Why is Jainism so focused on non-violence such that followers go as far as to avoid harming insects?
Some consider this to be extreme. Jain asceticism is also generally thought by outsiders to be quite extreme.
Extremism is relative. A cannibal considers an omnivore to be extreme. An omnivore considers a vegetarian to be extreme. A vegetarian considers a vegan to be extreme. And so on and so forth until virtually everybody (from the cannibal down to the fruitarian) considers someone who fasts unto death to be extreme.
The core principle of Jainism is ahimsa. The core principle is also non-attachment. Both are the sides of the same coin.
Why is this the core principle? Let's take a rational approach that eschews mysticism, metaphysics, and any other non-verifiable phenomena.
Human beings are born with certain attributes not found in other animals except perhaps higher order primates. These attributes includes sentience (awareness) and compassion. Some humans express these attributes more than others but these attributes are nevertheless present in all humans.
If compassion and sentience defines who we are as humans then it would logically and rationally follow that the more we express these attributes, the more human we become.
How does one maximize sentience and compassion? The obvious answer is non-violence. What is non-violence? Some defines it to be non-violence towards other human beings only. Yet others define it to be non-violence towards humans and certain animals but not other animals. But non-violence in its most basic form is simply the absence of violence in all aspects. If you commit a little violence, it's still violence. If you curse someone, it is violence. If you think of cursing someone or even killing something, it's violence. Violent speech or thoughts may not physically harm others but it can still harm the self. A person in the throes of deep anger have vital statistics of someone who is about to have a heart attack. Passions incite unhealthy changes in the body. This is violence to self.
So how does one maximize non-violence or minimize violence? Through non-attachment. Why non-attachment? Because if one is not attached to anything, how can one have passions like anger, greed, lust, sadness, etc.? And if one is without passions, how can one commit violence? Likewise, if one is completely non-violent in all aspects (thoughts, words, and deeds), then one is not attached to anything by definition.
The Jain path minimizes violence by taking non-attachment to its logical conclusion which is to give up everything except one's life. Then it follows that one who practices non-attachment/non-violent has maximized one's humanity. A perfect human, if you will.
So Jainism is the rational path for achieving one's potential for becoming the perfect human. Perfect humanity is the end game.
Now, that doesn't mean that everyone can achieve such potential. Indeed, only the most strong-willed and the most compassionate have this ability. Originally, in the ancient times, Jainism was a religion exclusively for monks only. That is, you could not consider yourself a real Jain unless and until you were a monk. But such restrictions could not perpetuate the religion for eternity and so the Sangh was created to allow laypeople to become part of the community by taking partial vows of non-violence. The goal was to enable the laypeople to be closer to realizing their potential for perfect humanity while at the same time supporting the monks who took the full vows of non-violence. It is true that a layperson may not be able to achieve perfect humanity in one's lifetime but then, that's what reincarnation is for. One can only hope to be reborn as a human being with the good karma to be born into a Jain family or exposed to the Jain path and the necessary attributes of strong will-power and compassion such that one could become a Jain mendicant in that life.
One can strive to achieve perfect humanity as described above or one can suffer through the happiness, sorrow, pain, greed, and other passions of an average human. The choice is one's.
Some consider this to be extreme. Jain asceticism is also generally thought by outsiders to be quite extreme.
Extremism is relative. A cannibal considers an omnivore to be extreme. An omnivore considers a vegetarian to be extreme. A vegetarian considers a vegan to be extreme. And so on and so forth until virtually everybody (from the cannibal down to the fruitarian) considers someone who fasts unto death to be extreme.
The core principle of Jainism is ahimsa. The core principle is also non-attachment. Both are the sides of the same coin.
Why is this the core principle? Let's take a rational approach that eschews mysticism, metaphysics, and any other non-verifiable phenomena.
Human beings are born with certain attributes not found in other animals except perhaps higher order primates. These attributes includes sentience (awareness) and compassion. Some humans express these attributes more than others but these attributes are nevertheless present in all humans.
If compassion and sentience defines who we are as humans then it would logically and rationally follow that the more we express these attributes, the more human we become.
How does one maximize sentience and compassion? The obvious answer is non-violence. What is non-violence? Some defines it to be non-violence towards other human beings only. Yet others define it to be non-violence towards humans and certain animals but not other animals. But non-violence in its most basic form is simply the absence of violence in all aspects. If you commit a little violence, it's still violence. If you curse someone, it is violence. If you think of cursing someone or even killing something, it's violence. Violent speech or thoughts may not physically harm others but it can still harm the self. A person in the throes of deep anger have vital statistics of someone who is about to have a heart attack. Passions incite unhealthy changes in the body. This is violence to self.
So how does one maximize non-violence or minimize violence? Through non-attachment. Why non-attachment? Because if one is not attached to anything, how can one have passions like anger, greed, lust, sadness, etc.? And if one is without passions, how can one commit violence? Likewise, if one is completely non-violent in all aspects (thoughts, words, and deeds), then one is not attached to anything by definition.
The Jain path minimizes violence by taking non-attachment to its logical conclusion which is to give up everything except one's life. Then it follows that one who practices non-attachment/non-violent has maximized one's humanity. A perfect human, if you will.
So Jainism is the rational path for achieving one's potential for becoming the perfect human. Perfect humanity is the end game.
Now, that doesn't mean that everyone can achieve such potential. Indeed, only the most strong-willed and the most compassionate have this ability. Originally, in the ancient times, Jainism was a religion exclusively for monks only. That is, you could not consider yourself a real Jain unless and until you were a monk. But such restrictions could not perpetuate the religion for eternity and so the Sangh was created to allow laypeople to become part of the community by taking partial vows of non-violence. The goal was to enable the laypeople to be closer to realizing their potential for perfect humanity while at the same time supporting the monks who took the full vows of non-violence. It is true that a layperson may not be able to achieve perfect humanity in one's lifetime but then, that's what reincarnation is for. One can only hope to be reborn as a human being with the good karma to be born into a Jain family or exposed to the Jain path and the necessary attributes of strong will-power and compassion such that one could become a Jain mendicant in that life.
One can strive to achieve perfect humanity as described above or one can suffer through the happiness, sorrow, pain, greed, and other passions of an average human. The choice is one's.
