Jaina Ethics

SR No.: 001334
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dayanand Bhargav
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 314
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Principle
File Size: 15 MB

Page 53

36
Jaina Ethics
rather withdrawal from the outside world which takes us nearer to self-realisation.
Here again, we are faced with the danger of an immoral man defending himself on the ground that he is not the real agent of the action for which he is being blamed. Sütrakṛtānga refers to some schools of philosophy known as akriyāvādins.1 The adherents of Sänkhya and Buddhists are reckoned as Akriyāvādins. According to Sankhya, the purușa or self is transcendental and does not participate in mundane activities. According to Buddhists, and Sunyavādins also, either the self changes every moment or it does not exist at all. It is clear that these systems are faced with a dilemma. Either they have to accept that the self suffers for such actions which he does not perform or they have to deny the common-place experience that the self suffers.
The Kriyāvādins are those who ascribe the quality of activity or non-activity to soul (atman).3 Jacobi thinks that they were perhaps the ritualists because Silanka informs us that the Kriyāvādins held constructions of sanctuaries (caitykarma) to be the principal means of attainment of liberation. Sometimes, even the Jainas are mentioned as Kriyāvādins.5
We have explained above the position of Jainism in this respect. To take a concrete example, a murderer may try to get rid of the responsibility of the murder either by (i) saying that he is not the agent of the action or by (ii) contending that the death of the victim has been brought about by his own actions and that he is merely an instrumental cause in the murder. Both of these arguments can be counteracted, according to Jainism, effectively. As regards his first argument, he may not be an agent of death of the victim but he is an agent of entertaining the idea of murdering the victim and then he is also responsible for acting in a way which led to the death of the victim. Therefore, he cannot escape the
I. Max Müller (ed.), SBE. Vol. XLV, p. 316.
2. Ibid., p. 316, foot-note 3.
3. Ibid., p. 83, foot-note 2.
4. Ibid., p. 242, foot-note 3.
5. Ibid., p. 319, foot-note 2.
cf. Mahāvagga, Bihar, 1956, 6.19.31.