Sramana Tradation

Author(s): G C Pandey
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 53

40
Sramaņa Tradition
legitimized violence and were part of the system of Varnāsramadharma. The emergence of emphasis on non-violence in Šramaņism and its gradual adoption in Indian culture meant a profound revolution in Indian ethos by accenting the feminine virtues.
The doctrine of Ahissä starts from a perception of the sameness of life, the equality of all souls. This was accepted in the Vedic tradition also but as part of the ultimate matephysical realization which had its truth at a level other than that of common social life which rests on the cooperation of differences rather than on an abstract sameness. Thus it is that the inequalities of Varnāśrama Dharma remain valid at the empirical level while the absolute and faultless sameness of Brahman (nirdosam hi samam brahma') is a matter for inward realization. What made the doctrine of Ahimsă imperative for the Śramanas was the belief in the transmigration of the soul which linked the lowliest forms of life with the highest in one interacting chain of being. The Jainas, indeed, held that even the four material elements are inhabited by the souls which are thus ubiquitous and turn any careless action into a form of violence. 40 The Jaina view is in such marked contrast to the western view where even the animals were not held to have souls. Since pleasure and pain do not depend on reason, the lack of a rational faculty in the animals is not really a sufficient reason for regarding them as different from men in respect of being the objects of human actions. Indeed the modern realization of the need for avoiding cruelty to animals is a vindication of the principle of non-violence. It is welcome indeed that the new changes in our constitution give due importance to respect for life and compassion.
The emphasis on truth is, however, ancient and was one of the chief virtues in the Vedic tradition. The avoidance of falsehood implies not merely sincerity and mindfulness towards truth but also restraint in speech for much talk is difficult to reconcile with true speech. The avoidance of stealing apparently refers to the respect for other people's claims of property while Aparigraha renounces any such claims on behalf of the ascetic himself. While non-stealing is the avoidance of a crime, aparigraha or non-possession is distinctive of
40. See Acāranga Sūtra : Jaina Sütras (tr. Jacobi), Pt. I, pp. 31–34.