________________
Doctrinal and Social Context of Non-Violent... : 65
was even hardened by the fact that it was William Penn and other Quakers who had always been struggling for good relations with Indians. In this moral dilemma, the majority of Quaker representatives decided not to compromise by taking part in the process of preparing military legislation. By resigning, they showed the preference of their religious conviction to their civic responsibility. In 1756, they left the rule over the colony to others. (Stein 2000: 46-47) When comparing the practical effects of Jain and Quaker non-violent attitudes, one could easily come to the conclusion that the Jains are concentrated more on small and even non-perceptible living beings while the attitudes of the Quakers have direct impact on humans and societies. This, let us say rather superficial, impression may be corrected by the following explanation:
It has sometimes been suggested that Jaina holy men are overly preoccupied with beings of a lower order, to the detriment of their concern for higher animals or with human kind. But this criticism fails to take into account the fact that a mendicant has already, as part of his lay vows, established a pattern of absolutely nonharmful behavior towards the more highly evolved creatures; his attention to the well-being of the ekendriya (single-sensed beings, note of Zdenek Vojtisek) and element bodies by no means excludes this prior commitment but rather carries it to the widest possible extent. Indeed, Jainas consider their practice of ahiṁsā unique in the universality of its application. (Jaini 1998: 242) Putting it in another way, the fact that the Jains consider all living beings in some respect equal does not mean that humans are somehow less important for them. The topic of equality is discussed in detail in the next part.
(2) Doctrines of Equality in Jainism and Quakerism Doctrines of equality accompany and support the doctrine of non-violence in both traditions. But again, there is a large difference in scope of equal beings that the Jains and the Quakers are concerned with. On the one hand, the Jain feeling of universal fraternity "does not limit itself to fellow human beings” but “really means the feeling of sameness or equality toward every living organism." (Bothara 2009: 86) On the other hand, Quakers together with other Christians believe that God created man in his image and appointed him the ruler of the rest of creation. In their task of bearing the image of God are all people equal but in their governing and protecting mission, humans can be by no means taken equal to non-humans.
The Jain doctrine of equality is based on conviction of equality of souls (jīvas) which is a part of Jain right faith: “All souls are equal and alike in their inherent nature, essential qualities, intrinsic characteristics and potentialities; they are all capable of attaining liberation." (Jain, Jyoti Prasad 2010:41) These jīvas exist eternally as separate, individual entities. (Sagar 2012: 128) The souls present in living beings are also equal in having the same capacity to be liberated of nonliving matter and thus to achieve mokşa. In the same way, they are all submitted to the same law of karma that inevitably makes them enjoy the fruits of their actions. Humans are therefore not supposed to be superior over other living beings, which makes a metaphysical ground for the ethic of non-violence (ahiṁsā).
Speaking from the point of view of soteriology, however, living beings are not equal as the
