Bhagavana Mahavira and his Relevance in Modern Times

Author(s): Narendra Bhanavat, Prem Suman Jain, V P Bhatt
Publisher: Akhil Bharat Varshiya Sadhumargi Jain Sangh

Page 143

130
Mahāvīra and His Relevance
process has been known as homeostasis, which is considered as an important quality of a living organism. Second essential quality of a living organism is its capacity of adjustment with its environment. Whenever a living organism fails to maintain its physiological equilibrium and to adjust itself with its environment, it tends towards death. Death is nothing but an utter failure of this process. In this way we can say that where there is life, there are efforts to avoid unequilibrium and to maintain equilibrium.
Psychological Basis of Samatva :
Nobody wants to live in a state of mental tension. We like no tension but relaxation, not anxiety but satisfaction, this shows that our psychological nature is working in us for a mental peace or a mental equilibrium. Though Frued accepts that there is a conflict between our Id (Vāsanāmaya Ahaṁ) and super Ego (Adrśya Atmā) but at the same time he agrees that our Ego or conscious level is always working to maintain an equilibrium or for the adjustment between these two poles of our personality. It is a fact that these are mental states such as emotional excitements, passions, anxieties and frustrations but we cannot say that they form our essential nature; because, they do not exist for their own sake; they exist for satisfaction or expression. Secondly, they are resultantive created by some other external factors. An important process of our personality is the process of adjustment and adjustment is nothing but a process of restoring peace, harmony and integration. In this way we can say that the concept of Samatva has a sound ground for its justification in our organic and psychological nature.
Samatva as a Directive Principle of Living :
Someone may remark that the Darwinian theory of evolution goes against the concept of Samatva. Darwin presented a theory of evolution of life, in which he suggested that “struggle for existence is the basic principle of life. Apparently it is true that there is a struggle for existence in our world and nobody can deny this fact. But due to certain reasons, we cannot call this a directive principle of life. And it may be questioned, why ? My humble answer is that first of all this theory is self - contradictory because, its basic slogan is 'live on others, in other words, 'living by killing.' Secondly, it is opposite to the basic human nature and even animal nature to certain extent. Struggle is not our inner nature