| |
|
A
spiritual person does not divide; on the contrary he unites. There is no disintegrating
element in him. This truth is reflected in the declaration: "mankind is one."
Those who are caught in materialistic values can hardly utter such words.
The
pronouncement, "mankind is one" was made from a spiritual platform.
Here there is no discrimination between man and man. All men are viewed as constituting
a unity. There is only one human race; there is no other. A spiritual personality
brings people together; a materialistic personality divides them.
A spiritual
person consumes material goods. He will eat and drink, wear clothes, live in a
house - he will do all this, but he will not cause any disintegration. Also he
will never say, "my garment," "my house." Rather he would
say, "Right now I am living in this house. At present I am wearing this garment."
After all, to whom can the house really belong? The house can belong to nobody.
Till today, this earth has not belonged to anyone. It is said that land and property
are two eternal virgins, not married to anyone. Even after the passage of centuries,
they remain the same, unchanged.
To make use of material things and to be attached
to them are two different things. In the case of a materialistic person, articles
are used and there is great attachment. In the case of a spiritual person also,
articles are used but there is no attachment. The article and the sense of "me
and mine" stand apart; they are not united.
Lord Mahavira proclaimed the
oneness of makind. It is the caste system which has created the high and low,
and untouchability, violating thereby the principle of equality. This division
into classes is not intrinsic; only utilitarian. A man is just a man. A system
of readily changeable castes does not create the high and the low or raise a wall
of untouchability between man and man. Had there been no declaration of the unity
of mankind, the concept of non-violence would have been rendered meaningless.
Mahavira founded a world order on relativism. He said, "unity and diversity
flow together. In this confluence of coexistence, there is no room for 'mine and
thine.' I cannot exist without you, nor can you exist without me. We can only
exist together." Conflict is not natural, nor is hatred. What is natural
is cooperation, synthesis - a mutual acceptance of one another's existence and
individuality.
The acceptance of human unity is allied with that of human diversity.
All men are equal, is a relative doctrine. Without unity-diversity, there can
be no relativity. There are natural and social disparities. On that basis, it
may be said that one man is different from another. This entails a factual acceptance
of human unity and diversity.
Mahavira propounded the above doctrine from the
viewpoint of religion. He said, "Elements of both similarity and dissimilarity
are present in the human race. And they are both real. So they cannot form a basis
of one man's similarity with another, shall we not indulge in hatred because of
the dissimilarities found among men.
Dissimilarity or diversity becomes the
basis of malice, inasmuch as love is based upon similarity and unity. This love
based upon duality cannot be a religious person's love. Self-realisation which
lies beyond unity and diversity is what constitutes religion. From this religious
point of view, human unity means the ending of hatred and conflict between man
and man.
Mahavira expounded the unity of mankind from the viewpoint of religion.
According to him, what particular individual gets initiated into what particular
sect is not very significant. What is of real importance is how pure, simple and
free from passions a man is. One initiated in Jainism may yet be not free; one
initiated in another religion may yet be free. Thus Mahavira presented before
the public a view of religion which transcends sectarianism and all kinds of discrimination.
Religion
is nothing but the inner purity of the soul. Therefore it is not a matter of belonging
to any particular race, class or sect. However, the outer form of religion is
manifested in the sect and it is thus related to race and class. Mahavira kept
the doors of his religious order open to all races and classes. He never imagined
that his order, identifying itself with a particular community or class, would
shut its doors upon other people. But in the course of time, a series of events
turned Mahavira's religious order from being a crusader for human unity into a
supporter of division and discord. We can present Mahavira's doctrine of human
unity before the world but not the present-day religious order as a supporter
of that unity.
Non-possessiveness is the great principle of human unity. This
can be presented as such before the world. But we cannot present the Jain community
as an exemplar of that unity. Anekanta is a great doctrine of human unity. It
can be presented as offering a solution to the problems of the world. But the
present-day Jain order cannot be presented as a great practiser of the principle
of relativity and synthesis. |