Jainism, the religion of nature, preached the most non-violent approach and humanitarian viewpoint towards all souls with a profound progressive attitude and judicious understanding. Jainism is a religious culture that paves the way to achieve goodness of life in this lifetime. It acknowledges the value of every being. And, this realm of well-being encompasses an attitude bereft of negativity still less towards the non-human world, towards the physical world and towards our own physical embodiedness. The paper would provide a reading of some of the key concepts of Jaina religions from an environmental perspective and thus try to provide some potential bases for a Jain environmental ethics.

The main focus of this paper is to find remedies to the environmental problems we are facing through the study of eco-spirituality with particular reference to the study of Jain faith. The Jain philosophy of non-absolutism (anekāntavāda) provides a basis for the central moral principle of ahiṃsā as advocated by Jaina virtue ethicists. And, this principle of ahiṃsā embodied in the respect for the life of others forms the fundamental basis of Jain ecological perspective. Accordingly, I proceed to focus first on the environmental problems that the present era is subjected to and the Jain answer to this crisis through the Jain revelation of spirituality and interconnectedness with their surroundings. Secondly, the paper would focus on Jainism’s non-violent attitude towards nature. Thirdly, the paper would focus on Jain metaphysics of non-absolutism, supported by the epistemological theory of viewpoints rooted in the sevenfold scheme (saptabhaṅgi) of qualified predication (syādvāda) leading to the central tenets of Jain ethics of non-violence. The paper highlights the anthropocentric dilemma in the face of non-anthropocentric charge of unethicality. Anthropocentric ethics holds that only human beings have moral value. Thus, although we may be said to have responsibilities regarding the natural world, we do not have direct responsibilities to the natural world. As a reaction to anthropocentricism, eco-philosophers hold that this kind of attitude is alarming for human existence. This is because humanity is uniquely responsible both for the mess we are in and for cleaning it up. The paper specifically shows how Jain virtue ethics would ground an ethics of ecological restoration.

Jain Answer to the Environmental Problems

Environmental problems have taken the centre stage in the ethical discussion of environment. What has given our subject its urgency and focus is the widespread belief that we are in the early stages of an environmental crisis that is of our own making. Environmentalists view nature as highly vulnerable and planetary systems as delicately balanced. In their view, people have the ability to disrupt the systems that make life on earth possible. While once people needed to be protected from nature, today nature needs to be protected from people. Environmental problems are diverse in scale, impact and the harms they threaten. They can be local, regional or global. They can involve setbacks to human interests, or they can damage other creatures, species or natural systems. Environmental problems are complex and multidimensional. As Dale Jamieson holds, environmental goods involve morally relevant values, and that environmental problems involve moral failings; in fact, environmental problems challenge our ethical and value systems (Jamieson 2008, p. 25).

Environmentalists value nature because they are valuable. It is not the case that these features are valuable because environmentalists value them. Only by assuming that the values in nature are mind-independent can we account for the urgency of our views about protecting nature, for values that are mind-independent are hostages to the flux of human desire and preference. In any serious exploration of environmental values, a central issue will be the question of intrinsic value. Something is of intrinsic value if it is good “in itself” and if something is accorded value as a means to some other end or purpose is regarded as a thing with instrumental value (Singer 1993, p. 274). The instrumental environmental value theory or instrumental non-human value theory approach adopts the view that humans are valuable in themselves but the non-human world is valuable only in so far as it is valuable to humans. But the intrinsic value theory holds that in addition to humans, members of the non-human world are valuable in themselves. This class of eco-philosophical approach may therefore be referred to as intrinsic non-human value theory or intrinsic environmental value theory (Warwick 1990, p. 151).

From the ecological perspective, the world is not viewed as bifurcated into mutually independent parts and mutually exclusive attributes: everything is seen as implicating, and being implicated in, the identities of other things, reality being a relational system of shared, interpreting essences. Since the properties of a given individual are a function of its relations with individuals of countless other kinds, these properties do not belong exclusively to it: each individual owes its nature to others in the network. It follows that meaning-giving and value-endowing quality such as mind or subjectivity or soul, and the value that accompanies them, cannot be monopolised by human beings, but must be diffused throughout the systems of the natural world.

In restoring to reality its intrinsic interconnectedness, the ecological perspective implies that since non-human others are implicated in our identity, and they are also implicated in our ends and interests, and hence in our conception of the good. In reanimating the world with a quality analogous to mind, this perspective furthermore implies that nature is morally significant in its own right and is not merely a stockpile of resources for humankind. Such an eco-centric perspective situates humanity in nature rather than apart from and above it and thereby removes the traditional justification for anthropocentric attitudes. The idea of interconnectedness can function as an organising principle not only within metaphysics and ethics, but in many different theoretical and practical contexts. For example, from the interconnectedness perspective, the epistemic subject is not constituted by the way of separation or detachment from its object. Rather, the subject seeks understanding of “the other” through empathy, affinity and a sense of kinship-through dialogue rather than the objectifying gaze of traditional science. In the theological context, spirit is seen as immanent in matter, body and nature. Spirituality thus involves celebration of and reverence for our corporeal existence and affirmation of the natural world and our enmeshment in it.

From a Jain standpoint, a justification for the environment protection does not necessarily find basis in earth, water and air having only derivative value in their support of life. The Jain definition of life expands and goes beyond the standard concept of life as the property of plants and animals which make it possible for them for food intake, energy usage, grow, and adapt and acclimatise themselves to their surroundings and reproduce their kind. It is the quality that differentiates a living being from inorganic matter or a dead organism (Chapple 2001, p. 208). Each of earth, water and air along with fire should be endowed with moral status in their own right. These elements form the physical (audārika) body for a soul (jīva), which may be differentiated from all other existents by the quality (guṇa) of consciousness or awareness (caitanya) (Jaini 1979, pp. 90–91, 97–106). There are descriptions in Jain texts of the embodiment of soul in the earth-bodied beings (pṛthvikāyika) which include soil, metals, sand, lava, stone and others. Also, there are discussions how one-sensed being (ekendriya jīva) categorised as the different types of plants or vegetation (vanaspati) who possesses only the sense of touch to interact with other living beings and experience the world around them (Bhagavatī Sūtra, sataka-I, uddesaka-1 and 2 Lalwani 1973, pp. 5–50).

Tirthānkara Mahāvīra taught an equality of all forms of life and reverence for all of them. He expressed reverence for life not only for all mobile living beings but also for the immobile entity as earth, air, water and vegetation. Now, in what sense we are to understand one-sensed beings to be living. The Jains believed that the birth of one-sensed being is attained by the fruition (udaya) of those karmas that, at the time of death of its present physical form, cause the transition of the soul to its next birth where the soul takes the shape of a new physical form through the fruition of nāma karma that forms a body with one sense (ekendriya śarīra-nāma karma). It also includes the animal lifespan karma (tiryañca-āyu karma). Along with various forms of vegetable life, earth-bodied, water-bodied (apkāyika), fire-bodied (tejokāyika) and air-bodied (vāyukāyika) beings all develop life forces or vitalities (prāṇas), from the rise of āyu. The Jains believe they have the vitality of the strength or energy of the body (kāyabala prāṇa); the vitality of respiration (ucchvāsaniśvāsas prāṇa); and the vitality of lifespan (āyu prāṇa). According to Jainism, any matter in the form of earth, water, air or fire embodies a soul and constitutes a living being that breathes and sustains life in its body (Wiley 2002, p. 43). The Bhagavatī Sūtra mentions the experience of pain by earth-bodied being (Bhagavatī Sūtra: sataka 19, uddesaka 3, sutra 33, Deleu 1970, p. 840). The Jains not only claims that these beings have consciousness, but also have provided proofs to show that they have sensation. When harmed they feel extreme pain like that of a human being with consciousness. Thus, a true mendicant would not only abstain from harming these beings but also would not cause or approve of others committing violence towards them. According to the findings of the modern geologists, activities like growth, replication, fatigue, metabolism and death among rocks, mountains, etc. reveal signs of life. The Jain believes that the earth-bodied being enjoys pleasures and suffers pain through their auspicious or inauspicious senses and they possess non-rational blind sensations. The earth-bodied beings do not manifest consciousness because of the constant coma of the deep slumber-producing karma. These organisms have superfine and subtle body, and so one or two of such organisms remains imperceptible. Such innumerable being when bought together to form a lump could be perceived. The earth-bodied beings are subject to physical pain, decay and ageing though they lack mental pain (Ācāraṇga Bhāsyam Sūtra 1.28 2001, p. 38).

The water-bodied beings are too subtle to be perceived through naked eyes. However, though imperceptible yet the existence of water-bodied beings cannot be denied for it would involve denial of one’s own existence, as the water-bodied beings like the human being are subject to birth (Ācāraṇga Bhāsyam Sūtra 1.39 2001, p. 50). The fire-bodied beings are considered as sentient as like humans; they have growth, birth and decay. Fire grows on the supply of fuel and diminishes and extinguishes in the absence of it (Ācāraṇga Bhāsyam Sūtra 1.68, p. 59; 1.85 2001, p. 63). The beings that fly in the air drop down from the air and get shrivelled up when they come in contact with fire and experience instant death.

The air-bodied beings have consciousness like human beings, so do the plant-bodied beings for they exhibit slumber and waking as observed in plants like emblica and Cassia tora. The human limbs when severed or mutilated gradually decay and die, so do the leaves and branches of the tree when torn away or withered up from the main body and the colour of the leaves fades and dies. The plant body like human needs food and nutrition. As there are physical changes to human life beginning from fertilisation till post-natal stages of childhood and so on, the plant is also subject to change from seed to sapling and so on. The increase in growth of crops and fruits is due to the supply of fertilisers and due to their longing for growth (Ācāraṇga Bhāsyam Sūtra 1.113 2001, p. 73).

The micro-organisms or nigoda are categorised as immobile beings. Mahāvīra holds that the denial of the existence of both the immobile and mobile beings will tantamount to the denial of the self’s existence. One’s own existence cannot be safeguarded by obliterating other’s existence. The mobile beings include the two-sensed (beindriya) beings possessing the sense of touch and taste, such as conches, termites, worms and others (Jīva Vicāra Prakaraṇam-15, Sūri 1950). The three sense (treindriya) beings having tactile, smell and touch sense include bedbugs, beetles and ant (Jīva Vicāra Prakaraṇam-16, 17, Sūri 1950). Chaurindriya or beings with sense of touch, taste, smell and sight include scorpions, bees, flies, spiders and mosquitoes (Jīva Vicāra Prakaraṇam-35, Sūri 1950). In the continuum of existence in the universe, these above beings along with the beings with five senses (panchendriya) like the infernal beings (beings who are the denizens of hells), the higher animals (the non-human sentient beings who in the continuum of existence lie above the insects) along with human beings suffer and experience pain when severed or injured. According to the Jain, the world contains feeling and responds in kind to human presence. The higher animals not only can possess cognitive faculties as memories and emotions but can feel our presence. Even the water we drink, the air we breathe and everything around us can feel our presence through tactile sensations. Thus, as a sensate, thinking being, it is the responsibility of human being to protect the lives of the non-human being. For we must not forget that just as a stone thrown into a pool will affect every molecule of water in the pool, in the similar fashion, our every thought, word and action will affect our surroundings. Therefore, it is important to know that what we do—to the life around us and the environment—becomes our fate.

The Jain believes that it is the special task of human being to increase our awareness and cultivate ethical behaviour that warrant our recognition and respect for the world of living, breathing, sensuous reality starting from its elemental building blocks of earth, water, fire and air, through its microbial existence, right up to its array of complex insects and mammals including primates. The Jain shows reverence to all forms of life, including plants and animals, earth-bodied, water-bodied and every other form of animate and inanimate being. The Jains projects life in every entity of the world. To them, life is valuable in itself and deserves respect. In fact, in Jainism, the spiritual well-being of a person is tied to the physical well-being of all forms of life.

Spirituality and Ecology

Spirituality is importantly an individual initiative; individuals create collectivity grounded upon discipline and practice. When there is manifestation of the spiritual connection between human beings and the environment, there results eco-spirituality. Eco-spirituality incorporates an intuitive and embodied awareness of all life and engages a relational view of person to planet, inner to outer landscape and soul to soil (Lincoln 2000, p. 227). Through a phenomenological study, the eco-spiritual consciousness has been assessed. The findings have been narrowed to the five principles of eco-spiritual consciousness, namely tending, dwelling, reverence, connectedness and sentience (Lincoln 2000, p. 227).

Tending has been interpreted as “being awake and conscious”, with “deep, inner self-reflection”. Dwelling is defined as the phenomena of being with the observable and the unobservable. Reverence means rediscovering the mystery as found in all creation and is embodied sense of the sacred, focusing on the earth. By connectedness, we understand the organic relationship with the universe and sentience was defined as a sense of knowing. So, according to eco-spirituality, if there is anything sacred, anything that is worthy of reverence and devotion, it is this miraculous earthen community of life processes. Eco-spirituality is naturalistic in perspective in the sense that it accepts that nature is all that is. But the nature it accepts is a profane and precious nature (Hettinger 1995, p. 84). Eco-spirituality promotes intense love for earth and also promotes feeling of thankfulness for the earth’s existence along with the self existence and commits oneself to defending and fighting for the earth’s welfare. Though it is assumed that thankfulness is only appropriate if directed towards an intentional agent, there is nothing wrong in giving thanks or giving thanks does not necessarily call for this supposition (Hettinger 1995, p. 90). The earth will not respond to our loving it and being thankful for it. Nonetheless, these are appropriate attitudes and they make a difference in our lives, in how we respond to and treat the earth. We find reflection of these similar thoughts in Jain treating of ecology. Jainism holds that the entire world, consisting of plants, trees, birds, animals, water and so forth, is possessed of life. And, it is our prime duty to preserve and protect them. We have to treat others as we want to be treated, and this refers not only to other people but to the entirety of our planet. Jains have been staunch protectors of nature since the inception of Jain faith. A religion of nature, Jainism, paves the way to understand nature’s utility and the essential nature of plants, worms, animal and other organisms which have their own importance and also contribute in maintaining ecological balance. Jainism therefore says that all things are both autonomous and interdependent and spells out our joint responsibility for the common environment we create and share. Umāsvāti in the famous sutras of the Tattvārtha Sūtra (1994, p. 131) explains this relationship as:

Parasparopagraho jīvānām

Souls render service to one another (5.21)

The above Jain scriptural aphorism is refreshingly contemporary in its premise and perspective. It defines the scope of modern ecology while extending its scope further to a more spacious “home”. This signifies that all aspects of nature are bound in a physical as well as in a metaphysical relationship. Life is understood as a gift of togetherness, accommodation and assistance in a universe seething with interdependent constituents. The plant, animals and human populations inclusive of their habitats, when viewed from the perspective of geography, are nothing more than mere landscapes. But for the Jains, the landscapes itself live and breathe and merit protection (Jain 2002, p. 170). Every basic reality of the universe is integral. Jainism reconciled the parts of reality with the whole through a relativistic approach. This approach is reflected in the words revealed in the ancient Jain text Ācārāṅga Sūtra—Je eke jāṇai te savve jāṇai, je savve jāṇai te eke jāṇai (One who knows one comes to know all. One who knows all, knows one).Footnote 1

The eco-spiritual relationship can be understood in Jainism through some of its basic tenets as (1) abstaining from injuring creatures (savve pāṇā na hantavvā), (2) refraining from commanding any creature; (3) withholding from owning any creature and (4) dissuading oneself from employing others as a servant (savve pāṇā na pariggahetavvā) (Āyārāṅga Sutta 1981, p. 175 & 1.4.23, p. 193).

The Jain philosophy does not believe in dominion of the environment, and this gets reflected in the Jain basic tenets. The concept of “dominion” or “control” as a vital part of man’s relationship with nature suggests a view of the environment as property with which man is free to pursue whatever end he desires. Unlike the concept of dominion, there is the concept of Earth stewardship which provides the scientific basis for actively shaping trajectories of social-ecological change to enhance ecosystem resilience and human well-being. This view presents the earth as a loan that must be returned to the ultimate judge, its very creator. As we are “renters” on earth, we have an important responsibility to return what we are renting in the condition we found it, and if we are truly good stewards, we will return it improved from its original condition, cleaner and more beautiful than we found it. Rather than basking in our personal possession, we must be on our toes as we strive to care for our responsibility. The concept of Earth stewardship is rooted in religious thought (Chapin et al. 2011, p. 45) and is similar to the anti-oppressive practice and eco-spiritualism of Jainism.

As is revealed Jain ecology is rooted on spirituality and equality. Each life form, plant or animal, has an inherent worth and each must be revered. Ecology in Jainism has an implication of sarvodayavāda, or a concern for lifting up all life forms. Such thoughts gets articulated in the view of Ācārya Jinasena when he explained social equality by stating that the entire human world is one because of the interconnectedness of different aspects of the human community.Footnote 2 In fact, Lord Mahāvĭra realised that the root of all the disparities is engrained in the distinction of the feelings sva or self and para or other. He spoke of the well-being of all living beings including the self. When other people gets connected with oneself, there develops a spiritual perspective through which all life takes on sanctity that can and must be protected by observing the principles of ecology. There is a holistic human development as required by the eco-spirituality approach in order to achieve not only environmental sustainability. The real task of religion consists in eliminating bitterness between people, between races, between religions and between nations. The nature of religion as discussed in Jain scriptures promotes transformation of mind from ego-consciousness, that is, material consciousness to eco-consciousness or spiritual consciousness. Spiritual consciousness is pure consciousness where soul predominates and materialistic cravings play a secondary role, and it promotes joy, peace and harmony. Because one sees others as not different from oneself and that there is a harmonious living, an ecological perspective can arise that views sanctity in all other persons as well as in non-human sentient beings as in plants, animals and other organisms.

Non-violence, Social Attitudes, Ecology in Jainism

As we all know that Indian systems place liberation as the highest end and Jains are also no exception. To them, the path to liberation is constituted by the rigorous pursuit of enlightened vision or samyak darśan, enlightened knowledge or samyak jñāna and enlightened conduct or samyak carirtra. The moral and spiritual discipline leads to spiritual purification, and it makes an individual a worthy social being who leads a life of responsible human being. The Jain canonical text Ācāraṇga Sūtra has laid down different code of conduct. The subject matter of the Ācāraṇga revolves around the abandonment of violence towards living beings: conquest of one’s own ego and passion; detachment to worldly affairs; right perception; endure pain and suffering and practise penance and austerities in order to attain kevala or liberation.

However, the mokṣa-mārga ideology is not all in Jainism but an important part of Jainism. The Jain ethical and moral principle is based on the concept of birth and rebirth, that is, on karma. The Jains believe that their actions, words, thoughts, commission and also through their three modalities of approval or disapproval would positively or negatively affect the other forms of life. According to Jain karma theory, each life will be reborn into new existence till it is born as human being and attains salvation and thus is able to free himself from the ongoing process of saṃsāra. The Jain morality is grounded in the understanding of karma as tying all life forms together in an inter-causal web. The Jain devaluation of the material world in pursuit of pure spirituality may not be conducive to the development of environmental ethic. But the Jain positive engagement with the material world through their daily activities often times underlies an environmental ethic, more so than abstract moral injunctions (Cort 2002, p. 84).

The Jains have adopted a very strict way of living that strives to eliminate as much violence, ill will and selfishness as possible. According to Upāsakadasānga as well as Ratnakarandaśrāvakācāra, the layman should observe the five ethical vows of satyāṇuvrata or truthfulness, asteyavrata or non-stealing, brahmacāryavrata or celibacy, aparigraha or non-possession and ahiṃsāṇuvrata or non-violence. Apart from the five vows or pañcavrata, there are some supporting vows (guṇavratas), disciplinary vows (śikṣāvratas) and the three gūptis which further strengthened the five vows (Bhargava 1968, p. 102). Ahiṃsāṇuvrata is the cardinal of all vows.

The Jain concept of “Ahiṃsā” is usually translated as “non-harm” or “non-violence”. Hiṃsā has been translated as “injury”, “sin”, killing, damaging and slaying (Jacobi 1968). Ahiṃsā forms the bedrock of the entire system of Jain philosophy and is the supreme ethical principle (param dharma). In Jain philosophy, harming other living beings is conceived as harm to oneself in so far as such action frustrates one’s striving towards liberation, mokṣa. Hindrance to salvation may result firstly, due to one’s harmful action aimed at disrupting the essential life forces, jīva that connects and is common to all living things and creatures; secondly, the harmful action adheres karmic matter onto oneself in a manner that holds one to the endless circle of life (saṁsāra cakra). In fact, to the Jain, every living being has a sanctity and dignity of its own, and one has to respect it as one expects one’s own dignity to be respected. (Jain 2005b, p.148)

The genesis or rationale of ahiṃsā lies in the sanctity, unity and continuity of life. Some people confine reverence for life to human beings alone. But in Jainism there is no such limitation. They opine that all beings hate pain; therefore, one should not kill them. This is the quintessence of wisdom: not to kill anything. Whatever is unfavourable for one’s own self should be regarded as unfavourable for others, and that which is favourable for oneself is favourable for others. We should therefore refrain from inflicting upon others such injury as would appear undesirable to us, if inflicted upon ourselves (Jain 2005b, p. 149). Justice and reciprocity demand that we should abstain from inflicting harm to others as we do ourselves. That is the rationale and basis of non-violence, which came to be accepted as the principle of good life. The intrinsic equality of all selves, which is fully manifested when there is a complete absence of karma, is the primal source of the principle of non-violence. Ahiṃsā or non-violence is negative in appearance, but positive in application. The positive aspect of ahiṃsā is compassion; in fact, a votary of ahiṃsā constantly grows in self-restraint and compassion. The Jain ethics requires that there should be harmonious relations with all forms of life or friendship and amity towards all living beings. The Jain expresses pramoda (affection coupled with respect for the beings), karunā (kindness or charity to aid the needy) and madhyastha (a tolerant attitude of equanimity towards the indecorous, insolent being) (Banerjee 2002, p. 71).

Non-violence is a mental attitude and outlook. It inculcates the feelings of amity, friendliness, goodwill and benevolence and creates an atmosphere of fearlessness, cooperation, mutual trust, mutual support and self-sacrifice, leading to individual and social well-being. The practice of ahiṃsā requires that one should avoid all kinds of injury to living beings including mind and speech. A person is asked to abjure from all kinds of harm to others including physical (killing, wounding, mutilating, hitting, beating, keeping in captivity, overloading and starving animals), mental (harbouring ill-feeling towards others) and verbal (speaking harsh and unpleasant words), whether committed, commissioned or consented to. A number of occupations like cutting down of trees and plants, castrating bullocks, clearing of jungles through the use of fire and drying up of lakes and water bodies which are considered “cruel” are strictly forbidden in Jainism. A non-violent person should abstain from gambling, hunting, drinking alcohol and meat-eating.

The principles of love and vegetarianism are integral parts of ecology. The vegetarian diet addresses the minimum requirement for human life and good health. The will to live at the expense of another’s life gives rise to meat consumption, which remains questionable in a truly human society (Jain 2002, p. 178). Scientific research shows obesity is associated with an altered gut profile such that resident bacteria may be responsible for an increased capacity for energy harvest and a state of chronic, low-grade inflammation. This inflammation can in turn interfere with insulin signalling and result in the metabolic dysfunction found in obesity and type 2 diabetes. A balanced diet characterised by high consumption of vegetables and fruits and less of meat leads to a highly diverse intestinal flora and a greater abundance of Prevotella essential for our body (Glick-Bauer and Yeh 2014, p. 4828). The vegetarian foods have been known for long to protect the body from the different diseases like the cancer, chronic fatigue, cholesterol problems and diabetes.

Feminist philosopher like Lori Gruen in her writings on vegetarian uses a Hume-inspired approach that has affinities with the Jain ethic of non-harm. This approach is based on human experiences with animals as a path to “empathy, sympathy and compassion” (Gruen 2007, p. 334). Gruen considers that arguments for vegetarianism that come “externally”, and hence are imposed on someone, may be too abstract and alienating. Gruen’s contextual vegetarianism begins with empathy towards other living “creatures” in concrete situations that humans have had opportunities to observe. Here, compassion is the outcome of such experiences, learned and adopted by the subject. Thus, one is not alienated from the “obligation” to be a vegetarian. The Jain concept of jiva does not vary much from Gruen when she claims that “(t)hey are creatures with whom we share a way of being in the world” (Gruen 2007, p. 339). The difference in thought lies in their respective understanding of how that “sharing” is achieved. The Jains are aware about this shared “way of being in the world” from their very inception. In Jain philosophy, non-eating of animals results from the recognition of one’s shared jīva rather than any specific situation or interaction where the merits of such non-eating are understood.

Also, from the Jain perspective, seeking direct knowledge about specific animals for the sole reason of knowledge acquisition constitutes harm. Knowing directly about specific living beings involves keeping animals in proximity or even in captivity by human, which is harmful according to the Jains. To obtain knowledge about living beings, one can establish an intimate relationship with other beings as a result of organising one’s life, home, meals and movement around and in avoidance of their habitats and movements. By being non-harmful to animals, we can establish relationship with the individual animals. So, vegetarianism and other careful eating are important practices in Jain ethic. Again, conservation of plant life is demonstrated in Jainism in the practice of preparing only the amount of food that can be consumed without waste or spoilage.

The Jain idea of ahiṃsā is not only comprehensive but is also quite practical keeping in view the necessities of life. As one cannot remain without food consisting of vegetation (one-sensed living organism), in that case, Jainism declares that “refraining from injuring living beings (having two or more senses), with a deliberate act of mind, speech or body, in any of the three ways, krita (committing, i.e. by cloning himself), karita (commissioning, i.e. getting done by others), and mananat (consenting, supporting or approving) is called ahiṃsā anuvrata (minor vow) by the wise” ( (Jain 2005a, verse 53). So, a layman who has vowed to abstain from harming does not intentionally injure any form of life above the class of one-sensed beings (vegetables and the like), by an act of mind, speech or body (krita), nor does he incite others to commit such an action (karita), nor even approve of such action subsequent to its commission by others (anumodana). In other words, one should give up at least harming mobile beings, if one cannot completely renounce hiṃsā towards immobile beings.

The Jain is careful of how they treat individual beings so much, so that they recommend the avoidance of consuming unstrained water, objects unfit for eating (abhkśyas), plants containing an infinite number of living organisms (antaritakayas) and avoiding consuming food at night (rātri-bhojana). The significance of avoidance of eating at night relates to the fact that earlier most houses used lantern for lighting purpose now that would have attracted innumerable insects which would have hovered around the fire and the fire singed the insects. Thus, the food consumed would have dead insects. So, such food consumption needs to be avoided. These form some parts of ahiṃsāvrata. There are other supporting vows called the gunavrata, and one of them is the anarthadandavrata which recommends abstaining from purposeless harmful activities. The word “anartha” means purposeless, unnecessary, etc., and the word “danda” signifies harmful evil activities. Together, the word “anarthadanda” means unnecessary and purposeless harmful deeds. Abstaining from such deed is anarthadandavirati. Under this vow, the Jains have laid down some harmful activities which an individual should avoid; they are

  1. (a)

    Malicious sermons or preaching involving the use of impertinent speech, cruelty to living beings and advice to indulge in corrupt, passionate and life injuring ways called pāpopadeśa

  2. (b)

    Supplying weapons of violence such as knife, sword, whip, stick and thus in a way supporting violence and harm towards other beings. Such harmful activities are called hiṃsadāna

  3. (c)

    Apadhyana involves evil thoughts of killing, subjugation, mutilating, hurting and killing other life forms.

  4. (d)

    Pramadacārya consists in doing thoughtless and reckless acts as digging or flooding fields, recklessly cutting, chopping and damaging plants and trees, igniting fire, trampling lawns, plucking leaves, fruits and flowers, thereby aimlessly committing violence and harm to plant.

  5. (e)

    Dushśruti involves activities like listening to materials dealing with violence, hatred, irrationalism, aversion which may defile and pollute the mind with evil or impure thought of passions and attachment.

Restraining from certain activities and non-harm in Jainism is attained through a careful consideration of what constitutes harm (injury and damage in physiological and psychological senses). Avoiding harm might mean choosing to stay put rather than travel for Jainism forbids travelling at night lest one’s vision is not clear at night and have the potentiality to trample over insects. Again, harm avoidance may signify fasting rather than eating; reusing existing space rather than building a new one by displacing other living beings or encroaching on their space. Now, it would be a grave mistake to conclude that abstention or “not doing something” in Jain philosophy calls for a “laissez-faire” attitude to non-human living beings or even their “abandonment”. There is a distinction between proactive non-harming and “doing nothing”. The Jain philosophy is grounded on the ethical premise that “doing nothing” about the already committed harm to another living being itself constitutes doing harm. Jain ethics calls for our attention not only to the harm done to living beings but also demands that we help and take care of these beings through cruelty-free living. The socio-centric understanding of Jain ethics has led young Jains to “extend” the practices of non-violence to arenas where first generation Jains have not ventured. For example, silk, leather and dairy products consumption and usage pose an ethical deterrent to many young Jains that seems not to exist for the most part among older Jains. Again, the vegan lifestyle where no animal products whatsoever are used or consumed is almost an exclusively second-generation effort. The extensive care, interest and activism in environmental matters are also largely a second-generation concern (Vallely 2002, p. 205).

The picture that now has come to our focus shows that Jain ethics insists on maximising beneficial interaction and minimising the harmful interference with nature. Environment is a complex consisting mainly of air, water, fire, plants and animal bodies that buffer earth and support a myriad of life forms. The Jains are in favour of adopting ways to raise awareness of the responsibility of individuals, groups to safeguard environmental degradation. Jainism reconciled the parts of reality with the whole by means of a relativistic approach.

Ahiṃsā is limited not only to action but also applies to words, thought and speech. Violence is constituted not only by the infliction of physical injury, but violence is also constituted in thoughts and in words. Activities known as duśsruti which involves listening to materials dealing with violence should be avoided for they are believed to encourage aversion and attachment the root causes of ecological crisis. The  bhogopabhogaparinamvrata restricts overconsumption. Unrestricted consumerism and excessive indulgence lead to moral and spiritual degradation. Ruthless exploitation of nature and natural environment can be prevented if we do not engage in overconsumption. Overconsumption of natural resources has a deterrent effect on human sustenance. The application of one virtue to human relationships leads logically to that of other and in fact would stultify itself without the others. Ahiṃsā colours every aspect of individual conduct and social dealings. It is anekānta in thinking and syādvāda in speaking. The intellectual dimension of ahimsa is anekānta.

The Jain Virtue Ethics as Rooted in Jain Epistemology

Environmentalist observes that “nature can be made worse, most fortunately, it can also be made better” (Maier 2016). Of course, human evolutionary story reveals that humanity is the most developed class of living beings, but according to Jainism, it is not a privileged species in any sense. Human reality is not at the centre of creation with the uncontrollable power to conquer and subdue nature at his will (Tatia 2002, p. 3). Jainism espouses a non-violent and humanitarian perspective on all souls. From a Jain standpoint, the threat to life that we encounter arises from a faulty epistemology and metaphysics as much as from a faulty ethics. From a Jain ideology, one of the most important underlying philosophical questions is, “How are we to avoid the destructive violence that results from courses of action rooted in one-sided ideological dogmatism?” (Koller 2002, p. 19). Since the ideological dogmatism underlying violence is rooted in epistemological claims that, though limited and only partially true, are mistaken for absolute truths, the answer, in part, is to find an alternative epistemology, an epistemology that can support dialogue and negotiation among manifold interpretations and claims. Such a perspectival and inclusive epistemology is found in Jain philosophy. The moral failure to respect the life of other non-human being lies grounded in the dogmatic mistaken epistemological claim which fails to give recognition to other legitimate perspectives. The Jain philosopher through their own epistemology has tried to make an effort to remove such “dogmatic mistaken epistemological claim”. The Jains have developed a multi-perspective attitude known as anekāntavāda and its corollary syādvāda (method of conditional prediction) and nayavāda (doctrine of partial truths). Anekānta is the name of the ontological nature of reality, according to which every object possesses indefinite aspects.

Anekāntavāda describes the world as a multifaceted, ever changing reality with infinity of viewpoints depending on the time, place, nature and state of the one who is the viewer and that which is viewed (Gandhi 2013, p. 175). The anekāntavāda philosophy can be seen as providing an ontological basis for the principle of non-violence. It also grounds an epistemological basis for the respect for others that ahiṃsā incorporates. Anekāntavāda is embodied in the combination of two logical tools. The first is the doctrine of nayavāda or seven standpoints. The second is the syādvāda or sevenfold predication (sapta-bhaṅgi-naya). Nayavāda finds basis in the recognition that any statement can be situated in a specific context, and therefore is only limited, not general, validity. Nayavāda which recognises ordinary, non-omniscient knowledge claims are always limited by the particular standpoint on which they are based. Consequently, claims from one standpoint must always be balanced and complemented by claims from other perspectives. This has important ecological significances, for it legitimises considerations from non-human standpoints, enabling us to consider the effects of our actions on non-human life forms and environments.

Bimal Krishna Motilal summarises Digambara Akalaṅka views of naya as different points of view taken by someone searching for the truth. The nature of the thing that is revealed to him is necessarily conditioned or coloured or limited by his particular point of view. This amounts to saying only a partial aspect of reality is revealed to him. As long as he is not conscious that he views reality only from one among infinite points of view, his metaphysical thesis will remain “one-sided” ekānta (Matilal 1981, p. 41). Naya grasps only a part or an aspect of the totality and should not be mistaken for the whole. The Jain philosophers accepted seven nayas as the possible points of view. These seven nayas are as follows:

  1. 1.

    Naigama–Naya: It is the common man’s view or the non-distinguished Universal–particular standpoint adopted. To the Jain, the intention or motive of an action is important. To them, an action which may not harm others would still be considered as violent if there is any intention to cause harm to others.

  2. 2.

    Samgraha–Naya: It emphasises the generic features of an object. It focuses on the class essence. It enables us to recognise that each component of the ecosystem is valuable in itself, and not merely having instrumental value but intrinsic value.

  3. 3.

    Vyavahāra–Naya: It represents the practical or conventional standpoint based on empirical knowledge concerned with the specific characteristic of an object. It is practically useful to know whether a thing is living or inanimate and what kind of life form it is animal or plant and so on.

  4. 4.

    Ṛjusūtra–Naya: This standpoint takes into account the present condition of a thing as it appears at a particular moment. It views the ecological wholes as the home to a variety of life forms and their significance in human life. At present, human life appears to be at threat as a result of environment degradation due to human activity, which tantamount to destruction of life forms. At this moment, our particular task would be preservation and conservation of different life forms to maintain ecological balance and prevent further degradation of environment.

  5. 5.

    Śabda–Naya: This standpoint is the standpoint of synonyms which relates words to their meanings. Every word has their own meanings, but different words may refer the same object. As for example, words like “chetan” or “prāṇa” denote one and the same entity despite having different etymological meaning.

  6. 6.

    Sama Bhirūdha–Naya: It is the subtle standpoint which looks at things from linguistic standpoint. It distinguishes the meanings (connotation and denotation) of synonymous words according to their roots. This perspective provides us a deeper insight of life from physical, cultural, economic and political aspect thereby generating a better understanding of the whole.

  7. 7.

    Evambhūta–Naya: This standpoint restricts the meaning of words to their immediate and concrete usage. It focuses on the constant change and transformation a life undergoes from one birth to another due to karmic bondage. Untoward violence towards other life form is a negative karma which attracts bondage and engages the soul into karmic cycle.

Thus, nayavāda avoids the problems arising out of the ekānta or one-sided view of identifying existence with either the permanence or sameness of being or identifying it with the ever changing process of becoming. The method adopted in nayavāda is analytical in nature, whereas in syādvāda we find an approach synthetic in nature. Syādvāda is the method of conditional predication which is faultless means of expounding the true meaning of the multifaceted reality. Syādvāda investigates the various truth aspects as analysed by the nayavāda and integrates them into a consistent and comprehensive synthesis. Every strands of truth as delivered by naya, and is referred to as predication or modes. Syādvāda is a theory of predication that recognises not only the predicate “is” and “is not”, but also the predicate “inexpressible”, a predicate that combines “is” and “is not”. Combining the theory of standpoints with the three predicates leads to the sevenfold template for expressing important claims.

Syādvāda is generally treated as synonymous with saptabhaṇgi because as Prabhachandra put it syād-asti-ādi-saptabhaṇgamaya vidah, this means the particle syāt invariably suffixes every bhaṇga or mode of answering a question in saptabhaṇga (Prabhachandra 1938, Verse 51, p. 655). The Jains hold that saptabhaṇgi offers such a well-ordered scheme in which the modes (bhaṇgas) are exclusively of one another, but are simultaneously, in their totality, exhaustive of the many-sided truth of the multifaceted reality (Jain 2005a, b, p. 128).

In a certain respect in the statement “life exists”, it is understood that life in fact exists and persists through time and space. From this perspective, life would be there, and its continuing existence is taken for granted—syād asti eva.

From another perspective, there is the negative aspect like “in some respect in fact, does not exist” (syād nāsti eva). It means that earth consists of not only human life but other form of life as well.

When we have to describe the complex fact that a jar in some cases is made of clay and at other cases made of material that is not clay, we describe the situation through a compound judgment as “in some respect the jar in fact exists and in some further respect in fact does not exist” (syād asti nāsti eva). This means that jar made of clay exists in my room at the present moment and the one made of metal does not exist at present in my room.

Now, if we express both the negative and positive aspects simultaneously (yugapat), we would encounter the difficulty imposed by the law of contradiction, so the fourth judgment is expressed as “in some respect an object is inexpressible” (syād avyaktavyam). It points out that an object may be described from different standpoint or aspects. It may also be noted that there are no straight affirmative or negative answers to some questions. These questions by their very nature are unanswerable.

A further combination of the fourth judgment with each of the first three yields the fifth judgment which states—in some respect, a thing exists and its nature is indescribable (syād asti avyaktavyam).

The sixth judgment holds that from a certain perspective, life does not exist and from another perspective it remains inexpressible (syād nāsti avyaktavyam).

From a certain aspect life does exists, but from another respect life does not exist, yet from the third perspective the nature of life is inexpressible (syād asti nāsti avyaktavyam).

The world which is a system of interrelated objects having infinite qualities and infinite relations cannot be comprehended completely by a layperson. Hence, one who comprehends one thing completely comprehends all things and one who comprehends all things completely comprehends one thing completely. It is only an omniscient being who through kevala jñāna obtains complete knowledge about an object. Anekāntavāda inculcates an epistemological respect for the views of others. Tolerance towards other perspectives legitimises consideration from non-human perspectives, thus enabling us to consider the effect of our action on non-human life forms and environments. It is believed by the Jain believers that anekāntavāda which is the tolerance or respect for others perspective is transformation of the respect for other life forms at intellectual level. Many Jain scholars have termed anekāntavāda as “intellectual ahiṃsā”. The term “intellectual ahiṃsā” has been coined by Dhruva (1933, p. lxxiv). While discussing about anekāntavāda in the introduction of Malliṣeṇa’s Syādvādamañjari, Dhruva relates this concept used in logical argument to ahiṃsā, stating, “Jainism is par excellence the argument to ahiṃsā—ahiṃsā not only of physical life but also of intellectual outlook (darśana)” (Dhruva 1933, p. lxxiii). Even H.R. Kapadia in his introduction to Haribhadrasūri’s Anekāntajayapatāka holds that ahiṃsā at the intellectual plane teaches us to examine and respect the opinions of others as they are pathways to many-sided reality and this enables us to realise and practise truth as a whole. The syādvāda logic is indispensable for the theory and practice of non-violence in thought, word and deed. The Jains carried the principle of non-violence to the intellectual level by propounding their anekānta doctrine, the hallmark of which is toleration. The Jaina attitude of “intellectual ahiṃsā” is the origin of anekāntavāda. The Jaina principle of “respect for life” (ahiṃsā) is the origin of “respect for the opinion of others” (anekāntavāda) (Kapadia 1947, p. cxiv). G.W. Burch holds that Jainism denies the validity of any absolute, that is, exclusive, judgment, and so Jain philosophy is characterised by non-absolutism (anekāntavāda) and relativism (syādvāda) (Burch 1964, p. 72).

Anekānta is the symbol of open-mindedness, catholicity of outlook and teaches us to be tolerant, charitable, selfless and sympathetic, and these are integral for the practice of ahiṃsā in thought, words and deeds. Dayanand Bhargava bases his argument of violence on the important Jain differentiation between bhāva (psychic or mental states) and dravya (physical matter, specifically that which affects the soul). He argues that Jain thinkers have stressed both non-violence in intent (bhāvāhiṃsā) and non-violence in action (dravyāhiṃsā) (Bhargava 1968, pp. 106–109). He opines, a non-violent person, who is free from attachment and aversion, will dispassionately look at every problem and would be able to arrive at the truth by reconciling different points of view by putting them in their proper perspective.

Despite the multifaceted utilitarian aspect, anekāntavāda is not without its limitations. It is not applicable in many instance of Jain fundamental or absolute truth like (a) existence of the soul, (b) the liberated being, (c) persons not fit for liberation, (d) eternal nigoda lives and (e) extreme conditions of absolutism (Jain 2008, p. 83). In fact, Anekānta has thus a build-up mechanism for preventing and avoiding conflicts except under extreme and absolute conditions. It could be an ideal for the issue to be approached as far as possible. With all the limitations, scholars claim that Anekāntic vision “could act as a panacea for minimising or ending different types of conflicts” (Jain 2008, p. 84).

In this regard, the implication of doing away with some ecological problems by nayavāda, a corollary of anekāntavāda requires our attention. The saṃgraha-naya, one of the nayavāda, enables us to recognise that each component of the ecosystem is valuable in itself, and they possess an intrinsic value. Saṃgraha-naya emphasises the generic character of a thing. At a higher level of generality, all that exists can be referred to as sat, the existent. The saṃgraha perspectives do away with the differences between the existent to emphasise the sameness. This perspective emphasises that the essence of ecology lies in the presence of life in every form. This valued for its own sake and not merely valued because of its usefulness for others (Koller 2002, p. 27).

Ṛjusutra-naya which looks at a particular thing as it appears at a specific moment views the ecological whole as the home to a variety of life forms. This perspective focuses on the momentary happenings that get clearly manifested in our present experience, directing our attention to the changing process occurring presently, in this specific place and time. At present, human life is at threat as a result of environmental degradation due to negative impact of human negativities, and this would tantamount to destruction of varied life forms. At this moment, our particular task should be preservation and conservation of different life forms to maintain ecological balance and prevent further environmental degradation. According to this standpoint, since we are focussing on the present actuality, we could not recognise the value of different life forms and of the earth-bodied, water-bodied, air-bodied beings and ignore their potentialities and overlook their historical role in creating the environment.

The śabda-naya investigates things from the standpoint of language. From this perspective, we might see that the world cannot be described merely as earth, but because of its incredible diversity, many terms and words are required to describe it accurately. It may be understood that the world is not simply a earth-bodied, it is water-bodied, air-bodied and that it’s mineral and plant life constitutes an important part of its existence. This perspective enables us to view the world and ourselves in a cultural and legendary connection with each other, so much so that we might see the world as the source and power of all life.

Ecologically, the evambhūta-naya enables us to focus on the constant change and transformation a life undergoes from one birth to another due to our karmic bondage. Untoward violence towards other life forms inculcates negative karma. Negative karma engages the soul and binds it to the karmic cycle and undergoes countless transformation until it attains liberation and final release from the human body.

Thus, we should endeavour from preventing ourselves from attracting negative bondage. The path to liberation is a path through the community of life and requires the highest ethical standards extended to all life forms.

Conclusion

The Jains believe that life itself is a tapestry made up of millions of small acts, each one making an essential contribution to the realisation of the meaning of life. The Jain concern for the environment is rooted in their sensitivity towards living beings. But some have labelled the charge of anthropocentricism to Jain ecology. Anthropocentricity is taken to believe that every instance of value originates in a contribution to human values and that all elements of nature can, at most, have instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests (Norton 1984, p. 133). Anthropocentricism accords utility value to environment. Man is the highest end and we, the humans, are “members of the kingdom of ends”; this maxim of Kant overlooks and ignores the fact that human species are integral part of the whole organism and it is by living for that whole that he can live for himself. There is an objection that nature and its manifold qualities, whether observable or unobserved, bear no autonomous value for Jainism, but instead are linked to the various gradations of Jain epistemology, in that the more spiritually advanced human becomes the more he gets enlightened and thus gets aware about the infinite constituent elements of the universe. Knowledge of the reality of nature is in these terms not an end in itself but rather a vital index of progress on a path of spiritual development that can only be followed to its full conclusion by human beings. In this regard, priority and value are accorded to the human state and nature qua plants and vegetables and other non-human beings have no meaning in its own right.

Now, it may be noted that Jainism with its ideology of liberation and enlightenment as separation of material elements from the conscious individual assigns subordinate status to the things constituting nature; the association of elements serves as bonds that attach the consciousness with their limitations. However, their view that everywhere and in everything there is presence of conscious atoms is of utmost value; it gives importance to the theory of non-violence, which translates their anthropocentric ideology eco-friendly (Tiwari 2016, p. 58).

In Jainism, the sense of community and personal responsibility leads to the development of not only a normative ethics that may be universally applied but also in many cases leads to the cultivation of a personal ethics in keeping with one’s individual tastes and inclinations. The Jain promotion of ahiṃsā itself is an ecological ethic. Ecological harmony demands that both human and non-humans should flourish together. It is possible only when man practise non-violence in his daily activities. As has been stated, Jain cosmogenesis holds water and air contains life, in addition to the living creatures that dwell therein. Hence, pollution, a menace and negative impact of urbanisation, deemed harmful in either element must be mitigated, not only for the sake of human health, but also for the sake of the life that thrives in air and water. However, it would not be possible for complete abstinence of violence for a householder so Lord Mahāvīra declares that a layman should at least abstain from inessential violence. Essential violence relates to man’s survival and inessential violence is what he indulges in for his comfort, cosmetic decoration and to satisfy his greed. It’s high time that human should pledge to abstain from indulging in inessential violence and do the least harm to environment. Thus, it may lead to sustainable ecological harmony.