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 52

14
'gods among men' i.e. kings. The word deva is here used metaphorically as it is used in the case of dhammadeva. As the metaphor itself is conventional (rudhimulaka), we have here as a matter of fact merely the transcript or anuvada of a popular opinion. The strictly Jaina view was quite contrary to this and may be seen in Dasaveyaliya. "Taheva meham va naham va mānavam na deva-devatti giram vaejjā" (7 & 52). One should not address a man as a deva. He is no more a deva than is the cloud or the sky deva. The comy says manavam rajanam..... devam iti no vadet, mithya-vada-laghavadi - prasangat' This view thus contradicts the then popularly current view which would like the king to be ueated as a divinit Historically, till Ashoka one finds ancient Indian kings claiming the favour of gods, not divinity. The period of foreign rule in the post-Mauryan period appears to have introduced the notion of royal divinity into India. Thus although political authority is required for the practice of moral life in view of the evil tendencies in unregenerate human nature, the coercive character of political action unavoidably taints it also with evil. For this reason in the decidedly early parts of the canon, we find the rulers not adulated as saviours of society but castigated as involved in violence and sensuality. Their importance is recognized in the sense that their conversion to spiritual life is held to be of crucial significance to society. The Suyagadamga parable of the lotus pool and the central lotus which is sought to be plucked by many brings this out in a striking manner. The king is the lotus in the centre of the pool and the various teachers and preachers seek to convert him as the chief prize. Similarly although the Uttarajihayana says unflattering things about royalty it does regard advising the great kings of the time and their conversion memorable.
The reason for this was not any fear of anarchy, nor any dependence on the king as a veritable divine saviour but the belief that the ruling and aristocratic classes constituted the hightest and most esteemed class in society giving it leadership. The Vedic view which placed the Brahmanas on top is here replaced by a definitely aristocratic view. The Thanamga (3.32.35) thus, describes three classes of men, superior, middling and low. The superior class includes three sub-classes: men of virtue (dharmapurusa) or arhants, man of possessions (bhoga-purusa) cakravartin men of action (karma purusa) or vasudevas. The middling class includes the ugras. the bhoas and the rajanyas. The lowest class consists of the slaves (dāsa), hired employers (bhrtakas) and the sharecroppers (bhāillagu). The middling class is explained by the Avasyaka-niryukkti (198), thus "Ugga bhoga rainṇa-khattiya sangaha bhave cauha/Arakkha guru- vayamsa sesă je khattiya te u//. were the officials in charge of protection, the bhojas were the
or
The ugras
39