Dr. Samani Shashi Pragya
The Jaina philosopher has shown being and non-being as simultaneously true nature of a Reality and hence we cannot agree to the law of contradiction. Absolute being and absolute non-being are certainly exclusive of each other. But this is not the case with the concrete being which alone is real according to Jaina Philosopher. The field of application of the law of contradiction, therefore, should be ascertained by the observation of concrete cases in the real world. Nathmal Tatiā says," Our experience is thus the sole determinant of contradiction and no abstract logical formulas can give an insight into the nature of the concrete things of the world. Contradiction or opposition, in fact arises when there is mere conjunction and no real synthesis but the Jain doctrine of anekānta, emphasizes on the opposites which occur without mutual separation and not contrary to it. Anekāntavāda as a doctrine may find its germs here in the question and answer of the master and the disciple.
The understanding of truth has been man’s eternal quest. What is truth? What is Reality? What is its nature, this question is asked by Gautama to tīrthaṅkara Mahāvīra.
Gautama: What is truth?[1]
Mahāvīra: To be created is the essence; creation (utpāda) is the truth.
He began to analyze this statement. If, to be created were the truth, then creation would go on endlessly. The population would multiply to such an extent that there would not be even space for living beings and one would get mixed with other beings due to lack of space. Substances would merge into other substances and there would be no space for any new creation. Then there would be a problem. Having thus not understood, this answer pertaining to creation (utpāda), Gautama asked again, what is truth? Mahāvīra replied, to be destroyed (vyaya) is the truth. Again he began to critically analyze the statement to be created and to be destroyed is the truth. Once born and then dead, what else is left? The answer was still unclear to him. He asked yet again, what is truth? Lord answered; to be eternal (dhrauvya) is the truth. Gautama’s mind now focus itself. To be created, destroyed, and to remain in existence, this is the three-fold truth. Then he reflected upon this three- fold truth deeply and attained at the conclusion that truth is the conflict between the eternal and non-eternal.
Now Gautama fell into trouble, how to explain the truth, which is eternal and non-eternal by nature. How to explain the multi-faceted truth through language is the first problem. This problem was being solved by the Mahāvīra, the preceptor, by implementing minimum two nayas for explaining the nature of Reality i.e. transcendental naya and conventional naya. Athire pallotai no thire pallotai[2], it means from the transcendental point of view, Reality is eternal and from the conventional point of view reality undergoes change. Now Gautam understood the basic concept of Reality. Different thinkers have presented the different aspects of truth in their own way. The Vedānta philosophy has explained the problem from the three standpoints, namely, the ultimate, the empirical and the apparent. The Brāhmaṇa is the ultimate truth, while the sensuous world has only empirical validity. The cognition of the ‘will-o’ the wisp’ and dream is pure appearance. In Hīnayāna Buddhism the truth is of two fold, viz. ultimate and the conventional.
Arthakriyā sāmarthaṁ yat tadatra paramārtha sat,
anyat samvṛtisat proktaṁ, te svasamanyalaksane.
It means the self-nature (momentariness) of the objects is the ultimate truth on account of its being a product of the intellectual function of exclusion. So different thinkers have presented the different aspects of truth in their own way. The vednta philosophy rejected the modes as unreal, while accepting the substance alone as ultimately true. The Buddhist on the other hand, reject the substance as imaginary by accepting the reality of the modes. According to Jain logic, both the substance and the modes are ultimately true. We have experienced that change presupposes the persistence of an underlying permanence. So permanence is to be accounted as an element in a real together with the change. But change means, the cessation of a previous mode or attribute and the coming into being of a new mode. The affirmation of the triple characteristics has therefore, nothing paradoxical about it, like a Cartisean dualism.
The word ‘anekānta’ was not used by Mahāvīra and does not appear in the agamas. Siddhasena Divākara may have been the first Jain Ācārya to use this word.[3] Take, for the instance, in next sections, Mahāvīra’s responses to the questions posed by Indrabhūti Gautama, one of the twelve gaṇadharās and the principal disciples of Mahāvīra, Jayantī, a devotee, inquisitive śrāvik (lay-women) and sister of king atānīka, and Somila, a dedicated and learned śrāvaka (lay-man).
The substance present itself when our thinking is synthetic, losing all its modes and when our approach is analytical, the modes become prominent at the cost of the substance. In the formative period of anekānta, some principles of logical concomitance were discovered and that constituted an epoch-making achievement of that age. They are as follows:
Concomitance Between the Permanent and the Impermanent
The first axiom of anekānta or non-absolutism is the concomitance of the permanent and the impermanent, the truth of one is verified by the truth of the other. The anekāntic dialogue goes as,
Gautama: Is the soul permanent or impermanent?
Mahāvīra: The soul is permanent as well as impermanent.
From the substantial point of view, soul neither originates nor perishes, so it is permanent. From the conventional point of view, the modes of knowledge and intuition of consciousness (soul) originates and perishes. In case of matter also Mahāvīra said that from the above mentioned two nayas, matter is also permanent and impermanent both.[4]
Gautama understood the nature of two basic Realities namely, jiva and ajiva. So the right worldview towards the life and world of affairs aroused in him. He began to apply this formula of two fold perspectives and began to think whether the unstable changes or the stable changes. He wanted to solve this problem that origination and cessation occurs in the modes or in permanent nature of the substance. Where does the change occurs and what makes the reality to be permanent. In the quest of the truth, he had a series of conversations with the Mahāvīra regarding axiomatic nature of reality.
The following dialogue is an illustration, which throws light on the concomitance of one and many.
Concomitance of One and Many
Somila: O Lord! Are you one or many?
Lord: “I am one, in respect of substance, O Somila. However, in respect of knowledge and intuition I am two. In respect of parts (constituents of a substance). I am immutable, eternal and unchanging. I am many, in respect of the ever-changing phases of my consciousness.[5]
The nature of the substance and modes entails the relationship of one and many, universal and particular, permanent and impermanent. The substance is one while the modes are many. The substance stands for the universal and modes for the particular. The substance is eternal, while the modes are changeable.
Concomitance of the Speakable and Unspeakable
A substance is possessed of an infinite number of attributes. It is, however, not possible to express in language those infinite number of attributes taking place every moment. Besides, our span of life and also the range of language have their own limitations. A substance is unspeakable on account of this infinitude of the aspects of a thing.[6] Only one attribute can be spoken of, in one moment and many in many moments, but never all during any stretch of time. A thing is thus speakable with reference to only a limited number of its attributes.
Concomitance of Slumber State and Awakening State
Lord Mahavira himself explained many a problem by means of this method of division. Once Jayantī asked the Lord, which was better between the states of slumber and awakening? O Jayantī![7] For some souls, the slumber state is commendable, but for others, awakening is wholesome.
Why is it so, O Lord!?
The exclusive assertion of the wholesomeness of slumber or awakening would be an absolutistic answer, which was not approved by Lord Mahāvīra and he explained all the questions by means of divisions of issues avoiding exclusiveness. The empirical world is known as logically speaking, through subject and predicates; metaphysically speaking, subjects having attributes.
Concomitance of Auspicious and Inauspicious Renunciation
Gautama: If one says, I have renounced to commit violence to all pröa (two to four sensed beings i.e. mobiles), bhuta (one sensed beings i.e. plants etc. or immobiles), sattva (all first four immobile living beings), jīva (five sensed beings). Then, is such renouncement auspicious or inauspicious? Mahāvīra: In some context, it is auspicious and in other, inauspicious.
Gautama: Lord! What is the reason behind this statement?[8]
Mahāvīra: The person who is ignorant and can’t differentiate between soul and non-soul, mobile and immobile beings, such persons restrain is inauspicious restrain. Such persons don’t speak truth. But on the other hand, who has discretion between soul and non-soul, mobile and immobile brings, such persons restrain is auspicious restrain and such person always speaks truth.
Similarly, we have numerous dialogues regarding the problem, whether it is good to be weak or good to be strong?[9] Whether the souls are mobile or immobile? Whether the souls are powerful or powerless? Whether the body is identical with soul or different? And so forth. All the replies of Mahāvīra were given in anekāntic style
