2026-05-22

jainism
Jains see nature as fundamentally violent. All life sustains itself by destroying another life. The saint rejects this violence by fasting unto death.

It is such an interesting and surprisingly attractive position. I think I grew with it running subconsciously in my mind. The Tamil epic, Cilapathikaram was written by a Jain monk, and, according to the major translator, Parashastry, Tamil epics are distinguished from those of other cultures by their nonviolence. The Jain view is mixed into the group soul.

Another interesting tidbit: Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, operated at the same time period as the Buddha. Jainism, too, was part of the axial age!

Also, Jainism is fundamentally pluralist! "Anekantavada". They believe reality is multiplexed, that multiple worldviews are possible and do not compete. This is less violent than believing in one truth.

They were also communist! Not believing in personal property! And so the progressive, environmentalist left is actually tending more and more towards Jainism!

But surely Jainism can't be accurate. Why should God create us only for us to fast unto death? Why should God create all of nature in this way only for it to be crude and barbaric and evil? Surely the principle of life nourishing itself out of life cannot be bad in itself. I must re-orient towards the idea of sacrifice. Accepting the sacrifice of other life and sacrificing myself in turn instead of rejecting it as something that should never have to happen.

In some sense, every action is killing another possibility, another potential.

Let me try to approach tasks I think are wasting my time with an attitude that cultures in the liberal arts (at least grammar, logic, and rhetoric) that I wish to culture.