Jain Journal 1995 07

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

Page 26

VERMA : MEANING AND TYPOLOGY OF VIOLENCE
15
positive violence, violence with or without a subject committing it directly, violence with or without an object suffering it directly, intended and unintended violence, manifest and latent violence and finally, personal and structural violence, are made. The last distinction is very important indeed from the perspective of peace.3
We are not here concerned with the details of these types of violence. What we propose to deal in this paper is, firstly, whether the definition of violence given by Galtung has any relevance to the Jain Weltanschauung and secondly, whether his various dimensions of violence correspond broadly with the types of violence mentioned in the Jain Scriptures.
Jainism, as we all know, is a way of life which gives a very high premium to non-violence. But before we examine the meaning and typology of violence in Jainism, it is probably necessary that we make a search into the Jain view of human nature.
In a Jain Text known as, Bhagavati-Sūtra“, there is a conversation between Lord Mahavira and his disciple, Gautama. Gautama asks Mahavira, "What is the nature of self ?" and Mahvira answers, “O Gautama, the nature of self is Samatva and Samatua is mate purpose that self has to realize."
Now the concept of samatva occupies a very central place in the Jaina philosophy. As a matter of fact the whole of the Jaina thought revolves round this concept. It has many dimensions and many shades of meaning. Samatva, on the one hand, has individual and social dimensions and on the other hand, may mean, as per context, equality, harmony, equanimity identity or even perfection.
When Mahāvīra says that the nature of self is Samatua, he is, of course, trying to emphasize that self is to maintain identity with itself. But unfortunately self, instead of remaining with itself, identifies itself with the 'not-self or the 'other'. This is a clear-cut violation of the rule; and anything which is responsible for this separating the self from itself can, therefore, be treated as violence. Not that the self has not the potential to identify itself with self. As a matter of fact the self is at peace only when it is 'placed', as if, in its proper place, i.e. in itself. But somehow or other the self is not able to actualize its potentiality. This is, of course, not said in so many words in Jainism. But if the argument is formed in the present form it would be perf tune with the spirit of Jainism.
We, thus, find that violence in the Jaina philosophy also, is nothing but “the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is." Self is, at present,
3. Ibid., pp. 97-102. 4. Bhagavatīsūtra (Bhagavaī), Jaina Vishva Bharati, Ladnun, 1994.