________________
OCTOBER, 1967
presupposed by many expressions and technical terms occurring in them. Nor can we assume that in this regard the Canonical books represent a later dogmatic development for the following reason : the terms asrava, samvara and nirjarā, etc., can be understood only on the supposition that karma is a kind of subtle matter flowing or pouring into the soul (asrava), that this influx can be stopped or its inlets covered (samvara) and that the karma matter received into the soul is consumed or digested, as it were, by it (nirjarā). The Jainas understood these terms in their literal meaning and used them in explaining the way of salvation. Now these terms are as old as Jainism. For the Buddhists have borrowed from it the most significant term asrava... but not in its literal meaning... the karma theory of the Jainas is an integral part of their system and.... Jainism is considerably older than the origin of Buddhism."
Commenting on the Jaina notion of ahimsā, Jacobi writes,
"Their extreme carefulness not to destroy any living being, a principle which is carried out to its very last consequences in monastic life, and has shaped the conduct of the laity in a great measure. No layman will intentionally kill any living being, nor even any insect howsoever troublesome; he will remove it carefully without hurting it... This principle of not hurting any living being bars them from some professions, e.g., agriculture, and has thrust them into commerce..."
Jacobi discusses at length the Jaina theory of being and vindicates that all systems of Indian philosophy either emanated from, or were very much influenced by, Jainism. To quote him on these two very vital issues:
"The Jaina theory of Being seems to be a vindication of commonsense against the paradoxical speculations of the Upanişads. It is also, but not primarily, directed against the Buddhistic tenets of the transitoriness of all that exists. We cannot, however, say that it expressly and consciously combats the Buddhistic view, or that it was formulated in order to combat it. And this agrees well with the historical facts that Mahavira came long after the original Upanişads but was a contemporary of Buddha. He was obliged, therefore, to frame his system so as to exclude the principles of Brāhmaṇical speculation, but his position was a different one with regard to the newly proclaimed system of Buddha."
He writes further :
"Now the Sārkhya view as to the problem of Being is clearly a kind of compromise between the theory of the Upanişads and what we
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
