Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

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

Page 266

MATERIALISM VERSUS SPIRITUALISM
255
freedom as a spiritualist. But his enthusiasm is inconsistent with his presuppositions. It proves his implicit faith in immortality. The logical and also the metaphysical justification of self-sacrifice for the cause of freedom must be sought for in the immortality of soul and the conservation of human efforts culminating in what is called mokşa or infinite freedom. Materialism at its best tends to obliterate the boundary of spiritualism and merge in it.
Materialism believes in the reign of law, which is another name of causation. But what is the law determining the effects of good and bad thinking and behaviour of human beings ? If strategy and success are the only things that count-and this is the implication of materialism-all unselfish strivings in the sphere of arts and sciences will pass for vain activities. One can deny teleology by denying cosmological purpose, but one cannot deny good and bad acts and their fruits. One can and should deny determinism (niyativada) which envisages strivings determined by the future result (phalānukūlapravrtti), but it is dangerous to deny puruşakara which asserts that the future is determined by the conscious effort of persons (pravịttyanukala-phala). The materialist's reign of law will be nothing but a form of determinism if the existence of free conscious agents is denied, and that will be an unacceptable dogma.
The ancient doctrines of individual freedom unconcerned with the freedom of others is not acceptable to the modern mind. But the Mahayana conception of freedom as a joint endeavour is a welcome doctrine, Freedom, in order to be freedom, must be freedom of all. Freedom of some is no freedom. It must be universal and full and for all. This is the Mahayana concept at its highest.
Whether it be materialism or spiritualism, the ultimate principle must be one unitary fact. Is it not then more reasonable to admit it as free spirit in order to explain our innate love for freedom, unselfish strivings, unsatiable thirst for knowledge and the possibility of infinite unfolding of the qualities of the head and heart ? God is not essential to spiritualism. Only soul and reincarnation are considered necessary to it. The Buddhists deny even the soul which they substitute by stream of consciousness, and there are others who deny even reincarnation in the Indian sense, and yet they are believers in spirituaism. Belief in independent conscious principle, as opposed to matter, was the miniinum requirement of spiritualism. But spiritualism in modern times has a wider connotation in that whatever is appreciative of freedom and dignity of the individual is accepted as spiritualism,