Being compassionate(daya) is shubh karma or not?

It is said that Bhagwan Mahaveer gave sermons after Kevalgyan, because his heart was full of compassion seeing the sufferings of layman. Did not this act of goodness binds him to good karma??
Can you please explain.

And one more doubt…

If someone is hurt due to me, unintentionally, and I do not even know he is hurt, and perhaps the reason may be, he is hurt due to his own ignorance towards me, will it count to my bad karma?

No, after attaining kevalgyan 4 karmas are destroyes, i.e. darashnavarni, gyanavarni, mohini and antraya.
Since Mohini karma is destroyed, Bhagwan Mahaveer was not compassionate towards others after getting kevalgyan. It was the punya of the jeevs, which binds Bhagwan Mahaveer to travel and give knowledge in the Shamavsharan. Bhagwaan Mahaveer didn’t decide where to go, it was the good karmas of people which made him to visit their places.

Now coming to the second part of your question. If you hurt somebody unintentionally, you will still accumulate bad karmas, though they would be less as compared to hurting somebody intentionally. While doing pratikraman, we feel sorry for wrong deeds done intentionally or unintentionally.

Edit: I just noticed the heading of the discussion.

Yes being compassionate binds shubh karma. But to attain salvation we need to destroy both the bad karmas and good karmas, i.e. we need to make the karmas count to zero. We need not worry about destroying your good karmas now, instead we need to accumulate Shubh karmas as to get birth as human in 4th kaal in order to attain salvation.


Thanks for the answer. :blush:

I got your point emotionally.

Also on the the same argument I can extrapolate that if someone is hurt due to me, unintentionally, perhaps it is due to the fact that it was his bad karma and that count no karma to me( I just became nimmit in his suffering, unintentionally).

Can you explain?

I don’t know the exact answer of your question, :thinking: but I can try to answer your question.
Disclaimer: I am just answering from my understanding, I may be wrong too.

Every being has a different account of karmas. The person who is being hurt by you unintentionally may have been hurt without you like getting hurt by some non living thing.

If A hurts B “intentionally”, B is being hurt because of B’s past karmas but then also A is accumulating karmas. Similar is the case with A hurting B unintentionally.


Now I am even more confused. Thank You :sweat_smile:

Perhaps, we both need to learn so much to satisfy our curiosity…

(Udaipur one is best)

Jai Jinendra :writing_hand:

No, that is not any Shubh karma because a Muni leaves every type of Kashay in 12th Gunasthaan. The sermons is a sahaj/automated act due to the punya of the jeev present at the Samavsharan. That’s why, special sermons also take place for special पुण्यशाली jeev like चक्रवर्ती etc.


"सभी जीव अपने अपने परिणामो का फल भोगते हैं।"
This is the key sentence around this answer revolves. If you had even a slight intention of hurting somebody and even if he/she doesn’t get hurt, you will accumulate paap karmas. Conversely, if you didn’t have any intention to hurt somebody and still he/she gets hurt with your act, then you’ll not accumulate any paap karma. But, still we ask for forgiveness for any intentional or unintentional act that hurt somebody on our part, because nobody wants to accumulate paap for nothing.

Yes. It is his paap ka uday. But, do remember, to not to gain any स्वच्छंदता from this. If you come to know that somebody is hurt due to your act/words (even unintentionally) then ask for forgiveness. That’s why we ask for a blanket forgiveness in our paaths etc. Asking for forgiveness doesn’t make you a smaller person.

Read more about this in क्रिया-परिणाम-अभिप्राय book by Pt. Abhay Kumar ji, Devlali.

Hope this helps. :slight_smile:


Thank You …

I may be wrong, but I don’t agree with this.
In “Aarambhik hinsa” there is no intention to hurt anybody, but still we get paap karma due to this type of hinsa though its magnitude is less than “Sankalpik hinsa”.

Intention is most important thing…
When lord Mahaveera gave sermons there must be some karmas left to be shed otherwise no act is possible no matter what.
And even when someone has not read Agams but is with good intention, he can deduce all that knowledge from his own conscience, I feel.
I know we have so many abstract/ random doubts but I have felt that if you just focus on the self, those doubts melt away and we dont care about them anymore. All this technical data and theories are mere support to our conscience and beliefs.
Someone can prove anything right and anything wrong (that’s what intellect does)( and that dont feel happy after doing, believe me) and it does not matter what is right and what is wrong as long as our autotelic personality is instilled in us.
(Just my view)
Jai Jinenedra…:clock7::blush:

1 Like

No brother. Aarambhik Hinsa is always intentional. We are in knowledge of the facts and magnitude of hinsa that those Aarambh activities are likely to cause. How can it be unintentional?

Hence, Aarambhik Hinsa is intentional.

1 Like

You have a valid view point. It is a point to analyse as well. But I deduce the meaning of “Sankalpi” as intentional. So, If I am correct, other 3 types of hinsa will be unintentional.

1 Like

Mere dwara dharm ki baat batate waqt, samne wale ke parinaam bhot bigad gye, kya isme mjhe bhi dosh lagega.

Nahi. Woh vyakti zimmedaar hoga iss maamle mai.

Jaise parasnath bhagwaan jab kamath ko sikha rahe thay toh bhi kamath ko wo gyaan aur baate acchi nahi lagi aur wah krodhit ho utha.

Toh kya isme bhagwaan parasnath ka dosh hai? Kadapi nahi

aap thoda aur detail de payenge toh uttar dene mai help hogi

1 Like
I think it depends more on how we define the term ‘unintentional’. I can see two senses -
1. I was completely unaware of the हिंसा even though there were conscious efforts at my end.
2. I was aware of the हिंसा and yet committed it with some level of disinterest (अरुचिपूर्वक).

  • आरंभी हिंसा (हिंसा involved in daily activites like preparing food, washing clothes, maintaining a house etc.) is unintentional in the second sense and not in the first sense.
  • It is intentional also when we take into account the first definition of ‘unintentional’.

Well explained.
Will you call it Anekantvaad or not? Just want answer in simple Yes or No.

1 Like
It can be called anekāntavāda but not anekānta.

On a lighter note, this answer could not meet the conditions applied to the question. :upside_down_face:
1 Like