________________
12 : Applied Philosophy of Jainism this development of the meaning of non-violence also gave rise to many a philosophical problem. While extending the meaning of nonviolence, when it was taken for granted that to cause pain or torment any form of life or even to think ill of them is violence, and at the same time it was also averred that there is life in not only the human, animal or vegetable world but in earth, water, air and fire as well, the problem arose that when one form of life is to be preserved at the expense of the other life forms, the choice would be not between violence and non-violence but between one form of violence and the other. Those thinkers who considered all life forms as of the same value, had to ignore the concept of positive non-violence because, all activities, like mercy, kindness, compassion, charity, benevolence, etc., that constitute positive non-violence are action oriented and all activities- yoga' according to Jaina glossary - may be in any form, are always beset with the elements of violence or karmic influx.? If we consider complete prohibition of activity as the only goal of spiritual accomplishment, the concept of non-violence would be essentially negative. It is worth to note that for all those religions in which earth, water, air, fire, vegetable etc, have either been considered as lifeless or that their lives were not considered to be equally voluble, or that the God has made these other forms of life for the use of the human being only, the attachment or violence that is seen in positive non-violence can be converted from means of bondage to means of liberation by infusing a discreet sense of duty. Just as a medicine made of poison is not only unharmful but positively beneficial, so is also the positive non-violence beneficial for the social health. When we do accept all kind of activities and part violence inherent therein, for the preservation and furtherance of our own life, there is no basis for our argument against positive non-violence on the ground of the element of part violence in it and calling it as poison mixed milk. If the violence for preserving own life is considered excusable, why shouldn't it be in the preservation of others' lives as well? Again, if we feel that there is attachment in acting for others, why should we not feel likewise when we act for ourselves? When it is
