Jain Digest 2007 11 2

Author(s): Federation of JAINA
Publisher: USA Federation of JAINA

Page 33

From this perspective, it seems that the unity purportedly achieved by the Jain Center is of one kind only, a unity that fails to achieve the real spirit of individuals working in harmony. It may be a fleeting and superficial one, a nominal unity that comes with strings attached, unrealized costs, and unnecessary sacrifices.
Initially, the Jain Center acted commendably in its nominal desire to work together. But desire, fanned by ambition and fear, escalated quickly to a fanatical obsession for unity. Moreover, the means by which the Jain Center strove to achieve unity at any cost and by any means proved misguided, unfair, and deceitful, as evidenced by secretive and divisive communications and selective-invitation meetings, hundreds of personhours of political meetings, discussions, e-mails, and phone calls, as well as the resulting acquiescence and resignation of people, and the tearful sentiments of parents caught between wanting to do what they desired for their children and keeping the politically powerful board members of the Jain Center happy. The actions went against the core principles of Jainism that call for honesty, straightforwardness, inclusiveness and shared-dialogue.
Bottom line is that unity for the mere sake of unity is worthless at best, and when pursued through deceitful and political means, unity actually becomes an agent of dividing fundamentally similar-valued people from each other. It is a shameful thing to foster political notions of unity at the expense of endowing our children with spiritual education. In the fight between ego and deceit, it is, in the end, the children who are the real losers.
The Politics of Jainism
Deceit
88
Why is this happening? A study of the root of religious divisions, across nearly all world religions and within the history of Jainism, shows a common characteristic of intolerance towards different views or towards new or different ways of doing things, particularly when it changes the status quo. A well-known visiting
Jain Digest Winter 2007
Jain scholar recently remarked that anyone who possesses an interpretation of the scriptures that is different from his own has a deluded understanding of Jainism, and such is the definition of Mithyatva! The world has suffered horrible violence at the behest of such fundamentalist beliefs. How ironic too, coming from a Jain scholar, since Mahavir Bhagwan himself demonstrated through his life the importance of openness and tolerance to multiple viewpoints (Anekantvad) and of seeking and believing through experience itself rather than blind allegiance.
So how do we move forward? Jain spirituality guides us to ask for forgiveness of each other, recognizing that in the realm of ordinary human interactions, we all, more or less, have blood on our hands. Jainism also teaches us to forgive, put aside pride, let go of expectations associated with our efforts, and move
on.
The poet and scholar Kahlil Gibran, author of The Prophet, wrote wisely on the subject of togetherness:
"Let there be spaces in your togetherness... Love one another, but make not a bond of love... Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping... And stand together yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow."
In the same way, let us not be poisoned with a narrow and single-minded view of what unity means. Unity does not necessarily imply forced loyalty to one ruling body to the exclusion of anything else, particularly in religious matters and in volunteer-driven organizations. The ultimate manifestation of such views of unity can lead to fundamentalism, intolerance, and violence of thoughts, words and worse.
A different and more viable view of unity encourages individuals/groups to maintain their distinct identities, preserve their individual values, but operate independently and work in informal alliances towards similar goals, taking part in each other's offerings as appropriate. The table on next page compares and contrasts three different paradigms of unity:
h
VIEW POINT