Jain Journal 1968 07

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 54

JAIN JOURNAL
possessions. One should have no more than “necessary”. Moreover, the possession of wealth beyond a certain minimum is dangerous to the holy. One should give his surplus to the temple or to some other welfare institution in order to gain service merit. Here we meet with an apparent contradiction that inspite of the vow of non-possession the rich people always formed a major part of the Jaina community.
In this connection, it may be noted that the acquisition of considerable wealth was in no way forbidden, only the striving after wealth and attachment to riches ; this was rather similar to the ascetic Protestantism of the Occident. As with Protestantism, 'Joy in possession', (parigraha) was the objectional thing but not possession or gain in itself. Dasavaikālika Sūtra says:
‘And rightly by parigraha our saviour hath not meant physical possession. By it he meant attachment.
'Only for preservation, so that they may practise restraint, necessary objects are possessed by the wise; for they do not have any attachment even for their own body.'
Greed is always unbriddled. It has been very aptly observed in the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra? :
'As the wealth and riches accentuate, the cupidity also increases. Gains cannot satisfy the unbriddled cupidity, rather it enhances cupidity.'
Why it happens is also being replied :
'As the sky is endless, so are the human desires.'
The wealth or the means are limited in this world and the human wants are unlimited. In this situation it is not possible to gratify unlimited wants by limited means. A pond where millions of gallons of water can rest, to put a few gallons of water would be insignificant. 9
The idea of limited means and unlimited wants may be well regarded as a good analogy to Robbins' definition of Economics. The curtailment of wants resulting into the state of wantlessness was of immense importance in this connection. Jainism has pleaded limitation on innumerable desires rather than limiting essential wants required to keep body and soul together. 'Joy in possession' must be forbidden because