Jainism Some Essays

Author(s): A S Gopani
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy

Page 11

4 1
system also. Thus, as a result, the Ajivakas, Nirgranthas, Bauddhas and others came into existence. All these, being the worshippers of the Jina, were known as the Jains. It is a historical fact that the Bauddha religion. was known as the Jain religion till the sixth century A. D. Another equally valid historical fact is that the Ajivakas were known in the history as the Digambaras or the Kapanakas. But today the custom prevails that only those who are the followers of Bhagvan Mahavira are the Jains. The second class of the Sramaņas which professes to be the followers of Bhagawan Buddha is called the Bauddha. Today, the Ajivikas and the other sects or sections of the Sramanas do not exist at all. This makes possible the only conclusion that the term Jain, though comprehensive, has a limited meaning in the present context. In a broad sense, the term Jain means the follower of the Jina. Despite that, in a restricted application, one who follows the traditions laid down by Bhagwan Mahavira is the Jain. Bhagavan Mahavira has a number of applications such as Sugata, Sramaṇa, Tathāgata, Arhanta, Tirthankara, Buddha etc. etc. Similarly, the Buddha. This is sufficient to suggest that both belonged to one and the same Sramanic ideology and traditions following from it. But one system of traditions puts more emphasis on the word Arhat of Jina and therefore it became famous as the Arhat or the Jain system while the other following the same method became designated in course of time as the Bauddha system.
Jainism
Difference between the two
Relation to the resemblance or otherwise between the two, namely, the Brahmaṇas and Sramaņas, it is necessary to point out that there existed a wide gulf, during the upaniṣadic period and even thereafter, between the Śramaṇas and Brahmaņas, notwithstanding the fact that the Brahmanas had adopted the Sramaņic science of the self or soul. There is no doubt that the Brahmaṇas became increasingly inclined to the science of the self or soul and the sages of the Brahmaņas who knew the Brahma were held in esteem amongst the Brahmaņas. Even then a big difference was visible between the way of life of the sages who claimed to be the knowers of the Brahma and that of the Tirthankaras who flourished at that time as also that of Bhagavan Mahavira and Buddha who flourished later on. This difference was occasioned by dissimilar viewpoints as regards the concept of knowledge and the concept of conduct. The sages of the Brāhmaṇas were, indeed, proficient in the comprehension of the Brahma but they were weak so far as the ideal conduct was concerned. If and when we take into account the incidents of the life of Yajnavalkya who was