Jainism Some Essays

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

Page 12

Jaina Religion
the credited philosopher and the knower of the Brahma in his days and compare them with those of the lives of Mahavira, Buddha or their predecessors, we will find the preponderance of detachment in the Sramaņas, but not in the Brahmarşis. Even though Yajnavalkya was the knower of the Brahma, his knowledge could not stop him from getting up from the assembly and taking away the cows with him, thus displaying his pride about the superiority of his knowledge of Brahma to that of any one else. In contrast to this, Buddha and Mahavira became houseless monks leaving aside everything the moment They become aware, howsoever little, of the Sramanic religion. Yajnavalkya, notwithstanding that he was a Brahmarşi had two wives and he had a problem about the division of his property. One who owns property cannot be called the knower of the Brahma or of the self or soul. This difference distinguished the Sramaņas from the Brahmaņas ard it does so even today. Greater importance is attached to the stage of a householder in the Brahmanic tradition which also accepts the stage of renunciation as one of the four. While, as a matter of fact, the Śramanic tradition knows no other stage than that of renunciation. No other stages have, according to it, any significance as the stage of the renunciation. Householder's stage is not thought of as necessary even as a stage preparatory to that of the renunciation. Householder's stage is to be avoided totally. This particular difference between the two systems of traditions is responsible for the presence of the concept of the Sraddha ceremony and of that of the unavoidable necessity of progeny in the Brahmanic system. Nothing like this exists in the Sramanic system.
Special prominance given to the institution of sacrifice amongst the Brahmaņas gave rise to that of priesthood. As a necessary corollary, the Brahmaṇas were considered superior to all others. Due to this, the ideas of superiority and inferiority as regards caste came into existence in the society and these covered the field of religion also. This ended in clear-cut divisions of the society. On the contrary, there was, in the Sramanic system, no such scope for the rise of the institution of priesthood. In spite of this and because of the constant contact of the Brāhmaṇas and Sramaņas with each other, the theory of superiority and inferiority in relation to the caste with which Sramanic ideology was at variance, was accepted by the Sramaņas so for as the society at large was concerned, though it must be said in fairness that such a distinction was not visible in the Sramanic order in old days. But we see today that it also is invaded by the devil of caste distinction. As opposed to this, we come across references clearly indicating that there had flourished in the medieval times such sects and sages that did not, though owing allegience to the Brahmanic traditions, attach any weight
[ 5