Q11. What is Jain view on wars - political, economic, religious or ethnic? How about fighting for injustice, oppression and freedom?
These are important question that we will address from various perspectives. We will look at it from Jain values/principles, scriptures, examples from history and logical reasoning so that we can use our own wisdom in any given situation and keep our spirituality intact and progressing. We are addressing this question from lay-people (shravak and shravikas) perspective.
We will talk about this in two parts. First Jainism views on spirituality to prevent situations like war, injustice, oppression or slavery and then what can we do if we are in any of such situations.
Jainism perspective on spirituality and war:
There are many references in Jain scriptures that all underpins the importance of living a spiritual, compassionate and peaceful life.
Jainism advocates and provides guidance on removing societal conditions that preludes the war, mainly reduce inequality and insecurity, overcoming our inner weaknesses and structuring our life based on spiritual awareness.
- Ahimsa is at the core of Jainism. Ahimsa means to not hurt any living beings, through our thoughts, words or actions. It means to respect all living beings and have compassion towards all living beings, no exceptions.
- In Sutrakritang, it is clearly mentioned that there is nothing higher than the sense of security, it says one should not fear from others and one should not cause fear to others. Accumulation of arms and weapons are considered a means of security yet these, instead of giving security, generate fear and a sense of insecurity in the party that doesn’t have them. These insecurities start a race for accumulation of superior weapon and eventually a war.
- Lord Mahavira in Acharanga sutra proclaimed "Atthi sattham parenaparam, Natthi asattham parenaparam" i.e. There are weapons superior to each other, but nothing is superior to disarmament or non-violence. It is the selfish and aggressive outlook of an individual or a society that gives birth to war and violence.
- Tattvartha sutra written by Acharya Umaswati (aka Umaswami) stated that mutual cooperation is the essential nature of human beings and the function of the soul is to help one another.
- Uttaradhyayana Sutra underpins the importance of war with oneself to get rid of insecurities that runs as precursor for war and conflicts.
Ideally, we don’t want war, injustice, oppression or slavery. But what if we are in middle of any such situation? What is our responsibility and what are acceptable actions for lay people?
What can we do if we are any undesirable situations like war, injustice, oppression, slavery?
For lay people it is very important to understand the Jain principles and scriptures such that we maintain our spirituality, yet we don’t miss out on fulfilling any of our responsibilities.
Agams contains the vows (vrat) for Shravak/Shravika and for Sadhu/Sadhvis, and they are different for both.
Mahavrat is vows for Sadhu/Sadhvi and it includes complete non-violence.
Ahimsa vow for Shravak and Shravika is called Anuvrat. Here’s the verse from yoga sastra that explains the ahimsa vow for laypeople:
સ્થૂલ પ્રાણાતિપાત વિરમણ વ્રત:-
નિષ્કારણ, નિરપરાધી, ત્રસજીવોની સંકલ્પપૂર્વકની હિંસાનો ત્યાગ
Sthuul pranaatipat viramaan vrat
Nishkaran (without valid reason) Niraparadhi (not guilty)
Trasjeevai (2-5 sensed beings) Sankalp-Poorvani (premeditated/planned) Himsa (violence) Tyaag (avoid/give up)
Trasjeevai (2-5 sensed beings) Sankalp-Poorvani (premeditated/planned) Himsa (violence) Tyaag (avoid/give up)
At the core, it means laypeople should avoid/give-up premeditated/planned violence towards 2-5 sensed living beings, which are not guilty, and there is no valid reason.
So, for lay people, minimum violence for protection is acceptable. It is our responsibility as lay people to protect our self, family, religion, state and country and if needed we should use force or violence. None of our values/principles are meant to make us weak or prevent us from fulfilling our responsibilities. We must take the required action for protection but without any kashayas (anger, ego, greed, deceit) internally.
In history, we have many examples, such as historically very famous Acharya Shri Kalakacharya for the protection Sadhviji, King Bhamasha, Vastupal and Tejpal fought for protection of self and others. Contemporary times are very different from 2500 years ago, however, the application of Jain values/principles remains the same.
Little more recent example is of Gandhiji fighting for injustice, oppression and freedom. During the British rule over India, British had a law that forbid Indians to mine their own salt. On top of that, the British imposed a tax on salt which was coming from India’s own land. Gandhiji felt this was wrong. But he did not go off in the middle of the night to break the law. His intention was not to cheat the law. Rather, he told the British that he was doing a salt march and will be mining the salt and he is willing to be arrested. He was protesting for the sake of the cause, not protesting for any other reason.
Let’s look at a more practical example. If an intruder enters our house and we harm that individual in self-defense, then that is acceptable. But violence out of aggression or revenge is not acceptable. If the intruder leaves and we yet go after him for the purpose of harming him instead turning him to the authority, then that is not acceptable.
Bottom line
Ideally, we don’t want war, oppression or any kind of injustice. And at an individual level, we should raise our spirituality such that we don’t introduce or escalate situations that starts the injustice or wars. However, if we are in any situation that requires us to protect self, family, religion, country then we must act but without aggression or any kashayas within.
We must follow the law of the land we reside in; we can protest the law but cannot violate the law. We must be very mindful and honest in deciding if a war/fight is for a valid cause and not with an intention to hurt 2-5 sense living beings, personal gains or to gain more power over others.
very verbose and long comment, not different from vedic view or Hndu view:
ReplyDeleteviolence purely for self defense and protection and restoration of righteous ness is needed. War, persecution or violence out of vengeance and hatred ai sin. Example of persecution, violence and hatred are exemplified by some mughal kings and other invaders of india, because besides plundering the country, they were positively against local culture and civilisation and thus carried out systematic brutalities! Same with British rule!. is it a wonder, today, that Gandhiji is revered and followed by several foriegn leaders like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and other great personalities!
Well.I.would like to give my opinion on this as Lord Mahavir says be Ahinsak all the time.In anger my actions will surly be harmful but if Aware I think all of us can indeed be 100% harmless.When one is observant, one is more connected towards Truth n is not at all Selfish.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the law of the land is that we should be drafted to in an unjust war, partake in systems that destroy 2-5 sense beings, partake in a system that uses human slavery, or as in WW2, reside in a country that makes us participate in the stealing and killing of others, as many Germans were ordered to do by law. I do believe there are times when we have to break the law, albeit in a non-violent fashion, since the law is less perfect than our ethical obligations. Gandhi did not just protest the law, he actively and purposefully broke the law. I believe that jains should participate in self defence, as the article suggests, when deemed necessary and without kashayas.
ReplyDeleteBut at times we must also thoughtfully break the law of a land we reside in when it means rescuing slaves (as in the underground railroad, protecting fellow humans, or even animals and environment. Effective methods compatible with the law should take priority, but we should also use good judgement with this is ineffective.
Nicely stated!
DeleteI find it very difficult to understand how participating in any war is compatible with Ahimsa.Quakers ,in the first world war ,were conscientious objectors ,and worked as stretcher bearers.I doubt it is ever possible to fight in a war without kashayas.
ReplyDeleteKashayas is propagated in order to make people able to kill others. Military psychology is used to over ride any inhibitions we might have about pulling the trigger.
DeleteTaken from a Paper: 2015 “Comparing Buddhist and Jaina Attitudes towards Warfare: Some Notes on Stories of King Ajātaśatru’s/Kūṇika’s War against the Vṛjis and Related Material”
ReplyDeleteClearly there was no explicit condemnation of war. However, the eventual outcome to the soul is discussed in somewhat different ways between the two religions…. Dr. Navin Mehta, Toronto
The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology Soka University Tokyo 2015
First, as far as the national utilization of military forces is concerned, neither the Buddhist nor Jaina texts convey any explicit condemnation of the immorality of King Ajātaśatru’s/Kūṇika’s waging of war. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, although stressing the temporary invincibility of the Vṛjis, the Buddha makes no moral judgment of Ajātaśatru’s plan to start a war on them. In the Viyāhapannatti and the Nirayāvaliyāo, Mahāvīra does not criticize the practice of warfare either, but simply narrates it in a matter-of-fact manner. The absence of condemnation suggests that both the Buddhists and Jainas, who composed or transmitted those texts, were unwilling, or at least hesitant, to apply the ethical-religious principle of nonviolence to political affairs such as a king’s obligation to expand his kingdom. Their unwillingness, in turn, suggests that both religious groups were clearly aware of the inevitability of warfare in the real political world in which they were living, and the impracticability of totally abandoning military forces for any kingdom intending to survive in such a violent world.
Second, as far as individual soldiers’ participation in warfare is concerned, while both the Buddha and Mahāvīra are shown as refuting the influential Brahmanical idea that soldiers killed in battles are reborn in heaven, their arguments on this issue are different. As we have seen, in a set of three almost identical suttas in the Pāli Saṃyutta-nikāya (IV 308–311) as well as their Chinese parallels, the Buddha explains that soldiers who die in battles are reborn in hell, due to their depraved mental status at the moment of death. The Buddha gives this explanation in reference to all types of killing in war, and does not make any exception for the case of self-defense. Such an explanation addresses the incompatibility of the warrior Second, as far as individual soldiers’ participation in warfare is concerned, while both the Buddha and Mahāvīra are shown as refuting the influential Brahmanical idea that soldiers killed in battles are reborn in heaven, their arguments on this issue are different. As we have seen, in a set of three almost identical suttas in the Pāli Saṃyutta-nikāya (IV 308–311) as well as their Chinese parallels, the Buddha explains that soldiers who die in battles are reborn in hell, due to their depraved mental status at the moment of death. The Buddha gives this
explanation in reference to all types of killing in war, and does not make any exception for the case of self-defense. Such an explanation addresses the incompatibility of the warrior ethic with Buddhist values. In the Viyāhapannatti, while Mahāvīra also points out that many soldiers fighting to death in the “Battle of the Chariot with the Mace” underwent unpleasant rebirths due to their impassioned mental status and lack of religious piety, he further clarifies that there was indeed one soldier, the Jaina layman Varuṇa, reborn in heaven. Varuṇa’s heavenly rebirth as a result of his dedication to Jaina religious practices (such as fast and taking both the five aṇuvratas of a layman and the five mahāvratas of an ascetic), his resolve to fight only in self-defense, and his pious mind at the moment of death, clearly shows that for the Jaina authors (or redactors) of the Viyāhapannatti it is absolutely possible to combine military obligations with Jaina values. The same may also be said of another Jaina warrior, King Ceṭaka of Vaiśālī, whose rebirth in heaven after fighting against Kūṇika likewise speaks
of the compatibility of military actions with Jaina values.
I don't agree with this article. The underlying tone is very strictly against violence but there are situations where a Jain "shravak" might need to take part in war, at least I believe so. And that should not be viewed with the microscope of "acts of violence" but a larger view that such is necessary to protect nation and dharma.
ReplyDeleteराष्ट्र and धर्म - If there's an attack on your nation or religion, you should protect it and if that means taking part in war, I don't think that would be perceived as "acts of violence".
Jai Jinendra! Sincere appreciation to the team behind this Blog - it is heartwarming to see such burning but relevant topics brought forth every month. Such topics may be deemed as taboo or controversial, but kudos to this team for presenting balanced perspectives on these topics in such an objective fashion. The younger generation of Jains living outside India should benefit the most, as this blog not only overcomes the language barrier they often face while learning about Jainism, but also presents perspectives in a modern unorthodox way. Truth is many-faceted and context-dependent, and this blog embraces that thought process. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteIt is made out that nonviolence is the best thing for mankind. Ok, presume everyone on the earth embraces this today. Now foresee what will happen tomorrow?
ReplyDeleteEven mosquitos are good enough to wipe us out of this planet!
Fallacy of nonviolence is that we can talk about it only when someone else is committing violence to give us safe society to discuss nonviolence!
Totally agree, if we don't wipe mosquitoes off the face of the planet, they will wipe us out first. Better to shoot first and ask questions later. This way if practicing ahimsa send very practical.
DeleteFor me Gandhiji is the great ideal of Ahimsa in times of oppression and violence. His influence was worldwide. Now with the 150th annyversary of his birthday he is remembered and is still inspiring.
ReplyDeleteWar, either conventional or terrorism are inevitable in today’s world where time and distance have been reduced by internet and ITC technologies making the world a virtual global village. We therefore need detailed understanding of Jain principles, namely Ahimsa Anekant and Aparigraha and practice self -restraint for enhancing our happiness/wellness. Like our quest for reducing the karmic bondage (and pain) to our soul, we need to become strong (health, finance, emotions) and fearless ourselves and help others to be not scared of us. However, if invaded or attacked, we must be self-reliant to defend ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWe should adopt Gandhi’s life and the techniques he used, e.g. get educated, work hard to achieve our objective, exercise self-restraint like consume and waste as little as possible, avoid misuse of our power; help others to alleviate their pain, promote education in making others self-reliant and use nonviolent techniques (like Dandi march and satyagraha by Gandhi) to overcome oppression and discrimination. To be strong as individuals and as a community, we need to minimize trivial inter-sect fights which are rampant making ourselves shameful to be called a nonviolent community. These acts make us, the Jains and our principles weak and a laughing stock. History is full of such incidences in Gujarat and South India particularly and
Jain ethics of nonviolent eating habits, abstinence from seven vices and five minor vows and penance were adopted by Gandhi as ekadashvratas for adoption as way of life by his followers. We do not hurt or attack others, but when faced by such acts, we must defend ourselves even if it involves violence.
Kind of agree with the post but also wish the blog would'nt say "Jainism Says" rather Modern World and our weaknesses make us interpret the religion in such a way. Otherwise people will quote someday its written here thus this is what jainism says. Also, wish the blog came with preface that we all are weakbeings thus we have to interpret the religion this way.
ReplyDeleteJainism the first motto is "Ahimsa Parmo Dharm". In no way we can Justify Voilence. Mahavir Swami when attacked didnt relatialte when his ears were peirced. When ParshvaNath was attacked and submerged in water, Dharnendra and Padmavati didnt fight the demon. They tried to Save the Tirthankar.
Coming to Jainism, as per the doctrine, we should try to detach our body and our worldly identity and just identify with the soul. So even if someone is attacking the nation or our family or us, as a soul we should not retaliate as they cannot attack the soul nor does the soul have family or nation.
Now I understand we all are still in the journey and not able to completely identify with our souls only, thus we do need to know can we commit violence or not. Still think if we can just bear someones violence on us without retaliating then that would be the most ideal as per Karma doctrine. But if we cannot then without any anger, revenge and other feelings we should try to protect what we need to.
Again, I am not able to identify with the soul completely and see body separately from myself and thus would fight to protect my nation, family or myself. But I know I would be incurring bad karma for that and would not want to anyway justify saying Jainism allows it in certain scenarios because it cannot. Jainism is a religion of commiting actions and gaining karma. For hurting anyone else even while protecting others, can not bring good karma.
hear hear
DeleteNon-violence is the best option and the supreme righteousness but to protect the righteousness itself violence ought to be resorted to. Else Krishana would not have advised Arjuna to fight for righteousness. And Rama wouldn't have killed Ravana.
ReplyDeleteअहिंसा परमोधर्म , धर्म रक्षिते न हिंसा वर्जिते।
Violence should not be by any means-thoughts, actions, words, but to protect non-violence and establish peace IF necessary violence may be allowed.
Dear sir, Sonehow my feeling is that Jain Dharma will not agree to the war of Mahabharata or Ram killing Ravana as violence in any form is not acceptable as a part of Maha Vrata. (Only limited violence in self defense) is allowed for ordinary shravaks. But then Krishna or Ram are not ordinary shravaks, they are Gods in Hindu religion so should pursue Maha vrata as per Jain religion.
DeleteJain Gods Mahavir Bhagwan, Parasnath swamy and others very peacefully bore many utsarga but did not retaliate or even let even an iota of violence come even in their thoughts. That is how they became tirthankar conquering all kashay.
So somehow I personally did not like the killings done by Pandvas or even by Lord Ram when it was recently shown on TV serials. Just my thoughts.
Agree with Rajesh Ji's comment. As per Jain and Karma doctrine, what Krishna did was wrong and perhaps that's why he is in Narak right now. Again, as per Jain stories, Ram didn't kill Ravana, it was Lakshman. Also, as mentioned above in one of the Anonymous comments and Rajesh ji's comments, Mahavir and ParshvaNath didn't retaliate rather bore the karma. Again, in no way , you can follow Jainism and Advocate for violence. They are totally two opposite things.
DeleteWe can try to justify it in any which way, but if we hurt anyone, we will bind some bad karma. Ahimsa Parmo Dharma.
When non Jain's hear the basic dialogues of Jainism that non violence is absolute, they are often confused..
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways through which Jainism has tried to resolve the necessity of violence in nature/society and the higher ideal of non violence.. For eg, by classifying organisms as sensed and non sensed.. this covers the issue of killing microbes or mosquitoes..
However, if you read the original texts, Mahavira and before him, they seem to be much more practical in their words and sentences as rightly pointed out in comments.. for eg. Mahavira never explicitly condemned wars, but the act of aggression in the wars..
Most times people use violence in their words which is uncontrollable and more harmful than physical violence. Harsh words remain with other people in their memories and they keep looking for an opportunity to take revenge. So harsh words can lead to cycles of pains and violence and feelings of hurting
ReplyDeleteA very important question which has been taken up.
ReplyDeleteMany of we Jains also harbour ill feelings towards Pakistan or China.
These ill feelings (bhaav) always remain in our conscience and come up even when Pakistan or China are not being discussed in context of us, but in some other context or some other country.
As you explained we as Jain shravaks are allowed minimum violence as absolutely necessary for self defence only and that too with no kashay (anger, maan, maya, greed) internally.
It clearly means taking violent action (in self defense) still not having ill feelings internally.
So this means that we Jain shravaks should desist from harbouring the constant ill feeling (bure bhaav) even towards Pakistan or China as if we do it we are only binding bad Karmas. However, if there is war initiated by any other country on india, then we can resort to limited amount of violence for self defense.
In ancient kerala, there was kanthalur sala teaching war fare, philosophy, art, dance etc. This was a jainist education centre for all. This centre existed till 14 th century.
ReplyDeleteI think jainism though teaches on violence,it is pragmatic in allowing violence in certain situations such as self defense, protecting nation and society.
Actually war is done for maintaining peace. Weapons are meant for non violence. Martial arts and art of wzrfare is for ahimsa