From the Jain point of view, the type of karma bound depends on the mental state, intention, negligence, and the actual violence done.

1) If one knowingly kills a panchendriya jīva, what karma is bound?

A panchendriya jīva has five senses, so harm to such a being is considered very serious in Jain dharma. If the killing is done knowingly, intentionally, and with approval of the mind, then one binds:

• Pāpa karma, especially hiṃsā-bandha
• Aśubha / ghāti karma in stronger form
• A heavy bondage of:

- Jñānāvaraṇīya in the sense of obstructing right understanding by violence - Darśanāvaraṇīya by clouding perception - Mohaniya very strongly, because violence increases passions like anger, fear, delusion - Ayuṣya and nāma-gotra consequences may also be affected according to intensity

• Most importantly, the soul becomes burdened by strong demerit because the act is against ahiṃsā

In Jainism, the main thing is not only the outer act, but:

• Did you intend harm?
• Did you know living beings were present?
• Did you act with carelessness, negligence, or passion?
• Did you stop yourself or ignore the possibility of injury?

So, deliberate killing of a panchendriya jīva is among the heaviest forms of violence.

---

2) What happens when you do prāyaścitta for such sin?

Prāyaścitta in Jain dharma means atonement, confession, purification, and restraint. It does not make the past event physically un-happen, but it does help in the following ways:

• It reduces the intensity of bondage
• It weakens remorseless attachment to the act
• It purifies the mind through confession, repentance, and restraint
• It helps prevent further bandh by increasing awareness and vigilance
• It is spiritually useful only when done with:

- true remorse - humility - acceptance of fault - firm vow to avoid repetition

In Jain understanding, prāyaścitta is most effective when combined with genuine repentance, self-restraint, and carefulness in future conduct.

However, if someone only performs the external penance but does not sincerely repent or becomes careless again, then the purification is much less.

---

Now, regarding your three incidents

I will explain them from the Jain perspective of intention, negligence, and responsibility.

---

A) The bats in the room

You said:

• bats had made a nest in a hole in the room
• you feared they might come out and bite you
• you turned on the fan and slept
• next morning you found two dead bats, possibly hit by the fan
• three years later you confessed and took prāyaścitta

Jain analysis

This case appears to involve:

• some awareness that living beings were there
• some fear-based action
• possible negligence / pramāda
• but not necessarily clear intention to kill

In Jainism, there is a major difference between:

1. intentional killing
2. careless action that causes harm
3. unavoidable accidental harm despite caution

If you knew bats were present and still took an action that could reasonably harm them, then there is some hiṃsā-bandha due to negligence. But if your main intention was self-protection from possible bite, and you did not specifically wish to kill them, then it is not equal to direct intentional murder.

Still, because bats are panchendriya jīvas, the karmic weight is serious. Your later confession and prāyaścitta were appropriate from a Jain standpoint.

On the prāyaścitta

The fact that you confessed after three years shows:

• conscience was alive
• you accepted responsibility
• you sought purification

This is good Jain conduct. The effect of prāyaścitta depends on sincerity and completion. If you completed only one out of two panchola, then the spiritual purification is partial, and the remainder should ideally be completed if the guru’s instruction still stands and is still relevant.

---

B) The lizard in the zipped bag

You said:

• a lizard entered an open bag
• you closed the zip without checking
• after a few days you found the skeleton of the lizard
• you took prāyaścitta of five upwaas, and completed four

Jain analysis

Here the important factor is:

• You did not know the lizard was inside at the time of closing
• The act was likely due to lack of awareness, not deliberate violence

So this is generally understood in Jainism as less severe than intentional killing. But because one has a duty of care, and because living beings can be harmed by negligence, there is still some pāpa-bandha due to pramāda.

The karmic load here is usually less than the bat case if there was no actual awareness. But since a sentient being died because of the act, confession and penance were still proper.

On the prāyaścitta

Five upwaas is a strong penance. Completing four of five is significant, but if the fifth was prescribed and can still be completed under proper guidance, that would be spiritually better.

In Jain dharma, penance is not only about suffering; it is about:

• reducing attachment
• increasing vigilance
• accepting the pain of regret in a disciplined way
• making the soul softer and more careful

---

C) The watermelon juice and ants

You said:

• watermelon juice was in the plate
• you kept it on a surface
• after a few minutes you found many ants
• when you lifted the plate and brought it down, and then again placed it, the juice swirled
• this movement killed almost all ants in the plate
• you confessed and received bela

Jain analysis

This sounds like a case where:

• there was probably no intention to kill ants
• but there may have been carelessness
• and the actual killing happened through movement

In Jain ethics, killing tiny beings by carelessness still produces karmic bondage, but the degree is usually less than knowingly harming panchendriya beings. Ants are generally treated as trasa jīvas and are important in Jain restraint, though they are not panchendriya.

The important point is:

• if you had a chance to inspect or avoid harm and did not, there is pramāda
• if the death was truly accidental despite no reasonable way to know, the bondage is lighter
• if you noticed the ants but still moved the plate in a way that harmed them, the karmic weight increases

On the prāyaścitta

Bela is a penance, and taking it sincerely helps in purification. Again, its value depends on:

• sincerity
• confession
• repentance
• future caution

---

The deeper Jain principle: intention, awareness, and negligence

In Jain dharma, karma binds through yoga and is intensified by kaṣāya:

• Yoga = activity of mind, speech, body
• Kaṣāya = anger, pride, deceit, greed

So even if the outer act is similar, the karmic result changes based on the inner state.

In simple terms:

Heaviest bondage

• You knew living beings were there
• You knew harm could occur
• You still acted carelessly or with approval

Lighter bondage

• You did not know
• No intention to harm
• Still some negligence existed

Lightest in these types

• You tried to avoid harm
• Yet harm happened due to unavoidable circumstances

---

About your guilt and confession

From a Jain standpoint, what matters now is:

• You confessed
• You accepted the fault
• You took prāyaścitta
• You are trying to understand karma

This is the right direction.

Do not let the mind fall into despair. Jain dharma teaches vigilance, repentance, and purification, not hopelessness.

If the guru gave penance, and you have not fully completed it, then the right attitude is:

• accept the remainder respectfully
• complete it if still applicable
• maintain greater care in future
• avoid self-justification
• avoid excessive self-condemnation

---

What is the spiritual lesson here?

These incidents show three important Jain lessons:

1. Be extremely careful with all jīvas

Even small beings should not be harmed through negligence.

2. Fear should be handled with ahiṃsā

Self-protection is understandable, but one should choose the least harmful way.

3. Confession is purifying

When a fault is admitted honestly, the soul becomes lighter.

---

Final summary

• Knowingly killing a panchendriya jīva binds very heavy hiṃsā karma and strong pāpa.
• Prāyaścitta does not erase the event, but it purifies the soul, reduces further bondage, and supports repentance and restraint.
• Your bat incident appears more serious because bats are panchendriya and some awareness was present, though intention to kill may not have been direct.
• The lizard incident appears lighter because you likely did not know the lizard was inside, though negligence still caused harm.
• The ant incident is also karmically relevant, but generally less severe than panchendriya harm; still, careless harm binds karma.
• The sincerity of confession, repentance, and completion of penance is what makes prāyaścitta spiritually fruitful.

If you want, I can also explain this in a very simple Jain scriptural style, or give a table comparing intention, karma, and prāyaścitta for each incident.