There is no gender bias in Mahavir’s teachings

Ashok Vohra

Jainism is one of the oldest religions of the world. According to it, every living being is a soul and has the potentiality of attaining liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Mahavir, the twenty-fourth Tirthankar of Jainism, treated men and women equally. There is no gender bias in his teachings. However, he realised that men and women are different because of gender, therefore, he created different gender-based aachar –code of conduct, but treated both as equals.

Among Asian religions, Jainism is the only religion that avows that women are as much entitled to emancipation – kaivalya, moksh, or nirvan, as men are. Though there is complete agreement between the two sects of Jainism, namely, Digambar, sky clad, and Shvetambar, white cloth clad, regarding teachings and prescribed rules of conduct such as ahimsa, satya, aprigrah, asteya, and brahmacharya, they disagree with the spiritual equality of men and women.

They agree that irrespective of the gender of the body which a soul inhabits, there is spiritual equality of all jivas, souls, and their perfection is the aim of Jainism. Digambar sect argues that women cannot achieve liberation on the following grounds. First, the prerequisite of attaining liberation is complete renunciation or abandonment and non-possession of all material goods, including clothing. Only those who can achieve this absolute level of renunciation can attain liberation.

According to them, digambaratv, ‘sky cladness’, is a non-negotiable condition of renunciation or aprigrah. It is a must for leading an ascetic life. Since women, because of their physiological limitations, societal and practical constraints, cannot be totally detached from all possessions and worldly bonds, and lead an ascetic life; liberation is impossible for them. One must be reborn as a man.

Second, women have a disposition to feel ashamed. This susceptibility comes in the way of their path to emancipation, as it prevents the necessary, perfect renunciation of shame. Third, the nature of a female body is inherently hinsak – violent, as it naturally kills many microbes during menstrual cycles. This violates the strict doctrine of nonviolence required for liberation. Fourth, they uphold that the female body is a result of specific inferior karmas and, therefore, incapable of reaching the tenth to fourteenth gunsthanas – stages of spiritual purification.

However, from these arguments, one should not infer that Digambars consider women’s souls as inferior to those of males. They do believe in the equality of all souls. Between souls, there is no hierarchy. The restriction on the attainment of liberation is based on physical and social considerations alone.

Shvetambars reject the arguments of Digambars on the ground that Right faith, Right knowledge, and Right conduct are key conditions for attaining liberation. Digambars commit the error of confusing the essentials and peripherals. They argue that wearing clothes is a means, just like food, and does not imply attachment.

According to them, Digambars take the meaning of the notions of renunciation, attachment in a literal sense and not in the metaphorical sense. They cite the example of nineteenth Jina Mallinath, who was a woman and attained emancipation as a woman. However, Digambars counter Shvetambars by saying that Mallinatha gained enlightenment only after he was reborn as a male.
The writer is a former professor of philosophy, Delhi University

END OF ARTICLE