________________
The entire moral and spiritual ethical postulates of Jainism are based on Ahinsa. We shall discuss non violence in details later but here it suffices to say that non violence is all pervasive to include non- killing, non-hurting and non-causing pain to any living being (including you the doer). The first Jain canonical text Acharanga defines and describes the philosophy of non violence beautifully while Puruşartha Siddhi Upaya by Amrta Chandra proves that all the ethical tenets of Jainism are derived from non violence. Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest practitioner of Ahinsa of our times and achieved independence for India using it as his weapon (Bravery at its optimum). In fact he used the concept of non violence to achieve social transformation rather than spiritual purification. Indian constitution recognizes non violence and its association with Jainism appropriately.
Aparigraha is described basically as 'absence of a feeling of mine'. First eight verses of Sutrakrtanga describe the concept of Aparigraha and its importance in achieving the ultimate objective in life i.e. liberation. Parigraha means to be entrapped from all sides i.e. is the feeling of possession/attachment/bondage, expectation, desire etc. An analysis of our own life will show that; first we spend our entire life in amassing material wealth; then in protecting it from leaving us before we realize such wealth is of no use and cannot give happiness. Similarly we do everything for our family even to extent of living for them and see ultimately how the very family is unable to give us happiness. In earlier times we know how Jains used to share their wealth in building temples / dharamashalas, serving the monks, setting up educational and health services institutions and secretly support the needy members of the community. Aparigraha means work hard to earn merit, but do not develop attachment to the results / benefits accrues, i.e. share it with others without any expectation in return.
Anekanta is based on the principle that truth is infinite and it is not possible for us, who are not omniscient, to know it completely. We always know a part of it as per our requirements or objectives while there are many more aspects to it than known to us. Therefore we should not insist on our viewpoint as the only and complete truth. Examples of 40 persons photographing a large banyan tree or the seven blind men trying to define an elephant explain the concept of Anekanta. The three pillars of Anekanta doctrine are:
• Relativity • Reconciliation
• Co-existence i.e. opposites co-exist The principle of Anekanta is based on the doctrine that our knowledge is relative i.e. opposite of what we know also exists and our knowledge is relative to our own objective. Knowledge of others is also true from a particular view point i.e. reconciliation. Even if we know the entire truth we cannot express it completely at the same time. Therefore Jains talk of Svadvada (conditional dialectic) as a method of speaking the partial truth without negating the existence of more features or facts existing. The entire judicial system, if analyzed will be seen based on the doctrine of Anekanta. Similarly the fundamental principles of democracy i.e. existence of opposition is based on Anekanta. Basis of all terrorism/violence in the world is the insistence of one's view as the only truth and other as not so. In the last verse of Sanmati Tarka", Siddha Sena Diwakara has used another adjective for Jain doctrine i.e. micchadansanasamuhamaeyassa' meaning that sermons of the Jina / T rthankara is a collection of al monistic philosophies. The idea behind all these discussions is that sermons of Jina are collectivization of different monistic philosophies in a relative manner and not as independent philosophies. Insisting on monistic viewpoint tends to focus on condemning the others viewpoint. Jain philosophy tries to project the monistic philosophies appropriately in relative terms and thus enhances their usefulness. This is the significance of Anekanta.
3. Jain ethics - basis ahinsa Concepts of ethics have been changing since early times. • In 560BC, Mahavira spoke of non violence i.e. non killing, non torture and not causing pain to both
self and others and its application to determine good or bad ethics. Similarly Socrates (469-399BC) encouraged common citizen to change their view from outside world to condition of human kind. Aristotle (389-322BC) termed ethical systems as supporting self realization. These changes have been going on to modern concepts of Consequential, Deontological, teleological and now to applications in specific areas like military, business, administration and our dealings with others. Similarly the definition of consequences being right implying generating peace, tranquillity to pleasure for one or maximizing the same for others has been changing.
Ethics addresses questions about morality i.e. concepts like good & evil; right & wrong: justice and virtue. Here the question that confronts us is this: How to determine what is morally right for a certain agent in a certain situation? Or what is the criterion of the rightness of action? The interrelated question is what we ought to do in
Page 472 of 556
STUDY NOTES version 4.0
