Traditions: Jain Tattvārthasūtra tradition,Pāli Buddhist Dhammapada Motif: restraint of harmful action Connection verdict: related South Asian ethical field; direct textual copying unproven Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-04
Summary
Both lists prohibit killing, theft, sexual misconduct, and false speech.
Read the two scenes
Tattvārthasūtra 7.1 defines vrata through abstention from five named faults. The fifth, parigraha, concerns possessive attachment, so the list is not merely a rule against particular acts but part of Jain discipline toward nonattachment. The Dhammapada’s compact stanza names overlapping harms, though its wording concerns going to another’s wife and becoming addicted to intoxicants. It says such conduct digs a person up by the root here in this world and then warns against greed and unrighteousness. The overlap reflects a shared South Asian moral vocabulary, while the differing fifth concern and distinct rhetorical settings matter more than the numerical coincidence.
What connects—and what does not
Jain 7.1 names nonattachment to possessions as the fifth vow; the Dhammapada verse instead warns against addiction to intoxicants and frames the result as self-ruin.
The Dhammapada verse is not a full code of Buddhist five precepts, and Jain great and small vows have their own institutional elaboration.
Why read them side by side?
The comparison prevents an easy “same five rules” claim and shows how the two traditions locate moral danger differently.
Sources and reading notes
- Tattvārthasūtra 7.1 and Pūjyapāda commentary, Vijay K. Jain translation — The sutra lists abstention from injury, falsehood, stealing, unchastity, and attachment to possessions.
- Dhammapada 246–248, Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu translation — The verse names killing, lying, stealing, adultery, and intoxicants, then warns of long-term pain.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.