________________
THE ANUVRATA MOVEMENT
193
cipated and answered by the Acārya. The objection is that the term aņuvrata is taken from the Jaina precepts which require the possession of right vision (sāmyagdarśana) from the aņuvrati. Since samyagdarśana refers to a comprehension of the Jaina view of life, there is no scope for religious tolerance and universal outlook in an aņuvrati. The Ācārya's reply is that since a non-violent vision adequately describes the scope and philosophy of aņuvrata, it is quite in keeping with the spirit of Jaina thought and culture to make use of the term in a slightly different sense. In substance the Ācārya's view is that the term is extended to engulf a similar ideology discernible in all religions by a deeper interpretation of a traditional concept.4
Here it is worthwhile considering two leading criticisms against the Jaina view of ahiṁsā and aparigraha since it gives the necessary perspective from which the Aņuvrata movement can be understood. The Jaina view that ultimately non-violence should pervade every sphere of life and light up all the other virtues is pointed out as expecting far too much from its followers. Even a moment's thought will reveal that in any system of ethics it is most essential that some one principle is posited as central to all and considered as a co-ordinating and regulative value. We have to add, however, that the primacy given to the principle of ahiṁsā is not born out of a necessity to have any one value as the 'co-ordinator'. The reason lies much deeper and can be gathered by recapitulating the doctrine of continuity of consciousness that we find in Jaivism. In brief, the doctrine signifies that if the jīvas are in various stages of evolution towards perfection (getting freed from the ajivas) no one jīva—at whatever higher stage it may be-has any right to interfere with the spiritual prospects of any other jīva—at whatever lower stage of evolution it may be. In the Jaina theory we find the attitude of reverence for life clearly comprehended and systematically treated.
The emphasis laid on non-possession along with non-violence is even more severely criticised on the ground that expecting the most severe observance of the principle is too unrealistic to be of any value in having an influence over the adherents of the faith. The severe standard set by the Jaina philosophers is no doubt evident from the unambiguous language they use to explain the seriousness
4 op. cit., p. 28
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
