Truthfullness and Truth in Jaina Philosophy

Author(s): Peter Flugel
Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan

Page 26

मार्च २०१०
१९१
(what he desires to be done). An excellent pupil needs no express directions, or he is (at least) quickly directed; he always carries out his duties as he is told' (Utt 1.43 f.)
The running comparison between the theory of communicative action and Jain discourse ethics revealed significant similarities. Both approaches are rule-oriented, not goal oriented. That is, they are concerned with the general interest of many, not with the eudaemonic perspective of a single actor, despite the fact that the methods of universalisation are different. The respective ideals of consensus and nonviolence leading to liberation mutually implicate each other. Basic non-violence is presupposed by communicative action, and the general interest of all is presupposed by universal non-violence. Though the criterion of generalisability, equal interest, is not theorized in Jain philosophy, and only touched upon with reference to specific negative rights such as the privileged case of the universal interest in avoiding pain,94 the scope of the moral universe is extended from humanity to all living beings, whose essential spiritual equality is a fundamental principle of Jaina philosophy. The vanishing points of both theories, the ideal consensus of an infinite community of interpretation and the ideal omniscient observer, presuppose absolute knowledge and absolute consensus.
Yet, there are also significant differences. The main difference between the transcendental pragmatics of mutual recognition and the monadological Jain ethics of non-violence concerns the nature of the fundamental principles. The former is predicated on positive norms and the latter on norms of prohibition. The implicit method of universalisation of Jain ethics is the double negation, that is, the negation of nongeneralisable statements. The resulting priority of physical nonaction as a theoretical limiting case (not as a practical maxim) unburdens the doctrine of discussions of specific dilemmas of
36 D:\SHEELVANUSANDHANIANU-50