user22208: Why are Buddhist monks not as extreme as Jain monks when it comes to non-violence? For example Jain monks sweep the floor in front of them to avoid stepping on insects/microbes. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist monks don't do this. I'm guessing it is just that the traditions of the two religions through time have been different. But wouldn't it make sense for the Buddhist monks to be as extreme as Jain monks as they also try to avoid harming any living thing? Or maybe Buddhist monks could justify not doing these things as it would eat up more time in their day thus leaving less time for meditation practice? Thoughts anyone? Thanks

user471: Mahavira aka Nigantha Nataputta, the founder of Jainism, taught that physical karma is more blameworthy than mental karma.
The Buddha however, taught that all karma begins from the mind, thus it is mental karma that is most blameworthy.

“Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
the mental rod.” .....
“I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”
MN 56

This can be found in the verse from the Dhammapada:

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, 'dukkha' (suffering) follows him just as the
wheel follows the hoofprint
of the ox that draws the cart.
Dhammapada 1

The commentary to Dhammapada 1 tells the story of Ven. Cakkhupala, a blind elder arahat monk who accidentally and unintentionally killed some small insects by stepping on them.
The Buddha said that Cakkhupala did not have the (mental) intention to kill the insects, hence he was not guilty of it.
However, based on Jainism, mentally intending to kill insects without actually performing the act is not as bad as accidentally killing the insects without mentally intending to. Or at least this is the case, according to MN 56 (quoted above).
In MN 101, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:

All the happens to a person is due to past karma
Elimination of past karma is possible by penance
Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma
With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.
MN 101


user151: Buddhist monks aren't practicing properly if they willfully commit bad karma to save time. Whatever practice is done in that saved time would be done on top of   bad karma. The more bad karma a practice has behind it the more likely it leads the practitioner towards suffering and away from wisdom.
In the Buddha's teaching, any action that
involves karma comes with volition (cetana). Action without volition is neither bad nor good.
For example, the blind monk, Cakkhupala, killed some insects while doing walking meditation. He did not have the
volition(cetana) to kill any insect so no bad or good karma would have arisen. Even though Cakkhupala  stepped on them, no bad intentions arised. In this way Cakkupala did nothing wrong.

22208: <p>Why are Buddhist monks not as extreme as Jain monks when it comes to non-violence? For example Jain monks sweep the floor in front of them to avoid stepping on insects/microbes. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist monks don't do this. I'm guessing it is just that the traditions of the two religions through time have been different. But wouldn't it make sense for the Buddhist monks to be as extreme as Jain monks as they also try to avoid harming any living thing? Or maybe Buddhist monks could justify not doing these things as it would eat up more time in their day thus leaving less time for meditation practice? Thoughts anyone? Thanks</p>
 471: <p>Mahavira aka Nigantha Nataputta, the founder of Jainism, taught that physical karma is more blameworthy than mental karma.</p>
<p>The Buddha however, taught that all karma begins from the mind, thus it is mental karma that is most blameworthy.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
the mental rod.” .....</p>
<p>“I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn56/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 56</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This can be found in the verse from the Dhammapada:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, '<em>dukkha</em>' (suffering) follows him just as the
wheel follows the hoofprint
of the ox that draws the cart.<br />
<a href="https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The commentary to <a href="https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 1</a> tells the story of Ven. Cakkhupala, a blind elder arahat monk who accidentally and unintentionally killed some small insects by stepping on them.</p>
<p>The Buddha said that Cakkhupala did not have the (mental) intention to kill the insects, hence he was not guilty of it.</p>
<p>However, based on Jainism, mentally intending to kill insects without actually performing the act is not as bad as accidentally killing the insects without mentally intending to. Or at least this is the case, according to <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn56/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 56</a> (quoted above).</p>
<p>In <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn101/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 101</a>, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:</p>
<ul>
<li>All the happens to a person is due to past karma</li>
<li>Elimination of past karma is possible by penance</li>
<li>Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma</li>
<li>With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end</li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.</p>
<p>The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.</p>
<p>The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.</p>
<p>I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...</p>
<p>But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...</p>
<p>Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn101/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 101</a></p>
</blockquote>
 151: <p>Buddhist monks aren't practicing properly if they willfully commit bad karma to save time. Whatever practice is done in that saved time would be done on top of   bad karma. The more bad karma a practice has behind it the more likely it leads the practitioner towards suffering and away from wisdom.</p>
<p>In the Buddha's teaching, any action that
involves karma comes with volition (cetana). Action without volition is neither bad nor good.
For example, the blind monk, Cakkhupala, killed some insects while doing walking meditation. He did not have the
volition(cetana) to kill any insect so no bad or good karma would have arisen. Even though Cakkhupala  stepped on them, no bad intentions arised. In this way Cakkupala did nothing wrong.</p>
