Acharya Mahaprajna
2.140 se taṃn jāṇaha jamahaṃ bemi.
Think of what I say.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 140
You should understand what I say. The Sutra draws the attention of the disciple towards the remedy of the sexual malady.
2.141 teicchaṃ paṃḍite pavayamāṇe.
The learned physician (heretic) proposes the treatment (of sexuality).
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 141
There is a learned heretic who declares the remedy: "I can cure the sexual desire as well as any physical ailment." In the present context, the cure refers to the treatment of the sexual urge.[1]
The subjugation of the sexual urges is intended here. Such subjugation requires a definite remedy. The spiritual remedy was indicated in the preceding Sūtras. In the Tannic discipline, the herbal treatment is also available. The injury to vegetation is indispensible is such treatment. This is clearly indicated in the sūtra.
2.142 se haṃtā chettā bhettā luṃpaittā viluṃpaittā uddavaittā.He indulges in injuring, cutting, piercing, breaking, massacring and killing.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 142
The expert in the therapy of the sexual ailments injures, cuts, pierces, breaks,[2] massacres, and kills beings.[3]
Thinking that, 'I will do something extraordinary 'not done' by other', he (the sexologist) indulges in violent actions.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 143
'Not done' means 'the treatment of sexual desire was not attempted by anybody else. 'It shall be done by me'. Thus determined, he indulges in the acts of injuring living beings.
2.144 jassa viya ṇaṃ karei.
And also the patient whom he treats indulges in violence.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 144
The patient whom he gives such treatment involving injury to living beings is also a partner in commission of violence.
2.145 alaṃ bālassa saṃgeṇaṃ.
What is the purpose of association with the ignorant?
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 145
The person engaged in violence does not observe abstinence. Such person is designated as ignorant (immature in wisdom). How can such ignorant person be able to cure the disorders of the sexual urge? Therefore, what is the need of the association with such person. This is the instruction given by the Sūtra.[4]
2.146 je vā se kārei bāle.He too who offers such treatment is ignoramous.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 146
The person who gets done such treatment of sexual desires involving injury to living beings is an ignorant person in the true sense of the term. What end does he achieve by such acts!
2.147 ṇa evaṃ aṇagārassa jāyati. - tti bemi.
The homeless monk does not lend himself to such treatments. - Thus do I say.
Bhāṣyaṃ Sūtra 147
Such thought does not arise in the mind of the homeless wanderer. He treats his sexual malady by means of meditation and penance, not by taking resort to the science of Tantra. In the treatment of the diseases, in ancient times, the acts of injuring, cutting, piercing etc. were prevalent. In Lord Mahāvīra's view, the
physician practising medical treatment by means of torturing living beings was an ignorant person who did not understand the truth. There was no need of such treatment for a homeless wanderer engaged in the practice of the discipline of detachment to the body. Even if a medical treatment becomes necessary for him, it should be done by a method that did not involve any kind of injury to life.
Cūrṇikāreṇa mukhyatvena vyādhicikitsāparo vyākhyāto'sau ālāpakaḥ. vaikalpikarūpeṇa kāmacikitsāparaśca. (Cūrṇi, p.87-88)
ṭīkākāreṇa mukhyatvena kāmavikitsāmadhikṛtyāsauālāpako vyākhyātaḥ gauṇarūpeṇa vyādhicikit-sāparo'pi. (Vṛtti, patra 126)
There were two classes of ascetics - munis who were members of an order and those who were independent. The former used to take care of their bodies, while the latter did not. The latter did not take medical treatment, even when they suffered from diseases. It seems that this difference in practices came about in the post-Mahaviran era. In the beginning, Bhagavan Mahāvīra prescribed that munis should not undergo medical treatment. This was possible because of two reasons - non-violence and non-attachment to the body.
In medical treatment, many an occasion arises, when causing of violence becomes necessary. A medical practitioner causes violence as a part of treatment and this has been clearly brought out in the Sūtra 142. There is no denying that use of certain medicines will cause violence to worms etc.
Attachment to the body is also a form of acquisitiveness. A sādhaka practising non-acquisitiveness should be non-attached even to his own body. One who has given up attachment to his body and is completely indifferent to it, and who is in complete unison with his own soul, does not desire medical treatment. He leaves bodily affliction to take its own natural course. He endures it considering it as a result of his karma. He looks at life and death with equanimity and as such does not struggle for life nor try to avoid death. That is why, he never thinks about medical treatment.
There was a change in this line of thought during the post-Mahāvīran era. At that time, two categories of sādhanā came about. In the first one, a medical treatment, in which no violence was caused by the medical practitioner, was permissible.
