Jainism, the inheritor of the age-old Shramana School, is one of the oldest living religions in the world, offers a deeply disciplined spiritual path rooted in non-violence (ahimsa), asceticism, and self-realization. While many of its practices inspire awe for their philosophical depth and rigor, they have also attracted scrutiny and debate in the modern world. This article offers a comprehensive and balanced exploration of some of the central practices of Jainism, along with fair critiques and thoughtful counterpoints.
1. Jainism and Strict Vegetarianism
Jainism mandates an uncompromising adherence to vegetarianism as an essential expression of its foundational principle of ahimsa (non-violence). Consumption of meat, or any form of harm-inflicting sustenance, is categorically prohibited within the Jain ethical framework. One cannot identify as a practicing Jain while simultaneously partaking in flesh consumption, regardless of circumstance.
This doctrinal rigidity was notably illustrated in a historical episode involving Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution. When Dr. Ambedkar explored the possibility of converting to Jainism along with a substantial number of his followers, the Jain monastic leadership refused to admit them into the fold because of Baba Sahib’s inability to assure that all his followers would fully and permanently renounce meat consumption. This incident underscores the extent to which the Jain tradition enshrines vegetarianism as both a spiritual discipline and a non-negotiable ethical imperative.
The Critique: Regressive of Individual Freewill
The strict adherence to vegetarianism in Jainism functions as a form of social regulation that restricts individual autonomy and leads to social marginalization, stigma, or even ostracism for those who fail to follow. Non-compliance is often interpreted not merely as a personal failing, but as a moral lapse that invites communal disapproval.
This dynamic leads to subtle or overt forms of social coercion, where individuals are pressured to maintain external conformity, sometimes at the cost of personal freedom or integrity. In such contexts, dietary discipline ceases to be an expression of inner conviction and becomes, instead, a mechanism of social control. The ethical ideal of ahimsa, thus, risks being compromised by the very means through which it is enforced.
The Counterpoint: Compassion, Not Coercion
It is important to recognize that Jainism is not a missionary religion; it does not actively seek to convert or impose its beliefs on others. Rather, it presents a path grounded in personal realization and ethical clarity. At the heart of Jain dietary discipline lies a simple and profound insight: the flesh served on one’s plate represents the extinguished life of a sentient being, sacrificed for momentary sensory gratification. This awareness—once deeply internalized—naturally leads to the rejection of meat consumption, not through social coercion but through awakened compassion.
Jainism, therefore, welcomes any individual who arrives at this realization, irrespective of background. It makes no demands beyond this basic moral understanding. At the same time, it makes no concessions: if one cannot embrace this elemental form of non-violence, one is equally free to walk away. The integrity of the tradition lies not in proselytization, but in its uncompromising commitment to non-harm. It is an invitation, not an imposition—offered only to those ready to accept it.
2. Jainism and Its Austerities
One of the distinctive features of Jain religious practice is its rigorous embrace of austerities (tapas), particularly in the form of prolonged fasting. Far beyond symbolic abstention, these fasts are often intense and extended, ranging from a single meal to durations that may span several weeks or even months—encompassing both day and night without sustenance.
The Critique: From Spiritual Discipline to Competitive Austerity
While austerities in Jainism are traditionally intended as acts of personal purification and karmic shedding, their practice in contemporary settings has, at times, taken on a performative and competitive character. In certain communities, prolonged fasting—once a deeply inward, voluntary exercise—has become a means of social recognition, where individuals vie to outdo one another in the duration and severity of their abstinence. This ‘holier than thou’ phenomenon, sometimes tacitly encouraged by communal admiration or media attention, risks transforming a spiritual discipline into a contest of endurance.
The Counterpoint: Fasting as a Catalyst for Inner Transformation
To interpret Jain fasting practices as mere acts of competitive piety is to overlook their deeper spiritual significance within the Jain framework. Fasting, in its authentic form, is not an exhibition of superiority, but a discipline that serves as a gateway to more profound inner practices. It is classified as external tapas (outer austerity), and is traditionally meant to complement internal tapas, which include self-reflection (prayaschit), scriptural study (svādhyāya), and meditation (dhyāna)
Rather than being an end in itself, fasting is understood as a means to quiet the body, discipline the senses, and create an inner environment conducive to spiritual insight. By voluntarily reducing bodily needs, the practitioner is better able to detach from material distractions and cultivate heightened awareness, self-control, and compassion.
Instances where fasting is perceived as competitive may reflect social dynamics more than doctrinal intent. Jain texts consistently emphasize the importance of intention (bhāva) behind the act: without the right mindset, even the most rigorous austerity loses its spiritual value. In this light, fasting is not about proving one’s sanctity to others, but about deepening one’s own spiritual journey through humility and self-mastery.
3. Jainism and Monastic Life
Renunciation occupies a central and defining place in Jain spiritual life, setting it apart as one of the most ascetic religious traditions in the world. The path to liberation (moksha) is seen as incompatible with worldly attachments, and thus Jainism holds the act of renouncing material and social life in the highest esteem. This renunciation (dikṣā) is not symbolic but total and almost irreversible.
Upon initiation, the renunciant—whether monk (muni) or nun (āryikā)—relinquishes all possessions, wealth, property, and professional identity. Even familial bonds are severed, as emotional attachment is considered a form of bondage that hinders spiritual progress. The individual adopts a mendicant life, surviving solely on alms, which must be received without request or preference. The remainder of the day is dedicated to scriptural study, self-discipline, introspection, and deep meditation.
The Critique: Renunciation as Escapism and Social Abdication
While the Jain ideal of renunciation is revered for its spiritual purity and commitment to non-attachment, it has also drawn criticism for promoting what some view as a form of escapism. The complete withdrawal from material life—including the abandonment of family, profession, and civic responsibility—raises significant ethical and social questions.
Such renunciation leads to a neglect of one’s worldly duties: to one’s family, community, and even to the nation. In choosing the path of asceticism, the individual effectively exits the social fabric, leaving behind not only material possessions but also moral obligations, such as caring for dependents, contributing to the economy, or engaging in acts of social service. Thus, renunciation is equivalent to escaping from one’s duties and responsibilities. Moreover, monastics who survive entirely on alms without contributing materially become a passive burden on the very society they have renounced.
The Counterpoint: Renunciation as Discipline, Not Escape
To characterize Jain renunciation as escapism or societal burden is to misunderstand both its intent and its lived reality. Jain asceticism is far from a passive retreat or a withdrawal into comfort. Unlike monastics in certain other traditions—such as Buddhists who often reside in resident monasteries supported by a settled community—Jain ascetics do not live in permanent dwellings or secluded monasteries. They wander constantly, barefoot, often under the harsh Indian sun, carrying nothing but the barest essentials, and sometimes completely naked. This nomadic discipline is not incidental; it is by design. It ensures that no single town or village bears the ongoing responsibility of supporting them, thereby minimizing their material impact on society.
Moreover, Jain ascetics do not “do nothing.” Their days are rigorously structured around scriptural study, meditation, self-discipline, and non-violence in thought, word, and deed. They embody a strict code of non-reactivity and detachment, cultivating virtues such as forgiveness, humility, and truthfulness—qualities that offer silent but powerful moral instruction to the lay community.
The purpose of this life is not social withdrawal, but karmic purification. According to Jain philosophy, the monastic path facilitates nirjarā (the shedding of past karmic accumulations) and saṃvara (the cessation of new karmic influx). Ascetic life is thus a vehicle for deep spiritual transformation, carried out with a sense of responsibility—not to the external world, but to the inner self and the cosmic moral order.
In this light, Jain asceticism is not a rejection of duty, but the assumption of a higher, more subtle responsibility: to live as an example of restraint, compassion, and spiritual clarity in a world driven by consumption and reaction.
4. Jainism and Santhara
Santhara (also known as Sallekhana) is a sacred and time-honored practice in Jainism, wherein an individual willingly undertakes a gradual fast unto death, usually in old age or terminal illness. It is not undertaken in despair or haste, but as a conscious, meditative, and spiritually prepared exit from the physical body. Santhara is seen as the final act of tapas (austerity), performed with complete awareness, detachment, and equanimity. The practitioner, having renounced all passions and desires, embraces death not as defeat, but as liberation—a final shedding of karmic residues.
The Critique: Santhara is Glorified Suicide
At its core, Santhara involves the deliberate and voluntary cessation of food and water, leading to death—not by natural causes, but by calculated choice. This intentional ending of one’s life, regardless of the philosophical justifications, aligns fundamentally with the definition of suicide.
In modern societies, suicide is not only discouraged—it is actively treated as a public health crisis, a sign of psychological distress, and a call for intervention, not celebration. To cloak such an act in religious sanctity and elevate it as spiritually noble raises serious concerns. It sets a precedent where the deliberate ending of life is not just accepted, but glorified—something deeply problematic in a world where suicide remains a leading cause of premature death.
Furthermore, normalizing such practices within a religious framework can create a dangerous moral ambiguity. It may encourage vulnerable individuals to perceive death as an acceptable or even honorable escape from suffering, rather than embracing life with courage, support, and perseverance. The societal message must be unequivocal: life, even in its most difficult phases, is to be protected, nurtured, and affirmed—not voluntarily surrendered and sanctified.
In this light, Santhara blurs the ethical boundaries between spiritual freedom and the quiet endorsement of death. As such, it must be critically discouraged, not romanticized or ritually exalted.
The Counterpoint: Santhara The Meditative Crossover
To equate Santhara with suicide is to fundamentally misunderstand its context, intention, and disciplined framework within Jain spiritual philosophy. Unlike suicide, which is often an impulsive act driven by despair, emotional collapse, or psychological suffering, Santhara is a highly regulated, conscious, and spiritually mature decision, undertaken only under specific conditions and with a deep sense of awareness.
In Jainism, Santhara is not an escape from suffering, but the final austerity (tapas) practiced only when the body has become so weakened or terminally ill that it can no longer serve its spiritual purpose. When a seeker finds that the body, instead of supporting Samvar (the restraint of new karmic influx), has become a source of increasing karmic entanglement due to dependence on others, then—and only then—does Santhara become appropriate.
Santhara is an awakened state, not a reaction to pain or despair. The act is not emotionally charged but serene, detached, and imbued with spiritual clarity. The practitioner, after a lifetime of discipline and inner purification, voluntarily withdraws from the physical shell in a meditative, composed manner—not to flee from life’s challenges, but to release the soul from the tattered body to move onto a new one.
Thus, Santhara should be understood not as a denial of life, but as a logical continuation of it—a giant leap in the Jain seeker’s journey toward liberation (moksha), taken not in darkness, but in the full light of spiritual awareness.
Conclusion
Jainism, with its emphasis on non-violence, asceticism, and self-realization, offers a profound spiritual philosophy. Yet, like all religious systems, its practices can be misinterpreted or even misused in certain contexts. It is essential to engage with these traditions not only through critique but also through empathetic understanding.
By recognizing the depth, discipline, and intent behind Jain practices—while remaining mindful of their social consequences—we can arrive at a more nuanced and respectful engagement with one of the world’s oldest spiritual traditions.
