The Doctrine of the Jainas, Described after the Old Sources c10.145.2

c10.145.2

11, 92) the execution mixes with the motives among which we find the desire for post-existence (with the *niyāṇa-* or *tabbhava-maraṇa*) or, provided we do not misinterpret them, weariness and incapability (with the *valaya-* and *vas’aṭṭa-m.*). In all cases we are, of course, concerned with voluntary dying. It is unconditionally disapproved of by Mahāvīra when executed in the form of putting an end to one’s life by drowning, burning, poisoning oneself, by using a weapon or by hurling oneself down a precipice, whereas in certain cases he is not blamed (*kāraṇeṇa appaḍikuṭṭha*) who hangs himself or allows himself to be lacerated by vultures, i.e. who dies the *vehānasa-* or *giddha-paṭṭha*²-*maraṇa*. There is reason to assume that such a tolerant attitude is explicable only by the idea that the latter kind of suicide does not injure earth, water, and fire-beings by his fall. Over against this the suicide of the sage (*paṇḍiya-m.*) is the result of a fasting which as a lifelong fasting (*āvakahiya*) pertains to the system (§ 178). There are two different kinds: *bhatta-paccakkhāṇa*³ and *pāovagamana* with subdivisions for either kind. The renunciation of food expressed by the first word equally applies to the second, and the aim expressed by the second equally applies to the first. The difference consists in maintaining a posture without moving, and that is why, at least among the Śvetāmbaras, there has been since long the tendency of a wrong⁴ derivation from *pādapa*.