Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 265

254
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO, I
lism, but between the established moral life and the subversion of it, materialism being only one of the forms of such subversion. The problem of materialism versus spiritualism, therefore, in order to be significant, should be narrowed to the ethical problem of good and bad ways of life and their justification, logical and metaphysical.
In this connection, it will not be irrelevant to refer to the Buddha's insistence that the distinction between good and bad deeds must be accepted for living a civilized life. Akaravati Sraddha, that is, faith backed by reason is the minimum condition of social life, without which life itself will be meaningless. There were very many schools of thought propounding different moral codes and conceptions of spiritual emancipation (mokşa). The Buddha did not like to enter into controversies about these concepts. He was satisfied if a man recognized the distinction between sucarita and duscarita and was true to his conviction. This was what he considered as the essential requirement of spiritual life. It is difficult to understand the opposition of materialism in the context of this simplified concept of spiritualism, except it is interpreted as a doctrine that denounced the established moral code of conduct.
In later Indian thought, many criticisms of materialism were advanced by schoolmen, both orthodox and non-orthodox. But these criticisms centered round epistemological and ontological problems, only cursorily touching the social and moral outlook of materialism.
t appears that they were fighting with a phantom. It is not denied that there were free thinkers who approached the problems with open mind. But it is difficult to accept that these thinkers were as perverse as they were represented to be.
Materialism, as defined above, upholds the validity of only the two ends of life, viz. artha and kama that is, worldly possessions and fulfilment of desires. The other two accredited ends of life viz. dharma and mokşa, that is, moral principles and spiritual freedom, are not accepted as necessary truths by materialism. Spiritualism on the other hand believes in all these four ends. Of course, the materialist has also a moral code. But his moral code has no solid foundation. The maximum good of the maximum number may be accepted as the criterian of conduct. But that does not fully satisfy our reason which demands a universal criterion free from exigencies of place and time. We love freedom and greatmen defended it even at the cost of their lives. The reason is not known, but every one of us aspires to preserve his freedom. This implies life before and after. Of course the materialist also is as much enthusiastic about his