Philosophy In Jain Agams: Activity and Abstinence

Generally, Jain religion is considered as a religion of abstinence, but this belief is partially true. Complete state of inactivity can occur only in the fourteenth guṇasthāna (stages of spiritual development) and the duration of that guṇasthāna is minimal. Thereafter salvation is inevitably achieved. In order to run routine life, activity is essential. Jain religion does not totally reliant on complete abstinence but to some extent it has accepted role of activities also. It maintains a harmony between action and inaction.

Lord Mahavira has given provision to both, comportment and inhibition of mind, speech and body for a spiritual practitioner. After getting initiated into monkhood, a disciple asks 'Now, I have accepted a new life, I have to sustain my life also, please guide me how should I conduct my behaviour so that I will not have bondage of inauspicious karmas.^[1]' The Guru guides the disciple, by saying that, 'Now you should start your life with self restraint, by this way you will not have any bondage of inauspicious karmas.^[2]' Wisdom is also required in both action and inaction. What should be given importance and where, this understanding is essential. With this understanding, the path of spiritual practice becomes clearer.

Indifference (neutrality) in Conduct

Violence is not worth of doing. Nonviolence is always desirable and worthy of following. This is a universal principle of conduct. However, sometimes due to specific situations, this principle can not be adhered in speech. Such problems usually occur in the field of conduct.

Behaviour in life is very complex. That is why a person following the vow of non-violence has to take the help of speech and silence, taking into account the demands of time and prevailing conditions. Sometimes one has to resort to silence only. Different problems can not be solved with the same level of mentality. An attempt to illustrate the problem of choosing an exact solution has been made in the Sūtṛakrtāṅga, by putting forward a problems and providing a solution. A non-violent person should not say that, 'This living being is slayable', but with reference to a problem, sometimes saying that 'This living being is not slayable' is also not appropriate. Therefore, a non-violent person should remain silent in such situations.^[3] If a person approaches a monk by asking a question, whether he should kill the violent creatures like lion etc. or not, then. It can not be answered that he should kill them as those violent beasts are killing many human beings and creating a massacre. Also, to say 'don't kill them' is not advisable as per the practical situation. Hence, in such a situation, it is advised for a monk to remain silent.^[4]

Why should one keep silent is discussed by Shilankacharya in reference of 'slayable or non- slayable', by presenting the logical reasoning as follows - if we say that the wrong doers like thief etc. are worthy of killing then it will stimulate violent action and if we say that they are not worthy of killing, then it will support the acts of theft. So, the nonviolent ascetic should remain silent in such situation. Similarly, one should remain indifferent towards watching, or killing of violent beasts like lion, tiger, cat etc.^[5]

At many places in the āgamas, there is a preaching on keeping a control over one's speech, in the context of conduct and behaviour. This is a general tendency of a human being that he does not accept anyone else purer than his own self. One may have a mental tendency that only his way of practice is true and the best one whilst others are wandering in delusion. Such a mental tendency creates a problem for them when it is expressed through their speech. Demoting such tendency, it has been directed in the Sūtrakṛtāṅga that it is not proper to say that those who practice restraint and lead a good life, are wrong and deluded, is not proper. Don't keep such an attitude.^[6]' The preacher and the supporter of non- absolutism never use abusive language. Those who remain self-reliant, calm and quiet and keep control over their senses, avoid jokes and frivolous talk to call them wrong-doers is a non-restraint act of speech. For ascetics, irrespective of whether they belong to our own group or some other group, we must never use the words like 'these poor fellows are deluded practitioners of penance and everything they do is false and anti-social behaviour'.^[7] A monk is trained in such a way, that he should not keep eye upon others, but, he must concentrate his mind on the best practice of meditation and should give up all behaviour which creates violence and controversies.

When 'somebody is giving charity to some-one' -what should be a monk's reaction - in this regard also an illustration has been given in Sūtrakṛtāṅga. Is offering food to a brahmin or a monk, spiritual or not? Is it auspicious or not? Its answer should not be given in either yes or no, by a monk. In the context of charity of food to a brahmin or other monks, a monk should not say 'this practice is auspicious' because it would stimulate violence of mobile and immobile living- beings. He should also not say that it is inauspicious because his saying so would obstruct the receiver from getting the food. Those who praise charity, wish to kill the living beings. Those who protest against this tendency, hinder their livelihood. Those who neither say that it is auspicious nor say that it is inauspicious, stop the influx of karmas and get salvation.^[8] This means that during a charity event which approaches them and if asked whether it is auspicious or not, then, at that time a monk should remain silent. This silence is nothing but the wisdom of his speech. By offering something or giving charity, whether the donor gets good karma or not, a wise ascetic should not comment. Ascetic should always extend peaceful ways.^[9] Sūtrakṛtāṅga Cūrṇi has stated that charity given to a true ascetic with a higher degree of faith brings beneficial results, while providing charity to the wrong person promotes killing. Even then, a non-violent person should keep himself away from saying both 'yes' and 'no'. Saying 'no' brings the bondage of obstructing karmas and saying 'yes' promotes violence. Thus, in such contexts, auspicious and inauspicious, both are not worthy of mentioning. At the time of preaching of these principles it can be explained, but a monk should keep silence when the charity is actually being given. A monk should follow the peaceful path and should behave in such a manner that the questioning people remain calm and ascetic rules are also followed.^[10]

The commentators of Sūtrakṛtāṅga have said that even the benefits of charity given to the ascetics belonging to one's own congregation or to other's congregation should not be highlighted in absolute words. In the negation of charity, there is a possibility of obstruction in benefit and some negative opinion may be developed in those people leading to a possibility of violence. So, both assertion and negation are not worthy of speaking for an ascetic. He should speak non-violent words by renouncing both assertion and negation.^[11]