Jain Darshan Me Naitikta Ki Sapkeshata Aur Nirpekshata - Book Summary

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

This article explores the concepts of relativity and absolutism in Jain ethics, drawing parallels and contrasts with Western ethical philosophies.

Western Ethical Perspectives:

Absolutism: Philosophers like Immanuel Kant championed absolute morality, believing that moral rules are categorical imperatives, independent of time, place, or individual circumstances. For Kant, an action is either always moral or always immoral. For example, if truthfulness is moral, lying is never permissible, regardless of the situation.
Relativism: Thinkers like Hobbes, Mill, and Sidgwick, often associated with utilitarianism and hedonism, argued for relativistic ethics. They believed that moral actions could be conditional and vary based on circumstances, place, time, and individual factors. They accepted exceptions to moral rules. For instance, Hobbes suggested that stealing to survive during a famine might be excusable. Mill went further, stating it could be a duty to steal to preserve life. Sidgwick noted that politicians keeping operations secret might not always be truthful with others. John Dewey argued that even acts commonly considered material or sensual could be ideal in specific relative contexts.

Jain Ethics: A Synthesis of Relativity and Absolutism:

The author posits that Jain ethics cannot be exclusively labeled as either relative or absolute. It incorporates elements of both. If it is considered relative, it's only because it is also absolute, and if it's absolute, it's because it transcends mere relativity.

The Relative Aspect of Jain Ethics:

Anekantavada (Non-one-sidedness): Jain philosophy's core principle of Anekantavada suggests that all knowledge is relative and incomplete because the true nature of reality is infinitely multifaceted. Since our moral judgments are based on this knowledge, they are also inherently relative. The Gita also acknowledges the difficulty of definitively determining "what is to be done" or the absolute auspiciousness/inauspiciousness of an action.
Contextual Factors: Our moral judgments are often influenced by the doer's intention and the outcome of the action. Most judgments about others' actions are outcome-based, while judgments about our own are intention-based. Since it's impossible to fully know intentions or predict all consequences, ordinary people's moral judgments tend to be relative.
The Nature of Reality: The world itself is characterized by relativity, with each object possessing infinite qualities. Therefore, moral conduct within this world cannot be absolute. Actions are tied to time, place, and individuals, making them non-absolute. External circumstances and personal intentions further contribute to the relativity of moral considerations.
No Action is Absolutely Moral or Immoral: Jain thought emphasizes that an action is not inherently moral or immoral in isolation. It is the context (place, time, circumstances) and the doer's intention that make it so. For example, charity is generally moral, but giving to an unworthy recipient or for the sake of fame can be immoral.
The Role of Intention and External Factors: While the doer's intention (bhava) is crucial, Jain thinkers also recognize external factors like substance (dravya), place (kshetra), and time (kaal) as determinants of an action's morality.
The Concept of Four Relativities: Jain ethics identifies four factors that influence the determination of moral values: circumstances, place, time, and the doer's mental state. Actions become moral or immoral based on these combined factors.
Exceptions and Duties: What is a moral duty for a householder (like giving charity) may be an unacceptable act for a monk. Jainism avoids absolute pronouncements on duties and non-duties. The Tirthankaras (Jain spiritual teachers) did not make absolute decrees or prohibitions but emphasized performing actions with truthfulness and devotion.
The Importance of Contextual Understanding: Umaswati states that morality, duty, and actions are not fixed. They become acceptable or unacceptable based on time, place, person, circumstance, harm, and purity of mind.

The Absolute Aspect of Jain Ethics:

The Absolute Nature of Dharma (Righteousness): Jain Tirthankaras proclaimed that "Dharma is pure, eternal, and everlasting." This implies an absolute and eternal element within morality. If there were no such element, the eternality of Dharma would be meaningless.
Inner vs. Outer Aspects of Conduct: Jainism distinguishes between the inner (bhava, intention, resolve) and outer (dravya, external action) aspects of conduct. The outer aspect is relative and changes with time and place. The inner aspect, however, is unchanging and absolute.
Inner States are Always Absolute: Mental violence (bhāv hinsā) or malicious intent is always immoral and can never be a rule of moral or spiritual life. However, physical violence (dravya hinsā) or outward manifestations of violence are not always immoral. Similarly, inner greed or attachment (parigraha) is always immoral, but external acquisition is not always so.
Moral Intentions are Absolute: In essence, while the outer forms of conduct can be relative, the inner states or intentions are always absolute. A seemingly inauspicious act might be good due to a benevolent inner intention, but an evil inner intention can never be moral.
Moral Resolve is Absolute: From the perspective of resolve or intention, morality is absolute. However, from the perspective of outcome or outward action, it is relative. Moral resolve is absolute, while moral action is relative. This is understood through the concepts of vyavahar nay (conventional truth, relative) and nishchay nay (ultimate truth, absolute). Practical morality is outcome-oriented, while ultimate morality is intention-oriented. The resolve to wage war is never moral, but the act of war isn't always necessarily immoral. Similarly, the resolve to commit suicide is always immoral, but the act itself might occasionally be considered moral (e.g., to protect one's chastity).
The Self-Determined Nature of Resolve: If we accept individual freedom in making resolves, then our resolves cannot be considered relative. Consequently, morality in relation to these resolves also cannot be relative. Jain philosophy considers good intentions or resolves to be always good and moral.
Inner Nature of Absolute Moral Rules: Dr. Ishwar Chandra Sharma suggests that any absolute moral rule must be internal rather than external. An absolute rule resides within the human being. External rules are inherently relative as their adherence depends on external circumstances.
The Domain of "Mind-Action": Jain philosophy considers "mind-action" (mana karma) as the realm where morality can be accepted as absolute. The realm of thought is the supreme ruler, and here, morality can be absolute. However, in the realm of outward action, where external circumstances also play a role, morality cannot be absolute.

The Interplay of Relativity and Absolutism in Jain Ethics:

Complementary Approaches: Both purely relativistic and purely absolutistic views are incomplete. Relativism focuses on the "what is" (the present situation) but may fail to appreciate the "what ought to be" (the ideal). Absolutism focuses solely on the ideal but may neglect the practical realities of the practitioner.
The Path of Right Conduct: Ethical progress requires a balanced approach, like a traveler who needs to see both the path ahead and the ground beneath their feet. In ethical life, this means considering both the reality of the situation and the ideal. The two "eyes" of ethical life can be seen as knowledge (focused on the ideal) and action (focused on reality).
Two Types of Absolutism in Jainism:
1. Utarga (General) Path: This is the general rule, where moral conduct is followed as prescribed in scriptures under normal circumstances. In this sense, it's relative to the general situation, but absolute within that general context.
2. Apavada (Exception) Path: When normal circumstances make adherence to general rules impossible, exceptions are made.
Utarga and Apavada are Relative to Each Other but Aim for the Absolute: The Utarga path is relative to the Apavada path in that it represents the norm from which exceptions are made. However, both paths are absolute in that they aim towards the ultimate goal.
The Ultimate Absolute: The Moral Ideal: The true absolute in Jain ethics is the "moral ideal" itself – the ultimate goal of liberation (moksha). Any action, whether through the Utarga or Apavada path, that leads towards this ideal is good. Actions that deviate from it are bad and immoral.

Navigating Exceptions: The Role of the "Gitartha":

The Need for Guidance: If morality is relative, how does one decide the appropriate action in a given situation? Jainism offers a structured approach.
Utarga as the Default: The Utarga path is the general path to be followed unless specific circumstances arise.
The Gitartha as the Arbiter: Jainism does not grant individuals complete freedom to decide when to apply exceptions. To avoid subjectivity and the erosion of ethical consistency, Jain thought introduces the concept of the "Gitartha."
Qualities of a Gitartha: A Gitartha is a person who deeply understands the scriptures (like Acharyangas and Nishith Sutras) and can discern the appropriate course of action based on country, time, and individual circumstances. They possess knowledge of what is to be done and what is not to be done, including understanding concepts like income/expenditure, cause/effect, the capable/incapable, and the consequences of actions.
The Gitartha's Authority: The Gitartha acts as a gatekeeper. While individuals have freedom within the "fortress" of Jain ethics, they need the Gitartha's permission to step outside it during special circumstances. The Gitartha's decision is paramount in determining when exceptions are permissible.
Guidance from Scriptures, Decision by Gitartha: Scriptures serve as guiding principles, but the Gitartha makes the final decision in specific situations. This balanced approach avoids making scriptures the sole basis of moral rules or giving unchecked authority to the individual.

In conclusion, Jain ethics presents a nuanced view where morality is relative in its practical application due to the influence of context, intentions, and outcomes. However, it is also absolute in its ultimate goal and the purity of inner resolve. The structure provided by the Utarga and Apavada paths, guided by the wisdom of a Gitartha, ensures that individuals can navigate the complexities of ethical life while remaining anchored to the absolute ideal of liberation.