World Of Jainism

Author(s): Vishwanath Pandey
Publisher: Vishwanath Pandey

Page 90

88
THE ORIENT
He derived all other vows and virtues from the principle of non-injury to all living creatures in all forms of life. Satya (Truth), Asteya (Non-stealing), Brahmacharya (Complete celebacy) and Aparigraph (Non-possession) all logically flow from and are a direct result of Ahimsa. Tapa and Samyam, austerities and every kind of restraint in every activity of mind, speech and body are inevitable consequences of the principle of non-injury. The whole of Mahavira's religion or ethics can be summed up in these three concepts, Ahimsa, Samyam and Tapa. The distinguishing characteristic of this ethical religion is that Mahavira carried it to the extreme limit. As a result, the emphasis was laid on renunciation of all worldly activities, and involvement in self-analysis or introspection. Mahavira, unlike Buddha, admitted no compromise. Buddha adopted the middle path, but Mahavira followed the path of extreme asceticism.
The practice of such an ethical code leads to spiritual individualism and indifference to social activities and responsibilities. It is true that there is a code of conduct for householders Grihasta-dharma. But, Mahavira's whole emphasis is on Muni-dharma. Grihasta-dharma is only a step to Munidharma. This has led to a somewhat lop-sided concept of noninjury, and to a great deal of misconception and misapplication of that principle. It has led to contradictions in life. Such an ideal leads to more negative approach towards life than to a positive one.* Active compassion does not find a place in such an ideal. No doubt, practice of the principle of non-injury does not permit any harm to any one, but it does not lead to active compassionate conduct either. Efforts have been made to correct this imbalance but not with much success. The result has been dichotomy in life between what is conceived to be religious duty and what calls for social responsibility.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer evolved the basic ethical principle of reverence for life, but he wanted to combine it with what he called life-affirmation which means full social activity. He was then confronted with the problem what he called the horrible dilemma of life where life exists at the cost of life. He could find no way of escape. Mahavira avoided this dilemma by renouncing all worldly activity, which, to Dr. Schweitzer, was negation of life. Schweitzer found greater comfort in Christ's principle of love or Buddha's principle of active compassion which also favoured reverence for life. Dr. Schweitzer made no distinction between one form of life and another. Like Mahavira, he accepted the principle of unity of life and maintained that there was no justification to regard one form of life as higher than another. Therefore, man had no right to sacrifice life in any form for his happiness. However, Schweitzer was
• For detailed discussion on this point see the article 'Jaina Philosophy
and Religion' pp. 79-81.