Neither a tradition (or ritual), nor equivalent to Satipratha, nor suicide The greatly renowned Jain saint, Acharya Mahaprajna, in his response to a T.V. Channel’s query on his views about the notice issued by Rajsthan High Court against ‘Santhara’ (fast unto death practised by Jains) said here today that Santhara is indeed a spiritual practice of penance.
He further said, “One who leads a noble life undertakes various practices of penances while living. When such spiritual personage would find, at the fag end of his life, that the body had already reached a tattered state, and would not last long, he would like to pass his last moments of life in complete tranquillity and composure through the practice of penance, in which he renounces food. But the essential condition in Santhara is that he should neither cling to life nor crave for early death. He should be completely equanimous. In such state of extreme mental peace, he reflects that if death occurs, let it come.
This is anashana (fasting-unto-death).” Dwelling upon the objective of Santhara, Acharya Mahaprajna said that when the body has become too weak to be good-for-nothing, one should not have attachment to such death-bedded body. “Santhara is nothing but an experiment to become free from such attachment,” said the Acharya. Describing the bodily attachment as the most invincible task, Acharyaji said that in the field of spiritual practice (sadhana) the life free from such attachment was deemed as excellent and noble. “In such highest state of detachment, there would be no attachment either for body or for food, and death occurring in such detached state would lead one to better reincarnation and better birth in next life,” the Acharya concluded. Refuting the contention that Santhara is a pratha (custom), Acharaya Mahaprajna said that ‘custom’ was that which was compulsory. “Santhara is not compulsory at all; the fact, on the contrary, is that out of millions upon millions, hardly four to five persons take to Santhara,” he said.
When asked about the writ in the High Court (Rajasthan), Acharya Mahaprajna said that it is doubtful whether the person who has filed the writ is well acquainted with the authentic information about Santhara or not. He said, “Only it is being compared with Satipratha. But, in Satipratha, the woman commits herself Sati after or for his dead husband, whereas Santhara is undertaken neither after someone nor for someone. The Santhara is accepted only for the pure object of one’s own benevolent future. In Satipratha, there is no consideration of the age of the woman committing Sati—she may be only 25 or so, whereas the Santhara or anashana is practised only by a person on the death-bed. Hence, its comparison with Satipratha could be made only out of sheer ignorance.” Acharya Mahaprajna clearly asserted that Santhara is neither a custom, nor it is equivalent to Satipratha, nor it can deemed to be suicide. Motivating the writ-filer for deep studies in the topic, the Acharya said “If those who have filed the writ would have collected factual information about Santhara from the experts, and then would have taken the step, it would have been reasonable, otherwise there is no legitimacy of doing so.”
He further said, “However, everyone is free to file a writ, we can’t prevent him. But I would like to ask as to who is entirely free from all ignorance, may be, he is a lawyer or anybody else. I also believe that this is not at all an issue of judiciary. I fail to understand that if anyone in undertaking sadhana (spiritual practice) of his own conviction, why judiciary should interfere therein.” Acharya further reiterated that suicide was always committed in a state of emotional impulse, whereas Santhara being always free from it, was taken to only in perfect blissful state of psyche. (“As a matter of fact ‘suicide’ is taboo in Jainism”).