________________
286
SVASTI - Essays in Honour of Prof. Hampa Nagarajaiah
5. Method of propagating the Doctrine of Karma Mahāvīra ascribed responsibility to an individual for the actions that he does in society. For establishing this he propagated the doctrine of Karma. Individuals differ from one another in respect of cognition, conation and affection etc. What is the cause of this difference? How to account for these perceptible distinctions among individuals? The answer of Mahāvīra is that it is the beginningless material subtle principle known as Karma that is responsible for the cause of differences in individuals. This Karma has been exercising its limiting and crippling influence on individuals from the beginningless past. This material subtle principle is known as Dravya-karma, and its psychical counterpart in terms of Rāga (Attachment ) and Dvesa (Aversion) is called Bhāva-Karma. It is no doubt true that Karmas bind the self to mundane existence. Now the question that arises is this : How the self is bound by Karmas? What are the causes that create Karmic bondage in individuals. The answer of Mahāvīra is that it is action (mental, bodily and vocal) polluted by passion that causes empirical bondage to individuals.24 The passion-free actions do not bring about any mundane bondage whatsoever. When there are no passions, there is no bondage (Bandha). It is passion that mars the sociospiritual career of an individual.
6. Method of Emphasizing Individual Liberty Along with Social Responsibility Mahāvīra fought for individual liberty in the context of social life. He revolted against the economic exploitation and social oppression of man and introduced vigorous innovations in the then existing social law and order. In a way, he was a social anarchist. In this way, Mahāvīra regarded individual and his social responsibility as the key to the progress of both the individual and society. He seems to be aware of the fact that the emphasis on merely individual progress without taking note of social responsibilities is derogatory both to the individual and society. Mahāvīra was neither merely individualistic nor merely socialistic. In his attitude both individual and society are properly reconciled. If individual liberty is to be sought, social responsibilities cannot be dispensed with. The history of social thought reveals that with the advancement of knowledge social beliefs of a particular age are replaced by new beliefs. Many religious superstitions, social paths of life and other forms of follies and falsities are derogatory to individual progress, therefore they are condemned in every age of history. But the change is met with great resistance. The reason for this is that change is looked by individuals with doubt and uncertainty. Besides love for conventionality and vested interests run counter to the acceptance of novelties in thought. All these obstacles mar individual dynamism. The individual who is a slave to customary beliefs, however false they have been declared to be, cannot develop his own personality and his actions are just
24 Rājavārttika of Akalanka, VI. 2/4, 5, (Bhāratīya Jñāna Pitha, New Delhi).
