Dr. Samani Shashi Pragya
The doctrine of anekānta forms the corner-stone of Jain philosophical thinking. According to the Jainas, we find a multiplicity of reals in the world and each object of knowledge is found to be endowed with infinite characteristics. The infinite number of characteristics, though appear to be mutually contradictory, are, in fact, the inalienable part of a real. As a matter of fact, a real is an integrated whole of infinite qualities or attributes. They do certainly, say the Jainas, co-exist in the same object. This co-existence of mutually opposed characteristics should be accepted as a reality. This is the intrinsic nature of the reality. If we deny this, then there arise various sorts of complications and confusions, which lead to conflicts, strifes and tensions. Seeing widely differing theories in the same subject one is apt to get confused, hardly knowing which of them represents the correct position. Here anekāntavāda comes to our aid and rescue, and provides an amicable solution to controversies.
The doctrine of anekānta forms the corner-stone of Jain philosophical thinking. Hence, the first volume is devoted to the study of the different aspects of this important doctrine of Jaina philosophy. It is the prerogative of the human being to know the truth and also to express it. According to the Jainas, we find a multiplicity of reals in the world and each object of knowledge is found to be endowed with infinite characteristics. The infinite number of characteristics, though appear to be mutually contradictory, are, in fact, the inalienable part of a real. As a matter of fact, a real is an integrated whole of infinite qualities or attributes. They do certainly, say the Jainas, co-exist in the same object. This co-existence of mutually opposed characteristics should be accepted as a reality. This is the intrinsic nature of the reality. If we deny this, then there arise various sorts of complications and confusions, which lead to conflicts, strifes and tensions. Seeing widely differing theories in the same subject one is apt to get confused, hardly knowing which of them represents the correct position. Here anekāntavāda comes to our aid and rescue, and provides an amicable solution to controversies.
Ken Wilber says that one can notice that all spatial and directional dimensions have opposites: up vs. down, Inside vs. outside, high vs. low, long vs. short, north vs. south, big vs. small, here vs. there, top vs. bottom, left vs. right etc. All the things we consider serious and important are one pole of a pair of opposites: good vs. evil, life vs. death, pleasure vs. pain, freedom vs. bondage. So also our social and aesthetic values are always put in terms of opposites: success vs. failure, beautiful vs. ugly, strong vs. weak, intelligent vs. stupid. Even our highest abstractions rest on opposites. Logic, for instance, is concerned with the true vs. false, epistemology, with appearance vs. Reality, massive collection of opposites. It is certainly true that some of the things which we call opposites appear to co-exist in nature.[1] Modern physics, in short proclaims that reality can only be considered a union of opposites. In Von Bert Alanffy’s phrase, ‘anekant’ is nothing but, complementary aspects of the two opposites, one and the same reality. When we acknowledge of the two opposites but ignore their inner unity, we see that the opposites are just two different names for one process.[2] The theory of anekānta means acceptance of co-existence of all events or opposite paryāya-s, in historical narrative.[3] Galera rightly says that life and universe is nothing but a delicate balance of opposing forces, conflicting particles, contrasting energies and divergent view points, no adjective, no verb exists in this entire world, which does not have an antonym. Without the pairing opposite the world will lose its meaning.[4]
Contemporary science also tells us that if there is a universe, there has to be an anti-universe. If there is a particle, there has to be an anti-particle too. If there is an atom, there is an anti-atom also. If there is substance, there is anti-substance too. Every object is connected to its opposite object. In the quest for anti-particles, scientists have used micro-instruments as tools. A micro instrument was invented which could measure the subtle changes taking place in the 15th billion part of one second. Then the anti-particle was found. Today it is more than established that without the anti-particle, the particle would have no existence. It is mandatory for both to exist. Ācārya Mahāprajña says, “The basic principle of anekānta is the acceptance of the existence of opposition. Anekānta is built on this.[5] Truth is multifaceted and hence there are many aspects of it and many angles to observe it.[6]
Thus our entire existence is characterized by opposing pairs. It is a common question in the minds of many that the assertion of anekānta as both being and non-being is self-contradictory. In our day-to-day experience we perceive these two opposing ideas one and at the same time. The above mentioned examples of co-existence of opposing pairs proves that they are real nature of the subject or the object. Co-existence of opposing qualities don't oppose each other but are complement and supportive to one another. We must not only learn to tolerate our differences, we must welcome them as the richness and diversity, which can lead us to true intelligence as rightly said by Albert Einstein. Co-existence implies tolerance and freedom of thought. Both tolerance and freedom of thought are meaningless if we try to enforce our likes, ideas, life-style and principles on all others. Beauty will lose all its charms and meaning, if all plants, trees and flowers look alike. The combined principle of satyaṁ (truth), shivaṁ (benefaction), sundaraṁ (beauty) adheres in the principle of unity in diversity and diversity in unity. It is only the above harmony which forms the basis of co-existence. We see others through the stereotype mindset. Empathy makes us to know that the other is not an object, but a breathing, thinking, feeling subject like ourselves.
