Ethical Doctrines in Jainism

Author(s): Kamalchand Sogani
Publisher: Jain Sanskruti Samrakshak Sangh Solapur

Page 95

IV. ĀCĀRA OF THE HOUSEHOLDER
73
but the inauspicious activities emanating from inauspicious psychical states can in no way be the part of conduct, hence they are to be completely relinquished. Thus, in order to stamp out the inauspicious psychical states from the texture of self, the aspirant must abstain himself root and branch from violence, falsehood, theft, unchastity and acquisition. The engrossment of the self into such vicious deeds is indicative of the expression of the most intense passions, which can be wiped off by negating to perform the vicious deeds. This affirmation does not imply the nullification of the previously mentioned inaus activities which result in inauspicious Asrava, but it simply signifies the grouping of them under different heads. This negative process of purifying the self by weeding out these villainous actions of necessity requires the pursuance of the positive process of non-violence, truthfulness, non-thieving, chastity and non-acquisition. Both of these processes keep pace together.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SPIRITUALLY CONVERTED AND PERVERTED SOULS REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF MORAL AND EVIL ACTIONS: We : cannot forbear mentioning in passing that even a right believer may be
occupied with the aforementioned evil deeds; the recognition of which would at the first sight tend to annul the distinction between the wise and the ignorant, or between the spiritually converted and perverted souls. But this assumption is based on a certain misapprehension. Notwithstanding their extrinsic similitude they evince intrinsic disparity; i. e., the wise under some latent constraint unwillingly perpetrate such : evil actions, and the ignorant rejoicingly commit them. From this it is
obvious that right belief is not incompatible with the most intense forms of inauspicious activities. It will not be inconsistent if it is laid down that both the wise and the ignorant are capable of extirpating inauspicious psychical states. But the difference is that while in the former case there is spiritual morality, in the latter, there is only dry morality which is possible without spirituality. Dry morality is socially useful, but spiritually barren; while spiritual morality is fruitful both socially and spiritually. Being subtle and far reaching, the internal distinction between these two types of morality eludes our limited comprehension. We may simply say that, for the spiritually converted, morality is a means; while for the perverted it is an end in itself. It is to be borne in mind that morality, of whatever type, can in no case be useless; hence it deserves our respect wherever it is witnessed.