“Sramana” meant in the language of the Brahmans, “a man who performed hard penances,” from sram, 'to work hard'. When it became adapted for use to apply to Buddhist ascetics, the language had changed and sramana was pronounced samana.

There is another Sanskrit root, sam, 'to quiet,' which in Pâli becomes likewise sam. From this root sam, 'to quiet,' and not from sram, 'to tire,' through the popular etymology of the day, this possibly became applied to Buddhists in meditation (i.e, 'to quiet'). Thus we will deal with them separately as SRAMANA and SAMANA.

THE MIGRATIONS AND THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION

To begin this lesson let us return to the migration of the Aryans.

The migrations were not of immense proportions such as we see in modern refugee migrations, but migrations of small tribes who were certainly different then the indigenous populations in nature.

We saw that they were nomadic pastors who had developed a certain skill in defence and attack due to the superior development of weapons. Thus the few could quite easily control the many, particularly if those weapons included a form of battle cart which we can imagine as a sort of ancient war chariot.

The first migrations into India started when Indo-Iranian nomads split up into tribal groups, with the majority moving southwards into the Iranian plateau, spreading west towards the Caucasus, and the other tribes going East towards Afghanistan and into the Indus plains, and North East in the direction of what is now Tajikistan.

Later migrations were of greater proportion but not massive and certainly not with aims of conquest. This migration of the early Indo-Aryan speaking tribes led to their achieving hegemony, by force, over some sections of the existing Indus population and was the beginning of the process of acculturation. Certainly the weapons of the migrating tribes were a prime factor in the fall or retreat of the indigenous population to the Indus valley where there was probably constant Aryan strife with the indigenous people without there being a complete penetration, the indigenous population being confined to the urban areas and the Aryans to small villages in the other fertile areas.

Both  Rig Vedic Aryans and the indigenous people were the beneficiary of an age of abundance in north India, brought  about by the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last Ice Age, about 13,000 BC, which had forced the Aryans away over thousands of years from their original homelands towards areas less destroyed by the floods that had generated suave areas with abundant water.

Many areas that are now arid, like Rajasthan, Sind, Baluchistan were fertile, after the floods, and supported agricultural communities. This of course was due to the discharge of waters in the form of numerous streams from melting ice caps.

But it is clear that when the Aryan migrations entered into India, they were opposed by those who inhibited this land. The Rigveda Aryan writers refer to these Anti-Aryans as enemies and therefore called them, in uncomplimentary terms, ‘Dasyus’ (thieves). The Aryan god, Indra, was hailed as Dasyushatya, slaughterer of Dasyus.

These enemies were also styled as ‘Ayajvan’ non sacrificing; ‘Akraman’ without rites; ‘Adevaya’ indifferent to gods; ‘Anyavrata’ following strange ordinances;

and ‘Devapeeya’ reviling the gods. They were described as black skinned and ‘Anas’, snub-nosed. The other epithet was ‘Mridhravac’, unintelligible speech; or ‘Sisnadevas’, because they worshipped nude figures.  

Oriental scholars are of opinion that these races of Dasyus or who opposed the Aryans were the Dravidians, who actually inhabited the land when the Aryan migrants entered.

Various other groups, we have seen, were opponents of the Vedic Gods. The spiritual force of them all, including  the Dasyus, may have been the Jainas. The enemy were called  Vratyas, and Asuras (demons). The Mahabharata (Santiparva) speaks of the spiritualism of these Asuras who were the followers of Sraman ideology and specialized in meditation. They principally lived south of the valley civilization.

Likewise, the Panis, another enemy, were also the followers of the Sramana tradition. They were also called Dasyus, Devas or misers, Krpanas  (who do not donate any thing to the Purohitas). They may also have been tribes of Dravidians.

The Asuras, Munis, Yatis and Vratyas were also called Brahmacharis who used control over sexual passions and followed Sramanology (Atharvaveda). They appear to have been worshippers of nude figures which were not recognized by the Vedic Rsis, who clearly prayed 'Let not Sisnadevah enter our sacrificial Pandal’.  This seems to suggest that there was some form of interaction at that date which was not warlike. But likewise the Vratyas were definitely against the Vedic ideology

According to the Pancavimsa Brahmana, the Vratyas were divided into two classes, i.e. the Arhatas (Sramanasi leaders) and Yaudhas. We note too that in Vedic literature there are several references to the Arhatas, and Vatarasanas. Note that word Arhat. It  is a word with which we are very familiar in Buddhism.

In part then, it seems that one of the prime reasons for the fighting may have been religious in nature, against those who offended the Aryan Gods. The attitude of the non-Aryans is not known, but certainly they did not view the Aryan Gods or their traditions with favor.

But resistance against migrating groups who have great physical prowess, and a spiritual sense of destiny cannot go on forever and starts to diminish when compromise is seen to be a better solution on both sides. This compromise was not a compromise of negotiation but a de facto one.

Strained Coexistence

By the time that the great cities of the indigenous people had reached their zenith  there was probably a strained integration of the different cultures, for there was after all, sufficient room for different valley sub cultures. Remember too that eventually, when the Upanishads were written, within the Vedic culture there were different trends of thought between the Vedic followers of the old tradition and the new thinkers, which may have weakened the Vedic force to dominate all.

Evidently, with the emergence of Upanisada, which ended about 3100 BC.,

the process of interaction of the non-Aryan culture and the Aryan Vedic culture very cautiously and very slowly started. Large non-Aryan towns located close to the rivers would be culturally quite different from the Aryan fortified towns and villages. The social, economic and political interaction between Aryan settlers and the non-Aryan groups enriched the Aryan knowledge. This indeed may even have been an impetus for the new interpretation of the Vedas. Thus in the flourishing area of the great river, the non-Aryan religions may have risen alongside the Vedic groups as a minor and depreciated religion which opposed the Vedic system.

It is sometimes difficult to understand that the whole idea of castes has nothing to do with wealth or position. It is related to a fundamental uncleanliness. The rulers of non-Aryan towns, no matter what their position or wealth, would be considered Sudras.

Those were meant by Brahman to serve. Thus there were large unclean townships, sometimes in strategic sites, which were free from assault because of their size.

THE DRAVIDIANS

The indigenous dwellers of India within these towns were probably Dravidians and their culture had developed in a spiritual way completely differently from the Aryans. The original indigenous people, on facing the first onslaught of migrating Aryans, their ferocity and their weapons, fled or were driven to the west as is shown by the presence of the Brahui tribe in Baluchistan, who speak a Dravidian derivative like that of South Indian Tamil.

There are strong suggestions that the religious life of the large town of Harappa was Dravidian because there are many similarities between that culture and the Southern Dravidian culture. Attempts to decipher the script used by these people has failed, although investigators believe that they are related to Dravidian, akin to Old Tamil.

The extensive excavations carried out at the two principal city sites, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, indicate that this possibly Dravidian culture was at its peak by about 2500 B.C. The people depended upon agriculture and trade for their livelihood. Wheat, barley and the date palm were cultivated; animals were domesticated. There was production of metals such as copper, bronze, lead and tin. The discovery of kilns to make bricks support the fact that burnt bricks were used extensively in domestic and public buildings, but they were not the same sort of construction bricks used in the altars of the Aryans, which shows that the coexistence did not extend to a true integration of cultures and that quite a strong division between them must have existed.

Whether Jainas (Jains) were present in the great non-Aryan towns as a strong religious force we cannot say, because no religious structure is evident. There is a predominance of female figurines and seals depicting a horned goddess in association with the sacred pipal tree, which suggest  the worship of a mother goddess who presided over fertility and birth and who may have acted as guardian and protector of the dead.

One seal uncovered at Mohenjo-daro depicts a three-faced male god with arms outstretched, seated on a low platform in a cross legged position (like a yogi). His arms are adorned with bangles and his head is crowned with a fan-shaped head-dress from which two horns project. He is surrounded by animals and fertility symbols suggesting that he was concerned with the promotion of fertility.

The appearance of coarser types of pottery indicates the eventual presence of other cultures in the Indus cities.

In Mohenjo-daro large rooms were divided into smaller ones and mansions became tenements. The original street plan had been modified. The city had a large population, perhaps 40,000. This is a size difficult to control so there was probably little organized law and order.

The roots of non-Aryan Sramana, whether they had extended to the large cities, or not, is found in the fertile valley of Ganga, where the ideas may have flourished in the past, even before the advent of the Aryans with their priestly religion. There, it has been suggested, there was a society of recluses who laid much stress on individual exertion, on practice of a code of morality and devotion to austerities as a means of attaining religious freedom.

It is probable that these were the people which we now call Jains, a  polytheistic group, that probably were the earliest known religious system prevailing in India belonging to the Indus valley civilization. Thus they may have been the first known indigenous religion originated and developed on Indian soil with a profound progressive attitude and understanding of a religious and philosophical nature.

The "Jinas" (jainas), are conquerors of self, and, it is said, can acquire a perfect knowledge and absolute freedom from the bondage of karmas. Another way of describing Jains is to say that they are Tirthankaras, which signifies that they build a passage through the ocean of births (Awakening). It is said that one who is awakened can dwell in eternal happiness with perfect knowledge.

The Jains founded the four Tirthas – four orders of monks, nuns, male and female laity.

THE DECLINE

By that time the Aryan culture that had developed its own village fortresses, defended by warrior kings, there was a clear differentiation between the Brahmins and the Ksatriyas. There were also two types of culture present: the strong Brahmanic culture and the Sramanic, or non-Vedic culture that had similarities in spiritual themes with the forest dwelling Brahmanic Aryans.

The early Brahmanic system subjugated the senses and materialistic empire, and later asceticism was considered to be of great benefit in union with Brahman. There may even have been a tendency for many of the Ksatriya class to embrace Sramanic ideas and this may well have been the bridge which allowed changes in the Vedic culture, as during the Upanisadic period even the well-versed Brahmanic sages went to the Ksatriyas sometimes seeking spiritual knowledge.

It is doubtful in the beginning that the Ksatriyas abandoned the Vedic system, but certainly the necessity of the rules that we find laid out in the Laws of Manu suggest that there was at times strong intellectual, if not real resistance to the Brahmanic ideas.

Since both these classes were leaders in society, clashes between them must have taken place. Hence, considering the contravention, divergence, and antipathy between them, some experts claim that the patronage of the Sramana cultural system was a sequel to the protest of the Brahmanic philosophy, or at least to Brahmanic superiority.

It is clear that with or without the influence of the Jains, the Aryans captured the idea that beyond this mundane existence, as well as after life, there was something distinct.

They were certainly trying to attain the propitiation of the gods by sacrifices, and surely some must have thought that offerings of livings creatures was not the way. When acquainted with the non-Aryan theories of austerities, non-violence, karma and soul, some may have realized that perhaps the aim of their pursuit could better be apprehended by working on these Sramanic principles.

This trend of questioning the sacrifices started long before the Upanisadic period but gradually gained momentum. There was then a spiritual agitation in the post-Brahmanic period when the Rsis of Upanisadas began to challenge the usefulness of sacrificial rituals and many began to apply their mind objectively to the teachings of the opposition Sramana ascetic traditions. Certainly the Jain Sramanas were around stirring the spiritual pot, which was slowly boiling with discontent. That was perhaps why the Laws of Manu were so necessary.

What really was the state of affairs at this time? The arrival of the Laws of Manu was absolutely necessary to set some sort of order in a growing social milieu that was, as far as the spiritual aspects were concerned, approaching anarchy. The threads of this anarchy were held together by the Brahmins, and their beliefs included polytheism, animism, popular superstition, ancestor worship, moral truths, ritual and ceremony, confusion, and the law.

There was no such thing as a religion, and the belief systems included everything from adoration and appreciation of nature, to a way of living your life, rules of conduct, principles of rectitude, civil and criminal codes and a set of ethical norms. This anarchy within the “system” as it were was indeed a virtue, for it allowed within the framework, poetry, music, literature, and sciences.

Philosophical ideas always flourish under these conditions and there was full liberty to argue and speculate as long as the hallowed Brahmic state was not breached. There never was in the “religious-like culture” as it were either violence, retribution against different beliefs, or discrimination except for the caste regulations.

The Jains clearly had an opportunity to thrive in that atmosphere.  Since they were successful we will look at them as the major representative of the Ascetics and especially the great Conqueror Mahavira.

The Jains themselves claim a much longer history – eternity- as do most religions. The followers of every religious faith proclaim their religion as having its source in antiquity and the Jains are no exception to this. They claim with full assurance that Jain culture pre-dated the Vedic culture.

They declare for example that the Twenty-third Tirthankara of the Jains, Parsvanatha, recognized now as a historical person, flourished at the time when the Upanisadas were past their zenith and a general peace prevailed.

It was Parsva, they claim, who organized the Sramanic order and propounded `Caturyama' -the four principles:

Non-violence (Ahimsa),

Truth (Satya),

Non-stealing (Asteya)

Restrictions on possession (Aparigraha).

With the advent of Mahavira, who followed Parsvanatha, the time became ripe for the final and decisive assault on the priestly Brahmanic culture of rituals and violent sacrifices. Mahavira led a social attack against the social and cultural evils prevalent at the time.

But let us return to our historical chronology. Almost 600 years before the advent of Mahavira, (1926-1854 BC) the great drought started to take its effect. It wrought havoc with the more stable valley civilization.

By 1900 BC the Dravidian culture in this great area had crumbled. The droughts which came after the time of plenty of the ice age floods may have been the reason for this demise. The Harappan civilisation had passed its twilight, for civilization, even in an elementary form, is not always respected by nature.

The Indus Valley culture moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjo-daro began to decline. It  is probable that Aryans with their culture, clearly more  adaptable and resistant, persisted and moved into the vacant spaces, while the Dravidians moved from the area.

The deserted settlements in the region, which had, despite the uneasy coexistence, presumably come to be regarded as evil and inauspicious, were subsequently burnt down by the Aryans.

The country was decimated by further floods and wars which lasted over centuries and which only ended in Mahavira’s time, bringing peace and resulting in the final fall from power of Kasi by the force of the Kosalans and the ascension of the Maghada.

There existed, by the time of Mahavira’s birth, four great monarchies in the North of India, while the rest of India was controlled by small states and oligarchies. We can see then that the Dravidians in the south were excluded from the impetus of the Aryan culture.

Each great city evolved its own form of existence, and kings inside had little power or influence outside their own city walls or territories. Thus a king could adopt a religious way of life and order quite different from that in a neighboring kingdom or even in the distant villages.

Searchers after the truth were then to be found without fixed residence, living in royal parks, shelters for recluses, the open countryside, abandoned villages and houses, lonely woods, caverns and cemeteries.

The man known eventually as Mahavira, the Great Hero, was born in approximately 1924 BC and lived for seventy two years. He was born in Vaisali, which was governed by a confederation of eight small clans. The government  was in the hands of the chiefs of the Kstriya clans, over which presided an official who possessed the title of King, assisted by a viceroy and a military commander in chief. Mahavira was a member of one of these eight clans.

Thus his birth and culture would have been similar to that of Buddha, who was a member also of a republican clan, the Sakyas of Kapilavastu. Mahavira’s father took to wife a Kstriya woman, Trisala, who was the daughter of the king of the Vaisali.

Thus Mahavira was born and educated outside the main sphere of influence of the Brahmins, and this explains why his ideas were distanced from those of the great kingdoms. Mahavira, like Buddha, entered into the world of the senses and performed all the duties and obligations of his caste. He married a Ksatriya called Yasoda and had a son Priyadarsana.

When he was thirty, his discontent with life led him to give up everything and become an ascetic. Mahavira spent the first two years with Parsvanatha, an ascetic of the old hermitic type who vehemently supported the life of renunciation.

Mahavira then converted into a naked monk, called sky clad (Digambaras), and was received by Gosala Mankhali-putta as a disciple. About six years later, after a doctrinal difference with Gosala, he left and started his own group, based on the model of Parsvanatha.

His new contribution was the introduction of a fifth precept, that of Chastity, probably as a result of the moral corruption of the sky clad group.  Mahavira called his new group Kriyavada, and the name Jain today refers to those who came after and those who came before Mahavira. The sky clad group of Mahavira carried asceticism to the point of rejecting clothing even when they appeared in public, and were never accepted by the followers of Parsvathana. This led to the renaming of the original group of white clad monks as Shvetambaras (literally "white clad"):

Mahavira died in Pava after 36 years as a Master. His great disciples were

Gautama Indrabhuti and Sudharman.

Thus Mahavira lived and spiritually taught within the Aryan controlled culture. That he and his followers were not eliminated may have had two causes: first, their co-relations with the warrior class who may have seen them as moral support against the Brahmins and second, the fact that from the great and obvious power of Brahmanism clearly dominant the Jains of Mahavira were seen simply as pests not even worth considering as a real threat. After all what were they really? Just wandering ascetics living where they could, along with other heretics.

Indeed, in principle, they were correct. The Sramana tradition was based on equality and equanimity and self efforts leading to salvation. According to Sramanas, a being is himself responsible for his or her own deeds. Salvation, therefore, can be attained by anyone. Ritual, in its opinion, is not a means of emancipation. The only means of escaping from the misery of Samsara (the world), the cycle of birth and death, was considered to be the path of moral, mental and spiritual development based on complete non violence and truth.

Do you see then why they may have been considered harmless? Self effort means not uniting behind a common cause and there was great security in the thought that their way was spiritual and non-violent. Thus the Aryan Brahmins’ arrogance may have permitted the survival of Jainism.

Jain Sramana Ideas

These characteristics of Sramana culture can be understood by the word 'Sramana" itself which we said was derived from 'Srama" from sram, 'to work hard', to exert, effort, labor or to perform austerity. The Brahmans, who approved of austerity within the confines of their own worship, used the word almost always to mean “a man who performed hard penances,” One who performs acts of mortification or austerity was then called a 'Sramana" (Sramati tapasyatiti Sramanah).

For the non-Aryan Sramanas there was a difference, however, for salvation, therefore, can be achieved by anybody irrespective of caste, creed, color and culture. The cycle of rebirth to which every individual was subjected was viewed as the cause and substratum of misery. The goal of every person, no matter of what class or condition, was to evolve a way to become liberated from the cycle of rebirth.

Each school of Sramanas preached its own way of salvation. But they all agreed in one respect, namely in discounting ritual as a means of a emancipation and establishing and escape from the misery of Samsara, through pious religious activities.

Contrary to this, the Brahmanas evolved a system of very elaborate animal sacrifices. Their rites and rituals were performed both initially to gain worldly treasures and to injure their enemies. It is true that later they developed more worthy ideals.

Let us then look more closely at these Jainas or Jains.

The first thing that we have to remember here is that we are dealing with a way of thinking that is far removed from our own, and any attempt to fit that way of thinking into our own would be a failure. So we must allow the works and ideas of the Jains to rest on their own merit.

The other great problem for us looking at Jainism today is that it was not a hierarchical system at all and so it propagated like mongrel dogs. For this reason, we cannot see lines of thought which lead to other lines of thought. Progress of ideas was spread over many men and as such, a clear system, either religious or philosophical, cannot be seen.

The Universe as seen by the Jains

The universe existed for them as a series of layers, both heavens and hells. It had no beginning and will have no ending. It consists of:

The supreme abode: This is located at the top of the universe and is where Siddha, the liberated souls, live.

The upper world: 30 heavens where celestial beings live.

Middle world: the earth and the rest of the universe.

Nether world: 7 hells with various levels of misery and punishments.

The Nigoda, or base: where the lowest forms of life reside.

Universe space: which are layers of clouds which surround the upper world.

Space beyond: an infinite volume without soul, matter, time, medium of motion or medium of rest.

Jainism is said to be a religion that believes that all the particles of earth, water, fire, wind and plants are possessed of life. The Universe is eternal and indestructible and was not created by a God. Instead the base is a theory of atoms, six Dravyas (6 types of substance) and the worship of the nude form. According to Jaina tradition, the universe and its creation are eternal and infinite.

Everyone is bound within the universe by his or her karma (the accumulated good and evil that one has done).

Moksha (liberation from an endless succession of lives through reincarnation) is achieved by enlightenment, which can be attained only through asceticism

The Theory of Anekantavada

The Universe is a composite of groups consisting of adverse pairs like knowledge and ignorance, pleasure and sorrow, life and death and so on. Life depends on such adverse groups. All the groups have their own interests, which create clashes and conflicts in thinking among themselves. A spiritual approach pacifies all through teaching coexistence.

The nature of reality is non-absolutism (Anekantavada). According to this view, reality possesses infinite characteristics, which cannot be perceived or known at once by any ordinary man. Different people think about different aspects of the same reality and therefore their partial findings are contradictory to one another.

The Jains established the theory of a non-absolutist standpoint, Anekantavada, with its two wings, Nayavada and Syadvada. Proper understanding of the coexistence of mutually opposing groups through these principles rescues one from conflicts.

The Doctrine of Syvada

The doctrine amounts to the assertion that reality, whatever it is, expresses itself in multiple forms, with the result that different opinions can all be true when taken from different perspectives. There are seven nayas (aspects or points of view) from which reality may be regarded. This is the doctrine of syvada or relativism.

Jainism holds that knowledge is relative, probable and partial at best and that most propositions can be either accepted or denied, depending on the point of view taken.

The Visible and the Invisible

It is claimed that we stand by visible objects and accept them as they surely are but do not recognize their invisible characteristics. This is akin o the idea of Void and Form. Until and unless one recognizes both these characteristics of an object, he cannot reach to the truth and justice.

No apparent object or thought is absolutely similar or dissimilar, friend or enemy, good or bad. As a matter of fact, every entity hides in itself the innumerable possibilities.

Modes are not imperishable. They are to be changed. Sorrow can be converted into pleasure. Absoluteness has no meaning in any field. Substance cannot be fully explained without the assistance of Anekantavada. Life itself cannot be properly understood without this philosophical notion. Plurism, monotheism existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity and so on go together. These characteristics of an entity can be comprehended with the help of the Real standpoint (Niscayanaya) and the Practical standpoint (Vyavaharanaya).

Dynamic Substance

The Jaina believes, that a substance is dynamic (Padnami) in character.

This means that a thing is eternal from the real standpoint and momentary from the practical standpoint.

Buddhism does not take this point of view.

The Nature of Reality

The controversial point in the philosophical system is mainly related to the nature of reality. Some systems of thought accept only the Universal (Samanya) character of reality. Advaitavadins and the Sankhyas are the typical representatives of this view.

According to Jainism, an entity has infinite characteristics, which are divided into two categories: Universal and Particular. As different colors can exist in a lustrous gem without conflict, so the universal and particular elements can abide in a reality. Dravya represents the Universal character and Paryaya represents the Particular character of a thing. For example, a jar is made of gold, which can be changed into several modes while preserving gold as a permanent substance. They are mutually inter-dependent, identical yet separate from each other.

The nature of reality, according to this theory, is permanent-in-change. It possesses three common characteristics, such as Utpada (origination), Vyaya (destruction) and Dhrauvya (permanence through birth and decay).

It also possesses the attributes (Gunas) called Anvayi, which coexist with substance (Dravya) and modifications (Paryaya) called Vyatireki, which succeed each other. Productivity and destructivity constitute the synarnic aspect of an entity and permanence is its enduring factor.

In Buddhism we recognize only the particular (Visesa) character of reality.

The Theory of Partial Truth (Nayavada) and Tolerance

Nayavada (the theory of partial truth) is an integral part of the conception of Anekantavada, which is essential to conceive the sole nature of reality.

It provides the scope for acceptance of different viewpoints on the basis that each reveals a partial truth about an object. Naya investigates analytically a particular standpoint of the problem in all respects in the context of the entire reality. But if anything is treated as the complete truth, it is not Naya. but Durnaya.

For instance,  the idea that "it is" is Naya, and "it is and is only" is Durnaya, while "it is relatively" is Syadvada. The prefix "Syat", the root of Syadvada, represents the existence of all the characteristics, which, though not perceived at the moment, are present in reality.

Thus Syadvada investigates them in a constant and comprehensive synthesis.

Syadvada is connected with relative expression about the nature of reality. It makes an effort to respect other doctrines.  It is a humble attitude of tolerance and respect for other's views.

 JINA SUTRA

Endowed with conduct and discipline,

Who practices control of self,

Who throws out all his bondage,

He attains the eternal place.

Mahavira (Uttaradhyayana, CH. 20, VERSE 52)

All unenlightened persons produce sufferings. Having become deluded,

they produce and reproduce sufferings, in this endless world.

Mahavira (Uttaradhyayana, 6/1)

Just as a threaded (sasutra) needle is secure from being lost,

in the same way a person given to self-study (sasutra) cannot be lost.

Mahavira (Uttaradhyayana, 29/59)

Only that science is a great and the best of all sciences,

the study of which frees man from all kinds of miseries.

Mahavira (Isibhasiya, 7/1)

That with the help of which we can know the truth,

control the restless mind, and purify the soul is called knowledge.

Mahavira (Mulachara, 5/70)

That which subdues passions, leads to beatitude

and fosters friendliness is called knowledge.

Mahavira (Mulachara 5/71)

May the state of Arhats, the Siddhas and the Vitranagas be my goal.

Mahavira (Mulachara, 2/107)

 I condemn what is worthy of condemnation.

I censure what is worthy of censure.

I atone for all the outer and inner encroachments on the soul.

Mahavira (Mulachara 2/55)

There is nothing as fearful as death, and there is no suffering as great as birth.

Be free from the fear of both birth and death,

by doing away with attachment to the body.

Mahavira (Mulachara, 2/119)

The unenlightened takes millions of lives

to extirpate the effects of karma whereas a man

possessing spiritual knowledge and discipline

obliterates them in a single moment.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 10)

Even the noble becomes mean in the company of the wicked,

as precious necklace on the neck of a dead body.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 245)

Just as you do not like misery, in the same way others also do not like it.

Knowing this, you should do unto them what you want them to do unto you.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 780)

To kill any living being amounts to killing one self.

Compassion to others is compassion to one's own self.

Therefore one should avoid violence like poison and thorn (that cause pain).

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 797

Just as fire is not quenched by the fuel and

the ocean by thousands of rivers,

similarly no living being is satisfied even with all the

wealth of all the three worlds.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 1143)

Non-possessiveness controls the senses

in the same way as a hook controls the elephant.

As a ditch is useful for the protection of a town,

so is non-attachment for the control of the senses.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 1168)

Greed even for a piece of straw,

not to speak of precious things, produces sin.

A greedless person, even if he wears a crown, cannot commit sin.

Mahavira (Bhagavati Aradhana, 1371)

As gold does not cease to be gold even if it is heated in the fire;

an enlightened man does not cease to be enlightened on

being tortured by the effects of karma.

Mahavira (Samayasara, 184)

Those who are ignorant of the supreme purpose of life will

never be able to attain nirvana (liberation) in spite of their

observance of the vratas (vows) and niymas (rules) of religious conduct

and practice of shila (celibacy) and tapas (penance).

Mahavira (Samayasara, 153)

My soul characterised by knowledge and faith is alone eternal.

All other phases of my existence to which I am attached are

external occurrences that are transitory.

Mahavira (Niyamasara, 99)

 External renunciation is meaningless

if the soul remains fettered by internal shackles.

Mahavira (Bhava-pahuda, 13)

Righteousness consists in complete self-absorption and in

giving up all kinds of passions including attachment.

It is the only means of transcending the mundane existence.

The Jinas have said so.

Mahavira  (Bhava-pahuda, 83)

The valiant does not tolerate indulgence, nor does he tolerate abhorrence.

As he is pleased with his own self, he is not attached to anything.

Mahavira (Acaranga, 2/6/160)

The essence of all knowledge consists in not committing violence.

The doctrine of ahimsa is nothing but the observance of equality i.e.

the realization that just as I do not like misery, others also do not like it.

(Knowing this, one should not kill anybody).

Mahavira (Sutrakrtanga, 1/1/4/10)

Those who hanker after pleasure,

those who are attached to or seized by passions and are obstinate like a miser,

cannot know the nature of samadhi (self-concentration).

Mahavira (Sutrakrtanga, 1/2/58)

Only the one who has transcended fear can experience equanimity.

Mahavira (Sutrakrtanga 1/2/2/17)

One who cultivates an attitude of equality towards all living beings,

mobile and stationary, can attain equanimity.

Mahavira (Anuyogadvar, 708, gatha 2)

(One should reflect thus:) Let me treat all living beings with eqanimity and

none with enmity. Let me attain samadhi (tranquility) by becoming

free from expectations.

Mahavira (Mulachara, 2/42)

Let me renounce the bondage of attachment and hatred,

pride and meekness, curiosity, fear, sorrow, indulgence and

abhorrence (in order to accomplish equanimity).

Mahavira (Mulachara 2/44)

Let me give up attachment through unattachment.

My soul will be my only support (in this practice of unattachment).

(Hence) let me give up everything else.

Mahavira (Mulachara 2/44)

One who remains equanimous in the midst of pleasures and pains

is a sramana, being in the state of pure consciousness.

Mahavira (Pravachansara, 1/14)

One devoted whole-heartedly to knowledge, faith and right conduct

equally accomplishes in full the task of the sramana.

Mahavira (Pravachansara, /42)

One can bear all kinds of unbearable pain

caused by spikes in expectation of wealth etc.

But he alone who tolerates, without any motive of worldly gain,

harsh words spoken to him is venerable.

Mahavira (Dasavaikalika, 9/3/6)

One should not speak unless asked to do so.

He should not disturb others in conversation.

He should not back-bite and indulge in fraudulent untruth.

Mahavira (Dasavaikalika, 8/46)

One should not utter displeasing words

that arouse ill feelings in others.

One should not indulge in speech conducive to the evil.

Mahavira (Dasavaikalika , 8/47)

Discipline of speech consists in refraining

from telling lies and in observing silence.

Mahavira (Mulachara, 332)

-

The sadhaka (one who practices spiritual discipline)

speaks words that are measured and beneficial to all living beings.

Mahavira (Kartikeyanupreksa, 334)

Knowing that pleasing sound, beauty, fragrance,

pleasant taste and soothing touch are transitory transformations of matter,

the celibate should not be enamoured of them.

Mahavira (Dasavaikalika, 8/58)

One who, being swayed by wishful thinking,

becomes a victim of passions at every step,

and does not ward off the desires, cannot practice asceticism.

Mahavira (Dasavaikalika, 2/1)

The five senses of the awakened always remain inactive.

The five senses of the unawakened always remain active.

By means of the active five one acquires bondage while by

means of the inactive five the bondage is severed.

Mahavira (Isibhasiyam, 29/2)

The yogin who is indifferent to worldly affairs remains

spiritually alert to his own duty, namely, his duty towards his soul.

On the other hand, one who indulges in worldly affairs is not dutiful to his soul.

Mahavira (Moksha-pahuda, 31)

Birth is attended by death, youth by decay and fortune by misfortune.

Thus everything in this world is momentary.

Mahavira (Kartikeyanupreksa, 5)

As a tortoise withdraws his limbs within his own body,

even so does the valiant withdraw his mind within himself from all sins.

He also withdraws his hands, legs, mind, sense-organs, sinful moods,

evil words, pride, and deceitfulness. This indeed is the valor of the valiant.

Mahavira (Sutrakrtanga, 1/8/16-18)

Those who hanker after pleasure,

those who are attached to or seized by passions and are obstinate like miser,

cannot know the nature of samadhi (self-concentration).

Mahavira (Sutrakrtanga, 1/2/58)

Only that man can take a right decision,

whose soul is not tormented by the afflictions of attachment and aversion.

Mahavira (Isibhasiyam, 44/1)

One who knows the spiritual (self) knows the external (world) too.

He who knows the external world, knows the self also.

Mahavira (Acaranga, 1/7/147)

If one's vision is capable of expelling the darkness,

he would not need a lamp. Likewise the soul itself being blissful,

there is no need of external object for bliss.

Mahavira (Pravachansara, 1/67)

A monk engrossed in meditation renounces all evils.

Meditation is therefore the best way of regression from all transgressions.

Mahavira (Niyamasara, 65)

The Arhats of the past, those of the present and the future narrate thus,

discourse thus, proclaim thus, and affirm thus: One should not injure,

subjugate, enslave, torture or kill any animal, living being,

organism or sentient being. This doctrine of Non-Violence (Ahimsa Dharma)

is immaculate, immutable and eternal.

Mahavira (Acharanga Sutra, Ch. 4)

Above, below and in front, people indulge in violent activities

against living beings individually and collectively in many ways;

discerning this, a wise man neither himself inflicts violence on these bodies,

nor induces others to do so, nor approved of their doing so.

Mahavira (Acharanga Sutra, Ch. 1)

The Arhats have propounded the doctrine of Non-Violence, one and all,

 equally for those who are desirous to practice it and those who are not,

 those who have abandoned violence and those who have not,

 those who are deeply engrossed in worldly ties and those who are not.

 This doctrine of Ahimsa is Truth.

 It is rightly enunciated here in the teachings of the Arhats.

 Comprehending the true spirit of the doctrine,

 one should practice it  till one's last breath.

Mahavira (Acharanga Sutra, Ch. 4)

As the fire quickly consumes dry wood,

even so an adept whose soul is equipoised and unattached

causes the accumulated karma structure to disintegrate

Mahavira (Acaranga, 4/3/33)

EXERCISE 8

The eighth exercise for this course 101 is to review all the verses presented above and locate those with which it is probable that the Buddha would not have agreed. The second part of the exercise is to group together all those verses  which coincide with the ten precepts of Buddhism. First present the Mahavira quotation and then the precept.

All answers reflect your personal understanding. There is no perfect answer with which you will be judged. Thus your own answer is part of your own learning process.