Book Title: Anusandhan 2010 03 SrNo 50 2
Author(s): Shilchandrasuri
Publisher: Kalikal Sarvagya Shri Hemchandracharya Navam Janmashatabdi Smruti Sanskar Shikshannidhi Ahmedabad

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 198
________________ मार्च २०१० १९१ (what he desires to be done). An excellent pupil needs no express directions, or he is (at least) quickly directed; he always carries out his duties as he is told' (Utt 1.43 f.) The running comparison between the theory of communicative action and Jain discourse ethics revealed significant similarities. Both approaches are rule-oriented, not goal oriented. That is, they are concerned with the general interest of many, not with the eudaemonic perspective of a single actor, despite the fact that the methods of universalisation are different. The respective ideals of consensus and nonviolence leading to liberation mutually implicate each other. Basic non-violence is presupposed by communicative action, and the general interest of all is presupposed by universal non-violence. Though the criterion of generalisability, equal interest, is not theorized in Jain philosophy, and only touched upon with reference to specific negative rights such as the privileged case of the universal interest in avoiding pain,94 the scope of the moral universe is extended from humanity to all living beings, whose essential spiritual equality is a fundamental principle of Jaina philosophy. The vanishing points of both theories, the ideal consensus of an infinite community of interpretation and the ideal omniscient observer, presuppose absolute knowledge and absolute consensus. Yet, there are also significant differences. The main difference between the transcendental pragmatics of mutual recognition and the monadological Jain ethics of non-violence concerns the nature of the fundamental principles. The former is predicated on positive norms and the latter on norms of prohibition. The implicit method of universalisation of Jain ethics is the double negation, that is, the negation of nongeneralisable statements. The resulting priority of physical nonaction as a theoretical limiting case (not as a practical maxim) unburdens the doctrine of discussions of specific dilemmas of Jain Education International 2010_03 For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270