasabho, 1971, p.218).
Metta can be implemented through meditation. According to Saddhatissa
(1970, p.90), individuals, who wish to meditate on metta, should first remove the
obstacles unfavorable to their peaceful surroundings. Then, they should choose a
suitable time and a quiet place where they can, without interruption, devote
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
113
themselves to this meditation practice. They should then perceive the danger of
anger arising and, at the same time, should realize the advantage of possessing
patience, because anger has to be abandoned and patience has to be fostered in the
development of this meditation. The dangers of anger should be understood in
every possible way. The most effective method would be to understand it in
accordance with the teaching of the Buddha. After that, they should embark upon
the development of metta for the purpose of removal the mind of hate which is a
danger and for the acquisition of patience which is known as an advantage.
However, metta should, at first, only be directed towards certain types of persons
and not to others.
It is absolutely unwise, as well as, dangerous, at the
commencement of the practice of metta, to direct one’s thoughts towards the
following six kinds of persons: (i) an antipathetic, (ii) a very dearly-loved, (iii) a
neutral, (iv) a hostile or (v) a deceased person, or (vi) a member of the opposite
sex. Why should metta not, in the preliminary stages, be developed towards these
six kinds of persons? To direct thoughts of metta towards an antipathetic person,
a very dearly-loved one, or a neutral one is mentally fatiguing, and in the case of a
very dear person there may be emotional involvement. Anger springs up if a
hostile person is recollected. If metta is directed towards a deceased person,
neither absorption nor access concentration is reached.
Should metta be
developed towards the opposite sex, lust may arise.
Payutto (1993) claims that when there is goodwill, metta, the mind is
naturally happy, cheerful, and clear, and hence it is a condition which is beneficial
to the psyche, supporting the quality and efficiency of the mind (p.19). Payutto
(1993, p.70) further explains that metta, goodwill, friendliness; sympathetic, is a
mental stance assumed towards those who are in the normal condition, or on an
equal plane with ourselves; karuna, compassion, is a proper mental attitude
toward those who are in distress. The concept of karuna will be addressed next.
114
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
Samtani (1975) defines Karuna as pity, love, compassion, mercy.
Narasabho (1971, p.262) notes that karuna deals with the attitude of kindness and
the feeling of pity that is evoked by the sight of the suffering of beings. A person
who wants to cultivate Karuna should begin by contemplating upon the evils of
unkindness and the virtues of kindness. To begin with, a personal should direct
his compassion to another person whom one sees to be in pitiful condition such as
misfortune, sorrow, or sill. It is conceivable that the beneficial condition for the
development of compassion (karuna) is the sight of a disabled person. When
individuals see or hear someone who has met with some misfortune or any form
of calamity, he should feel pity and kindness and direct his compassion towards
that person. Hence karuna is to be practiced in words, deeds, and thoughts.
Komatsu (1989) claims that the Buddha’s mind as great compassion is an
extremely important concept. Compassion is twofold: maitri, which is giving joy
to others, and karuna, removing the suffering of people.
Objectless great
compassion is like the sun which shines upon all naturally and unconsciously,
without thought of differentiation. Compassion does not choose its objects: it
takes away suffering and gives joy completely naturally (p.261). We can see that
compassion as maitri (from the word ‘friendship’) and compassion as karuna
(from the word ‘voice of suffering and pain) are two basic meanings.
As
friendship works on the same level, there are no hierarchical differences in
compassion. It works on the level of equality with trusting each other and helping
each other. From this, maitri means giving happiness to others equally. As we
hear the voices of suffering and pain, share and understand the suffering and pain.
From this, karuna means to get rid of suffering and pain. In addition to these two
definitions, compassion or the aspect of benefiting others.
Gombrich (1988, p.64) states that the Buddha preached to the world out of
his great compassion (karuna), and Buddhists value kindness, which must,
however, be selfless and disinterested.
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
The positive values of kindness and
115
unselfishness characterize Buddhism. Florida (1998) notes that compassion is one
of the most fundamental Buddhist categories, so fundamental that the entirety of
the tradition can be described as compassion (karuna) and wisdom (prajna)
working together. It is important to keep in mind that the two are linked and one
without the other is dangerous. For example, a person is not wise may cause
enormous problems by witlessly attempting to be compassionate, and a person
who has penetrating insight without compassion is dangerous indeed.
To conclude, for Theravada Buddhism, metta-karuna is a means for
attaining a happy present life. Theravada Buddhists approach violence by the
practice of compassion and loving-kindness directed to any violence. Cultivating
the mind of violence will control anger, hatred and aggression, and from this
sequence, one will control violence that comes out of anger, hatred and
aggression. Encouraging the performance of wholesome acts is very important in
Buddha’s teachings. Metta-Karuna is essential in Theravada Buddhist practice.
When the Buddha talks about actions, there are three kinds of actions: action with
the physical body, action with the mouth, and action with the mind. This is the
practice of compassion and the cultivation of the mind of loving-kindness for all
beings. The practice of compassion or thinking of others’ happiness, peace, and
well-being is based on the idea of the interdependence or interconnectedness of
our existence.
One exists because of everything else, and nothing exists
independently. The benefits that Buddhism talks about are always of two aspects:
self-benefit (or wisdom) and benefiting others (or compassion).
Both are
important. The following section will compare the similarities and differences
with regard to the concepts of ahimsa in Jainism and metta-karuna in Theravada
Buddhism.
116
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
4. Comparative aspects of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada
Buddhism
This section compares the concept of ahimsa in Jainism and metta-karuna
in Theravada Buddhism in the light of non-violence and non-hurting as follow.
Koller (1982) claims that although Buddhists recognise the principle of
nonhurting as a fundamental rule of life, the Jainas have developed this principle
most fully and have carried its application the furthest. The term ‘nonhurting’ is
negative, but the principle is entirely positive, being rooted in a philosophy that
recognises the community of all living organisms and sees love as the basis of a
relationship between all the members of this community. The prohibition against
hurting has nothing to do with the fear of eating one’s own grandmother (who
now may have been re-born as a pig or a cow). Rather, it embodies the realisation
that all life is one and that to hurt others is to destroy the community of life, which
is the basis of all sacredness. Since meat eating requires the slaughter of animals,
Jainas are strictly vegetarian. Indeed, they criticised the Buddhists severely for
allowing meat eating, pointing out that, although Buddhists were prohibited from
killing animals for food or from eating meat from animals that had been killed
especially for their food, still eating meat at all made them partially responsible
for the sins of the butchers: if they refused all meat, the butchers would cease
killing animals.
We can see that Jainism is extremely critical of the Buddhists’ being
allowed to eat meat on the ground that they themselves do not kill the animals but
they are getting the meat from the butchers. The Jaina view is that but for the
meat-eaters the butchers themselves would not indulge in the evil act of killing the
animals and that such meat-eaters are responsible (though indirectly) for killing.
Bhargava (1975, p.121) claims that Jainism has carried the doctrine of
ahimsa to its logical conclusion and has thus made it impracticable for ordinary
laymen. It is true that Jain monks are expected to observe this vow in an extreme
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
117
form. However, the rules of Ahimsa for laymen as prescribed by Jainism are by
no means impracticable or unreasonable. Jainism no doubt prohibits deliberate
and calculated injury to any being or wanton slaughter of animals. But for laymen
it has made three exceptions. A householder or a housewife has to keep his or her
house neat and clean and the body and soul together. For this the household has
to be swept, the grain has to be ground or pounded and finally cooked, and water
has to be stored in jars.
If all this involves unintentional killing of minute
creatures, there is no violation of the principle of Ahimsa. Similarly though one
should not adopt a profession like that of a butcher or a fisherman which is
founded on himsa or killing of animals, one may sometimes be led to unavoidable
injury to animals in other professions. A farmer, for example, has to protect his
crop from pests. This kind of injury to life is also not regarded as a violation of
the principle of ahimsa. The third exception of Jainism has made for laymen is
the injury which one inflicts on another being in self-defence. If somebody
attacks you and you injure or kill the aggressor in self-defence, you do not violate
the principle of ahimsa. When these three exceptions are taken into account the
Jain concept of ahimsa remains by no means impracticable.
Jayetilleke (2006), however, claims that Jainism, which was 20 years
senior to contemporary Buddhism, during the time of the Buddha in India in the
sixth century B.C., hinged on soul-theory and self mortification and extreme
ahimsa (non-violence). Buddha rejects the soul-theory and self mortification and
his doctrine of ahimsa was primarily based on mental states than on bodily action,
through developing the sublime states of mind (Brahma Vihara) of metta (loving
kindness), karuna (compassion), mudhita (blissful joy) and upekkha (equanimity).
118
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
5. Conclusions and recommendation
It is clear that although these concepts of ahimsa in Jainism and mettakaruna in Theravada Buddhism are slightly different in terms of killing of
animals, they share common aspects of non-violence, loving-kindness and
compassion. We can see that when people’s minds are guided by good qualities,
the resulting events within society will take on a different direction. And so we
have the attempts to rectify the problems in society and create good influences.
Human society for this reason does not become completely destroyed. Sometimes
human beings act through ahimsa, metta, and karuna, giving rise to relief
movements and human aid organisations. As soon as kindness enters into human
awareness, human beings will undertake all sorts of works for the purpose of
helping others.
I strongly believe that Jain’s and Buddhist’s approach of ahimsa, metta,
and karuna are relevant in many ways for our present day situations regarding war
on terrorism, social and political unrest in different countries, as well as, the
global climate change due to human’s exploitation of natural resources. Although
violence of wars may never disappear from human history, we need to continue to
make efforts to practice non-violence by transforming violence into peace by
actively involving ourselves in dialogues, social and political actions. Though
such movements may still be in a small scale, Jainas and Buddhists definitely need
to contribute more to peace the movement in the present world, as the teachings of
these two great religions have a lot to offer in terms of non-violence and peace.
They should actively share their wisdom with others, actively participate in
various opportunities for peace, and should be more responsible to our world as
members of the whole human race.
May peace prevail on the earth. May all beings learn to respect all lives.
May we all practice ahimsa, metta, and karuna. May all beings be content, well,
and peaceful.
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
119
References
Bhargava, D.N. (1975) ‘Some chief characteristics of the Jain concept of nonviolence’, in Dwivedi, R.C. (ed.) Contribution of Jainism to Indian
Culture, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 122-125.
Bhargava, P.L. (1975) ‘The Jain concept of Ahimsā’, in Dwivedi, R.C. (ed.)
Contribution of Jainism to Indian Culture, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
pp. 120-121.
Chapple, C.K. (2006) ‘Jainism and ecology: Transformation of tradition’, in
Gottlieb, R.S. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology.
Oxford: OUP., pp.147-159.
Clothey, F.W. (2006) Religion in India: A historical introduction. London:
Routledge.
Florida, R.E. (1998) ‘The Lotus Sūtra and Health Care Ethics’, Journal of
Buddhist Ethics, pp.170-189.
Gombrich, R. (1988) Theravada Buddhism: A social history from ancient Beneres
to modern Colombo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gopalan, S. (1973) Outlines of Jainism. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Private Ltd.
Jain Bhaskar, B. (2001) ‘Ecology and spirituality in Jaina tradition’, in
Rangarajan, H., Kamalakar, G., and Reddy, A.K.V.S. (eds.) Jainism: Art,
Architecture, Literature & Philosophy.
Delhi: Sharada Publishing
House, pp. 25-32.
Jayetilleke, R. (2006) ‘A comparative study in Jainism and Buddhism’, (On-line:
www.lakehouse.lk/budusarana/2006/09/07/Budu23.pdf, accessed
18/06/08)
Koller, J.M. (1982) The Indian Way. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Komatsu, C. (1989) The Way to Peace: The Life and Teachings of the Buddha.
Kyoto: Hōzōkan Publishing Co.
120
A Comparative Study of Ahimsa in Jainism and Metta-Karuna in Theravada Buddhism
Malasekera, G. P. (1997) Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. Vol.I, Ceylon: Government
of Ceylon.
Narasabho, S. (1971) Buddhism: A Guide to a Happy Life. Bangkok: Kurusapha
Ladprao Press.
Payutto, P.A. (1993) Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha’s Teaching.
Bangkok: Buddhadhamma Foundation Publications.
Saddhatissa, H. (1970) Buddhist Ethics: Essence of Buddhism. London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Samtani, N.H. (1975) ‘Non-violence vis-à-vis Maitri: Buddhist and Jain
approach’, in Dwivedi, R.C. (ed.) Contribution of Jainism to Indian
Culture, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 135-145.
Sumedho, A. (1991) The Way It Is. Hemel Hempstead: Amaravati Publications.
วารสารศาสนาและวัฒนธรรม (ปที่ 2 ฉบับที่ 2, 2551) : 107-121
121