________________
72: śramana, Vol 64, No. III, July-Sept. 2013
ahiṁsā and tend to regard the practice of ahiṁsā as the solution for almost all problems of our civilization: "The ahiṁsā way of life is the sure panacea for all moral, social, economic and political illnessess, ahiṁsā is the highest religion, and where there is ahimsä there is victory.” (Jain, Jyoti Prasad 2010: 120; Bothara 2009: 107ff) Of course, it is not necessary to share this victorious prospect when appreciating the doctrines of non-violence and their influence within and outside both communities.
In spite of a long list of similarities touched on previous pages, differences between traditions of Jainism and Quakerism are so vast that the sense of any comparison can be easily called into question. As we have seen, the doctrines of non-violence differ in the starting presuppositions as well as in the scope of those who are taken into consideration. Something similar is true about other doctrines I was dealing with in this study. Moreover, items of Jain tradition seemed more theoretically worked out than the corresponding part of Quaker theology but less able to change the surrounding society directly. The decisive difference between Jain and Quakers may therefore lie in the realm of the sociology of religion.
In the case of Jainism, we find a large social body; a respected religion, the existence of which is rarely, if ever, threatened. 34 Such a large body, in terms of the sociology of religion called "an established church”, with a long tradition of scholars, may afford wide philosophical concepts and broad perspectives of salvation. This context may be the reason why Jainism sometimes seems to go to extremes. A Jain sociologist, for example, has written that in Jainism the notion of ahimsā (non-violence) has been pushed to the extreme.” (Jain, Prakash 2011: 129) The extremely wide concepts that reveal liking in the smallest details may become a challenge for contemporary Jains. These concepts may have to be translated into the language of pragmatic thought of the post-modern world." Quakers, on the other hand, form a social body of a very different kind. Sociology of religion would call them "a sect". The main task of such a body is to represent a religious alternative to established churches or other worldviews. To survive, the sect has to assume the position of protest against the religious or spiritual life of the mainstream society by means of a loud and visible critique. At the same time, it has to usher attractive (and rather simple and practical) alternatives that might gain attention of some part of society. In both of these tasks Quakers succeeded in an excellent way. Their critique of slavery, for example, was very effective and alternative principles appeared as practical and useful for daily life. Quakers were successful to such an extent, however, that now, it is not easy to maintain religious origin and character of these principles and explain raison d'Štre of Quakers community in a postmodern world where social activism is by no means confined to protesting bodies of Christians.
Therefore, both Jains and Quakers and these are the last similarities, have great tasks ahead and at the same time, possess a great potential to fulfill them.
