Jain Darshan Me Naitikta Ki Sapekshata Aur Nirpekshata

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the Jain text "Jain Darshan me Naitikta ki Sapekshata aur Nirpekshata" by Sagarmal Jain, based on the provided content:

Jain Philosophy: Relativity and Absoluteness of Morality

This article, authored by Prof. Sagarmal Jain, delves into the complex question of whether morality is relative or absolute, a debate prominent in Western ethics and also explored within Jain philosophy.

Western Ethical Perspectives:

• Absolutism (e.g., Kant): Kant argues for absolute moral rules, stating that one should act only according to principles that can be willed into universal laws. For Kant, moral rules are categorical imperatives, unchanging across time, place, or individuals. If truth-telling is moral, it is always moral, regardless of circumstances.
• Relativism (e.g., Hobbes, Mill, Sidgwick, Dewey): These thinkers, often associated with utilitarianism and hedonism, believe that moral actions can be exceptions and vary based on context, time, and individual circumstances.
  • Hobbes suggests that theft for sustenance during famine might be forgivable.
  • Mill goes further, calling stealing to save a life not just forgivable but a duty.
  • Sidgwick notes that politicians needing to keep actions secret might not always speak the truth to others.
  • John Dewey posits that even fulfilling basic desires can be ideal in specific relative circumstances.

The text highlights Kant's famous anecdote of refusing to eat fruits from a parcel that had been opened by passengers starving during a shipwreck, illustrating his unwavering adherence to his principles.

Jain Philosophy's Stance: A Synthesis of Relativity and Absoluteness:

The article contends that Jain philosophy cannot be categorized as exclusively relative or absolute. It presents a nuanced perspective where both aspects are integral.

Jain Morality: Relativity (Sapekshata):

• Anekantavada (Non-one-sidedness): The foundational principle of Anekantavada suggests that all knowledge is relative. Since humans are incomplete, they can only grasp infinite aspects of reality partially, leading to relative knowledge and, consequently, relative moral judgments. The text cites the Bhagavad Gita's acknowledgement of the difficulty in definitively determining "what is duty" or the absolute good/bad of an action.
• Contextual Nature of Actions: Jain philosophy acknowledges that actions are always related to time, place, and individuals, making them inherently relative. External circumstances and the individual's intentions (purpose/intention) also make actions relative from a moral perspective.
• Infinite Properties of Objects: According to Jain thought, every object possesses infinite properties. Moral actions, being worldly phenomena, are also multifaceted and cannot be judged from a single, absolute viewpoint. Without examining their time-place context, actions cannot be definitively labeled moral or immoral.
• Bradley's View: The text draws a parallel with Western philosopher Bradley, who argued that every act has multiple sides and perspectives, making it difficult to label it absolutely right or wrong. An act can be moral in one situation and immoral in another, or moral for one person and immoral for another.
• Examples of Relativity:
  • The ancient Jain scripture, Acharya Sutra, states that what causes influx (asrava) or bondage (bandha) can also become a cause for liberation (moksha), and vice versa.
  • Giving charity is generally moral, but donating to an unworthy recipient for the sake of fame becomes immoral.
  • The auspiciousness or inauspiciousness of an action cannot be determined absolutely.
• Determining Factors: Jain thinkers emphasize that the morality of an action is determined not only by the individual's inner state (bhava), but also by dravya (substance/object), kshetra (place), and kala (time). The Charakasamhita, quoted by Acharya Jinavijay, highlights that due to country, time, and disease, situations can arise where what is usually wrong becomes right, and vice versa.
• Four Relativities: Actions become moral or immoral based on four factors: the situation itself, place, time, and the individual's mental state.
• Duty for Different Ascetics: Jain thought acknowledges that duties for a householder (like giving charity) might be non-duties for a monk or ascetic.
• Tirthankaras' Teachings: The Tirthankaras have not prescribed absolute rules or prohibitions but emphasize acting with truth and full dedication.
• Umaswati's Statement: Actions are not absolutely moral or immoral; rather, country, time, person, situation, external factors, and a pure state of mind can transform the unperformable into performable and vice versa.
• Upadhyay Amarmuni's Perspective: He advocates for a balanced approach, criticizing those who exclusively adhere to absolute principles (utsarga) or those who only rely on exceptions (apavada). Jain practice is seen as a healthy practice of anekanta, not extremes.
• No Fixed Formula for Liberation: Jain philosophy does not offer a rigid blueprint for achieving liberation.

Jain Morality: Absoluteness (Nirpekshata):

• Inherent Moral Principles: Jainism posits an absolute and eternal aspect to morality. The Tirthankaras declared ahimsa (non-violence) as a pure, eternal, and everlasting dharma. Without an absolute element, the concepts of eternity and perpetuity in dharma would be meaningless.
• Inner vs. Outer Aspects of Conduct: Jain philosophy distinguishes between the inner (dravya) and outer (bhava) aspects of conduct.
  • The outer aspect (dravya) is considered relative, subject to changes in time and place.
  • The inner aspect (bhava), or intentions and resolutions, is considered absolute and unchanging.
• Examples of Inner Absoluteness:
  • Mental violence (vichara-hiṃsā) is always immoral.
  • Internal attachment (antar parigrah), i.e., craving or greed, is always immoral.
  • However, physical violence (dravya-hiṃsā) or external violence is not always immoral, and external possession (dravya parigrah) is not always immoral.
• Moral Intentions are Absolute: Jain philosophy views moral intentions or resolutions as absolute. A good intention (shubh adhyavasaya) is always good and moral, never immoral.
• The Realm of the Mind: Jainism considers morality in the realm of the mind ("manas karma") to be purely absolute. The mind, as the soul's own domain, is where it reigns supreme, making morality absolute there.
• External Actions are Relative: In contrast, external actions (kayik or vachik karma) are relative because they are influenced by external circumstances.
• The Case of Acharya Bhikshu: The article mentions that some Jain thinkers, like Acharya Bhikshu, attempted to establish the absolute nature of external moral rules as well.
• The Ideal vs. The Actual:
  • Purely Relative Morality: Focuses on "what is" (actuality) but fails to adequately evaluate the "what should be" (ideal). It provides the "matter" of conduct but not its "form."
  • Purely Absolute Morality: Focuses solely on the ideal and fails to provide a practical path for attainment, neglecting the contextual realities of the practitioner.
• The Goal of Morality: The article emphasizes that moral ideals should be presented flexibly to accommodate individuals at all stages of ethical development, allowing even the most sinful soul to progress towards the highest peak of moral practice.

The Balanced Approach: The "Utarga" and "Apavada" Paths:

• Incompleteness of Extremes: Both purely relative and purely absolute viewpoints are incomplete. The former sees the ground the practitioner stands on but not beyond; the latter sees the distant ideal but not the immediate path.
• The Importance of Both Vision and Action: Moral progress requires a balanced approach, like walking: one must look both down at the path and forward at the destination.
  • One Eye on Reality, One on the Ideal: The practitioner needs to maintain one eye on reality (yatharth) and the other on the ideal (adarsh).
  • Knowledge and Action as Two Eyes: In ethical life, knowledge can be seen as the eye focused on the ideal, and action as the eye focused on reality.
• Two Types of Absoluteness in Jainism:
  1. Absoluteness in General Rules (Utarga Marga - The General Path): These are the standard moral rules that are to be followed in normal circumstances. Individuals cannot expect exceptions when conditions are as they were when the rules were established. This path is relative to the circumstantial generality but absolute within that generality.
  2. Absoluteness of the Moral Ideal (Ethical Ideal): This is a supreme, absolute truth that serves as the basis for evaluating all moral conduct. Actions that lead towards this ideal are good (shubh), and those that deviate are bad (ashubh) and immoral. This ideal is the ultimate absolute.
• Relativity of Both Paths to the Ideal: Both the Utarga (general) and Apavada (exception) paths are relative to this ultimate moral ideal. They derive their "absoluteness" from their connection to this ultimate goal. The goal itself, the ideal, is liberation (moksha).

Navigating Exceptions and the Role of the "Gitarth":

• The Question of Decision-Making: If morality is relative, how does one decide what action to take in a particular situation?
• The General Rule (Utarga): Jain philosophy states that the general path (Utarga) is the default for all practitioners in normal circumstances.
• Exceptions (Apavada): The exception path (Apavada) can be followed in special, unavoidable circumstances.
• Who Decides? The "Gitarth": To avoid subjectivity and personal inclination leading to misuse of exceptions, Jainism does not grant individuals complete freedom to decide on exceptions. Instead, it introduces the concept of the "Gitarth" (one who understands the scriptural teachings).
  • Qualifications of a Gitarth: A Gitarth is someone who genuinely understands the characteristics of what is to be done and what is not to be done. They possess knowledge of income-expenditure, cause-effect, health-illness, object-non-object, appropriateness, capability, carefulness, and the consequences of all actions.
  • Guidance from Scriptures: While the Gitarth makes the decision in special circumstances, the scriptural texts (Agamas) serve as guiding principles.
  • Balance between Scripture and Individual Judgment: Jain ethics strikes a balance. Scriptures provide guidance, but the individual, guided by the Gitarth, makes the final decision. Scriptures are guides, not absolute determinants.

Conclusion:

Jain philosophy embraces both the relative and absolute aspects of morality. While external actions and circumstances necessitate a relativistic approach, the inner intentions and the ultimate moral ideal are absolute. The path to ethical living involves a wise balance between adhering to general rules (Utarga) and judiciously applying exceptions (Apavada) under the guidance of scriptural wisdom and learned scholars (Gitarths), all directed towards the ultimate, absolute ideal of liberation.