Dr. Shugan Chand Jain
1.0 Reality / Sat / Existent
Umā Swāmi defines reality through its sutras
- Sad dravya lakṣaṇam i.e. substance is the indicator of real. TS 5/29
- Utpādavyayadhrauvyayukttaṅ sat’ i.e. nature of real is origination, destruction and permanence TS 5/32
- Gūṇaparyāybad dravya i.e. substance is with mode and attributes. TS 5/33
But he did not elaborate about the nature of the relationship existing between them. Kunda Kunda established the relationship between them on the basis of concomitance. According to him, “Till such time a new mode is created, the old mode cannot be destroyed. Similarly without the destruction of one mode, other mode cannot originate. Hence both of them i.e. origination and destruction have concomitance of their existence.” Similarly he related permanence to them by saying that origination and destruction can take place only when we accept existence as permanent. This can be explained easily by the following schematics for a small series of modes of an already existent object.
…………D1
O2D2
O3D3………………………………..
_________________P______________________________I.e. destruction of the previous mode and the origination of he present mode takes place at the same instance while substance is always present.
Thus according to Jain Nyāya (logic), both substance and mode are truth /real. When we are unable to visualize the substance hidden under the waves of modes, then we consider modes as primary and the substance as secondary. Similarly when in the tranquil ocean of the substance, the modes i.e. waves are quite then substance becomes primary and modes as secondary. Different philosophers have presented different views of the truth based on determinate (savikalpa) and indeterminate (nirvikalpa) knowledge. In the indeterminate experience we just come in contact with the object without knowing any specifics about it (i.e. something is there) while determinate experience being based on sensual perception results in perception of different details of the object.
The third sutra above implies that every substance has infinite modes and attributes. Further there can be pairs of opposing attributes coexistent in an entity at any given time. Samanta Bhadra in Āpta Mïmāṅsā has used permanence without origination and destruction in place of the generic attributes and origination and destruction in place of specific attributes of the entity. He has also said that origination, destruction and permanence are identical and different as shown in the following verse:
Kāryotpādaħ kṣayo hetoniryamāllakṣaṇāt pṛathak
Na tau jātyādhavasthānādanpekṣāħ khapuṣpavat
Origination and destruction of an activity is due to a cause / reason. There is a rule of causation in origination and destruction. Cause of the origination of an activity also becomes the cause of the destruction of substance/ base. Cause for the destruction of the soil becomes the cause for the origination of the pitcher. Similarly cause of the destruction of the pitcher becomes the cause for the origination of the broken pieces of the pitcher.
.
When our cognitive alternative tends to be unifying then we find the substance and mode gets lost in the background; and when the same is discriminative then the mode appears and the substance disappears in the background.
Pjjayvijudañ davvañ davvavijuttā ya pajjayā ṇatthi;
Doṇhañ aṇaṇṇabhūdañ bhāvañ samaṇā parūviñti
Pancāstikāya gāthā 12
There is not much distance between true. There is no bifurcation like one alternative is true and other is false; and that both are false if we accept that universal is independent of particular and particular is independent of universal. Both become true when they are both considered relative to each other. Similarly both become false when they start rejecting each other and become true when each starts talking of its subject/ domain.
Every object has two types of existences namely:
- Existence in its own nature (swarūpāstitva)
- Existence like similar objects (sādraśyāstitva)
Svarūpāsitva provides unique identity to the object that differentiates it from other objects belonging to similar or dissimilar classes of objects. Due to it only various modes of the object keep themselves different from the modes of other objects. Further it assists the object to maintain its identity over a period of time in all of its modes and keeps it aloof from other objects. Svarupāsitva is also called vertical universal or urghavtā sāmānya. This is called the substance as it flows through its serial modes i.e. results in its generations.
Sādraśyāstitva causes the feeling of similarities between two different objects. This is also called tiryaka sāmānya (horizontal universal) or sādraśya sāmānya. It is not correct to imagine existence of one entity or universal like cow-ness or man-ness in a number of independently existing cows and men. They cannot be accepted as the combined modes of two dissimilar substances as two objects of extremely different spaces cannot be the material cause in one mode as the spontaneous reaction takes place only after receiving an indication. A person who develops a feeling of sameness amongst many persons after observing some common parts / features amongst them can only experience existence of man-ness amongst them (due to the existence of sādraśya sāmānya amongst them). Hence we should accept existence of sādraśyāstitva as the cause of similarities amongst different objects that is present to some extent in each object. Vertical universal or svarūpāstitva had been discussed earlier and so we accept two types of universal attributes.
Similarly the part / component which cause the serial transformation from one mode to another in a substance is called particular / specific or viśeṣa. Specific / particular or viśeṣa cause the feeling of difference between two objects is called vyatireka-viśeṣa. This implies that the feeling of same in two modes of an object is due to vertical universal while the feeling of difference (like aging) in the same object is due to viśeṣa called paryāya or mode as indicated in Parīkṣamukha,
“Parāparavivartavyāpi dravyamūrghvatāmṛdiva sthāsādiṣu,
ekasmin dravye kṛmbhāvinaħ pariṇāmāħ paryāyā ātmani harṣaviṣādādivat.”
Further the feeling of sameness in two different objects is due to vertical-universal attribute and the feeling of differences amongst them is due to vyatireka-viśeṣa. This is explained in Parikṣāmukha as follows:
Sadṛśpariṇāma stiyark khandamundādiṣu gotvavat;
arth ānttaragato visadṛśapariṇāmo vyatireko gomahiṣādivat.
Hence every object in this universe is with universal and specific attributes. This is the nature of the substance by which the part causing the feeling of sameness in an object is universal and the part, which is the cause, the feeling of differences in the same is called specific.
Origination - destruction - permanence in an object relates to transformation in the object. The permanence component of the substance relates to vertical universal and the origination - destruction to viśeṣa called mode or paryāya. Past being the material cause of present and present being the material cause of future proves that the three moments are tied to the inseparable cause - effect - cause sequence. Existence of this combination of universal and specific attributes in an object indicates the existence of infinite attributes in the object.
2.0 Cognizing the Reality
Umā Swāmi in the sutra Pramāṇanayairadhigama (TS 1/6) says that the object of knowledge (prameya) can be cognized by pramāṇa (organs of valid knowledge) and naya (doctrine of viewpoints). Pramāṇa makes the entire truth as its prameya while naya makes only a part of truth its prameya. For people like us we have to use naya doctrine to cognize an object as per our objectives. This sutra also forms the basis of the doctrine of Anekānta or multiplicity of viewpoints. To know any entity, we have to view it from at least two viewpoints as follows:
Here we have interchangeably used modal and practical views; substance and transcendental viewpoints. However Nayacakra in verse 182-183 says that transcendental and practical viewpoints are the main viewpoints while substance and modal viewpoints are the means to know them respectively. This appears to be so as we see use of transcendental and practical viewpoints used primarily in spiritual discussions (adhyātma) while substance and modal viewpoints used in canonical literature. This justifies their use in canonical literature as means to learn and experience spiritualism. Thus these are the two ways / methods of explaining the same concept / entity.
Today we shall discuss the transcendental, some times referred as absolute viewpoint also, and practical viewpoints to develop a better understanding of pure soul and empirical soul. Ācāryas Kunda Kunda in Niyama Sāra and Samaya Sāra, and Samanta Bhadra in Āpta Mïmāṅsā have used these extensively to make the reader appreciate and understand this difficult topic so that the Jain concept of pure and empirical soul is understood clearly.
Transcendental viewpoint looks at an entity without breaking the same in parts and as per its true nature and without the impact of other entities. On the other hand practical viewpoint keeps on differentiating (or breaking it into parts) an entity and impact of other entities on it so that its true nature can be understood properly. In short we can say the following main features of the two viewpoints:
For example, we call the tree of almonds, almond with the kernel and shell as almond also even though only the kernel of almond is of use to us and is the real almond. Similarly we call our body, family and house as ours or us even though only our pure soul (sometimes embodied with karmika impurities also) as us. Even at this stage, like almond with the peel, the empirical soul is bonded with external matter and so it is only pure soul we are interested in. Thus the pure soul becomes the subject of transcendental viewpoint while all other transformations or manifestations of pure soul with other karmika matter bonded with it are the subjects of practical viewpoint. Pure soul is therefore called to have transcendental or eternal existence. It is worthwhile to see the distinctions of empirical and pure soul for different attributes as placed in Annexe 1.
From the table we see that pure soul and empirical soul, both being non-concrete and slightly concrete, cannot be a subject of sensual perception. Hence we base our knowledge about them through their association with matter as material body and thus say sometimes that body and soul is same. This statement is from practical viewpoint to use body as a means to go deeper and understand and experience the empirical soul first and then the pure soul. Similarly attributes of pure soul like infinite perception, knowledge and conduct are referred as the path of attaining pure soul status. We can discuss other attributes shown in table from both transcendental and practical viewpoints accordingly.
As per definition of viewpoint doctrine, the intention of the knower is very important. So a person whose objective is to attain pure soul status has to view the soul from pure soul status only and perform activities of conduct, knowledge acquisition etc so that he can experience the attributes of pure soul and move forward to achieve that status completely. On the other hand in our day-to-day worldly lives, we have to know the means i.e. right knowledge, belief and conduct and practice them to achieve our worldly objectives while keeping the nature of pure soul in mind. For example to succeed in our profession we must have faith in our own resources, capabilities; acquire the knowledge of the business i.e. what it is, its scope and competition, money involved, technology and management skills needed; and then start acquiring knowledge and perform activities. This is what Jain path of purification i.e. right belief - knowledge - conduct together is the path to attain liberation is all about. One has to make efforts to succeed in its objectives.
It is important to keep in mind that on their own both transcendental and practical viewpoints are incomplete and not the whole truth. Jain logicians like Kunda Kunda, Siddha Sena, Samant Bhadra and Hema Candra have even kept consideration of just one viewpoint as perverted or mithyā knowledge. Like the ocean when its waves are influenced by movements of air and celestial bodies, then waves, like modes become primary and the peaceful ocean beneath i.e. transcendental viewpoint becomes secondary but both co-exist. Similarly when the ocean is calm and quiet then the peaceful state becomes primary and the stormy or wave formations become secondary. However one has to be careful as to when to focus on one or the other viewpoint, e.g. we must know when to get on and get off the boat while crossing a river lest we either do not cross the river or get drowned in the river. (gāthā 12 SS).
Coming back to empirical and pure soul again, it is interesting to note that empirical soul is said to be the doer/ agent and enjoyer of its karmas (practical viewpoint) while pure soul is the doer and enjoyer of its own nature (transcendental viewpoint). Here the implication is that the empirical soul, because of its association with karmic matter is influenced by, influences the external entities i.e. karmic matter either bonded with it or likely to be bonded with it or to be separated from it and even other living beings. It is this concept, which is of paramount importance in Jain path of spiritual purification i.e. the pure soul dissociates itself completely from karmic bondage. Similarly the Jain doctrine of Karma is detailed on the basis of the influence of matter karmas on various attributes and dispositions of the soul.
3.0 Types of Transcendental and Practical Viewpoints
Jain logic is based on detailed analysis of an entity. Similarly the intentions of innumerable people to know an entity can be innumerable. Therefore Siddha Sena even went to the extent of saying that there are as many viewpoints as the number of entities and their modes and the knower. However for the sake of ease in understanding they are all clubbed under these two viewpoints. Jain logicians have gone a step further and divided each viewpoint in two further categories as follows:
By the very definition of transcendental viewpoint, we cannot think of different limbs or parts / classifications of this viewpoint. However different ācāryas have referred to it by different names such as pure (śuddha), impure (aśuddha), supreme (param śuddha) and true (bhutārtha) transcendental viewpoints after making some additions to the explanations given earlier. Later on they started using them as different types of transcendental viewpoints also. For our discussions, we shall not go in details of these different types of viewpoints.
Coming to practical viewpoint, it is possible to divide it in different types according to our intention and the infinite existences to be cognized and their utility. Broadly it is divided in two types namely Sadabhuta or and asadabhuta. In sadabhuta we talk of vertical universal (feeling of same in two modes of an object) attributes and serial transformation from one mode to another in a substance (called particular / specific or viśeṣa) like ageing. In Asadabhuta we talk of similarities and differences of one entity with others like herd of cows, forest having many types of tree and plantations and animals. However it is be noted that practical viewpoint is used only to improve our understanding the attributes and nature of an entity and carry on our day to day life by discriminating between good and bad. Other Jain texts have further classified practical viewpoint on different basis as of 4, 7, 46 and innumerable. The most popular classification used is of seven viewpoints, which shall be discussed as a separate lecture later on under the topic epistemology.
Annexure 1 Soul / soul Jīva
Distinguishing quality: Sentiency (cetana).
Number: Infinite
Quality
Empirical soul
Sañsari jīva 6Pure soul
Mukta jīva 6Remarks
Manifestation of consciousness (upyoga)
Vision, knowledge
Omniscient Consciousness
Empirical Soul has its knowledge and vision obscured by respective karmas while pure soul is just knowledge and vision.
Lives (Jītā heiñ)
Senses, age, power, breathe.
Non concrete
Pure soul was empirical soul in the past.
Non concrete (amūrtika)
YES But looks like concrete due to karmic bondage.
YES
Pure soul has consciousness as its life and enjoys its own nature.
Agent / Doer (Kartā)
Of matter karmas due to activities of mind, body and speech.
Of its own nature (svabhāva) i.e. infinite vision, knowledge, bliss and power
Empirical soul wth matter karmas behaves like matter; interacts with matter, attracts them towards it and bonding them with its own space points (vibhāva).
Enjoyer (Bhokttā)
Of results of its actions pain, pleasures of matter karmas.
Consciousness and of its own nature only.
Size (svadeha parimāna)
Adapts to the size of the matter body- associated with it except at the time of changing mode (samudaghāta).
Slightly less than the last human body it owned. Fixed.
Soul is owner of countless space points and adjusts itself to any size due to the karmas associated with it. Pure soul has no karmas bonded and is hence of constant size.
Existence
Exists everywhere in the cosmos in different forms / modes and capabilities.
Only at the summit of cosmos. Does not move from there.
The empirical soul is born as beings in human, sub-human, hellish & heavenly forms according to its karmas and accordingly exists at appropriate place in cosmos.
Upwards movement* (urdhva gamana)
Has the capability. Is the nature of pure Soul
Stationery, does not move.
Pure soul just stays at the summit of cosmos, as there is no dharma and adharma dravya beyond that. Empirical soul due to its bondage with karmas, does not do so always
Anekāntavāda - Non-one-sidedness
Truth is knowledge of reality. According to Jaina philosophy, truth is a vast and wondrous complexity. However, reality is extremely difficult to fully grasp because of its four aspects:
We often see some individuals pushing what they feel is the only correct point of view. The dogma monger sees his or her perspective on human experience and the world as the only one that matters or makes sense. He tends to dismiss, ridicule or condemn those holding a different perspective. He may also prompt antagonism. In doing so he commits violence against others in his thoughts and speech, which all too often leads to physical violence by people mistaking dogma for intelligence.
We’ve heard that in order to understand things as they truly are we need to be “objective”. However, unless we know how to detach ourselves from the things we wish to understand and comprehend that true objectivity starts with letting go all of our forgone views and biases, we can never be objective. We are each clouded by an environment that prejudices us, by past experiences that have shaped us, and by fixed ideas about the world that seem to make sense in our limited minds.
If we would approach our own natural omniscience we could fully comprehend this great universe. We would see the origins and destinies of every soul and substance, including our own selves. Persons who have attained such autonomy and whom Jains refer to as Jinas or Kevalins, experience this state of omniscience at all times.
We, however, aren’t quite there yet. Our situation is different. Our five senses are our indirect means to knowledge, but whatever they may grasp is always partial, and not always reliable. We see this partiality in the proverbial study of an elephant by seven blind men. Each man touches only part of the elephant and concludes that the creature is like a tree trunk, a rope, a fan, a wall, and so on. The same applies to our views and beliefs. We worldly souls tend not to rise above the limitations of our senses and experiences. So, our individual concepts of reality are not just incomplete, they are valid only from a particular point of view.
“Absolute truth” cannot be grasped from any one point of view, by itself, because any viewpoint is dependent on the time, place, nature and state of both the viewer and whatever is being viewed. Hence, we can point to infinity of partially valid perspectives. What appears true from one point of view is open to question from another. Naturally, we need to benefit from the labors of seeing things from different perspectives - including ones we might not prefer initially - in order to gain any kind of realistic impression.
This attitude begins a science of thinking called Anekāntavāda, which is the principle of “non-one- sidedness”. Anekāntavāda is an informed and engaging method of reason. Such a principle does not ask us to try balancing in our minds a “multiplicity of viewpoints” regardless of whether they hold merit or not. It is also not the same as “relativism” or “non-absolutism”, meaning the belief in no absolutes. Rather than denying the existence of absolute truth, Anekāntavāda only reaffirms it - but with the cutting admission that truth is such an intricate and many-ended thing that no single belief system, no tower of dogma, no “grand unifying theory”, and no faith or religion can ever do it justice.
Exploring the idea’s four components will further reveal its meaning:
Together they mean non-one-sidedness. A remarkable term it might seem but its tremendous practicality is for any of us seeking to learn reason, investigate, theorize, visualize, systemize, solve or understand some issue, something, or someone.
Non-one-sidedness is the principle of not settling for just one single conclusion about the truth or untruth of a given statement, or about the actual nature or makeup of an object or thing. While the whole truth about anything is a wide and complex reality, a particular object or issue of interest can be anything we choose: the mind of a person, a philosophy, an event, a physical object, or any claim such as, “The universe is infinite,” or “Man has free will,” or “War is a necessary evil,” or “Emotional stress causes cancer,” or “Corporations are beneficial to society”, or “Light is composed of energy particles,” or anything else more simple or complex.
And why not be satisfied making just one conclusion about these things, whatever that conclusion may be?
To help us see why, first let’s simplify our words a bit. We’ll use the term “picture” or “big picture” to stand for the full, unobstructed truth about the given statement or object, with all its broad aspects and its tiny intricacies. “Angle” will denote our one chosen way of looking into or investigating that big picture, and the word “part” will simply mean that limited area of the big picture that we see from one particular “angle”, perspective, or point of view.
Just like every one of the seven blind men, any single perspective that we might take is inherently blind to some part, or many parts, of the big picture. Being attached to just one set of criteria for judging the truth or validity of something tends to distort our perception of it, by making other relevant facts and other possible criteria seem less significant to us, or by excluding them from our thinking altogether. If we would actually see and be aware of those other parts of the picture, we would also see that they could be crucial to the validity of whatever conclusion we might draw.
One conclusion, by itself, can be the result of only one single investigation coming from one way of perceiving or approaching the reality or situation at hand. If one blind man investigates only the elephant’s leg, and on that basis alone decides an elephant is like a tree trunk, he would be partly right but mostly wrong.
That is because any one way of looking at things almost always leaves out some or most aspects of whatever is actually and fully going on in the big picture. Doing any observation or analysis based on the limited part of the picture we’re able to grasp at one given time - what little bit of the proverbial “elephant” we can observe in just one attempt - leads to only one limited conclusion, which often appears wrong from a different angle, or way, of studying the picture. A single conclusion, by itself, is usually a mere part of the whole truth because it comes from a study of only part of the big picture.
In other words, there’s a lot more to a great big elephant than just a leg that feels like a tree, or an ear that feels like a fan, or a tail that feels like a rope. It is clear that just one way of looking at an object or a statement, and just one investigation based upon that one way or theory, and just one judgment about the object or statement derived from that one single investigation just isn’t enough!
Say we even try to see the reality from a very wide angle, thinking that this way we will get a sense of the big picture. Even then, because we are not yet perfect and all knowing, we typically miss important details and nuances that would impact the validity of the conclusion we would draw from seeing the matter so broadly. And on the other hand, when we look only at details, we obviously lose perspective on the larger system or grand scheme of things.
Non-one-sidedness is a solution. To really understand something as fully as we can, first we need the steel to set aside and relax (but not discard) our initial biases, preconceptions, paradigms and theories. This means among other things that we shouldn’t shrink from considering either the fine details or the broad generalizations.
We set out to do one investigation after another, multiple inquiries into our object, statement or issue of interest -each investigation or observation done from a different perspective, angle, paradigm or theory.
In order to accomplish this we simply change our position, meaning we put ourselves in different shoes or we adopt a totally new or different method of investigation (depending on the kind of subject matter we’re dealing with). We shift our sights to as many different perspectives as we are able to discover or synthesize. At each unique angle we stop for the opportunity to do a brand new observation or analysis, each one leading us to perhaps a new and unique conclusion.
Then, we consider each conclusion that we are able to draw as one partial truth, as one aspect, dimension, sampling or part of the whole truth about the object or statement. At last we have the more involved intellectual job of attempting to integrate together each of those partial truths into a more complete understanding of the big picture. We use each conclusion - each anta, or boundary - to help structure a whole new concept of what the object under study, or the statement under analysis, entails. We might not get the big picture quite right the first time we try integrating all the partial truths we have derived. But that only means we need to continue the process. The more different perspectives we adopt, and the more different independent investigations we do, the more different conclusions we will gain, and the more deeply and comprehensively we are bound to understand. The more powerful will be our information, our ability to analyze, our solutions and our creativity.
Non-one-sidedness multiplies the freedom of the mind. Jains see even this principle from more than one angle. Its two philosophical developments are known as Nayavāda, which is the scrutiny of contentions through a variety of specific perspective modes, and Syādvāda, which is the truth-analysis of any given statement using disparate combinations of
While academic in nature, these methods of insight are a major contribution to epistemology and logic.
Anekāntavāda is intellectual humility that empowers the user. It is an essential part of being non-violent in our thoughts and words. It shows us why we shouldn’t wed ourselves to rigid opinions that disconnect us from reality and stifle the pursuit of fuller understanding. It also demonstrates why we should not cower to ambiguous or nihilistic positions with little or no sense of right and wrong. Non-one-sidedness encourages us to examine and be critical of all beliefs and claims from many different angles, helping us recognize the value of others’ views and opinions as well as the limitations of our own. This means respecting a person’s individuality by discovering his or her concept of the world and trying to see things through that model.
Fostered by a mature view of human experience, on a different level Jains are able to appreciate the sincere insights of those who may interpret Jain ideas in new or innovative ways.