Samovsaran Jivan Se Bhagna Nahi

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Samovsaran Jivan se Bhagna Nahi" by Ranjankumar:

The book "Samovsaran Jivan se Bhagna Nahi" (Samovsaran: Not Fleeing from Life) by Ranjankumar, published by Z_Parshvanath_Vidyapith_Swarna_Jayanti_Granth_012051.pdf, explores the Jain concept of Samadhi Maran (also known as Sallekhana, Santhara, or Sanyasamaran). The central thesis is that Samadhi Maran is not an act of fleeing from life, but rather a courageous and conscious acceptance of death.

The text begins by stating that the ultimate goal in Jainism is the realization of the soul's true nature, which requires spiritual practice. This practice involves shedding the karmic layers obscuring the soul. The body is maintained only to facilitate this religious practice. It is a universally accepted truth that no one is eternally young or immortal. Youth gives way to old age, health to illness, and strength to weakness. When physical infirmities hinder religious activities, leading to mental weakness and a feeling of life being a burden, Jain philosophy offers a path: Samadhi Maran.

Samadhi Maran is defined as the act of giving up the attachment to the body with a calm and resolute mind. This is achieved by gradually renouncing food and other worldly attachments, engaging in self-contemplation in a secluded and pure place, and awaiting death without any specific desires. While some erroneously consider Samadhi Maran a way to escape life, the author emphasizes that it is, in fact, a courageous confrontation with death.

The text cites various Jain scriptures to support this view:

• Ratnakarandak Shravakachar states that the vow of Samadhi Maran is undertaken in situations of severe famine, calamities (upasarga), old age, or incurable diseases, to protect one's Dharma (righteousness).
• Rajvartika indicates that Samadhi Maran is embraced when old age, disease, decline of senses and body strength, and the inability to perform essential duties (shadavashyak) arise.
• Sagardharmamrit also describes the conditions for taking the vow, emphasizing that when physical ailments are certain or unavoidable circumstances arise that prevent the body from enduring, undertaking Samadhi Maran leads to liberation or Kaivalya.

Crucially, Samadhi Maran is not undertaken under compulsion or fear. It is a voluntary decision driven by self-inspiration. Both Sarvarthasiddhi and Rajvartika explicitly prohibit forcing Samadhi Maran on anyone; it is only complete when there is genuine inclination.

The text clarifies that Samadhi Maran is taken when the protection of one's vows (sanyam) is threatened. However, simply sacrificing one's life to protect vows is not Samadhi Maran. It must be accompanied by the protection of Dharma. This includes facing insurmountable difficulties like obstructed observance of celibacy, loss of bodily functions, severe calamities (upasarga), famines, or situations where life preservation is impossible. It is under these specific circumstances that sacrificing life for the sake of vows is considered Samadhi Maran.

Before undertaking Samadhi Maran, it is essential to weaken the passions (kashayas). The aspirant achieves this by emaciating the body through various means. The Bhagavati Aradhana is cited, explaining that the practitioner first increases their fasting (anashana) to weaken the body. They might undertake a daily fast, followed by other forms of fasting like vritti sankhyana, gradually reducing intake. They consume meals that are restricted in flavor, minimal, dry, and sour according to their capacity. If their physical strength remains significant, they might observe the twelve bhikshu pratimas (vows of a mendicant) to weaken the body.

From the perspective of Jain monks and lay practitioners, the soul and its inherent qualities hold greater importance than the body. The physical is considered secondary, while the spiritual is paramount. Therefore, Jain monks, remaining undisturbed by calamities that would unnerve ordinary people, protect their spiritual qualities and relinquish the body. Sagardharmamrit states that while the body can be regained after destruction, the destruction of self-knowledge or spiritual qualities is irreparable. Thus, understanding the distinction between the soul and the non-soul (body), one should embrace Samadhi Maran and move from the self towards the divine.

Misunderstandings lead some to equate Samadhi Maran with suicide, labeling it an act of fleeing from life and deliberately ending one's lifespan. Such accusations come from those ignorant of the essence of Samadhi Maran and the nature of violence. Violence, in Jain philosophy, is the destruction of life due to negligence or carelessness. Tattvarthavartika explains that destruction of life due to attachment, aversion, anger, etc., is called suicide (apghat). However, Samadhi Maran is free from attachment, aversion, or the intention to kill oneself. The practitioner remains detached from both life and death.

Pundit Kailash Chandra Shastri, in his work 'Dharmamrit' (Sagar), distinguishes suicide as being associated with attachment and aversion, while death without these passions is separate from suicide. Another scholar connects suicide with non-violence, defining non-violence as the absence of attachment and aversion, and violence as the presence of these feelings. An individual undertaking Samadhi Maran renounces their life with the intention of destroying attachment and aversion, and in a state of detachment. Therefore, the fault of self-slaughter does not apply.

The analogy is given of a person whose house is on fire. Recognizing that the house cannot be saved, they focus on rescuing valuable possessions. Similarly, when an individual realizes their body has become frail and is destined to perish, they should not worry about the physical form but focus on protecting the invaluable spiritual qualities within. By embracing Samadhi Maran, they shed attachment, aversion, and delusion, achieving eternal peace.

Pundit Sukhlalji Sanghvi highlights the ethics of Samadhi Maran. Jainism does not permit ending one's life under normal circumstances, whether worldly or spiritual. However, when faced with a choice between preserving the body and preserving spiritual virtues, the decision should be to sacrifice the body to protect one's pure spiritual state, much like a chaste woman protecting her chastity through death if no other option exists. If both the body and vows can be preserved equally, it is a duty to do so. But when a choice must be made, an ordinary person might choose the body, neglecting spiritual vows, while an eligible individual for Samadhi Maran prioritizes the protection of vows. Both physical and spiritual lives are important. The text permits ending one's life for the sake of a spiritual life. In dire calamities like severe famines, or when facing incurable diseases that necessitate ending life, or when there is no alternative to prevent personal suffering and the loss of vows and virtues, Samadhi Maran is prescribed with equanimity.

The text draws a parallel with the Bhagavad Gita, which states that if continuing to live leads to infamy (due to the destruction of spiritual virtues), then death is preferable. Kaka Kalelkar also supports Samadhi Maran, calling it 'desired death' (icchit maran). He argues that while abandoning life out of despair, cowardice, or fear is a form of defeat and escaping life, if an individual, feeling their life's purpose is fulfilled and there is no need to live longer, chooses to end their life as the final form of spiritual practice, it is their right and commendable.

Contemporary thinkers like Dharmanand Kosambi and Mahatma Gandhi also morally supported the right to end one's life. Gandhi stated that when an individual sees the overwhelming force of sin and cannot save themselves from it without ending their life (desired death), they have the right to choose 'desired death' to avoid impending sin. Kosambi also supported voluntary death, and Pundit Sukhlalji expressed Kosambi's views in his preface.

The discussion then shifts to Indian ethical thought, which extensively discusses the art of dying alongside the art of living, giving even greater importance to the former. The art of living is compared to the period of study for a student, and the art of dying is compared to the examination. Indian ethicists have advised being particularly vigilant at the time of death, as any mistake leads to regret. Death is an opportunity where one chooses their future life. The story of Khandak Muni, who liberated many disciples but lost his own spiritual path due to anger at the time of death, and the Vedic narrative of Bharat's attachment to a deer leading him to a lower birth despite his great spiritual stature, are cited as cautionary tales.

Dr. Phoolchandra Jain Bareiya supports Samadhi Maran, viewing it not as suicide but as self-defense. He emphasizes that Jain monks consider the body not merely a cage of bones and flesh but a divine light of philosophy, knowledge, and conduct. The human form is considered most valuable, as it is in this form that the ultimate cessation of suffering can be achieved. Thus, by attaining this rare human body, one can be freed from the suffering of death. Since the time and manner of death are uncertain, one should always engage in rigorous vows and austerities to make this human existence meaningful and relinquish the body according to the scriptures through Samadhi Maran.

Some thinkers have criticized Samadhi Maran by categorizing it as suicide. Dr. Ishwar Chandra, while not considering voluntary death of a liberated soul as suicide, places Samadhi Maran in the category of suicide and calls it unethical. His arguments include: 1) A Jain monk undertaking Samadhi Maran is not necessarily liberated or endowed with supernatural powers. In this incomplete state, the vow of fasting may not be ethical. 2) He suggests that Samadhi Maran, involving voluntary death, is often characterized by ostentation rather than sincerity.

Dr. Sagarmal Jain counters these criticisms by arguing: 1) A liberated and supernatural person is not the only one eligible for Samadhi Maran. In fact, voluntary death is not necessary for the liberated whose attachment to the body has ended, but for those who still have attachment. Samadhi Maran is intended precisely to end this attachment. It is a practice, and thus not necessary for the liberated; they achieve it naturally. 2) Regarding the charge of ostentation, while there might be some truth in the current distorted practices, it does not diminish the theoretical value of Samadhi Maran. Just as the practical prevalence of falsehood does not affect the value of truth, the theoretical value of Samadhi Maran remains intact.

The text concludes by asserting that critics who label Samadhi Maran as unethical and an escape from life fail to grasp the fundamental difference between Samadhi Maran and suicide. Suicide is driven by emotions, whereas Samadhi Maran has no place for emotions. A suicide victim ends their life due to unfulfilled desires, thus fleeing from life. There are no eligibility criteria for suicide; anyone can undertake it. In contrast, Samadhi Maran first involves calming desires and aspirations through spiritual practice and conquering emotions. Only then is death welcomed. Eligibility is crucial for Samadhi Maran; only the aged, those suffering from incurable diseases, or those facing inevitable death can undertake it. Children and healthy young individuals cannot. In essence, Samadhi Maran is undertaken in a situation of inevitable death. It is not an escape from life but a courageous and detached welcome of death.