The Soul of Jainism

By Dr. Shiv Sharma

Jainism is an off-shoot of Hinduism. But it has its own specific attributes and qualities. This book contains the sum total of the teachings and preaching’s of 24 Tirthankers and a successive chain of Jain Acharya’s. The book will expose you to the concepts of liberation of soul, non-violence, truth or compassion. It is indispensable to those who are interested in the growth of Indian culture and ethos.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Diamond Books
• Release date: Apr 15, 2021
• ISBN: 9788128813436

Book preview

Bibliography

Jainism vs Other Religions

Hinduism is undoubtedly the oldest religion of the world, but Jainism and Buddhism are much older than Christianity and Islam. Hinduism is not considered as a religion as it is a way of life. After the death of the founders of various religions such religions came to a virtual halt due to lack of permissive and pragmatic approach. A growing religion keeps its windows and doors open, so as to let in fresh air, light and fragrance of other religious views. When fanaticism creeps into any religion, the number of its followers takes a downward trend and ultimately it extinguishes and becomes a non-entity.

Roots of Islam are embedded in Egyptian Civilization from which Islam emanated. Prophet Mohammed was an Arab and the Holy Quran is also written in Arabic language. The Arabs had many Gods and deities whom they worshipped, but Islam had only one God, one prophet and one scripture. Moreover, Egyptian Civilization is not a religion like Islam. There is no variation in preaching, practices and philosophy of the Jains and the Buddhists, though some glaring departures cannot be denied and overlooked. But it is a historical reality that roots of both the said religions are deeply embedded in Hinduism. If people accept a new religion, it has to have some novel and exceptional traits, otherwise people will refuse to subscribe to its teachings and preachings.

For the Christians Biblical Commandments are the final word of Jesus Christ, who is considered as a prophet and angel by the Christians whose holy book is Bible. This community does not believe in idolatory, though it is also a stark reality that statues and replicas of Christ and virgin Mary adorn the Christian Churches, but both of whom are not worshipped. The Christians, like the Muslims, believe in the existence of God but neither of them believe in the existence and worship of Gods and deities, as God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, compassionate & considerate.

Religion and State Patronage

History guides that all the religions in the world prospered and spread due to royal and state patronage. In some countries, states regains were based on a specific religion - this way it can be called as a state religion. The problem surfaced when there was too much interference by the state in the religious affairs of a community or when the state tried to usurp freedom of religion by enforcing its own laws on a religion. There are numerous instances when government functionaries were inducted into religious institutes and the educational, social and cultural organisations, with a view to exerting control over such bodies. There are also instances when the rulers had to seek assistance and support from religious leaders and institutes, so as to keep their authority intact.

In the above scenario a sort of conflict surfaced between the state and the religion. A tug-of-war ensued resulting in dominance of one power over the other. As conflict between state and religion did not forebode well for either of the parties, a compromise formula was worked out, where both the warring groups could follow their own path without interfering in each others affairs. But such a truce was only a temporary phase as neither side wanted to play a second fiddle. When individual gains take precedence over collective gains, confrontation is unavoidable; hence it is an ongoing process when one side uses the other for its personal ends and vice Versa.

The third force acted as a commenting factor and it was the force of money-power. The rich are needed by both the factions, hence they served as a conduit between both the parties. These days it is the money power that rules the roost, hence rich people have become almost indispensable to both the sides.

In short, religion was politicised and commercialised by these rulers and elite class who wanted to ground their own axe, of course at the cost detriment to religion. The concept the Philosopher-states man give way either to a religion dominated political system or a religion dominated by political rulers. So, in one form or the other, religion and politics still continue to influence each other.

Hinduism vs Jainism

Hinduism is like a growing Banyan tree under whose influence many religions took inspiration and grew to such an extent that they developed into pendent religions, even though they branched from Hinduism but, even then, retained their separate entity. The Vedas, Puranas, six schools of Indian Philosophy, Vedanta, Yoga, Upanishadas, the epics like the Ramayan, Mahabharata and the Gita formed an inseperable part of Hindu religion and philosophy. Shankar’s Advaitvad (Non-duality concept), Veda Vyas, thinkers like Rama Krishan Paramhansa, Swami Vivekanand, Swami Rama Tirath, religious and social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand (the founder of Arya Samaj) and Philosophical teachers like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan played a very important role in contributing to the spread of Hinduism.

The concept of Parmativa, Atman, Jiva, Sansar, Maya (the Supreme reality, soul, the individual, cosmic world, delusion respectively) are basic tenets of Hindu philosophy which also form inseperable part of Jainism. Hence Jainism was inspired by Hinduism, though certain deviations were natural in the then changing circumstances and compulsions of social changes. Aim of both the religions is to emancipate the individual from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth and then ultimate merge with the Almighty God. Both religions believe that due to ignorance an individual remains embroiled in worldly affairs, allurements and thus, forgets his actual aim of unification with God.

All the Hindu scriptures were written in Sanskrit which the common folk did not know, as only the Brahmans were able and competent to comprehend and explain the tenets of religious books. So, Hinduism was primarily became a sole preserve of the Brahmans whose presence was a necessity in the performance of all the rites, rituals and functions. As far as performance of rituals and worship were concerned, no other caste enjoyed any right in this regard- it all resulted in an opposition towards the dominance and supremacy of Brahmans. In fact, Buddhism and Jainism served as reactivary religions to offset Brahmanical dominance and monopoly, but the Yeoman’s service rendered by the Brahmans in the spread and propagation of Hinduism, cannot and should not be moved.

The Jain teachings were not compiled in a book form but were rather stored in memory of monks and preachers. Probably it was in 454 A.D. that the whole canon was reduced to writing and that every Jaina monastery had a Composite printed copy there of. The Jain Scriptures were written in all the dialects of Prakrit language, also called as ‘Ardha- Magadhi’ which was a language of the common man and not a sole preserve of the learned. The shwetambara sect of jainism did not permit the common man and laity to read their scriptures. Only the monks were authorised to read and study them, and nums were also debarrd to read them. This approach is akin to Hinduism but opposed to Buddhism, where women (nuns) enjoyed equal rights with the monks.

Digambara canon is at total variance from Shwetambar canon, The former call their four scriptures as their Vedas. Here also the canons were handed down by word of mouth from the teacher to his disciples. The Digambars claim that their manuscripts are more sacred than their written version. Jainism, unlike Buddhism, availed services of Brahmans who performed various rituals and services for their Jaina clients. Jainism had developed a niche for the Hindu pantheons like Rama and Krishna etc. Mahavira was a liberal and genius parexcellence. He was not a sticker but a pragmatic person who did not hesitate to seek refude under Hinduism which was also liberal. The Jaina are Hindus and their canons are also not opposed to those to Hinduism Hence survival of Jainism to this day can be attributed to its affinity with Hinduism and its receptivity.

Sinclair Sterenson says, It must always be remembered that the Jainism, though a rebellious daughter, is none the less a daughter of Brahmanism, many of whose leading beliefs arc still held by the jain, while much of their worship exactly resembles Hindu worship, and their domestic chaplains, though not their temple officiants, are still Brahmans. In fact, both faith must be studied if Jainism to be (Studied) understood. One might even suggest that one of the easiest approaches to the study of the boundless creed of Hinduism could be through the study of its more clearly defined and less nebulous offspring, (that is) Jainism.

Jain religion took a cue from Hinduism regarding sacrifices. Earlier the Brahmans had allowed the khshatriyas to take part in sacrifices but this priveleged right was dewed by the latter followers. The Aryans, being influenced by the Vedic culture, were so much influenced that they too felt that all the beings, inducting animals, insects, birds, reptiles, Vegetalious were possessed of should, hence they desisted from resorting to killing any species, whether animate or inaniomate and that it would be a sin and also that process of transmigration would also be adversely affected. So sacrilege of all species, for sport, pleasure or religious performances, would cause their rebirth - this belief was an affront to the creed and pretensious of their own priests; hence they revolted against sacrifice:

The Brahmans maintained that it was their sole and monopolistic right to perform various sacrifices and advanced the argument that the four castes were created from the creator’s mouth (Brahmans), arms (Khashatriyas, the thighs (Vaishyas) and feet (Shutras). So the Brahmans coming as they did from creator’s mouth, were supreme. But his affirmation was not taken kindly by the Khashatriyas who opted to oppose this concept. So, the Jains, repelled and maintained that it was a greater honour to be born as a Khashatriya than a Brahman - this approach of the Jains was antagonist to the Brahmans, as their supereme status was undermined by the Jainas.

The rebel jainas managed to force open the door to ascelism and the mendicants were allowed to take to wandering, if they so desired. They transgressed caste-based barriers by laying stress on ‘Karma’ (deed & or actions) as the bench mark of their postulations. So they propounded the theory that one takes birth according to his previous ‘Karmas’ and the Caste, in which he is born, is based only on Karmas, as nobody was a Brahman or Khshatriya by birth. Hinduism and jainism believe in the theory of ‘Karma’ which is also a hallmark of the buddhists.

Jainism vs Buddhism

Mahavir and Gautam Buddha were contemporaries and they both rose against Brahmanism and Vedic culture and practices. Both religious leaders laid much stress on birth, death, Rebirth, life after death, freedom from the life and death circle, but it was the theory of Karma that prevailed. Hinduism also believed in ‘Karma’ and according to it, it is one’s Karmas that decide a person’s rebirth in a noble or low family.

Both the religions were dead against caste system; hence they maintained that ‘Sansakaras’ (constructing activities) Karmas were inter-woven, and that good karmas will yield birth in a noble family and vice versa. Karmas would determine a person’s life and activities and rebirth is simply the result of one’s own karmas, Lord Buddha’s approach was more liberal in respect of caste, as he never distinguished between persons of any caste. The Jains also opposed caste system but most of the adherants were the Khashatriyas. The Jains did not embrace Hindu caste system as a whole, but they had indirectly accepted the caste system, as most of whom were Khashatriyas which is a privileged caste of the Hindus, too.

Buddhism did not preach total abandonment of all the possessions so as to lead life of a recluse, but the Jains went a step beyond and advocated total renunciation of all the worldly possessions, like property, affections and emotions which only could ensure a total renunciation. Buddha respected learned Brahmans, as most of the leading preachers were Brahmans, but the Jains partially subscribed to this approach.

As for Non-Violence Buddhism introduced certain escape- routes to justify violence in some cases, even though it was their creed, but the Jains stretched the concept of non-violence to such a subtle extent that some of its adherants felt mentally choked and physically exasperated. Too strict fiats lead to violation of the code, as some Jain Munis (ascetics) tie a piece of cloth around their nose and mouth lest the insects should gain entry into human system.

The Jains borrowed the doctrine of Ahinsa’ (Non-Killings) from the Hindus and Buddhists but the Jain’s Practice of Ahinsa was difficult to practise. For instance, bacteria are found in curd and milk also. Then should not they be consumed for fear of annhiulation of such species? In fact, emphasis should have been on piety, purity of thought and conduct, simple being and high thinking, nobility, duty etc; instead of on Non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi was also an apostle of peace and Non-violence but he also asked his doctors togive intection to his goat which was writhing under impact of severe pain. Further, Non-violence is a weapon of the brave and not of the coward. Violence is allowed in the case of self-defence and also when own or some one’s life is in peril. When violence is done to save a person’s life, it constitutes neither a sin nor a crime; So, the Jain concept of Ahinsa is not in Conformity with that of the concepts of Buddhists and the Hindus, as too strict compliance of any restrictive principle is bound to be resisted and when it so happens, it loses its utility, force, practicability and compliance, as too rigid principles become brittle of stretched by human patience and endurance. Here Hinduism and Buddhism are more flexible and adaptable than jainism.

Buddhism lays stress on suffering, though Jainism stresses on emancipation of soul renunciation and bless. For Lord Buddha, life is a Sage of suffering till death. Jainism does not being suffering but, for it, life is not ridden with suffering. Buddhism is pessimism while Jainism is optimism as the latter takes suffering in life as only a facet and that life has positive aspects only. If continue to dwell solely on suffering, life will become a hell, leaving hardly any scope for happiness in life. Human life is, no doubt, ridden with problems and sufferings, but two much emphasis them on takes away initiative and positive approach. Buddha describes old age, birth, death and rebirth also as suffering but these are all the normal stages of life. Here Jain is more reasonable and flexible, as it does not highlight negative, and dark aspects of human life. As most of the Jains were Kshatriyas or traders, they took life in its normal strict sense, hence they did not depict dark and negative side of life.

Both the religions believe that human life is the most important life on the earth, but they deny the right sacrifice of other species because no human being is invested with the right to take away life of any other being. How ill the human beings feel the right to live is also given to other species? As all species have the equal right to live, no one has the right to take away life of any other being.