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 53

of things (our ethics is universal), but for practical reasons some do so more comprehensively than others. Yet, in fact, when we look at the expected results the effects, karmically and soteriologically, of the different kinds of behaviour undertaken by ascetics on the one hand, and laity on the other the most striking thing is that they are not so different as the behaviour itself. Indeed, the expected results, as we shall see, tend to converge. This suggests that perhaps the difference is actually one of kind rather than quality or intensity.
Is it too radical to propose, therefore, that in the Jain case there are, or have come to be, essentially (if not explicitly) two soteriological paths, both subscribing to the same general view of the universe, both striving for similar ends,' but, in practice, applying two parallel ethical codes which are particular to the individual's status as either a renouncer or a layperson?
We can explore this further by making a specific comparison with early Buddhism. This, I think, is particularly instructive, not least because the idea that the Jaina monastic ethic of ahimsa is universal is partly derived from Buddhism, which, as Jaini points out, also subscribes to non-violence as a key ethical value.
My characterisation of Buddhism here is taken from Richard Gombrich's (1988) compelling account in his Theravada Buddhism: A Social History. Gombrich (1988: 67) points out that the Buddha's 'great innovation was to say that the moral quality of an act lies in the intention behind it'. This overturns the sva-dharmic, that is to say, particularistic ethics I outlined above, since the intention of one person cannot be ethically of quite a different kind from the intention of another: it can only be virtuous or wicked. (We, of course, make a similar if less coherent distinction in law between actions that are premeditated, impulsive, and entirely accidental.) For the good Buddhist. therefore, it is 'purifying action' (punya karma), in the sense of good intention, which brings rewards in this and future lives. Karma is thus internalised. But 'since acting is
31 am assuming here that the soteriological goal of both laity and ascetics is effectively the same. This is not the canonical view, which distinguishes between a better rebirth (perhaps in heaven) and escaping rebirth altogether. However, it seems that for most Jains this became an academic question from early in Jaina history, since it is thought that in the present morally attenuated world age no-one in this part of the universe can hope to attain liberation. What K.R. Norman (1991: 39) calls, in relation to lay prospects, a 'second-best future' actually awaits both monks and laity alike, at least as far as their next birth is concerned. One consequence of such a view, it seems to me, is that the status of the available goal (heaven / a better rebirth) is likely to be raised. This may help to account for the conflation of the soteriological effects of acquiring positive karma and shedding karma altogether (see below). My concern here is primarily with karmic effects - i. e. soteriological effects this side of the ultimate goal.
44