Acharya Tulsi
Jainism is a religion of non-violence. The question is whether a non- violent religion is effective for the society. The base of society is to generate money. Without money and matter a society cannot run. How is it possible for a social being not to get involved with farming, trade and earning‘? How is it possible for him not to defend his possessions or posts? Without violence it is not possible to accumulate wealth and defend it. Then how on earth can a non-violent religion establish its supremacy in a situation like this. These are the questions that non-violence has to encounter first. But non-violence is not defeated in this regards.
Jaina Tirthankaras -began preaching non-violence not at the level of necessities but at the level of will power. A person must try to follow non-violence at the point first where it doesn’t intervene in his daily activities and he doesn’t become ruthless or lethal. Necessities and ruthlessness are not same. This analysis has cleared all the doubts and consolidated the way of moving in the direction of non-violence. It has made it possible for a person to become non-violent even while living in his house. This practical implementation of non-violence has provided the opportunity for human beings to become human in the true sense of the term and the social life has also not been affected this way. Man got a chance to become religious keeping all his social responsibilities intact.
Some people are of the view that non-violence preached by Jainism has turned the social man coward. I do not agree with this view whatsoever. In my view it has turned man-kind and removed all traits of cruelty. If human beings start attacking one-another like wild animals then there is no chance of establishing non-violence. Non- violence is very effective for the society. I do not say that it has got infinite utilization in society but to the extent it is possible why not accept it?
It was 1965. I was in Delhi. At that period India and Pakistan were at war. The two professors of Delhi University came. They said, ‘Acharyaji, what will the Jainas do now?’ I said——‘What others will do will be done by Jainas as well;’
They said, ‘How is it possible? They believe in non-violence.
I said, ‘Do they not have properties? Do they not accumulate? If they accumulate then how they would save themselves from violence? I do not discriminate between accumulation and violence. They are the two dead ends of the same cloth. You accumulate things and then try to escape from violence? How is it possible? The rule of violence is—the more the accumulation the more the violence. The rule of non-violence is—the more there is renunciation the more there is non-violence.
