Jaina Political Thought

SR No.: 006595
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: G C Pandey
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 132
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 8 MB

Page 51

clares rājapindam bhunjemāne as an anugghatiya, guilty of a major offence. The Dasaveyaliya (3.3) describes 'rayapinde kimicchaye' as unacceptable. The Nisiha (9.1-2) prescribes a penance for the acceptance or use of rajapinda. "Je bhikku rayapindam genhati genhantam vā satijjati Je bhikkhu rayapindam bhumjati bhumajamtam vā satijjati/" The king is defined in the commentaries in this context as an emperor who is properly crowned and possesses the fine jewels - Jo muddha-abhisitto pancahi sahito pabhunjate rajjam/ Tassa to pindo vajjo tavvivariyammi bhayana tu//13Ordinary kings are here excluded from the rule. Pinda itself is defined as consisting of food, drink, clothes, vessels, blanket and duster for the feet. The reason mentioned is that such facilities are likely to run counter to the austerity and purity of monastic life. If the interpretative tendency of the commentaries were to be accepted, the prohibition of rajapinda would really be a prohibition where the adjective raja would be unnecessary. The gifts of a wealthy merchant could also violate austerity and purity in the same manner. The monks were, in fact, advised to keep away from kings, their household, processions, festivals and the different types of alms they provided on various occasions. They were to avoid the nearness of kings and their officers. It was held to be a violation of monastic ethos if a monk sought to win the acquaintance or nearness of kings or officers.
Thus according to the canon although kings are required for the practice of dharma, their own practice is tainted by dharma, and the monastic order ought to avoid all specific dependence on their favour or patronage. The Jaina attitude is in this respect quite different from the Brahmanical and the Buddhist. The Bhramanas claimed spirtual independence of the rulers but demanded patronage from them. The Buddhists were at least willing to accept royal gifts and hospitality. The Jaina preserved their independence of the state most stringently and in the long run this undoubtly helped them to maintain in themselves despite political vicissitudes. The Jainas, however, did seek to advise the rulers and hoped that enlightened rulers would be a help to the cause of dharma.
In this connection one may note the view expressed by Dr. Ghoshal that Jaina thought looked upon kings as a special class of divinity, from which followed the obligation to obey them. This is a plain case of misunderstanding. In the canonical text Thananga (5.53) it is stated "Pancaviha deva pannatta, tam jaha-bhaviyada-vva deva, naradeva, dhammadeva, devätideva, bhavadeva" The fifth refers to actual gods the first to those who are destined to be gods in the future. The third refers to those who are 'gods by dhamma' i.e., teachers, ascetics etc. The fourth refers to those who exceed the gods i.e., the arhant. The second refers to
38