Prof. Dr. Kalpana Jain
Like the doctrines of non-violence (Ahińsā), Multiplicity of viewpoints (Anekāntavāda); doctrine of non-possession is another significant and well doctrine of Jain philosophy. Doctrine of Non-possession is such by practicing it, one is said to be practicing the entire code Jain ethics and vows. Doctrine of Non-possession or aparigraha includes:
- Considering all desires or expectations, be they internal or external as harmful,
- Finding ways and means of reducing the possessions and
- Setting the limits for them
1.0 Characteristics of Possessions:
Ācārya Umā Svāmi in Tattvārthasutra has crisply described the nature and characteristics of parigraha. According to him, the characteristic of parigraha is ‘murchā parigraha’[2] i.e. infatuation (murchā) or feeling of mine (mamatva) are possessions. Writing the commentary of this in Sarvārtha Siddhi, Pujya Pāda says that owning and indulging in activities associated with cows, buffalos, pearls, diamonds etc living and non-living beings as external and internal manifestations of self like attachments /aversions are infatuations.[3] It is clear from this that external objects (par-padārtha) by themselves are not possessions but the feelings of their ownership and associated activities are indeed attachment and is parigraha. It is a rule that the possession of external objects is automatically eliminated as soon as our feelings of ownership or their belonging to us is gone or non-existent but the other way around i.e. giving up external objects by itself does not guarantee elimination of attachment or desire for them. This is so as due to absence of active meritorious (punya) karmas and active state of de-meritorious karmas (pāpa) results in automatic absence of all other object but the attachment or longing for them continue to exist.
By giving up external objects one does become free from their possessions (aparigrahī). On the other hand the thought of not owning them and eliminating attachment with them make one free from their possession (i.e. he becomes aparigrahī).
2.0 Definition of parigraha / possessions.
Parigraha had been defined by different ācāryas but the sum and substance of all definitions is one that described the pitiable condition of both parigraha and its owner. Jain acaryas defined parigraha as ‘parito grahanati ātmānayiti parihrahaħ’ i.e. the entity, which binds its owner from all side’. Ācārya Pūjya Pāda viewpoint is ‘ mamedań būddhi-lakşanaħ parigrahaħ’ i.e. the feeling of mine towards other objects is possession. Akalańka in Rājavārtika on the other hand says, “ due to the existence of greed and passions owning things is parigraha”[5]. ‘mamedań vastu ahamasya svāmityātmiyābhi-mānaħ sańkalpaħ parigraha etyūcyate’ feelings like this is mine, I am its owner and similar feelings of attachment is possession. [6]
According to Dhavalā, “praigrahyata eti parigraha bāhyārthaħ kşetrādiħ parigrahyate anenoti ca pragirahaħ bāhyārtha grahnaheturaja parināmaħ eti parigrahaħ’[7] i.e. what we own or what is owned by us is parigraha. Thus according to this statement area or other such external objects are parigraha. And ‘parigrahyate anenoti ca pragirahaħ’ implies the entity by which such external objects are owned is parigraha. Both put together lead us to think that the psychic states which are the causes of developing he feelings of ownership of external objects is parigraha.[8] Samayasāra Ātmakhyāti says ‘ Icchā parigrahaħ’ i.e. the desire is parigraha itself.[9] Ācārya Śayyambhava also has defined parigraha on the same lines ‘ mucchā parigraha vutto nāyapūtreņa tāiņā’.[10] To get attached or to develop bondage to a particular entity or by developing attraction towards external objects resulting in the loss of clear thinking faculty (viveka) are parigraha. In this way in a state of delusion developing infatuation towards an entity and then owning it is parigraha’.[11] While criticizing the ownership of things, Jesus Christ had condemned the same and said in sermons of the mount ‘You can take a camel out of the needle’s eye but you cannot take a rich man through the gates of heaven’. This is so because parigraha is the root cause of infatuation and presence of infatuation means absence of freedom or detachment and in such a state no one can attain auspicious state of being.
2.1 Types of Aparigraha
Jainācāryas have identified twenty-four types of aparigraha that are grouped as external (10 types) and internal (14 types). These are as per Bhagavati Ārādhanā (BA):
1. External:‘kşetrań vastūń dhanań dhānyań dvipadań ca catūşpadań, yānań śayyāsanań kūpyań bhāndań sangā vahirdasa” BA 156
Meaning: Land, house, money, agriculture produce, two legged and four legged animals, beds, furniture, vehicles, utensils and wells, are all external possession.
2. Internal:‘micchatravedarāgā taheva hāsadiya ya dhaddhosā, cattāri taha kasāyā udasa antabhańtarā gańdha’ BA 118
Meaning: Wrong or perverted beliefs, nescience, anger, pride, deceit, greed, joking and laughter, lust (rati), disenchantment in good activities (arati), fear, (jugupsā), feeling of sorrow, feelings for male, female and neutral genders are all internal possessions.
Feelings of want or desire are the synonyms for internal possessions. To set limits in all external objects for the above twenty-four types of possessions and then to give up all objects outside these limits is called limiting the possessions vow (Parigraha parimāņa vrata). The other name for this vow is icchā parimāņa vrata or limiting the desires / expectations vow. Extension of our desires is infinite. As Mahatma Gandhi said ‘There is enough land on this earth to satisfy the needs of living beings but there is not enough land to satisfy the desires of even one living being’. If we do not control our desires, then they make a devil out of us who is without common sense and wisdom.
Like psychic and material violence, we should also discriminate between psychic and material parigraha. To be attracted towards external objects or to be lost in their possession and enjoyment is psychic parigraha. To be able to acquire desired physical objects and become their owner is material parigraha. It is not possible for the owner to develop detachment towards material possessions while he continues to be their owner. Therefore it is important for the practitioner to give up material possessions. It is not a rule that all the objects towards whom we have a desire to won or have a feeling of attraction will become our possessions; but it is definite that objects which are our possessions and for which we are making all efforts to maintain, preserve, protect and enhance them, will definitely create feelings of attachment for them in our mind. The Jain texts cite the example of rice grain for which it is not possible to remove the internal peel/ leaf while still maintaining the external peel/cover.
Jain texts have included parigraha as a part and parcel of five sins (pāpa) viz Ahińsā (non violence), speaking the truth, stealing, possessions and bad character (kūśīla). Further they say that infatuation is the primary cause of all these five sins. One who is the owner of external and internal objects and is busy in their enhancements, enjoyment and protection can never be free of these five sins. As per Sarvārtha Siddhi, all sins or bad deeds are due to parigraha only. Feelings like ‘this is mine’ give rise o feeling o protecting them resulting in definite violence. For this the owner starts telling lies, steals and indulges in undesirable sexual overtones, which ultimately result in experience hellish pains. Ācārya Gūņabhadra says,’ we never see the wealth of even noble persons enhance with good and just means. Do we ever find oceans with fresh and pure water?’
‘Śūddhaidhanaivivardhante satāmapi na sampadaħ,
na hi svacchāmsubhiħ purnāħ kadācidapi sindhavaħ’[15]According to Ācārya Amrta candra, violence is committed in parigraha:
‘Hińsā payyatvisiddhā hińsāntarańgasa śeşū
Bahirańgśeşū tū niyatań prayātū mucchevi hińsātvam’[16]i.e. By definition of internal possessions being passions causing defilement of self, violence is thus inevitable. Similarly the feeling of attachment towards the external objects possessed affecting the self and is thus cause of violence definitely.
In Jain ethics, while describing the effects of parigraha, it is said to be the root cause of all sins namely: ‘man commits violence for parigraha only, tells lies only to amass objects, steals or performs similar acts only to enhance or retain his possessions and lastly performs undesired sexual activities using or for enhancing his possessions’.
In this way parigraha or desire to own external objects is the biggest sin and root cause of all other sins committed by us. Accordingly in Samaņasūttam it is said:
Sańga nimittań mārai bhaņai alīkań sarejja corikkań,
Savai mehūņa micchań apariņāmoń kūņadi jīvo’
2.2 Significance Of Internal Possessions
When we discuss the virtues (dharma) and vices (adharma) of the soul, then these definitions should be such that are uniformly applicable to all. Due to this reason, Jainācāryas have emphasized internal possessions more. In Kārtikeyanūprekşā, Svāmi Kumāra says:
bahirańgadhań vihiņā daliddmaņūvā sahāvado hońti,
avbhyańtarańgadhań pūņa ņa sakkadeko vihańdedūń –387-i.e. a man without external possessions is naturally poor but no body is able to get rid of internal possessions. Similarly in Aşţapāhuda Kunda Kunda says:
bhāva viśūddhininittań bāhirańgadhassa kirae yāo,
vāhiracāo vihalo avbhańtarańgadhajūttassa –3-i.e. external possessions are given up to purify the psychic thoughts. But without giving up internal possessions like attachment etc, giving up external possessions is useless.
Further it is not essential that giving up external possessions will definitely result in elimination of internal possessions. It is also possible that one dos not have an iota of external possession, yet all the fourteen internal possessions are existent. This is the case with monks with wrong beliefs and practicing external appearances of non-possessions only. Since their self is still in the first stage of spiritual purification (gūņasthāna) i.e. Mithyātva, they are full of internal possessions but externally they practice nude monk hood.
Bhagavati Ārādhanā in its verses 916 and 917 clearly says ‘as a rule practice and achievement of internal non-possessions definitely results in giving up external possessions. Impurities in the psychic nature or flaws in internal non-possessions generate flaws in the activities of speech and body i.e. by purification of internal flaws we definitely achieve detachment from external objects.
In fact external possessions like material wealth etc. in themselves are not possessions but the thoughts of their ownership and acquisition is possession. Until the desire to acquire or own external objects is born, existence of external objects is immaterial, otherwise existence of body and religious congregations etc of tīrthańkaras in the 13th gūņasthāna will become their external possessions while the possessions are absent from 10th gūņasthāna onwards.
Emphasizing the giving up of internal possessions does not mean giving up external possessions is not essential but the former definitely leads to the later activity and its utility is same as that of the former. But we are so obsessed with external possessions that we ignore or even do not think of giving up internal possessions.
3.0 Method of practicing aparigraha:
To be free of both internal and external possessions, Jainācāryas have prescribed aņūvratas (small vows) and pratimās (stages of spiritual duties) for householders and mahāvratas (major vows) for monks.
3.1 Parigraha parimāņa vrata or vow to limit the possessions.
We find discussions on attaining freedom from desire /lust / obsession in almost all-Indian philosophical literature. However Jain texts give detailed description about their nature and results thereof. From the time of Lord Pārśvanāth Cāturayāma dharma till the texts of Jain ethical practices by Āsādhara having five small vows, we find detailed and lucid discussions under the fifth vow Parigraha parimāņa vrata. To emphasize the importance of giving up possessions, Jainācāryas have kept it under aņūvratas (small vows) and pratimās (stages of spiritual duties) for householders and mahāvratas (major vows) for monks for practice.
To protect one from the pains associated with possessions, Jainācāryas have included limiting possessions under aņūvratas. Jain householders while practicing the vows of non violence, speaking the truth, non-stealing and celibacy should also observe this vow of limiting his possessions. Actually this fifth vow is a yardstick for both the laity and monks alike. Validity of practicing the first four vows by both laity and monks is automatic if the fifth vow is practiced. Being possessed or parigraha, one cannot practice the other four vows. The pitiable state of today’s society is visible in the context of aparigraha.
As per Sarvārtha Siddhi, a householder sets limits to his possession and acquisition of wealth, houses or real estate on his own sweet will leading to his practice of the fifth aņūvrata. On the other hand Kārtikeyanūprekşā (gāthā 18) says, ‘one who reduces the passion greed, enjoying the stimulant of contentment, knowing all external possessions as perishable and sets limits on their possessions, is a practitioner of the fifth small vow’. Samanta Bhadra in Ratnakarańdaśrāvakācāra (19) is says, ‘to accept limits on the possessions and acquisition of ten types of external possessions and not more than the limit and then practice it is Parigraha parimāņa vrata.’ Gunabhadra in Ātmānuśāsana says, ‘every living being in this world has such a large and deep well of desires that all the wealth and objects of the world cannot fill it. In such a situation what can be given to anyone to make him contented? Desire or lust for worldly possessions will keep on giving pain to them’. Similarly Daulat Ram in Adhyatāma Padāvali says, ‘Even acquiring the entire wealth of all the three worlds is insufficient to make one satisfied. One can only accrue the benefits of knowledge only after enjoying the nectar of contentment’.
Gita (gāthā 4.22) also says about protecting one from the ills of karmic bondage, ‘A person, who tries to acquire material wealth in a normal manner, feeling contented with the same, not being affected by the occurrences of pains and pleasures, free from jealousies, maintaining equanimity is successes and failures; does not bind karmas.’ Kautilya also in his doctrine of economics has justified only that much acquisition and possessions which are essential to discharge our worldly duties.
Jainācāryas, by equating the fifth small vow i.e. Parigraha parimāņa vrata as icchā parimāņa vrata (vow to limit the desires), say, ‘ a person should limit his desires and then acquire possessions to satisfy them’. The golden rule for a laity to be happy is to limit his expenses within his income. To live within one’s means is a big art. To emphasize this point, Kabir, Rahim and other Indian philosopher poets have written similar verses and even poems.
The only way to free oneself from the ills of possessions is to develop contentment i.e. until we set limits to our desires we cannot live happily. Possessions enhance attachment with them resulting in increased desires. Samanta Bhadra in Ratnakarańdaśrāvakācāra (27) echoes similar statements.
4.0 Aparigrahavāda or doctrine of non-possession.
Doctrine of non-possessions is a significant and unique contribution of lord Mahāvīra to the world. It generates peace and harmony in the society; equanimity in the nation and sense of belonging in the family. Its practice in letter and spirit only can result in the welfare of humanity. Buddhist philosopher Dr Indra Datt Śāstri while discussing aparigraha says, ‘One should keep on reducing the self / ego (sva) to such a miniscule existence that only non-self (para) remains and the ego is extinguished’. Vedanta philosophers project eh same thing in a different manner as ‘Make the self (sva) so large that the non-self (para) does not exist and only sva exists.’ The ultimate objective of both philosophical streams is to eliminate the difference between self and non-self and this is the spiritual non possession. Jain philosophy, being a believe in all existences as real presents the same philosophy as infatuation and says, ‘differences between individuals exist and will continue to exist; existence of these differences cannot stop the development process but to get fixed to only one or few objects / things is the biggest hurdle for development. This very hurdle had been given the name of infatuation by Jains.’ In this manner the doctrine of non-possession has become the alphabet of development.
To promote world peace, preaching and practicing the doctrine of non-possession has become a necessity. A closer analysis of today’s burning issues like individual or social exploitation, consumerism and economic imbalances reveals lack of the doctrine of non-possession practiced. In fact all mental energies of the entire world and individuals are focused on acquisitions and possessions. In Aparigraha one has to free oneself from both activities (acquisition and possession) only the nature of self is left for enjoyment. As per Jain philosophy, this is the ultimate objective of all beings.
Lord Mahāvīra was fully conversant with the results of possessions. He realised that until an individual gained full control over his oneself, the non-self will prevail over him. The non-self will make him so infatuated that he will not be able to recognize his own nature and self. O eliminate his infatuation, lord Mahāvīra’s sermons become very useful. He established the path from minor vows to major vows for individuals to practice according to their own needs and capabilities. He emphasize that one should established his cherished goal and path to follow. One has to live equally and maintaining equanimity both in terms of internal and external possessions and only thus his knowledge about self and its nature will accrue. By knowing the nature of self, one will follow the first step i.e. path of non-violence. By accepting all living beings as similar to you, you cannot lie to them, cannot deceive them, cannot steal others possessions after developing detachment with the body and finally in the purification of your soul, expectation of other things does not arise. This is aparigraha in the views of lord Mahāvīra.
Even though Jain philosophy propagates the path of detachment and giving up, still it cannot be said to be separate from the philosophy of engagement. In this not only detachment is proposed but also the social uplift is equally propagated. Practicing small vows is not possible without the involvement of society. All the qualities, which a laity acquires, the same are expressed in the society only.
While leading the life of a householder, one cannot totally avoid violence or telling lies etc. Lord Mahāvīra therefore said, ‘the laity should be cautious and keep his vision right; whatever he /she does, one should be fully conversant with the results of their actions. One should be knowledgeable about one’s essential needs. Practice of five aņūvratas and eleven pratimās are enshrined to enable the practitioner develop these skills. Consciousness about giving up while earning is the indicator of aparigraha in the daily lives of the householders. The second essential condition for being a aparigraha householder is that his practice should be valid /validated. For this he /she has to set limits which can be gauged by himself and others while practicing the aņūvrata. If a Jain householder conducts his business this way then the whole country will also get validated as aparigrahī.
Social ills such as hoarding, exploitation prevailing cannot be eliminated overnight. First an individual has to change himself and become aparigrahī. Then his conduct will shine and its rays will affect the society and definitely affect change and improvement. Aparigraha does not mean that an individual should become poor but its real meaning is to avoid his obsession to accumulate wealth. To limit desires and infatuation is the practical aspect of aparigraha. Welfare of the society is possible only when aparigraha becomes the belief and vision of all its members and enforces the desire and practice of giving up (or sharing with others), consumerism reduces and aparigrahavāda increases as a way of life. Aparigraha is not opposed to production, consumption and existence of material wealth.; however aparigraha is opposed to the development of attachment and infatuation with the ownership and consumption of material wealth.
5.0 Conclusion:
References:Those who are determined find it easier to control their wandering mind and its activities. Doubts and worries arise when we expand our desires. Expansion is like a journey that leads one away from his inner self to external non-self, while contraction or limiting desires is the reverse of withdrawing from external non-self to inner self.
Still there is time for us to limit our desires and withdraw from this painful journey safely. Expansion results in just uneasiness and discomfort and nothing else. Lord Mahāvīra made himself separate from both inner and outer selves and then he became the great and powerful. Only the one who is an expert in this art of withdrawing from both internal and external wants and desires can guide his world effectively. Effectively when the aparigrahavāda erodes itself completely from the mind set of the people, at that time the social and the national problems will get resolved and the human beings will attain the highest peace. The principles of aparigrahavāda are in front of us from 1000 of years, but we fail to follow it in the correct and right spirit. If it would have been followed properly than, there would not have been any violence in the world.
The principle of aparigraha helps the humans to overcome greed, attachment, and cravings. Not only for the monks abut also for the lay followers this vrata, is a mulavrata and and important one. It helps us to follow the other vratas. Not only for the individual, but also for the society and nations it is very helpful.
[partly under reconstruction]