•  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

Jainism & Buddhism

 

By Dr. Sagarmal Jain

 

Jainism and Buddhism, both belong to the same Sramanic tradition of Indian culture. Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara of Jainas was a contemporary of Gautama, the Buddha. Both flourished in the sixth and fifth century B. C., at a time when the simple nature worshiper early vedic religion became caste-ridden and ritualistic and had touched the lowest water-mark hence needed revitalization. They were regarded as rebel children of Hinduism by Western thinkers, but really they were the reformers. They have given the spiritual meaning to the vedic rituals and thus, founded a religion of self-purification and self development. They did more than merely sweeping away the long accumulated excrescences that had grown over Hinduism in the form of outmoded rituals. They also challenged the infallibility of the Vedas and undercut the indisputable superiority of the Brahmainas. They were of the atheistic nature and so they did not accept the concept of God as a creator and controller of the world. They established the supremacy of man instead of the God and other deities and declared that no other being except man himself is the maker of his own destiny. It is only man who can attain even Godhood through his moral life and spiritual practices. For both of them every living being is capable to attain Nirvana i. e. Godhood or Buddhahood. Both of them rejected the concept of grace of God. For them, it is our own self, which is solely responsible for misfortune as well as suffering. Thus they both accepted the supremacy of self and law of Karma instead of God. Moral code preached by Buddha and Mahavira, in its general sense, was also the same. Both preached five Silas or Mahavratas, with only one difference, that in place of non-possession of Mahavira, Buddha preached non-consumation of intoxicative drugs.

The major differences between these two sister religions from the view-point of metaphysics and ethical code are following :
(i) The philosophical approach of Buddhism towards other philosophical doctrines was negative one, while that of Jainism was positive one. Lord Buddha preached that one should not fall in or accept any of the dristis i. e. philosophical view-point, either it may be of eternalism or of nihilism, because none of them represents a right view? point, while Mahavira said that both the doctrines are partially true, if they are viewed form different angles, so one should not discard one's opponents, view as totally false. For Jainas different opposite views may be acceptable from different angles. For Mahavira nothing was absolutely true or false and so he remained positive in his approach all the time. Secondly while Buddhism laid stress only on the changing aspect of reality, Jainism gave due consideration to changing as well as eternal aspect of reality.

(ii) So far as moral and religious practices are concerned Jainism has laid more stress on penances and self? mortificaton. All the times Jainism advocated rigorus and strict austerities in this regard, while Buddha condemned this rigorus outlook and pursued a middle path.

Though there was much similarity in the missions of Jainism and Buddhism. Buddhism flourished more on other soils than on its native land and established itself as a world religion, while Jainism never had a firm footing on the foreign soil. But in India the position is just the reverse. Jainism had remained firmly rooted in India through all the periods of Indian history, while Buddhism was totally uprooted from its own soil of origin. Why did these two religions have the diametrically opposite fates? There were many reasons for this; to name the few, Buddhism found such royal patrons as Asoka and Kaniska, who were fired with missionary zeal of spreading it outside the India and had the territory of their empire across the Indian borders. Though Jainism also found some royal patrons as Candragupta Maurya, Kharavela and Kumarapala, they did not try for the expansion of Jainism on foreign soil, Moreover, even the Jaina monks did not agree to go outside India for this purpose, because it was very difficult for them to observe their strict code of conduct out side the country and also they did not like to be flexible in their code of conduct. Another most important reason was that the Buddha had recommended the middle-path and remained flexible in prescribing the moral code for his monks and nuns throughout his life. This middle-path and flexibility made Buddhism more adaptable to foreign soil. But due to the same reasons Buddhism was so adopted by Hinduism that it could not retain its independent entity in India. First of all the middle-path of Buddha was not very far from the teachings of the Gita. Not only this, the later developed Mahayana sect of Buddhism had very little to mark it out from the original stock of Hinduism. Secondly, the Buddha himself was accepted as the ninth incarnation of Visnu. Thirdly, flexibility in moral-code made the life of Buddhist monks so luxurious and corrupt in India that they could not retain the faith of common man. Jainism, on the other hand, throughout had a leaning towards extremism and remained strict and mostly inflexible in its moral code. That is why Jaina monks could not go and propagate Jainism across the boundaries of India. Fourthly, owing to its strict code of conduct even for a house-holder it was not easily adoptable for foreign people; for this very reason it could retain the faith of a common man and its own entity in India. Thus the extremism of Jaina religion on the one hand prevented its expansion in India and abroad, but on the other , it proved the sole cause of its survival in India. It is because of the strict austerities associated with Jainism that it remained a closed set, little understood beyond its adherents and that the unusual absorbing power of Hinduism could not absorb it. This bespeaks of its greater originality which was such that it could withstand the challenge of Hinduism. Last but not least among the causes of extinction of Buddhism from the Indian soil was that Buddhism never tried to develop the order of laymen and lay-women, for them order means the order of monks and nuns, while Jainism always laid stress on the fourfold order - the monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen and that is why it did not lost its identity.

Thus the two parallel religions, which occurred against the same socio-religious background and began their journeys together, drifted wide apart and had altogether a different history. Buddhism died in India, but remained in China, Japan, Srilanka and many other countries; Jainism remained in India, neither expanding nor suffering from further shrinking.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Information Courtesy : Mr. Pravin K. Shah
Chairperson Jaina Education Committee
 Federation of Jain Associations in North America
509, Carriage Woods Circle Raleigh, NC 27607-3969, USA
E-Mail : pkshah1@attglobal.net, Tele: & Fax : 919-859-4994

-----------------------------------------------------

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R211102