Sambodhi 1980 Vol 09

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 46

Padmanabh S. Jaini
his feeling for his parents was admirable and sets him apart from Gautama, who had no such qualms, nevertheless the fact remains that, as in the case of the Buddha, bis wife and young child were left to the care of society.
Furthermore we are told that soon after his enlightenment Mahāvira gathered around him five thousand Brahmans, all followers of the Vedic tradition. Following Mahāvīra they all renounced the world to lead the life of mendicants. Thus in the case of Mahāvīra, as in the case of the Buddha, a large body of parents, wives, and children were left at the mercy of society for their upbringing, welfare, and protection. Such a state of affairs could not have taken place if there had not been a Brahmanical society wbich would provide for the care of these abandoned people.
That the Buddha and Mahāvīra trusted society to take over where they had left off is shown by the fact that neither made an effort to legislate for the guidance of the lay people regarding their duties to their parents, wives, children, or society at large. The canonical texts of the Jainas and Buddhists are full of admonitions to the lay people to serve the old, to look after their dependents, etc., which message is repeated even in the celebrated Asokan edicts. But this type of admonition was secondary to the true teaching of these masters, namely the renunciation of the world through a progressive series of vows and restraints. But even these restraints, such as bans on killing, stealing, lying, improper sexual activity, and excessive cumulation of property, were not primarily devised for the benefit of the laymen. Rather they are watered-down versions of the true precepts and regulations which applied to the monks. Their intent was ultimately total renunciation (mahāvrata) rather than partial refraining from these acts (aņuvrata.)
When we consider the law books of these heterodox Indian religions, we are immediately reminded of those of Manu and Yājñavalkya, who legislated the duties, punishments for transgressions of duties, conditions of inheritance, etc., for the laymen. But we must bear in mind that these orthodox law books are significantly smaller in bulk than those of the Buddhists and Jainas such as the Vinaya pitaka or the Kalpa Sūtra. These latter, however, bave no relevance for the layman, they are strictly for the guidance of those who have renounced the world.
One may find a few stray sermons of the Buddha, such as Sigalovāda Sutta' or Räjovāda Jätaka, which deal with the virtues which are recommended to the lay people. But there is nothing in the Buddhist texts to define the duties of a warrior, or the codes by which he lives, or the