Dr. Samani Shashi Pragya
A firm grasp of the Jaina view of reality (including knowledge and language) as identity-in-difference can be attempted only when we distinguish it from other views, both Indian and Western. The Vedic-Upanishadic monism advanced the philosophy of identity or absolute being; the entire play of reality was regarded, as a grand monologue of the lonely transcendental absolute, whatever be the name-Brahman, Iswara, Prakriti, God, etc. This can be called the philosophy of Being or Identity. The second typical ontological position is found in the opposite point of view, advocated by Buddhism, the philosophy of becoming or change or difference-an antithesis to the earlier one. According to them, everything is impermanent, momentary and without intrinsic substance. Reality is always in a state of flux. According to this point of view, there is no identity of absolute, but there is only difference, that too transient. This view can be called the philosophy of Becoming (Change). Between the two extremes of Vedantic monism and Buddhist 'fluxism', there were several other systems of thinking like Ramanuja's Viśistādvaita, the doctrine of identity with difference. The emphasis here is on the unchanging absolute (i.e. Brahman) that is wound up with its changing diversities; in other words, the principle of difference is subordinated to that of identity in this philosophy of subordinating Difference to Identity. In Madhva's Dvaitism existence means difference and difference means existence and it is difference that lends significance to identity and it is subordinated to difference; this is the philosophy of subordinating Identity to Difference. There were many other systems of philosophy, but since each one presented only one point of view, none could claim that they had understood all aspects of a given issue.
Jainism, on the other hand, does not propose the primacy of identity or difference, permanence or change; rather, it advocates that only a synthesis or identity and difference, permanence and change, will lead to a balanced view. This comprehensive theory is a combination of existence of reality that is very complex and its limitless manifoldness. This conception of the union of the permanent1 and 'change1 takes us to the central doctrine of Jainism, the theory of relative pluralism, as against the absolutism of the Vedic-Upanishadic view or the total flux of the Buddhists. Jain philosophy can be called the philosophy of Co-ordinating Identity with Difference.
Anekānta emphatically states that nothing can be affirmed absolutely as all affirmations are true under certain circumstances, conditions, and limitations. Anekāntavada says: All affirmations are true only in a limited sense and all things possess an infinite number of qualities and each of which can be affirmed only in a particular sense. If this is true of physical objects like a pot or an ornament, one can easily imagine the state of abstract concepts, symbolic systems like language, meanings, etc.
In recent years, the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein, a highly complex scientific theory, has been compared with the philosophical theory of relativity in Jainism. Both theories state that an object is not what it appears to be from one point of view and that the other points are not distortions or deviations. Albert Einstein himself remarked, 'We can only know the relative truth, the real truth is known only to the universal observer' {Cosmology Old and New, p. 13). In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest exponents of the theory of relativity, an object is a 'symposium of worlds presented to different view points' (Eddington 1935). He further adds 'the more viewpoints the better'. Anekāntvada views reality including things, words, language, meaning, reality, etc.-as pluralistic, many-sided or expressing itself in many forms. In other words, whatever one might say about reality, is relative. That is why, the doctrine of Jainism may aptly be called 'maybeism' or 'perhapsism'. Anekānta or the theory of manifoldness and indeterminateness is 'the ontological assumption that any entity is at once enduring and undergoing changes that is, both constant and inevitable' {Bñtannica Online Encyclopedia), Padmarajiah (1986) in A Comparative Study of the 'Jaina Theories of Reality and Knowledge - points out: 'This comprehensive theory of manifoldness is ontology or a theory of reality, as well as an epistemology or a theory of knowledge. The anekānta postulates a reality, which is immensely complex or manifold. Correspondingly, the anekānta epistemology postulates a theory of manifold methods of analysis (nāyavāda) and synthesis (syadvāda) by means of which the complex reality can be comprehended by the mind' (pp, 123-124).
It has one basic principle: co-existence, not only in pairs but also as opposing pairs. It is in the world of nature and mutual co-existence too is the Law of Nature. If there is birth, there is death; if there is light, there is darkness. If there is war, there is peace; if there is happiness, there is sadness; if there is wisdom, there is ignorance. If there is good, there is bad. That seems to be the law of nature and anekānta is an expression of that principle.
Proper understanding of the principle of anekānta or the co-existence of mutually opposing groups helps one to avoid conflicts and create a better society. There lies its application. Although Indian knowledge systems have historically influenced many Western systems like Romanticism and Postmodernism, the impact has not been fully acknowledged. But now, as in many other fields like economy, computer technology, medicine, yoga, etc., the West is being forced to accept the contribution of India. Globalization, information technology and the Internet, the rise of post-colonialism and multiculturalism, the borderless world, and such other factors have changed our perceptions. The world is no longer Euro-centric or Westo-centric. There are attempts to globalize all knowledge systems and build a world bank or a common wealth of knowledges. The universality of human experience can be captured only in 'world knowledges’. The time has come to globalize all knowledge systems and shed the epistemic dependency of the rest on the West. The focus in many fields is already shifting from the West to the rest. The world is in for convergence rather than divergence, not just based on Westernization but also on Easternization, based on the blending of both. The twain shall meet by virtue of each moving in the direction of the other and may contribute to a fusion, containing the best of both. But now, as in many fields, like economy, computer technology, medicine, yoga, etc., the West is more than willing to accept the contribution of. India in other fields too. Similarly, in the field of language philosophy too, Indians must tell the world that India's knowledge can engage the best in the West. This must be done in English because English is the world's 'window on India'. The world must know that India is the land of great philosophers like Mahavira, Buddha, Śankara and others and language philosophers like Pāṇini, Bhaṛtṛhari, Nāgārjuna, and many more. This project involves an in-depth understanding of one's own culture, heritage, philosophies, languages and literatures, language philosophies, values and knowledge systems and 'translating India' into English. These systems should be compared with the Western systems so that the world understands the depth of India's language philosophy, whereas Derrida stops with 'languageism' and thinks that there is nothing beyond language, India's language philosophers have pointed out that through yoga and meditation, it is possible to transcend the limits of language and achieve 'emancipation'. Comparative philosophy and language philosophy can prove to be very useful and effective in showing India's rich philosophical traditions in the eyes of the world and create a meeting point of the East and the West. As Coward (1990) in his book Derrida and Indian Philosophy points out, perhaps 'at some future point Jaina philosophy, especially Anekānta-vada or no-one-view philosophy, could be fruitfully taken up for comparison with Derrida' (p. 18). But, at present, this remains a relatively unexplored area.
I am glad to note that Dr. Samani Shashi Prajñā has written a book on the Applied Philosophy of Anekānta and comparing it with postmodern philosophy and tried to show how the basic principles of anekānta are found in the later theories of the West. It is very timely contribution and we need many more books like this. In one of the chapters she has also attempted a comparison of postmodernism with anekānt thus paving, a way for systems thinking and intercultural dialogue. We need many more books like Dr. Samani Shashi Prajñā's Applied Philosophy of Anekānta to stimulate research and introduction of courses in the departments of philosophy, linguistics, and other language departments. My own book "An Introduction to India's language Philosophy with a Focus on Comparative Language Philosophy" (Pearson, forthcoming) is also a similar attempt in the area of language philosophy. I do hope these efforts result in many more publications and research. I strongly recommend Samaniji's book to all research scholars and university departments. Hope it gets due attention.
Prof. N. Krishnaswamy
Former Professor,
Department of Linguistics and Contemporary English,
Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages
(now EFL University), Hyderabad, India.
