Jaina Literature and Philosophy a Critical Approach

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 26

20
Aspects of Jainology : Volume VI
and Jainism preach five silas or mahāvratas, with only one difference, that is, in place of non-possession of Mahāvira, Buddha preaches non-consumption of intoxicative drugs.
The major differences between these two sister religions from the view-point of metaphysics and ethical code are following:
(a) First, while the Upanisadic thinkers contemplate one eternal and immutable reality behind the world of phenomena and plurality, the Buddha found everything impermanent and changing and thus substanceless Niḥsvabhāva and sorrowful. Mahāvira synthesised both the above extreme views, he saw no contradiction between permanence and change. For him being and becoming - both are the aspects of the same reality. He defined reality as origination, decay and permanence. Lord Mahavira never believed in absolute permanence or total cessation.
(b) Secondly, the philosophical approach of Buddhism towards other philosophical doctrines was negative, while that of Jainism was positive. Lord Buddha preached that one should not fall in or accept any of the drstis, i. e., philosophical view-point, whether it is of eternalism or of nihilism, because being one-sided, none of them represent a right viewpoint. But Mahāvira said that both the doctrines are partially true, if they are viewed from different angles; so one should not discard one's opponent's view, as totally false. For Jainas different opposite views may be acceptable from different angles. To Mahāvira nothing was absolutely true or false, hence, he remained positive in his approach all the time. Again, while Buddhism laid stress only on the changing aspect of reality, Jainism gave due consideration to the changing as well as the eternal aspect of reality.
( Regarding moral and religious practices. Jainism advocates rigorous and strict austerities, while Buddha condemns this rigorous outlook and recommends a middle path.
Inspite of similarity in their mission, Buddhism flourished more on others' soils than on its native land and established itself as a world religion, while Jainism could never had a firm-footing on the foreign soil. It remained firmly rooted in India through all the periods of Indian history, while Buddhism, after c. 9th-10th A. D. was totally uprooted from its own land of origin. Why did these two religions meet the diametrically opposite fates ? There were many reasons behind it. To name a few, Buddhism in its early days found such royal patrons as emperor Asoka and Kaniska, fired with the missionary zeal of spreading it outside India and had the territory of their empire across the Indian borders. Though Jainism also in its early days found some royal patrons as Candragupta Maurya, Samprati and Khāravela, yet they did not try for the expansion of Jainism on foreign soil. Moreover, the Jaina monks did not choose to go outside India, because it was very difficult for them to observe their strict code of conduct outside the country and they did not like to be flexible in their code of conduct. Another most important reason was that the Buddha had recommended the middle-path and remained flexible throughout his life, in prescribing the moral code for his monks and nuns. This middle-path and flexibility, made Buddhism more adaptable to the foreign soil. But due to the same reasons Buddhism was so adapted by Hinduism that it could not retain its independent entity in India. First of all the middlepath of Buddha was not very far from the teachings of the Gitā. Not only this, Mahāyāna an offshoot of Buddhism had very little to mark it out from the original stock of Hinduism. Secondly, the Buddha himself was accepted as the ninth incarnation of Vişnu. Thirdly, flexibility in moral code made the life of Buddhist monks so luxurious and even corrupt that in India they could not retain the respect of common men. Jainism, on the other hand, throughout, had a