Hello all,
Let me introduce myself: I am a Jain by birth and am intimately familiar with the Jain philosophy and would be happy to answer any questions.
Here is one single paragraph explaining Jainism:
Jainism, in its purest form (free of all external and historical cultural artifacts and influences), is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is an organized way of life revolving around a cardinal principle: ahimsa (non-violence), in all three aspects: mind, speech, and body. Non-violence and non-attachment are the two sides of the same coin. To practice non-violence, one must not be attached to anything and if one is not attached to anything, one is incapable of committing violence.
Some thoughts:
There are two ways of viewing Jainism: through its philosophy or through your conscience. The former expounds the existence of soul, the current defilement of soul by karma, and the liberation of soul through non-violence/non-attachment. The latter is based on the uniquely human feeling of compassion and empathy. Take this feeling to the extreme and you have complete non-violence.
Jainism was originally designed for monks only. During Parshvanath's and Mahavir's times, there was no laity. You are either a Jain (a monk) or you are not. And all monks had to wander alone; it is only centuries after Mahavir that monks started wandering in groups. There are more interesting tidbits that I will share with you guys along the way.
There have been many comments and questions about the "radicalism" and "extremism" of Jainism. But is non-violence really radical/extreme compared to violence?
Let me introduce myself: I am a Jain by birth and am intimately familiar with the Jain philosophy and would be happy to answer any questions.
Here is one single paragraph explaining Jainism:
Jainism, in its purest form (free of all external and historical cultural artifacts and influences), is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is an organized way of life revolving around a cardinal principle: ahimsa (non-violence), in all three aspects: mind, speech, and body. Non-violence and non-attachment are the two sides of the same coin. To practice non-violence, one must not be attached to anything and if one is not attached to anything, one is incapable of committing violence.
Some thoughts:
There are two ways of viewing Jainism: through its philosophy or through your conscience. The former expounds the existence of soul, the current defilement of soul by karma, and the liberation of soul through non-violence/non-attachment. The latter is based on the uniquely human feeling of compassion and empathy. Take this feeling to the extreme and you have complete non-violence.
Jainism was originally designed for monks only. During Parshvanath's and Mahavir's times, there was no laity. You are either a Jain (a monk) or you are not. And all monks had to wander alone; it is only centuries after Mahavir that monks started wandering in groups. There are more interesting tidbits that I will share with you guys along the way.
There have been many comments and questions about the "radicalism" and "extremism" of Jainism. But is non-violence really radical/extreme compared to violence?