Jainism Some Essays

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

Page 77

70
]
Jainism
injury in Jainism, it practically took the form of abstention from injury and as a consequence to this, all sorts of activities were rejected, the daily dealings of life were based on the entire insistence of non-injury and the value of own welfare rather than of other increased. This lessened the scope of higher form of compassion and ultimately it remained as a negative force only which did attract some but could not find welcome from all. This proved to be a factor obstructing the free and full propaganda of Jainism.
Formation of outward behaviour in Jaina and Buddbistic Religion
The signs and features of the Śramaņic ideology being common to both the above religions, it is not difficult to suppose that rules and regulations governing outward behaviour as well as rites and rituals would also be broadly common. Despite this general position, the formation of outward modes of conduct in both Jainism and Buddhism has been moulded according to the constitution of nature and temperament of Mahāvira and Buddha respectively and this has been responsible for the difference that exists between them in both the religious systems. In Pārsva and his tradition renunciation and austerities had a place, indeed, but severity in it was injected by Mahāvira himself. Pārsva allowed his monks to put on clothes while Mahavira prescribed nudity. Precepts can claim perfection only when they are put into practice. Personal action must find external expression in order to justify itself. Mahāvira insisted on this. It is because of this that Mahāvīra thought it proper to keep a place for nudity, rejection of bath, uncleanliness etc. etc. when he made an attempt to model his formulatian of external discipline on the design of internal concept of possessionlessness. To wear clothes is not necessary; but it is one's weakness. Mahāvira argued in this manner. Though of course, in the concept and constitution of the Samgha, Mahāvira bas given adequate place to both the categories, namely, those who believed in putting on clothes and those who did not, he, however, has made his desire known that those who accepted clothes, should ultimately reject them completely in course of time. Just contrary to this, Buddha did not make clotheless condition unavoidable even though he definitely belived in achieving a condition wherein desire and attachment have no role to play. Crux of Buddha's argument consisted in his theory that clothes or no clothes; what is important is the absence of desire for them. Even if one has put on clothes, he can have no desire for them. They could have been worn just for the sake of wearing them. This seems to be the belief of Buddha. Otherwise, the fact that Buddha did permit his monks to wear clothes reaching the knees, in keeping with the popular custom in those days, cannot be accounted for. In sum, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that Buddha specifically laid down that nothing should be done to violate the existing popular