International Journal Of Jaina Studies Vol 01 To 03 2005 To 2007

SR No.: 022773
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Peter Flugel
Publisher: Hindi Granth Karyalay
Publication Year: 2008
Total Pages: 202
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 52

against Dharma at the cosmic level. In other words, this is a particularistic rather than a universal ethic: different classes, different castes have different duties. This is why Arjuna must fight in the Bhagavadgītā - it is his sva-dharma to be a warrior, because he belongs to the ksatriya varna. In the words of the Gītā itself (3.35): 'It is better to practise your own inherent duty (sva-dharma) deficiently than another's duty well. It is better to die conforming to your own duty; the duty of others invites danger.'
Moreover, as the end of the Mahābhārata shows us, where Kauravas and Pāndavas, heroes and anti-heroes alike ultimately enjoy the delights of heaven, soteriological reward is earned, not by attempting to institute Dharma at the cosmic or universal level (that, after all is God's job, and for the most part obscure to individuals), but by conforming to one's own very particular sva-dharma.?
This attitude does not of course prevent those who consider their sva-dharma to be relatively purer in terms of the caste hierarchy showing moral condescension to those less pure - as we heard from Pocock above.
It is usually thought that part of the revolutionary nature of both Buddhist and Jain teaching is precisely the rejection of this kind of particularistic ethic in favour of a universal ethical dualism of good and bad, defined somewhat differently in each case. Padmanabh Jaini (1987: 119) has been even more specific, arguing that for the Jains and the Buddhists the orthodox Brahmanical value of sva-dharma was replaced by the new and universal value of non-violence. While not wishing to disagree with what is selfevident - that ahimsā is a universal principle or value for Jains - I intend to argue that 'the karma is in the detail': what is regarded as ahimsā, in terms of its soteriological consequences, depends in effect on who you are (lay person or ascetic), rather than on the absolute quality of the action. In practical, or even pragmatic, terms, ahimsā is therefore a particularistic rather than a universal ethic. It may replace sva-dharma, but, structurally and functionally, it resembles it, differing only in so far as it is relative to mode of life rather than particular birth.
Let me explain: Jaina texts differentiate between the ethical standards expected of lay people on the one hand and ascetics on the other. This differentiation is usually presented as a modulation of intensity - we should all do (or refrain from the same kinds
The Gita, of course, has its own means of cutting through the bind of action (karma), namely, bhakti, which is open to all as a soteriological means, regardless of caste status (sva-dharma). Indeed, bhakti is the logical corollary of a particularistic ethics, since it provides for a means of salvation which is not ultimately based on universal cthics at all. God transcends good and evil. The role of pūjā in Jainism seems to be very similar, although, for the Jains, of course, no amount of pujā will redress major and deliberate violence.
43