________________
Bhagwan Buddha
common but that for which a ceaseless effort is required from the very birth is one of self-control which is but another name for renunciation. Life is not meant for enjoyment but it is meant to be devoted to the path of selfrealization. In order to convince the people, they both accepted a life of restraint and renunciation and acquired emancipation leading a life of total self-abnegation, sterling character and stoicism, But there is a distinct difference between the ways of self-control adopted by both of them. It is this that while Mahavira believed in the way of life of hard austerities, Buddha believed in the golden mean. This is why in the religious communities of both of them, radical and middle path respectively have been adopted by both.
5. Abandonment of Desire and Ignorance
Both declare with equal emphasis that it is due to Ignorance that we see reverse tendencies in a human life. Taking the Non-soul to be a soul, people lose their balance and discrimination and get entangled into the net of desires and hankerings. This gives rise to continuity or worldly cycle, drives him to entertain love and hatred and pushes him forward and forward in the worldly cycle. There is one remedy only for cutting short this vicious circle and it consists of cultivating understanding and thereby reducing ignorance. You will, thereby, be able to root out desires which are the main cause of this worldly existence.
123
Both are like-minded so far as this but they part their ways when the question of what is to be done after removing Ignorance comes. Buddha's vision claimed into the theory of momentariness and Mahavira's into that of versatility of aspects- In this connection it should not be forgotten that Buddha, like carvaka, did not endorse the view that there is total annihilation though he put stress on the momentariness of every thing. Also did Buddha not accept the existence of ever-eternal and immutable soul like the Vedantins. This means that Buddha's theory was that the soul was ever-changing but imperishable. As opposed to this, Mahavira believed in the theory that the soul was both eternal and non-eternal. The difference distinguishing the theories of both was one of assertion and negation. Buddha did not subscribe to the view that the soul was eternal or was perishable while Mahavira did. On account of this both the philosophical systems differed later on from each other. But both of them are agreeable to the theories of Karmic Law and Rebirth. Theories of Karmic Law, Rebirth, World and Emancipation are acceptable to both of them though Buddha and Mahavira believed that the soul was non-eternal and imperishable as also eternal and perishable respectively. Thus barring the subtle distinction between the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
