________________
JAINA ETHICS
235
Discussion
Sangamlal Pandey :
My contention is that there is hardly any social ethics in Jainism. Even when Śrāvakadharma is accepted it is accepted in subordination so Munidharma and it is presumed all along that Śrāvakas cannot practice Munidharma in true sense of the word. M. P. Marathe :
Dr. Kalghatgi's cquation of Mokşa with self realization is misleading. Further, if Moksa is to be considered as an ethical ideal can't it be so considered independently of spiritual consideration ? Lastly, he also talks of 'supreme ethic'; but it raises the problem whether “ethic' could be graded. K. C. Sogani :
Dr. Kalghatgi's attempt to discuss Jaina ethics in social perspective makes him guilty of confusing between ethics and religion in so far as he brings Moksa in ethics. Mukunda Lath :
If Jainas were really interested in social action how is it that no Jaina writer has done any work on Dharmaśāstra, Rājaniti or other such theoretical interest. J. C. Sikdar
Ahimsā is not a monopoly of Jainas. One finds discussion of Ahimsā in Patañjali, Manusmrti and other sources too. S. S. Barlingay :
It is quite likely that its discussion in other schools came from Jainism. K. C. Sogani :
How far is it correct to say that participation of Jaina Ācāryas in the then active politics brought its downfall ? S. S. Barlingay :
Many problems in recent Indian thought on revaluing Indian philosophy, partly at least, are due to misleading translations. e.g. Dr. Kalghatgi's translation of Moksa as selt realization. Secondly, our interpretation of Jaina or Vedanta ethics is biased by Chris doctrine of salvation. Is Moksa a salvation or something else ?
