The Jain 1992 04 Special Issue

Author(s): Natubhai Shah, Vinod Kapashi
Publisher: UK Jain Samaj Europe

Page 16

THE
bin.
TEACHINGS OF LORD MAHAVIRA
It is well-known that Mahavira did not found a new religion. He got the heritage from the previous Tirthankaras. Parsva was his immediate predecessor. Mahavira had great respect for him. It is also recorded that the parents of Mahavira were Parsva's followers. Parsva had taught caturyama dharma (consisting of four vows) while Mahavira further bifurcated one of the vows and taught panca-vrata dharma (of five vows). We come across lively discussions between followers of Parsva on one hand and Mahavira as well as his followers on the other where it is explained in clear terms that there was, in essence, no difference between the teachings of these two prophets.
Jainism was formerly known as Nirgrantha dharma. Mahavira was famous as a Nirgrantha because he had freed himself from all the ties and entanglements, internal and external. He was also called a Jina as he had conquered all the passions (Kasaya) and later on his teachings became popular by the name of Jainism.
Jainism does not believe in a creator-God, that controls the destinies of men. Whims of a personal God have no place in it. Man is not dependent on any external agency. He is quite independent and his own acts (kriya or karma) alone are responsible for his bondage; he is the sole master of his salvation. Godhead is the ideal. A man attains it when he becomes perfect by following the prescribed ethical code.
Jainism equally denies the fatalism - niyativada - of Gosalaka who preached that there was a fixed order of things and salvation came of its own accord when that order was complete. In the Upasakadasanga Mahavira explains the invalidity of this doctrine in a very simple way. He emphasises that action, exertion and manly strength are the main factors responsible for salvation. He asks Saddalaputra how his potter's wares are made. He answers that they are made by his action and exertion. In reply to another question he answers that he will beat or kill the miscreant who steals his wares or plays mischief with his wife. Then Mahavira points out that if all is pre-determined there is no point in taking action against the miscreant. Thus Saddalaputra realises the non-applicability of determinism or fatalism.
Mahavira preached that the life of a human being was the most important not only of all the rest of lower creatures but also of all the celestial beings - devas. It is only the human being who can exert of his own freewill and attain emancipation.
According to Mahavira there are two fundamental substances, living and non-living, i.e. Jiva and Ajiva. Jiva, Atma or soul is the embodiment of consciousness and where there is no consciousness, we have Ajiva, the non-soul. A substance is a permanent entity which undergoes change in its various modifications which
16
are destroyed and created anew every moment. A substance is never destroyed but its forms change. This is the realistic point of view adopted by Mahavira. He denies both the absolute momentariness of the Buddha and the absolute permanency of Upanisad. As such he is a realist and not an idealist. This multiple outlook of his is called Anekantavada or Syadvada. This we come across at various places in the scriptures (Agamasastra).
In a discussion between the ascetic Roha and Mahavira, the former asked whether the hen or the egg came first. Mahavira's reply was that none of them can be called first. Because each is the cause of the other: both have continuity from the beginningless time. To Jamali's question whether the world is eternal (ananata) or transient (santa), Mahavira's answer was that from the point of view of substance it is eternal and from that of modification it is transient.
At the time of Mahavira there was a great turmoil in the religious and philosophical world. Various religious leaders were engaged in the search of truth. Each maintained his own point of view disregarding others' viewpoints. It led to controversies. Nobody would tolerate the views of others. This state of affairs had a great effect on the mind of Mahavira and he found the way out. He would consider all the points of view and would never lay stress only on one aspect. His method of tolerance brought about reconciliation of various one-sided philosophical points of view. This is revealed in his first discussions with the eleven Ganadharas - the first and foremost disciples, Gautama etc., before their conversion to his faith. They raised their doubts on the basis of the Vedas and Upanisads, and Mahavira resolved these in his own anekanta way. This was his popular mode of discussion. Other religious leaders were also convinced of the philosophy of Mahavira which said that intellectual tolerance was the right way of understanding various aspects of a problem.
He explained that the creatures were made up of two entities soul and matter or Alma and Pudgala. The physical body was different from the soul. The Karma also was separate from Jiva or Atma. Jiva was bound by the karmas and it experienced the fruits of its own karmas. He taught that the karmas should be destroyed for the liberation of the soul and that came by performing austerities and practising ethical discipline.
Mahavira believed in the sanctity of life in whatever form it might be. Different kinds of creatures were embodiments of similar souls in varying similar situations, therefore he laid emphasis on showing equal regard for all forms of life. Life was dear to all. Pain and pleasure were equally experienced by all. No one liked pain or injury or violence. Hence, one should not cause pain to other creatures and one should always follow the principle of Ahimsa (nonviolence). Thus in the realm of ethics, behaviour or conduct also he taught the principle of tolerance. He exemplified it with his own practices during the