Acharya Tulsi
Change is the law of nature. Every object of the world is changing. Whether one likes it or not, whatever one does, it is not possible to halt the process of change. Ganadhar Gautam asked Lord Mahavir, “Respected Sir: What is substance?" Lord Mahavir said_"That which is created is substance."Gautam’s curiosity was not satisfied. He repeated his question. Lord- Mahavir said,"What ever perishes is substance." What is left.in the world after creation and destruction? This doubt made Gautam question again. Lord Mahavir understood his problem. He said, "Gautam: That which remains permanent in this flowing current of creation and destruction, is substance." This method of portraying substance is indicative of the eternal principle of change.
Change is of two kinds'—natural change and that wrought by effort. Change wrought by effort is possible in an object, in man, in a tradition. In bringing about such a change, it is necessary to keep in view time, place and situation. And more than that it requires deliberation and discretion. Thoughtful change is indicative of progress. Thoughtless change, effected in a hurry or as result of being swept by the reigning fashion, can be productive of misery.
We believe in Non—absolutism (Anekant). There must be a change, or there must not be any change such one—sidedassertions mean nothing. A change which is beneficial for an individual, society,or country, is worthy to be wrought. That which serves nobody's interest, is not worth bothering about. Orthodox people would like to prevent any change taking place; the progressives would like to bring about many changes. In such a situation, if a thoughtful person, after properly assessing the requirements of place, time and circumstance, works determinedly for a change, it is likely to prove beneficial.
Many years ago, I sat in the house of sharavak(householder) in the company of his family. All the women were in purdah. l said, "Purdah is a symbol of cowardice. It hinders the eye from seeing. Why do you keep your daughters-in-law in purdah?" The sharavak did not seem to like it, but he kept silent out of respect and bashfulness. Reluctantly, he directed his daughters-in-law to lift their purdah.
After some time, his wife expired. He felt very lonely and avoided going into the house. His daughters—in—law were quite intelligent, and treated him as a father. Their polite behaviour and intimacy kept the doors of the house open to him. When he sat for dinner, they would themselves lay the table and at times sit beside him and talk to him. This greatly lightened the grief he felt on account of the death of his wife.
Sometime after this, he came to me and said, "Gurudev: The other day did not like what you said, though it was not possible to ignore it. However, if I had not carried out your suggestion by asking my daughters-in-law to come out of purdah, the doors of this house would have been as good as shut for me. My wife's death would have been a prelude to mine. After they lifted the purdah, all my daughters-in-law appear to me to be like my own daughters. l can never forget the great good you did to me."
This incident establishes the propriety of change. But a Change that is Wrought without due deliberation merely in the name of modernity, is often destructive of cultural values. For instance, take up the case of the Western dress adopted by the Indian public. The custom of sitting on chairs is part of culture in the colder countries of the West. People there wear suits and neckties. But it is not that cold in India, nor is there any established tradition of sitting on chairs. And yet the Western dress has become prevalent here. As a result, people experience difficulty while squatting on the floor. Such an itch of being called progressive has taken hold of the people’s minds that they thoughtlessly embrace the current fashion. In conclusion we may say that to bring about a desirable change, calls for great intelligence, discretion and far sight.
