Siddhachalam NJ 1990 04 Mahavir Jayanti

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

Page 19

made clear in his speeches and writings that his non-violence is a peculiar non-violence. For example, he does not think compassion shown to man-eating wild animals is non-violence. Yet the Terapanthi ascetics presume that it is unavoidable for an unattached ascetic to follow absolute non-violence. Therefore they do not consider the protection of life to be non-violence from the spiritual point of view. They hold that from a practical point of view the protection of life can be regarded as praiseworthy, but it cannot be accepted as a moral duty from the spiritual or transcendental point of view. The present leader of this sect, Acharya Tulsi, has defined compassion in the following manner: Compassion means the protection of one's own soul, as well as that of others from unrighteousness. From a practical point of view the protection of life also can be regarded as compassion.'
We can say that when ordinary compassion is compared with spiritual compassion it falls short of non-violence. Thus a person who protects the lives of others under the inspiration of compassion can be praised. But if compassion instead of Moksa is taken to be the motive, then such an action would be immoral from he spiritual point of view. The protection of life under the motive of compassion can be executed by adopting many means other than non-violence, e.g. the life of a goat can be protected by paying money to the butcher. In such a situation compassion cannot be regarded conducive to Moksa, because an ascetic can neither possess money himself nor can he pay money to others. If instead of paying money he can change the heart of the butcher by preaching non-violence, then such an action, being motivated by the protection of the soul, would become spiritual duty, although incidentally it would also lead to the protection of life. This proves that the protection of the soul is superior to the protection of life only from the spiritual and transcendental point of view.
It should be remembered here that so far as the conduct of an ascetic is concerned, indifference towards the protection of life may be accepted as right to some extent. Since the ascetic aspires for Moksa, he has to rise above good and evil and to be absolutely free from love and hatred towards living beings. Good as well as bad actions are considered to be the cause of bondage in Jainism. 'Demeritorious and meritorious Karmas can be compared with iron and gold fetters respectively, to get
Jain Education Intemational
liberation one must be free from both. It is necessary that attachment should be given up, and one should absorb himself in his pure self, otherwise all penance and religious practices are fruitless.' But the Terapanthis overemphasize this indifference and consider the protection of life 'merely' as practical compassion. There is no doubt that we can support the metaphysical aspect of Jainism by declaring the protection of life to be secondary. But by calling that duty merely' practical, and by transferring that responsibility to the householders, the Terapanthis overdo spiritual indifference. They forget that an ascetic can remain unattached even when he is protecting life, and in this manner the protection of life, like the protection of the soul, can be transformed into spiritual compassion.. Particularly it is not necessary for an ascetic to be influenced by love and hate while protecting living beings. One can remain free from love, hatred jealousy, fear, etc., while following the spiritual principle protecting life.
Such an ideal is found in the concept of Sthitaprajna as expounded in the Bhagavadgita. An ascetic had to experience pleasure and pain because these experiences are the fruits of past actions. But the difference between him and the householder is that whereas the latter is in a state of imbalance, influenced by emotion, the former remains calm and quiet, being balanced in his intellect. He is neither attached to nor is he displeased with anyone, and he behaves equally towards good and evil in a detached manner. This ideal of the Bhagavdgita is similar to the ideal of the Jaina ascetic. In the words of Kundakundacarya, 'In the case of an Ajananin, the function of karman leads to further bondage, while the Ajanin feels spiritually light when the Karman gives its fruit.' The ascetic who is free from emotions while protecting living beings, who adopts a transcendental attitude, can never be a victim to attachment, nor can his actions lead to bondage.
The concept of Sthitaprajna is not opposed to the Jaina view of non-violence. The concept of a Jnanin, or wise person, propounded by Jundakundacarya is analogous to the concept of Sthitaprajna. He agrees that the wise person should remain contented and stable in his own self. This self-contentedness is the cause of his bliss. he must be unattached in order to attain self-realization. Supporting this view the Acharya says, 'Attachment... causes a great
danger to self-realization, even though one has mastered all the sacred texts. One should absorb one-self in dibelief, which is an embodiment of knowledge, and thus be satisfied; that is excellent happiness.' This notion of the wise man is exactly the same as that of the Sthitaprajna. According to the Bhagvadgita a person who renounces his desires and remains satisfied within his own self is a man of stable intellect. the ideal of Sthitaprajna was propounded by the great yogin, Krishna, to make Arjuna understand the possibility of remaining unattached while performing the soldier's duty on the battlefield. If a soldier performs his duty without attachment his action does not leads to bondage. In like manner a Jaina ascetic or aspirant while protecting life can remain balanced and thus remain free from the influence of the Karmic matter. Of course there is a difference between the duties of an ascetic and those of a warrior. But the aim of the Jaina principles which guide the conduct of an ascetic, and the aim of the principles which guide the conduct of an ascetic, and the aim of the principles of the Bhagavadgita which guide a warrior are the same. According to the Bhagavadgita an aspirant while performing his duty in the battlefield without attachment can attain Moksa like an ascetic. But a Jaina ascetic or aspirant performs his duty in the spiritual field just like a warrior, and remains indifferent toward material results because of his detachment. His aim is also liberation. If the duty of protecting one's nation (performed by a warrior with s spiritual attitude) can be helpful for the attainment of Moksa, then the duty of the protection of life (performed indifferently by the ascetic, who is the votary of non-violence) must be recognized as a spiritual duty. The Terapanthijainas, while over-emphasizing the need of detachment, forget that the protection of life, like the protection of the soul, can also be undertaken without any expectation of the result.
Just as it is necessary not to overemphasize the protection of life lest the aspirant may forget the supreme good of Moksa, Similarly it is necessary not to over-emphasize the protection of the soul lest he overlook the protection of life, which is to noble means of attaining Moksa. If neglect of the spiritual aspect can bring about the mistake of regarding the protection of life as an intrinsic good, then the tendency of not accepting protection of life as the means of Moksa can also generate hatred towards the protection of life in the
MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR 17 MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR