SANTHĀRĀ / SALLEKHANĀ
DR. D. R. Mehta, Dr. K. C. Sogani, DR. Kusum Jain and S. Bothra
1. Santhārā / Sallekhanā
Santhārā / Sallekhanā is an ancient but continuing fundamental Jain spiritual concept
and practice.
The expression “Santhārā” is first used in Acharang, the first canon, compiling the
first set of discourses of Mahāvīra, said to have been delivered before 2500 years ago (the
exact quote is given later).
Santhārā is the amalgam of the following key elements:
(a) Getting rid of Kaṣāya (anger, ego, attachment and greed etc.) which garner karmas and
which are a hindrance to ones liberation.
(b) To be totally detached to the material world and body by not feeding oneself in some very
extra-ordinary situations like terminal disease, old age causing incapacity etc.
(c) Because of the above, after sometime, death occurs unless the aspirant or performer
reverses his decision.
Santhārā literally means a bed of hay: the practice derives the name Santhārā because
when the death approaches, the aspirant or performer sits or lies down a bed of hay,
renouncing all passions, attachment and intake.
The other concept and term is Sallekhanā. The word Sallekhanā is derived from the
words – “Sat” and “Lekhanā”, “Sat” means “Samyak” i.e. a true and proper and “Lekhanā”
means gradual weakening of passions / desires. This is accompanied by gradual giving up of
food and water.
While the Shvetāmbara tradition uses both the words Santhārā (which is at the stage
when one is facing death) and Sallekhanā, (which is gradual withdrawal of food and water),
in Digambar tradition, the word Santhārā is not used. Instead they use the term Sallekhanā
which has two forms namely
Niyama-Sallekhanā (renouncing food and water gradually for a fixed period which
may go up to 12 years) and
Yama-Sallekhanā (which is undertaken when death is imminent) (Book on
Sallekhanā – by Ramesh Chandra Bazal – Flag-G – verses 19 and 20 of Samādhi
Mahotsava Deepika)
Santhārā of Shvetāmbara tradition is thus equivalent to Yam-Sallekhanā of
Digambara tradition. Further, the word Sallekhanā used in Shvetāmbara tradition is like
Niyam-Sallekhanā of Digambara tradition.
Thus, though, the two words, Santhārā and Sallekhanā are generally used
synonymously, the above clarification need to be appreciated.
Sallekhanā of Shvetāmbara tradition and Niyam-Sallekhanā of Digambar tradition are
for mental detachment and physical discipline for the preparation for thinning the passions by
1
reducing or giving up food and or water intake. Santhārā or Yam-Sallekhanā of Digambara
tradition is the culmination of Sallekhanā.
The other synonyms of Santhārā /Sallekhanā are Samādhimaraṇa and
Paṇḍitamaraṇa. The concept is that noble death should be in a state of Samādhi, that is, in a
state bereft of all passions and Kaṣāyas (like anger, ego, attachment and greed etc.) The
expression Paṇḍitamaraṇa is used to signify that the person dying has imbibed the wisdom of
dying without passion or Kaṣāyas and with equanimity.
Santhārā / Sallekhanā and their synonyms are often confused with suicide or
euthanasia, the misconceptions, which need to be clarified and dispelled.
For the purposes of this discussion the word Sallekhanā is used to mean YamSallekhanā.
First about the concept.
The Ontology of Jainism is that there is a dualism of body and soul or Jīva.
Further, Jainism believes that body is subservient to soul. So long as body serves the
soul, it has its usefulness. The moment body, because of old age or terminal sickness, ceases
to help soul, a person may totally get detached to the body to the extent that he does not feed
it. In Santhārā /Sallekhanā, no activity is involved; it is just a case of total abstention in the
matter of feeding. To repeat, he does not take any active steps to kill the body but just does
not attend to it and thus the body, overtime, automatically emaciates and finally ceases to
exist.
But even more fundamentally, the aspirant or performer has to overcome his Kaṣāya
(anger, ego, attachment and greed etc.). Without this, not attending to body or not feeding of
the body, there is no Santhārā or Samādhimaraṇa.
Ācāraṃga is the first set of discourses of Mahāvīra, 2500 years ago. It is the first
canon of Jains, like Vedas of Hindus, Bible of Christians, Qurāna of Muslims etc. It states
that:
"If an ascetic realizes that now it is gradually becoming impossible for him to sustain
the body for his essential (ascetic) duties, he should gradually reduce his food intake through
austerities. While reducing the food intake he should also reduce his passions. After reducing
passions he should acquire mental serenity. Becoming thin by honing both sides, body and
passion, like a plank of wood, that ascetic should make himself stable (free of agitations of
body and mind) and rise (prepare to embrace meditational death or Samādhimaraṇa). If that
ascetic has enough energy to walk, he should go to a village, city,… or capital (any populated
place) and beg for hay or a stack of straw. When he gets a stack of straw he should retire into
seclusion …… He should then thoroughly clean that spot and make a bed of straw
(Santhārā) there. Now he should occupy the straw-bed and observe itvarika fast (fasting for
a predetermined period)." (Ācāraṃga Sūtra 8/6/225) (Flad-D)
The predetermined period means the period till the objective of getting rid-of Kaṣāya
(anger, ego, attachment and greed etc.) is achieved or till Santhārā /Sallekhanā is revoked.
Yet another element of this spiritual practice is that the level of equanimity and
detachment should be such that the aspirant or performer, even after taking the vow of
Santhārā /Sallekhanā, should neither wish for early death or prolonging life. A quote from
Ācāraṃga Sūtra is given as under:2
“tLl .ka fHkD[kqLl ,oa Hkob& ^ls fxykfe p [kyq vga beafl le, bea ljhjxa v.kqiqOos.k ifjofgRr,* ls
vk.kqiqOos.ka vkgkja laoêsTtkA vk.kqiqOos.k vkgkja laoêsÙkk dlk, I;.kq, fdPpk lekfg;Pps Qyxko;êh mëk; fHkD[kw
vfHkf.kCoqMPpsA ---------------------**
It means that the Saint undertaking Sallekhanā should neither wish to live little longer
or impacted by disease, wish to die early. He should be indifferent both to life and death. He
should be in a state of total equanimity, which transcends the desire to live or die.
In Upāsakadaśāṃga Sutra and Tatvārtha Sūtra also similar translations have been
mentioned. (Pages…63 to 65 of the book Death of Equanimity of Baya – Flag-E)
Another quote from Ācāraṃga Sūtra (page 439) – Flag-F is given below in English –
“An ascetic who is practice Sallekhanā or Anashan should neither to desire to live nor
pray for death. He should remain detached both for life and death”.
It is also noteworthy that nobody can take Santhārā or Sallekhanā at a young age at
all. Virtually all cases of Santhārā are at the fag end of life, generally in the range of age of
70s to 90s. However, if there is a terminal sickness even earlier, under the Jain scriptures,
such a person may perhaps undergo Santhārā at his will and volition.
Detachment from the world and even the body is one of the fundamental principles of
Jainism. This is the part of “Summom Bonum”. Certainly at a stage when body, because of
disease, old age etc. becomes incapable and is a hindrance to one’s spiritual upliftment, the
ultimate goal of life, he becomes indifferent to the body.
As already stated, the Āgamas of Jains are the basic canons of Jainism like Vedas or
Gītā of Hindus, Quran of Muslims, Bible of Christians etc. Equally important are the Jain
works like Bhagawatī Ārādhanā, Tatvārtha Sūtra, Sarvārtha Siddhi, Ratnakaraṇḍa
śrāvakācāra, of Digambar tradition. We have referred to a book also, entitled – “Death with
Equanimity” by Dr. D. S. Baya, an army officer who had a brush with death and is still bed
ridden. The book deals with the concept of Santhārā/Sallekhanā and provides a comparative
analysis of this practice with suicide and euthanasia. The book is submitted herewith. (Flag“A”)
2. Santhārā / Sallekhanā is not suicide
It is emphatically denied that Santhārā / Sallekhanā is suicide under the IPC.
Before this issue is discussed in detail, it may be worth mentioning that Acārya
Vinoba Bhave, one of the greatest Gandhians, stopped taking food and water from the 9th
Nov to 15th Nov 1982, i.e. immediately before his death at Paunar Ashram in Maharashtra.
The personal exhortations of the then Prime Minister of India who met to persuade him on
the 12th Nov 1982 and of Gandhian judges like Justice Dharmadhikari, could not make him
change his vow. Finally he died on the 15th Nov 1982. Though the word Santhārā was not
used, what Vinoba Bhave did was not at all different from the Jain practice of Santhārā . The
entire description of the last days of Vinoba Bhave is fully recorded by Shri Bal Vijay Bhai,
his Secretary in his book “………………”. Shri Bal Vijay Bhai is still alive in Pavnar. As is
well-known, Vinobha Bhave would often say that he respected Geeta and principles of
Jainism the most.
3
Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Nation undertook several fasts unto death. While,
he was arrested on all these occasions, even the repressive British Government never booked
him for suicide; he was imprisoned for sedition.
If the petitioner’s plea were to be raised, both the father of our Nation and his
principal disciple would have been in Jail!
Jain texts are replete with references which totally forbid suicide.
It is being repeatedly mentioned in Śāstras that a person who commits suicide is
bound to garner the worst form of Karmas and in his next life he would have to suffer on
that count.
In this backdrop, it would be totally inappropriate to say that Jainism would promote
or sanctify suicide.
Indian Penal Code does not define suicide. Section 309, which prescribes punishment
for “attempt to commits suicide”, lays down “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does
any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment
which may extend to one year or with fine or both”.
It is wrongly argued that the words “any act” occurring in the Section are vide
enough to take in their purview “fasting” or refraining from taking food for sustaining body
system.
Omission to take food is not “any act” under the Section. Justice Tukol, a retired
judge of Karnataka High Court and also a Scholar of repute (he was the Vice Chancellor of
Bangalore University), in his book “Sallekhanā is not Suicide” addresses this aspect as
under –
“I cannot agree with the view that this omission to take food is an act under the
section (309 IPC) because one of the principles of interpretation of a criminal statue is that it
should be strictly construed. Section 32 of IPC lays down the rule of interpretation of sections
in Penal Code. It lays down “In every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention
appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions”.
What is illegal is indicated in section 43 of Penal Code: (1) everything which is an offence, or
(2). which is prohibited by law, or (3) which furnishes ground for civil action, or (4) omission
to do whatever he is legally bound to do so”. Law requires every individual to conduct
himself so as not to injure others. An act becomes an injury, when it causes harm to another
in body, mind, reputation or property. There is no law which casts an obligation on every
individual not to fast because fasting is sanctioned by the most of the religions in India as
conducive both to physical and mental health, besides providing an opportunity for worship
and meditation. A fast undertaken on religious grounds causes no pain or harm to anybody.
Since, such fast is not directed against anybody, so as to cause him mental pressure or
anxiety, it cannot be regarded as a harmful act. Every fast which is spiritually motivated
exudes an atmosphere of tranquility, peace and piety about it”. (pages 320-324-Flag-B) of
the book Sallekhanā is not Suicide – copy of the book submitted)
Justice Tukol goes on saying – “Facing death in a war, knowing full well that death is
the likely result, is, applauded as heroism or Vīrmaraṇa Dying for religion is called
Martyrdom. Facing death for a noble cause earns the title of a national hero or Saviour. It
cannot therefore be disputed that death for a noble cause or end has always been hailed by all
nations, though under different designations”. (page……)
Further, the main psychological and physical features of suicide are –
4
a. The victim is emotionally stressed.
b. He is overwhelmed by a feeling of disgrace, disgust, insult, hatred or fear etc.
c. The main intention of committing suicide is to escape the consequence of
certain act or events related to disgrace, disgust, insult hatred or fear etc.
d. This kind of intention in case of suicide is far away from religious or spiritual
considerations.
e. The means employed to bring about death in case of suicide are weapons,
poison, fire, drowning, hanging etc.
f. The death is sudden in most of the cases, unless the victim is rescued earlier.
g. The act is committed often in secrecy
h. Death causes misery or bereavement to kith kin and others.
i. The National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India (2013) –gives basic statistics for suicide for the year 2012. According
to this authentic Report, the largest numbers of the persons committing suicide
are in the age group of 30 to 44 years.
There is hardly a reported case in which abandoning food and water has been
employed as a method of committing suicide.
In comparison, Santhārā / Sallekhanā is undertaken after serious deliberation
spreading over a long time, maybe, several months or years. The decision is taken by the
practitioner very coolly and collectedly. It is totally bereft of passion or emotion. More
fundamentally it is to get rid of the four basic Kaṣāya (Passions) which are Krodha (anger)
Man (ego or conceit) Moha (attachment) Lobha (greed), while in most of the cases of
suicide these are the root causes thereof. Santhārā / Sallekhanā is taken in very special
circumstances namely that the aspirant or performer is terminally ill or is very old or is
physically incapable or there is some other emergencies.
Dr. D. S. Baya, who in his book “Death With Equanimity” studied the age pattern of
distribution of 350 reported cases of Santhārā / Sallekhanā, between January 1994 to
December 2003 has given the following table –
Age
group
21-30
3140
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91100
>100
Total
No.
4
3
3
14
52
99
135
28
4
350
%
1.3
0.8
0.8
4.0
17.0
28.3
38.9
8.0
1.3
100
5
The younger age group is of the persons who because of emergencies or fatal
accidents take the vow of Santhārā / Sallekhanā. Further in these and many other cases,
death occurs maybe the same day or in the next few days. Since this death form is considered
to be of highest virtue, some people about to die, take this vow and die soon after.
Further, Santhārā / Sallekhanā is reversible (as will be explained later), contrary to
committing suicide which is irreversible. (unless saved by external intervention before death)
Santhārā / Sallekhanā is also sanctified spiritually and by religion as a way of dying
with dignity, whereas suicide is based on anger, passion, dejection etc. and is considered to
be against religion.
This concept and practice of Santhārā /Sallekhanā is thus diametrically opposite of
suicide.
It is also germane to refer to types of death within Jainism. According to the Bhagwatī
Sūtra, one of the great Jain Āgamas and Bhagwatī Sūtra a subsequent famous scripture
classifies death as –
a. Bāla Maraṇa (death without self-restraint) – i.e. death without the desire or effort
to reduce or pare passions and also includes violent deaths such as suicide, death
by weapon, poison, fire, water etc.
b. Paṇḍita Maraṇa (wise death) – which includes Santhārā / Sallekhanā and such
other death forms which are spiritually directed and which aim at shedding
Karmas by honing and pairing passions.
The focus of Santhārā / Sallekhanā is reduction and rejection of passions. Santhārā /
Sallekhanā is both internal and external. The internal Santhārā / Sallekhanā is to crush
Kaṣāyas as a primary objective. The external Santhārā / Sallekhanā affects the body, a factor
which is secondary. As would explained separately, a person who undertakes Santhārā /
Sallekhanā cannot even wish for early death; if he does so it is Atīcāra (transgression) and
Santhārā / Sallekhanā would cease to be so.
3. Santhārā is not Euthanasia
Oxford Dictionary defines euthanasia as “bringing about of a gentle and painless
death for a person suffering from a painful incurable disease, extreme old age etc”. When
euthanasia is at the request of the sufferer, it is “voluntary euthanasia” or “active euthanasia”.
The term is equally applied to what is known as “mercy killing” or involuntary euthanasia. In
the first situation, one view could be that it is suicide. In the second one it could be a case of
murder of abetment to murder
It is emphatically stated that Santhārā /Sallekhanā is not euthanasia.
The most important distinguishing feature between Santhārā and euthanasia is that
euthanasia is generally inspired by purely physical reasons i.e. to get rid of the physical pain
and suffering. On the contrary, the basic purpose of Santhārā /Sallekhanā is spiritual i.e. the
cleansing of soul. It is a process of purifying ones soul through Tapas or Penance, which
leads to dignified end of this life and spiritually richer beginning of the next life. Even the
legitimate non-believers in the next life concept, should respect the right of others to have a
belief in the rebirth and shaping of the next life by shedding of the Karmas in this life.
6
This difference between Santhārā / Sallekhanā and euthanasia becomes very clear
when one studies the specific procedure laid down in the Jain scriptures for observing
Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
According to Bhagwati Aradhna (one of the most important spiritual text of Jainism),
Santhārā /Sallekhanā is of two types (1) external (2) internal. Internal Santhārā is to
gradually minimize or diminish the four Kaṣāya (anger, ego, attachment and greed), while
the external Santhārā /Sallekhanā consists in gradually developing detachment towards body.
It is emphasized that the external Santhārā is of no value, if it is not accompanied with the
internal Santhārā . Indeed the external and internal Santhārā s are inseparable and composite
whole. But in euthanasia, purity of soul or cleansing of internal mental state or strengthening
of other moral virtues are given no consideration at all. It is simply performed to bring about
an end to unbearable physical agony. This shows that the essential characteristics of Santhārā
/ Sallekhanā are completely missing in euthanasia. The relevant excerpts from Bhagawatī
Ārādhanā and Sāgāradharmāmṛta are quoted below:^^,oa ojhjlYysg.kkfofga cgqfogk fo Qklsra ksA vT>olk.kfolqf)a [k.kefo [kovks .k eqapsTtAA 256AA
vT>olk.kfolq)/kh dlk;dyqlhdnLl .kfRFk fÙkA vT>olk.kdlk;lYysg.kk Hkf.knkAA 257AA vT>olk.klq)/kh,
ofTtnk ts rca foxV~BafiA dqOoafr ofgYysLlk .k gksb lk dsoyk lq)/khAA258AA lYysg.kkfolq)/kk dsbZ rg pso
fofoglaxsfgaA laFkkjs fogjark fo lafdfyV~Bk fooTtafrAA 1674AA**
bl izdkj vusdfo/k 'kjhj lYys[kukfof/k dks djrs gq, Hkh] {kid ,d {k.k ds fy, Hkh ifj.keksa dh fo’kqf)
dks u NksM+sA 256A d"kk; ls dyqf"kr eu esa ifj.kkeksa dh fo’kqf) ugha gksrhA vkSj ifj.kkeksa dh fo’kqf) ds fy, mRÑ"V
Hkh ri djus okys lk/kq [;kfr vkfn ds dkj.k gh ri djrs gSa] ,slk le>uk pkfg,A blfy, muds ifj.kkeksa dh 'kqf)
ugha gksrhA257A tks lk/kq 'kjhj dh lYys[kuk rks fujfrpkj dj jgs gSa] ijUrq muds vUrjax esa jkx}s"kkfn:i Hkko
ifjxzg fuokl djrk gS] os laLrjk:< gksrs gq, Hkh ifj.kkeksa dh laDys’krk ds dkj.k lalkj esa Hkze.k djrs gSaA1674A
Most of the basic texts of Jain religion (such as Tatwartha Sutra (1st Century AD),
Sarvartha Siddhi (4th-55th Century AD), Bhagwati Aradhna (
), Ratankarand
nd rd
), etc lay down the minutest of
Shrawakachara (2 -3 Century AD), Acharang Sutra (
details of the procedure for performing Santhārā /Sallekhanā where each step is being closely
monitored by the spiritual Acharyas or Gurus. However, it must be emphasized that the
decision to initiate Sallekhanā / Santhārā and the follow up procedure, in detail, rests
completely with the performer; it is a purely voluntary act Sarvarthsiddhi already referred to
above, emphatically states that no external agency or person can force anybody to undertake
Santhārā /Sallekhanā.
l-fl-@7@22@363@4 u dsoyfeg lsoua ifjx`ársA fda rfgZ izhR;FkksZ·fiA ;LeknlR;ka izhrkS cykUu
lYys[kuk dk;ZrsA lR;ka fg izhrkS Lo;eso djksfrA
;gk¡ ij ¼lw= esa iz;qDr ^tksf"krk* 'kCn dk½ dsoy ^lsou djuk* vFkZ ugha fy;k x;k gS] D;ksafd izhfr ds u
jgus ij cyiwoZd lYys[kuk ugha djk;h tkrhA fdUrq izhfr ds jgus ij Lo;a gh lYys[kuk djrk gSA
At every step the performer of Santhārā / Sallekhanā is expected to maintain state of
peace, calmness and equanimity of mind, and must develop detachment towards material
possessions, conquer ego and seek forgiveness from every other living being on earth.
Moreover, the observance of Santhārā / Sallekhanā is marked by the centrality of
non-violence or Ahimsa. During the whole process, the aspirant or performer of Santhārā /
Sallekhanā is expected to abstain from the minutest hurting or harming (physically or
mentally) the smallest of the creatures. Obviously such a concept of extreme non-killing
cannot be condemned as one promoting killing.
The other moral virtues such as truthfulness non-stealing, non-possession and control
of desires also constitute the core content of Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
7
Any discussion on the comparison between euthanasia and Santhārā / Sallekhanā,
inevitably has to factor in the spiritual aspects, which are often ignored, with the danger of
reaching a wrong and facile view about the seeming similarity between euthanasia and
Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
Dr. Baya in his book “Death with Equanimity” has referred to the above mentioned
spiritual aspect and also provided other distinguishing features of Santhārā / Sallekhanā viza-viz Euthanasia. Dr. Baya is quoted thus.
“a. Euthanasia is practiced from purely personal and medical points of view while
Sallekhana-–SamadhiMaraṇa a from that of spiritual emancipation point of view.
b. In euthanasia the person surrenders to the pain and suffering and wishes to die while
in the practice of Sallekhana-SamadhiMaraṇa a he braves the suffering while
patiently waiting the death to visit him. (Flag-H – page 341 of Baya’s Book)
c. The seeker of euthanasia is not at all calm and composed while that of SallekhanaSamadhiMaraṇa a is in a state of peace and equanimity of mind.
d. Euthanasia is pure desire to die while Sallekhana-SamadhiMaraṇa a is the practice of
immortality. Indeed, wishing to die is an Atichar or transgression which would totally
negate Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
e. The practice of euthanasia is aided by the doctor who simply administers the lethal
dose of chemical to ease life out (he is least concerned about the psychic state of the
patient at the time of death) while the practice of Sallekhana-SamadhiMaraṇa a is
aided and assisted by the Niryapakas who constantly endeavours to maintain the
ksapaka’s peace of mind.
f. The practice of euthanasia is attended by despondence and anger (Ārta–dhyāna and
Raudradhyāna) while that of Sallekhanā-Samādhimaraṇa is attended by pious
thoughts (Dharmadhyāna).
g. The practice of euthanasia is sought by the cowards that cannot bear the fruits of their
karma while that of Sallekhanā-Samādhimaraṇa by those brave and patient aspirant
who bear them with courage and fortitude.
h. The result of euthanasia is spiritually unrewarding death while that of SallekhanaSamādhimaraṇa is spiritually rewarding one.
i. In the case of passive euthanasia is that the subject cannot make a decision for
himself, he is simply killed, albeit mercifully, while the practice of SallekhanāSamādhimaraṇa cannot proceed without the voluntary consent of the aspirant
practitioner.
j. The practitioner of Sallekhanā- Samādhimaraṇa sets his sights on the ultimate good
of achieving nirvāṇa or immortality while euthanasia aims at a very narrow concept
of painless death, which may also be only a euphemism.
k. The concept of euthanasia is only about dying well while that of SallekhanāSamādhimaraṇa is also about living well. “One who lives a pious life, dies a peaceful
death”, it proclaims.
l. Killing how–so–ever painlessly is a violent activity. So euthanasia may look merciful
at the surface but it is violent in nature. Sallekhanā- Samādhimaraṇa, on the other
hand, is non–violent from the beginning to the end.
8
m. The practice of euthanasia does nothing to improve the quality of life of the subject by
way of de–addiction, psychological strengthening, prayers etc while these are a part of
the practice of Sallekhanā- Samādhimaraṇa.
This comparison clearly brings out that there is nothing in common between the
practices of euthanasia and Sallekhanā- Samādhimaraṇa except that both may be
voluntary. No spiritual benefit can ensue from the practice of euthanasia.”
4. Santhārā is Reversible
As stated earlier the aspirant or the performer can give up his Sallekhanā vow. The
Gāthā 232 (Flag-I) of Ācāraṃga Sūtra is quoted below:dlk, i;.kq, fdPpk vIikgkjks frfrD[k,A
vg fHkD[kw fxyk,Ttk vkgkjLlso vafr;aAA
“The ascetic should first reduce passions and then reducing his food intake, he should
tolerate afflictions and abuses. If he becomes sick he should accept food; otherwise he should
do anaśana by completely abandoning food.”
In Ācāraṃga Bhāśya the words vg fHkD[kw fxyk,Ttk have been interpreted to mean the
following–
“If an ascetic observing Sallekhanā practices gets sick, unconscious, or dizzy due to
lack of food and nutrition, he should stop rigorous austerities, terminate Sallekhanā process
and accept food.” (Ācāraṃga Sūtra, translated by Shri Amarmuni, p. 444)
One of the famous Digambar Acharya, Vidyanandji Maharaj undertook
Sallekhanā/Santhārā . He ended his Sallekhanā after 12 years. It was a case of Niyama
Sallekhanā as mentioned in Bhagawatī Ārādhanā.
Santhārā / Sallekhanā, an essential practice of Jainism
A practice which is essential to a religion is one –
a. which is prescribed by the basic canonical and other important scriptures of that
religion. The determining feature is the authoritative (yavatkathit i.e. spoken by the
Bhagwan, Tirthankar, Lord and Prophet etc) prescription. It is not dependent on
the number of observers; or
b. which is one of necessary ways to be followed as part of code of conduct in order to
tread the ideal path laid down by the religion. Again, this ideal path may be walked
on, in its entirety, only by a small number; or
c. which is followed by the accomplished seers, prophets or other accomplished
observers and emulated by common aspirants and to the extent possible with their
limited ability.
Regarding the canons the position is as follows. The first exposition and exhortation
about Santhārā / Sallekhanā is in Ācāraṃga Sūtra. According to the Svetāmbara tradition,
Ācāraṃga Sūtra is the first set of discourses of Lord Mahaveer delivered about 2500 years
ago. The entire chapter – Eight of Ācāraṃga Sūtra is devoted to Santhārā . Besides, out of
9
the other ten canons (Agams), in addition to Ācāraṃga, the following Āgams also mention /
deal with Santhārā – 1. Sūtrakṛtāṃga, 2, Bhagawatī Sutra, 3. Sthānāṃga, 4. Upasak
Daśāṃga, 5.Jñāta Dharma Kathā. 6. Antaḥkrit Daśāṃga Sūtra etc.
Ācāraṃga Sūtra has already been quoted above. According to Sthānāṃga Sūtra –
Three good wishes of a Śramaṇa nirgrantha (Jain monk) seeking mahānirjarā (complete
shedding of Karmas) and Mahāparyavsāna (great departure of death) are –
1. I will study a little or more of the canon.
2. I will accept Ekala Vihāra Pratimā (the special practice of living in solitude) and
proceed to observe that.
3. I will observe that Apaschima māraṇātika Sallekhanā (irrevocable ultimate vow till
death), abandon all food and drinks accept Pādopagamana Santhārā (lifelong fasting
keeping the body motionless like a fallen tree) and spend time peacefully without the
desire of death – (Sthānāṃga Sūtra 3 / 4 / 378).
Sthānāṃga Sūtra also prescribes a similar wish for a lay person ( 3 / 4 / 379 ).
Tatvārtha Sūtra (acceptable both to Shvetāmbaras and Digambaras) dated the 2nd Century
AD also deals with this subject.
Besides, the Prakīrṇaka Granthas, (the works following Āgams for explaining them
and dated between the 5th to the 8th Century AD) also deal with Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
Some of the important Prakīrṇaka Granthas related to Santhārā / Sallekhanā are –
1. Mahāpratyakhyāna
2. Atur Prakhyan
3. Sanstharak
4. Sallekhanā Sutra
5. Bhakt Partijñā
6. Maraṇa Vibhakti
7. Maraṇa Vishudhhi
8. Maraṇa Samadhi
9. Ārādhanā Patākā etc.
In Digambara tradition, the most respected scripture is “Aṣṭapaāhuḍa” of Kundkundācārya,
the most revered Ācārya of the 1st Century AD. This also mentions Sallekhanā. There are
other works of Digambara tradition also dealing with Sallekhanā.
The codes of the conduct like Mūlācāra (2nd Century AD), Bhagawatī Ārādhanā (4th
Century AD) Sarvārtha Siddhi (6th Century AD), of Digambara tradition and Pravacana
Sāroddhāra (12th Century AD) of Shvetāmbara tradition also deal with this practice.
Subsequently, various Ācāryas including those of the recent times has dilated on this
subject.
Copy of an excerpt from chapter from the book – “Death with Equanimity” written by
Dr. Baya indicating these works of Shvetāmbara and Digambara tradition is attached.
10
Regarding the observance, according to the Jain tradition, the practice has been
followed right from Ṛṣabhadeva, the first tīrthaṃkara. All the 23 next tīrthaṃkaras, including
Mahāvīra, the last tīrthaṃkara, undertook Santhārā . For this, the Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa
has given the details. In the book–“Death with Equanimity” of Baya, information on the
basis of various rock inscriptions has also been given. This proves that this spiritual practice
has been prevalent the Jain society since much before Christian era to the medieval period
and till the modern times (Flag-J)
In Indian philosophical tradition Jainism is put under the category of Nivrati Marg
(along with Buddhism) in contrast to the Pravarti Marg.The essential characteristic of Nivrati
Marg is spiritual upliftment through renunciation and the practice of Sallekhanā / Santhārā is
its most strong and appropriate expression. Besides, as mentioned earlier, Ahimsa is one of
the central principle of Jainism which emphasizes reverence for all forms of life and
consequently non-killing of all forms of life. While living, inevitably, one does destroy the
low forms of life such as micro-level or one-sensed creatures. At the time, when one is dying
it would be appropriate, in terms of this principle of Ahimsa, that by taking Sallekhanā /
Santhārā , attempt is made that even that level of life form is not harmed. Sallekhanā /
Santhārā is thus the ultimate observance of the principle of Ahimsa.
The test, to repeat, is the ultimate objective and not the number of observers.
5. Santhārā /Sallekhanā is not ultra virus of the Indian Constitution.
Under the Indian Constitution every Indian citizen has a fundamental right to profess
and practice his religion freely. It is one of the cardinal principles of Jain religion that the
noblest or the most spiritual way of meeting death is to resort to the vow of Santhārā
/Sallekhanā when one is afflicted by terminal sickness, old age etc. Even if Indian Penal
Court does not refer to this freedom enshrined in article 25 of the Constitution, the
Constitution overrides the Penal Code or any other identical law. The implications of the
constitutional guarantee are that acts sanctioned by religion are protected. Any law which
curtails the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution cannot have the sanctity of law and as
such the same would be unenforceable by any authority or in any court of law.
The practice of Santhārā /Sallekhanā does not interfere with public order, health or
morality. Santhārā /Sallekhanā is pinnacle of glory of life and death. It is not an immolation
but promotion of soul. It is in no way a tragedy. Jainism speaks of death very boldly and in a
fearless tone. Santhārā /Sallekhana is a retreat to peace in true sense, to be oneself entirely
free from all distractions, for pure contemplation and introspection.
In the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v/s Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 S.C. 282), The Seven Judges
Constitutional Bench headed by Chief Justice Mahajan of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down as under:“Religion is a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily
theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not
believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly had its basis in a
system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as
conducive to their spiritual well being, but it will not be correct to say that religion is nothing
else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its
followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of
11
worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances
might extend even to matters of food and dress.
The guarantee under the Constitution of India not only protects the freedom of
religious opinion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion and this is made
clear by the use of the expression “practice of religion” in Art. 25. (1888) 133 US 333 (342),
Criticized; 67 Com WLR 116 (127), Appr. (Paras 17, 18)”
“Constitution of India, Art. 26(b) — What are matters of religion is primarily to be
ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion it-self. If the tenets of any religious
sect of the Hindus/Jains prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at
particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way
at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations
to the sacred fire, all these will be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they
involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable
commodities will not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic
character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion
within the meaning of Art. 26 (b) (Para 19)”
Freedom of religion in the Constitution of India is not confined to religious beliefs
only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution
itself has laid down.
Under Art. 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination or organization enjoys complete
autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to
the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere
with their decision in such matters. (Para 22)
Article 26 lays down that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall
have the right to manage its own affairs in the matter of religion.
The right is also protected under Article 29 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be
denied that Jains have their own culture and therefore any section of the citizens residing in
the territory of India having culture of its own has the right to conserve the same. The Jain
community is a religious minority community and also it is a cultural minority and therefore
it is the mandate of the Constitution that the State shall not impose upon it any other culture
which may be local or otherwise. The State has no authority to force feed Sadhak who has
taken the vow of Sallekhanā.
Apropos of the constitutionality of Santhārā /Sallekhanā, some of the other relevant
cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having a bearing on the subject, also are discusses
below.
In the case Gian Kaur v/s state of Punjab (reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 946),
the five Judges Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice J.S. Verma, decided that the
provision regarding penalizing the attempt to commit suicide was not violating the Article 21.
It was also held that the “right to live” does not include the “right to die”. However it was,
inter alia, observed by the Hon’ble Court in paragraph 21 of the judgment that:“.......................The “right to life” including the “right to live with human dignity”
would mean the existence of such the right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the
right to be dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified processor of death. In
other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is
ebbing out. .............”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court continued the theme in paragraph 22 as under:12
“A question may arise, in the context of a dying man, who is, terminally it or in a
persistent vegetative State that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction
of his life in those circumstances. This category of vases may fall within the ambit of the
‘right to die’ with dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination
of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced.
These are not cases of extinguishing life but only the accelerating conclusion of the process
of natural death which has already commenced. The debate even in such cases to permit
physician assisted termination of life is inconclusive. It is sufficient to reiterate that the
argument to support the view of permitting termination of life in such cases to reduce the
period of suffering during the process of certain natural death is not available to interpret
Article 21 to include therein the right to curtail the natural span of life.”
The latter part of the observation relates only the cases where life is sought to be
ended with the assistance of a physician. Clearly in term of the judgment, a dying person,
who is terminally ill or is in a persistent vegetating state, may be permitted to terminate his
life. This category of cases are covered by the concept of the right to die with dignity.
This issue was further considered by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
headed by Justice Katju (Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v/s The Govt. Of India and others –
2011 – Supreme Court Cases volume 4 page 454) The Hon’ble Court spelt out the process to
be followed for permitting legal passive euthanasia. However, the Hon’ble Court dealt with
only one type of passive euthanasia where the support system provided to terminally ill
patient is to be withdrawn.
Reading the two Judgments together, the following conclusion would obviously be
drawn:(a)
“Right to live” does not includes “right to die”.
(b)
In special circumstances (such as when one is terminally ill or is in a
permanent vegetative state) right to live, which also means “right to live
with dignity” includes the “right to die with dignity”.
(c)
Both these above mentioned points emanate from the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of five judges.
(d)
The judgement of the Division Bench Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
is limited only to a sub-category of the cases of passive euthanasia, when the
patient is under the support system which is to be withdrawn.
(e)
The Judgment of the Division Bench prescribing the process and does not
refer or apply to the practice of Santhārā / Sallekhanā.
The vow of Santhārā /Sallekhanā is taken only at terminal stage and therefore the
Judgment of the Five Judges applies to Santhārā /Sallekhanā as a case of a right to live with
dignity which includes the right to die with dignity.
It may also be argued that no provision of the Constitution or any ordinary law
prescribes nor any act that a person must eat or eat adequately and further that if he does not
do so, he will be liable to punishment.
The following alternative pleas are also submitted:Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is very brief and to the point. It says “Protection
of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”
The first point for consideration is that life and personal liberty are spoken of in the
same phrase. This is because the purpose of human life is completely intertwined with
personal liberty. The implication is that, if personal liberty is lost completely, with the human
13
body becomes but a shell so that no trace of agency remains, then life loses its capacity for
human expression and has no liberty left. In this case there is no liberty left to deprive.
The second point to consider is that the article states very clearly that “no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty” which means that no external agency, or third
person, except the law, can intervene to deprive a person of liberty. However, individuals are
perfectly free to circumscribe their liberty in whichever way they choose. For example, when
a person joins the Army or indeed a monastic order, he voluntarily gives up liberty. However
no person can compel an individual to do so since then it would be depriving a person of
liberty. This is the reason why assisted suicide is unconstitutional because it implicates
another person, other than the law, in the act of depriving a person of life and liberty.
The third point to note is that in the Jain traditions of sallekhana or Santhārā , this
idea of not implicating any external person, entity or agency is taken very seriously. This is
why, even poisons or other methods of quickly ending life are not permitted since they
indirectly implicate the individuals who produce, sell or otherwise procure these devices for
the person concerned. According to the shastric injunction sallekhana or Santhārā must
employ means that are hundred percent under the control of the individual and do not
implicate anybody directly or indirectly, namely the process of consuming food and water.
Many societies around the world such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and
Luxembourg permit euthanasia, where individuals can actually take a person’s life, under
certain circumstances, even without the person’s consent. This is absolutely forbidden in
Jainism.
Other societies, allow assisted suicide which is legal in Switzerland, Germany,
Albania, Japan and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and
Montana. Jainism expressly forbids assisted suicide as well, on account of the fact that it
implicates other individuals.
Jainism, therefore has the most stringent standards for permitting ending your life and
only come into play when the inalienable bond between life and liberty has ceased to exist.
As such it does not violate article 21 of the Constitution in the slightest degree.
6. Examples of Santhārā /Sallekhanā
1. The practice of Santhārā /Sallekhanā is not very limited. Dr. D.S. Baya in his book
“Death with Equanimity” analyzed 350 cases reported in papers. Copies of his
report available on pages 268 to 281 are attached. (Flag-J) In addition the following
cases are hereby added:
(1) Shri Gumanmal Couradia, a famous Jeweller of Jaipur took Santhārā in March
2009. Those who saw him were amazed with incomparable serenity on his face.
Throughout his Santhārā which lasted for some days, he himself would say the
he was in state of “Anant Anand” (Infinite Bliss). He expired after 10 days.
(2) Ācārya Hastimallji. He was a great Jain Acharya. He was having terminal illness.
He undertook Santhārā in early 1991 and he expired after 11 days. Again the
kind of serenity written large on space was beyond compare. One of the senior
most and famous Physian Dr. S.R. Mehta. (Principal of S.M.S. Medical College,
Jaipur) who happened to be present at the time of his death, publically
commented that in his entire medical carrier he had never seen such a peaceful
death.
14
***
15