One who wants quickly to save himself as well as others, should adopt the secret procedure of "exchange of self" (i.e. looking upon himself as another, and the other as oneself). Even the least attachment to the self is productive of great danger; (knowing this) who will not feel hostile to that self-which is dangerous as an enemy? All the mischiefs, troubles and dangers in this world are due to self-attachment; therefore, I have nothing to do with this attachment. It is not possible to rid oneself of pain without renouncing the self, even as it is impossible to avoid heat without avoiding fire.[21]

Here the teaching of ahiṁsā has been clearly linked with the need of detachment toward oneself.

　　   The Indian notion of detachment (anāsakti), properly understood, implies neither apathy nor inaction. Detachment proper is directed toward what is merely personal, self-regarding, or selfish. This is borne out by the following statements of Lord Krṣṇa: "There is nothing in the three worlds, O Pārtha, to be done by Me, nor anything unobtained that needs to be obtained; yet I continue in action ... As the ignorant act with attachment to their work, 0 Bharata. so the wise man should act (but) without attachment, desiring to maintain the order of the world."[22]

　　 In the twentieth century, Mahatma Gandhi extended the scope of ahiṁsā in the field of political action, he also imparted a new dimension to the religious , interpretation of ahiṁsā (which he identified with love), when he observed that

Love and exclusive possession can never go together. Theoretically when there ; is perfect love, there must be perfect non-possession. The body is our last possession. So a man can exercise perfect love and be completely dispossessed, if he is prepared to embrace death and renounces his body for the sake of human service.[23]　　　　　　　　　　  

　　 As according to Bodhicaryāvatāra, so according to Gandhi hiṁsā, or violence, has its roots in self-attachment and selfishness. Contrariwise, ahiṁsā flows from selflessness. Ahiṁsā, to quote Gandhi, "is uttermost selflessness." Such" selflessness "means complete freedom from a regard for one's body."[24] Clearly, Gandhi's interpretation of ahiṁsā goes beyond the order of normal

P441

ethical life. However, it seems to us that some sort of supramoral or religious conviction regarding the worthwhileness of moral life is presupposed in a man's unqualified adherence to the cause of justice. To the extent to which a man loves and practices justice, he equates others with himself, with respect to their deserving his active consideration. But there are moments in one's life, particularly when one is fighting a powerful tyrant, when justice demands total sacrifice from its votaries.

　　  Insofar as ahiṁsā requires equal consideration for all, including oneself, it can furnish, the philosophical foundations of law, It seems to me, however, that a complete philosophy of law would base itself on one additional principle, namely, the principle of dessert, which implies correspondence of rewards and punishments dispensed by the society or the state with the deeds and achieve­ments made possible by a person's free creative activity.

　　  Presently when skepticism, regarding a supernatural order of existence, is widespread, the notion of ahiṁsā, grasped at a refined, intuitive level and supported by the principle of detachment, is more likely to furnish stable foundations of morality than belief in a God requiring us to bestow fraternal love on our fellow-beings. Similarly, the ideal jīvanmukti (accepted by almost all the major systems of philosophical thought in India), which is rooted in the possibility of man's being able, even with respect to his own life and its interests, to ascend to the level of a detached observer, is likely to have greater appeal to out age which is dominated by the humanistic outlook. The Indian spiritual tradition recommends, for the mind's peace, the practice of the four brahmavihāras, comprising the virtues of general friendliness (maitrī) toward all living beings, compassion (karuṇa) toward the afflicted, joyous acceptance (muditā) of virtuous happiness, and indifference (upekṣā) toward evildoers. These, particularly the first three, together with the Buddhist ideal of bodhisaitva, may provide an adequate religion to the honest intellectuals of our time, who find it difficult to believe in the God of traditional religions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

[1].The interrogative sentence is taken from K. K. Banerjee's paper which was read at the Seminar.

[2]. K. A. S. lyer, Bhcirshnri (Poona: Deccan College, 1969), p. 107.