Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 3

Author(s): R P Poddar
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 27

18
VAISHALT RESEARCH BULLETIN NO.3
integral and fundamental concept of metaphysics and ethics and has an inclusive connotation. Ahimsa, on the other hand, is only a moral precept and a technic evolved by man and is applicable, appropriate and suitable only to the human and not the cosmic realm. No body blames the fire or lightning for the violence it may cause. But fire and lightning are also aspects of truths in the sense that they are or have existence (Sat). Furthermore, no body talks of the misuse of violence in the infra-human realms. The serpent and the tiger are not condemned for being violent. Thus non-violence has limited applicability. But truth as an all-pervasive, all-inhabiting, rcal Substance cannot exclude any stratum, mode or aspect of reality from its comprehension and sway. It is infinite, all-inclusive and immanent. There must, therefore, be several paths for its realization. Hence, logically speaking, I do not see the validity of the proposition of Gandhi that non-violence is the only means of the realization of truth as God. Truth is too momentous Substance to be grasped and cognized solely by Ahimsa, although the moral concept of Ahimsa is an important means for the realization of truth. According to the Prithivi Sukta of the Atharvaveda, truth is regarded as a factor that upholds the earth. Truth as an entity or being is timeless, spaceless and immense. But the evolution of man is a phenomenon about a million years old. Hence any moral concept, proposition or ideal evolved by man who has appeared so late on the stage of the universe cannot comprehend the immeasurable proportions of timeless truth.
Furthermore, the theory of non-violence is based on the acceptance of a spiritul teleology and may not appear realistic to a sceptic or to an agnostic or to a materialist.
Gandhi believed in the absolutism of Ahimsa and accepted its wonderful potency, He regarded it as an infallible and universally applicable technic. Certainly non-violence is a great moral norm and maxim and Gandhi is justified in having stressed the necessity, consequence and import of non-violence for social and political action. But after all, non-violence is, from the group standpoint, only a technic and a means and I do consider that freedom as a spiritual imperative and political goal is more important than non-violence. Freedom has its essence in the dynamic ability, autonomous enterprise and creativism and, idealistically interpreted, it also implies the realization of wholeness. Freedom thus, as Hegel said, is the essence of the Spirit. Compared to freedom, non-violence may appear at times, to be of less sigaificance. According to Tilak freedom was more important than nonviolence, while Gandhi swore by the absoluteness of the law of Ahimsa. It is true, nonetheless, that in 1942, Gandhi contemplated that some