आचार्य भिक्षु एवं काण्ट का निरपेक्ष आदेश : एक अध्ययन

Summary

The article examines parallels between the ethical philosophies of Acharya Bhikshu and Immanuel Kant, prompted by Satkari Mukherjee’s observation that Acharya Bhikshu would have been as renowned as Kant had he been in Germany. Both thinkers advocate for consequence-independent ethics. Kant’s categorical imperative divides commands into hypothetical (conditional on outcomes) and categorical (unconditional, universally binding, and treating persons as ends, not means). Acharya Bhikshu similarly upholds a consequence-independent view of dharma, illustrated through three examples. In the first, monks stop thieves by preaching, leading to the thieves’ reform and the safe return of stolen goods; the moral worth of the preaching and reform is independent of the goods being saved. In the second, butchers abandon killing goats after a monk’s counsel; the ethical value of the counsel and renunciation does not depend on the goats’ survival. In the third, three men renounce visiting a prostitute after a monk’s advice, causing the prostitute to commit suicide; Acharya Bhikshu argues that the monk is not responsible for this outcome, as the moral quality of an action is not based on its consequences. The article notes that Kant’s categorical imperative is reflected in Acharya Bhikshu’s universal, person-independent, and context-independent principle of non-violence (ahimsa), which rejects using smaller beings as means for larger ones. While Kant’s abstract imperative faced criticism for lacking practical guidance, Acharya Bhikshu’s detailed code of conduct (maryadas) for Terapanthi Jain ascetics provides concrete duties, thereby addressing that gap. The article concludes that Acharya Bhikshu’s ethics can be seen as a practical application of Kant’s categorical imperative, supporting the claim that his renown could have matched or exceeded Kant’s.