________________
DISCUSSION
SOME COMMENTS ON "'THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE VALUES”
Professor Daya Krishna has given a valuable analysis of the distinction between the Active and the Contemplative values. (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, March, 1969). According to him, the difference between the two is a difference of primacy and direction, the latter being much more important. One may agree with him at the theoretical level at which one only thinks and does not see. But the history of civilization, particularly Indian, does not testify his theoretical conclusion regarding the trenchant distinction between the two realms of values. If they are theoretically apart, they have never been so practically and empirically. The great contemplatives like Mahāvīra, Buddha, Christ, Gāndhi etc., were neither nonactivist nor did they regard activity as a necessary evil. Professor Daya Krishna does not seem to distinguish between a pure action and an action done by affective prejudices. In my view, he who has opted for contemplative values will perform the actions more devotedly and efficiently than the man who is dedicated only to active values, inasmuch as, in the former, the dutyconsciousness hence his involvement in commitments will always have egoistic leanings. In my opinion, the crisis of character is the result of separation of the active and contemplative values. The contemplative values do not obstruct but encourage actions in a right spirit. The emphasis on contemplative values in Indian tradition is simply for the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
