Siddhachalam NJ 1990 04 Mahavir Jayanti

Author(s): Siddhachalam NJ
Publisher: USA International Mahavir Jain Mission Siddhachalam

Page 18

JAIN ETHICS AND HOUSE HOLDERS
DR. I. C. SHARMA FORMER HEAD OF DEPT. OF PHILOSOPHY M.B. COLLEGE, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
According to Jainism non-violence is the highest virtue. It lays down the five great vows or the principles of morality; (1) non-violence (Ahimsa), (2) truth (Satya), (3) non-stealing (Asteya), (4) celibacy (Brahmacharya), and (5) non-possession (Aparigraha). Jaina philosophy considers these five principles to be basic rules of the conduct for ascetics. Non-Violence means refraining from all injury and violence, whether such violence pertains to the subtlest invisible living beings or to animals or to human beings. Violence does not mean causing only physical injury, but it also includes mental and verbal injury. When a Jaina ascetic adopt non-vilence, he tries his best to follow it absolutely and not to cause injury to any living being, physically, mentally and verbally. Thus nonviolence requires three principles which are called the three Guptis. In other words , following the principles of non-violence through mind, word and deed implied three Guptis, the Guptis of mental non-violence, verbal non-violence and physical non-violence. Other Mahavratas must also be adopted with reference to these three Guptis or implied rules. We should remember that the foundation of all the great vows is the great vow of non-violence. All other moral rules are accepted only to maintain this great vow of non-vilolence. Speaking truth is necessary because by telling lies against somebody we cause at least mental injury to him. A person would not be able to follow non-violence by neglecting truth.
By telling lies we commit verbal violence and injure the feelings of another person. In like manner stealing somebody's property, violating the third great vow, amounts to violence. A person whose property is stolen is mentally injured. Therefore, nonstealing as well is based on non-violence. Hence it is evident that even Brahmacharya is based on non-violence. Non-possession means not to possess surplus property. A person who hoards wealth deprives poor and hungry persons of their wants. Surplus wealth could be used to provide food and clothing to the needy. Thus adopting the Principle of Non-possession means following a non-violence way of life.
The conduct of ascetics must be absolutely non-violent. Therefore all the Jaina ascetics must adopt the following five Samitis, or co-rules, besides the five great vows and the three implied rules, or Guptis:
1. Arya Samiti or caution in avoiding injury to living beings with walking.
2. Bhasa Samiti or control over speech to avoid verbal injury.
3. Esana Samiti, or careful checking of food to assure that whatever food or drink has been given to him was not specially prepared for him.
4. Adana Niksepana Samiti, or using necessary articles cautiously to avoid injury to subtle lives.
5. Parithapanika Samiti, or disbursing or throwing away unnecessary articles with care and caution.
These five Samitis aid the ascetic in following the path of non-violence and they also show that the life of an ascetic must be exemplary under all circumstances. This strictness of the ascetic code is very important, because it aims at eschewing both attachment and hatred. An ascetic can never attain Moksa until and unless he rises above the worldly antinomies and practices absolute non-violence. Ordinarily, nonviolence means protecting the lives of animals, which is why most Jaina householders or Sravakas, feed birds and nurse wounded birds and animals. Thus nonviolence is regarded as equivalent to compassion. But the Terapanthi sect of the Jaina Svetambara school gives a strange definition of non-violence and distinguishes it from the protection of life. This definition must be dispassionately analyzed since non-violence is the supreme end of morality in Jainism. So far as the ethical code of ascetics is concerned, the explanation of non-violence from the absolutic point of view has special significance.
The explanation of absolute nonviolence is undoubtedly beyond the understanding of the common man. According to the viewpoint of absolute non-violence, there is no difference between avoidable and unavoidable violence. Thus violence is violence under all circumstances whatever. If we once accept the existence of subtle lives, there is no reason that the violence to infinite subtle lives should not be regarded as immoral from the spiritual point of view, ever if such a violence aims at the protection of human lives. Perhaps an intelligent person cannot adopt absolute non-violence, because he cannot maintain his own life without killing subtle lives. But from the metaphysical point of view it would be equally erroneous to regard such relative violence to be 'non-violence'. The Terapanthis hold that if a man is obliged by circumstances to practice relative is violence, and if the course is supposed conducive to Moksa, a serious error occurs. They are of the opinion that there is a difference between spiritual life and practical life. Man should admit that he is weak and that he cannot at all times follow the spiritual morality. Absolute non-violence, according to which violence to subtle as well as to gross life is equally immoral, can become the ideal only for the ascetic. This concept of non-violence, according to the Terapantha, does not accept the differnece between compassion to human beings and to subtle lives, though it recognizes the weakness of ordinary men who make the distinction. Surely it is impractical to expect man to adopt absolute non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi expressed a similar view. In his words, Absolute or complete non-violence means freedom from every ill will against all kinds of living beings and therefore it encompasses the wild and poisonous animals other than human beings as well. In another place Gandhi says:Non-violence is a very extensive term. Man cannot live without external violence. He continues to commit some sort of violence willy-nilly while eating, drinking, sitting and standing. One who tries one's best to get rid of such violence, whose mind is full of compassion and who does not desire the destruction of non-violence, the self-control and tenderheart of such a man, will continually be on the increase. But there is no doubt that no living being can be absolutely free from external violence.'
Having considered absolute nonviolence impossible, Gandhi did advocate relative violence for the common man. He
MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR- 16-MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR