Civilization from Discord to Reconciliation
(With
special reference to Jain theory of Anekāntavāda)
Anekant Kumar Jain,New Delhi
We are
inhabitants of the same planet and share a common solar system. All of us are
being affected by inter-planetary radiation and all of us are in need of a
proper atmosphere and ecological cover. This natural state has given birth to
the feeling of coexistence. Nature dictates that we cannot but live together.
There are indeed impediments to the fulfillment of this natural requirement.
These impediments are less natural and geographic but more artificial and
imaginary. We have accumulated in our minds several notions and beliefs which
have cut off our direct contact with reality. We see distorted images through
the spectacles of these false notions and beliefs. One harmful consequence is
that we have raised huge artificial walls between man and man making it
impossible for one man to see, know and understand another. Differences of
race, colour and religion constitute an unholy trinity that has so divided humanity
as to make hostility among men appear more real than friendship. It is this
hostility which has vitiated the natural concept of coexistence. How ironical
that we have to make strenuous efforts to make people understand the principle
of world Peace and friendship, whereas no effort whatsoever is required to make
them understand strife and unrest!
The
Teerthankar of Jain religion Lord Mahavira was a towering personality who has
left a lasting impact in the form of his teachings for the spiritual advancement
of the individual, protection and conservation of all forms of life, and a
rational, just, peaceful and secular social order. The teachings of Lord
Mahavira are as useful and timely as they were 2600 years ago. He put forward
the doctrine of Anekāntavād that is many-sidedness. He always advised his
disciples to discover the truth after taking into account all aspects and
giving them due weight. This broadens one's outlook and trains the mind to
accommodate the feelings and the way of life of other faiths and communities. Anekāntavāda encourages interpersonal and
communal harmony by promoting tolerance in the community. The same principle of
tolerance can be extended to intellectual, social, religious and other fields
of activities. Tolerance as enunciated by Anekāntavād will end all inter-caste
strife and communal violence. Anekāntavād is thus the pillar of religious and
social harmony and the sheet anchor of secularism. Anekāntavād ensures peaceful
coexistence of all shades of philosophical and religious opinions, paths as
well as their followers. Mahavira regarded the individual and his social
responsibilities as the key to the progress of both the individual and the
society. They point to a new era of hope and promise for the masses delivering
social equality, Anekāntavād, empowerment of women, nonviolence, tolerance and
social justice.
1. Doctrine of Anekāntavād:
A systematic formulation of
Anekāntavāda is found in Samantabhadra’s Āpta Mīmāńsā (3-4th cen. A.D.).
However, the doctrine is so assimilating that it has given rise to various
interpretations.
It will be interesting to see a few of
them:
a)
Anekāntavāda: - An + eka + anta + vāda, i. e. not –one –sided – statement. ,
i.e. many sided exposition. It is a statement made after taking into account
all possible angles of vision regarding any object or idea. In this sense,
Anekāntavāda is a theory of many-sidedness or
Manifoldness
of reality.
b)
Anekāntavāda: - An + ekānta + vāda, i. e. not categorically asserted
philosophical position. In this sense, it stands for the philosophy of
non-absolutism.
c) In some
other sense, it stands for the theory of manifoldness, which is different from
a philosophy of indetermination or that of dubiety.
In
order to understand the scope and denotation of Anekāntavāda, it is useful to
make a distinction between two senses of the term. In the first place, the term
is used to denote the Jain metaphysical doctrine, or the Jaina view of Reality.
The Janis holds that Reality is manifold; each substance does have infinite
qualities and modifications. According to them, each substance has a
multi-faceted nature, consists of diverse forms and modes, of innumerable
aspects. In this sense, the term can be correctly translated as ‘the theory of
manifoldness of reality’. However, the term Anekāntavāda is also used for the
Jaina philosophical method, which allows for reconciliation, integrations and
synthesis of conflicting philosophic views. Janis argues that different
philosophers, when they construct different philosophical systems, emphasize
different ‘standpoints’.
They
further point out that as long as we emphasize one aspect or standpoint , while
being fully aware that this is only one out of many, equally viable
standpoints, we employ a right philosophical method. But when we emphasize only
one standpoint by excluding all others, we employ an incorrect philosophic
method. The aim of Anekānta philosophy is to expose an incorrect philosophic
method and isolate and identify the right philosophical method. To use other words,
Anekāntavāda is that method of philosophy, which recognizes all the
philosophical theories to be the partially true expressions of reality (S.S.
Divakara’s Sanmati Tarka).
As
every theory is true partially, and not exclusively, there is no perfect theory
of reality. The perfect view of Reality will be obtained only by recognizing
that our theory is one of the many theories that are equally (partially) true.
In this sense, Anekāntavāda advocates a sort of relativistic approach to
reality and denies supremacy to any one view about reality.
2.
Philosophical approach of Anekāntavāda (Multisideness)
According to Jain metaphysics, the reality is constituted
by innumerable material and spiritual substances, each of which is the locus of
innumerable qualities. Not only are there innumerable substances, each with
innumerable quality, but each quality is susceptible to an infinite number of
modifications. Clearly ordinary knowledge (non-omniscient) cannot comprehend
this complex reality, for ordinary knowledge is limited not only by the limited
power of the senses and reason, but also by the perspectives adopted by the
knower as well as by the conditions of the space, time, light, and so on.
Recognizing the incredibly rich and complex nature of
reality, Jains developed the concept of
"Many-sidedness" (Anekāntavāda) of existence in opposition to
their opponent’s claims that Brahman alone, because it is permanent and
unchanging, is ultimately and absolutely real or that, as the Buddhist claimed,
nothing is permanent, and the changing process are the only reality. ‘Anekāntavāda’ considers the third alternative faultless--neither
'this' nor 'that' but 'this as well as that'. In philosophy both eternalism (permanent) and non eternalism are acceptable. Anekāntavāda
will consider neither blameless. When both are integrated as 'eternalism-cum-non
eternalism' we get the third alternative which is blameless. What things are in the substance are in themselves, as
substance, is permanent. But the forms or modes of these substances are
continuously changing.
Emphasizing the
limits of ordinary knowledge, Jainism developed the theory that truth is
relative to the perspective (naya) from which it is known. Furthermore, because
of reality is many sided and knowledge true only from a limited perspective,
all knowledge claims are only tentative (syat) having the form, "X may be
Y," rather than "X is Y."
3. Limited Perspectives.
The limitations of knowledge are illustrated with a popular
Jain story, involving five blind man and elephant. A king once brought five
blind men into his courtyard where he had fastened a large elephant and asked
them to tell him what it was. Each man touched the elephant, and on the basis
of their perspective, told the king that he knew this thing to be. The fist
felt the trunk and declared that it was a huge snake. The second touched the
tail and said it was a rope. The third felt the leg and called it a tree trunk.
The fourth took hold of and ear and called it a winnowing fan, while the fifth
felt the side of elephant and declared it to be a wall. Because each insisted
that his claim was correct and truly described the object in question, the five
men were soon in the middle of heated argument, unable to resolve the dispute
because they failed to recognize that each of their claims was true only from
limited perspective.
Like the blind men, each person perceives things only from
their own perspective. These perspectives are determined by many factors,
including sociocultural conditioning, particular place, time, light, hopes,
fears and, of course, subject to the limitation of our sensory receptors and
reasoning power. A person seeking profit sees everything in terms of gains and
losses; and insecure person sees threats everywhere and person devoted to God sees
everything as God’s blessed creation.
When it is understood that knowledge is limited by the
particular perspectives from which it is achieved, it becomes easy to see that
knowledge claims are conditioned by the limitation of the perspective that it
assumes and should always be expressed as only tentatively true. Just as the
blind men should have been more circumspect, saying for example, "Standing
here, feeling the object with my hands, it feels like a winnowing fan. It may
be a winnowing fan," so should everyone understand that their knowledge
claims should be asserted only conditionally.
4. An
experiment with Anekāntavāda
4.1. Co-existence
i. Philosophical aspect:
Everything has countless pairs of opposites. They exist together.
ii. Practical aspect: It is
possible for two individuals with opposite views to live together. The beauty
of this world lies in the principle of let us co-exist. Therefore don't think
of destroying your opponent. Define the limits and let them stay within them
--you within yours and him within his. Don't transgress the limits.
iii. Reinforcing practice aspect: Opposition is a mental construct. It is this that is the main
obstacle to coexistence. If we sublimate the emotions of fear and hatred, this
obstacle will be automatically removed. For the sublimation of emotions
repeated mental reflection on coexistence is essential.
4.2.
Reconciliation
i. Philosophical aspect: No
idea can be wholly true. It is partly true. Try to discover the truth in other
man's idea even as you regard your own idea as true. It is a sheer obduracy to
consider one's own idea as absolutely true and the other's idea as absolutely
untrue. Such an obduracy or false insistence leads one to falsehood. The way to
discover truth is lack of false insistence. A man devoid of false insistence
can seek reconciliation between opposite views.
ii. Practical aspect: Obdurate
attitude is mainly responsible for sectarian provocations. One sect is not
ready to accept the partial trueness of views held by another sect. Acharya
Vinoba once wrote "I agree that the Gita has profoundly influenced
me. Next to that is the influence of Lord Mahavira, the reason being my
complete belief in his teachings." Mahavira has directed people to accept
the truth (satyagrahi). Today everywhere we encounter satyagrahis -- followers
of a policy of passive resistance as advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. I was also
made a Satyagrahi by Gandhiji. But I knew who I was--not a Satyagrahi
but a Satya-grahi (one who accepts the truth). Every man carries a
part of the truth in him, which is what makes his life worthwhile. It follows
that one should be prepared to accept each such part of the truth as a
particular religion, creed. We should become satyagrahi (accepters of
truth). It is this teaching of Mahavira which has influenced me most next only
to the Gita."
iii. Reinforcing practice aspect: A man with 'reptilian brain' is always ready to spread sectarian
and racial hatred. Its evil effects can be mitigated through persistent
efforts. For begetting an awareness of reconciliation one has to mentally
reflect on reconciliation.
5.
Anekāntavādaa and Non-Violence
The world we
live in is dualistic, compound of separateness and oneness. The latter lies
concealed, the former manifests itself clearly. Men differ from one another in
several ways:
i. Differences of beliefs and concepts
ii. Differences of ideas
iii. Differences of taste
iv. Differences of temperament
v. Differences of emotion
5.1 Violence and exclusive or one-sided
viewpoint
The more
intense the emotion, the more compulsive becomes false tenacity and obduracy
based on one-sidedness. And false tenacity and obduracy based on one-sidedness
are the main characteristics of violence. Violence is not confined to armament
and war. Family quarrels, bitterness in human relations, racial, sectarian and
regional conflicts, separatist thinking are forms of incipient violence which
ultimately lead to armament and war. Disarmament and banning of wars are good
principles, but we will have to first pay attention to the basic causes of
violence. False tenacity pushes a nation into cruelty and opens the doors to
violence. To reduce false tenacity Anekāntavāda provides an important
alternative.
6. Anekāntavāda and Terrorism (Aatankvād)
Violence begets violence. Nobody can win lasting
peace by use of force. The Chinese president while visiting US presented the
book ‘How to win war without fighting by Lao Tse’. In our own time, we have
seen Mahatma Gandhi using Ahiṃsā and anekānta win freedom for India. To end
terrorism, we have to first become self sufficient and confident or have faith
in our belief so that we can defend ourselves in all situations, understand the
view points of all and use education, dialogue to resolve differences using the
technique of give and take. Ahiṃsā and Anekānta (existence of opposing forces,
reconciliation) will bring us closer to solving this problem.
7. Anekāntavāda and Tolerance:
The dictionary meaning of ‘Tolerance’ exposes the
negative aspect of acceptance in a dominant manner. If tolerance is taken to
mean ‘ability or capacity to tolerate’, it will point to toleration out of
compulsion, out of helplessness or out of dire need of survival. For example,
tolerating the baddies in the classroom or undisciplined behavior or even the
notorious people in the society. It may even indicate the attitude of treating
the other person with condemnation or the attitude of superiority complex and
treating other as inferior, e.g. rich people tolerating poor people, scholars
in the class tolerating the mediocre students, powerful nations tolerating
weak, underdeveloped countries etc. However the doctrine of Anekāntavāda is
based on the definition of reality as existent (substance is the indication of
existent, existent is with origination, destruction and permanence and
substance is with attributes and modes). Thus Anekāntavāda is a philosophy of
intermixture and tolerance (better known as reconciliation to the existence of
opposite attributes simultaneously) and presupposes balanced and equitable
thinking rather than from a position of strength or weakness .Thus it would be
wrong to equate Anekāntavāda with such negativity, because, Anekāntavāda does
not reflect negativity. It does not indicate the falsity or invalidity of any
theory, but emphasizes the element of truth in every theory. Its focus is on
pointing out the extent of acceptability of every view rather than bringing out
the reasons for denial. And the reason for the emphasis on positivism is that,
every theory, according to Anekāntavāda, is only a partial
description/exposition of reality.
Hence,
it cannot be regarded as the view that holds the capacity to ‘tolerate’ the
other views, but rather it can correctly be described as that view which treats
all other views, including itself, with equanimity. In holding such temper of
equanimity, Anekāntavāda demands surrender of undue pride in one’s own existence
and supremacy and tend to develop humility and senses of respect towards other
perspectives. In the present circumstances of communal disturbances and
religious tensions everywhere, Anekāntavāda can be applied as a paradigm to
solve these battles. It can be convinced to the classes and masses that all
religions are different pathways to the same goal, and that there is no room
for superiority or inferiority of any religion. All religious faiths are
equally respectable. The theory can be applied to many spheres of life where
there are battles arising out of misunderstanding. And it can be well
understood that it is the theory advocating equanimity among and respect
towards all the possible alternatives, rather than the ability to ‘tolerate’.
Similarly in our democratic form of government, doctrine of Anekāntavāda is
very important for both the ruling and opposition parties to accept existence
of each as real and learn to live with each other in a logical and peaceful
manner. Samantbahdra gave an excellent example to show application of
Anekāntavāda to develop tolerance.
“The
king wanted his crown of gold to be melted and made into bangles for princes.
The prince became sad and the princess became happy but the king was neither
happy nor sad as he saw gold in both the situations while the prince saw loss
of crown and the princess gain of bangles.’ Thus Anekāntavāda is a theory of
tolerance in the broadest sense of the term.
The significant sutra or aphorism of Anekāntavāda is balance .That
man should not tilt in one direction .The scale of the balance should not be
heavier on one side. Both the sides should be in balance .If one side
represents the fixed, the other the variable, then we should move ahead taking
both into consideration.
Reference books, webs and articles:
1.Mahavira's Message Of Ahimsa & Anekant - The Times of
India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion
/edit-page/Mahaviras-Message--Of-Ahimsa-Anekant-/articleshow/36151960.cms#ixzz1AWbTBYHS
2. Peace and Ahimsa (non violence) in
life New Year’s message - 2009 by
his holiness Acharya mahapragya.
3. Non-violence
and Its Many Facets -by Acharya Mahapragya
4. World Peace
and Non-violence-Ganadhipati Tulsi
5. Comprehensive
concept of Ahimsā and its application in real life- D.R. Mehta
6. Ahiṃsā /
Non violence; its dimensions and practices -Dr. Shugan Chand Jain
7. Jain
Theory of Tolerance-Dr.Meenal Katarnikar
8. Anekanta: The Third Eye- Acharya
Mahaprajna, (Eng. Trans.Sudhamahi raghunathan) Pub. Jain vishava Bharti
University, ladnun, ed.2002
9.The Law of
Non-violence and its Relevance for all Times- V.P. Kothari, Jain Samskrti
samrakshaka Sangha, Sholapur. (1975)
10. The art
and Science of Self realization (Purusharthasiddhyupaya of Amritachandra Suri)
Edited by Jagdish Prasad Jain ‘Sadhak’
11.. The Jaina
Path of Ahimsa - Dr. Vilas Sangave,Mahaveer research centre,Shravika
Sanstha,Solapur,1991
12. Ahimsa -
The Science of Peace- Surendra Bothara, Prakrit Bharti Academy, Jaipur (1987)
13.. The
Conception of Ahimsa in Indian Thought- Dr. Koshalya Wally, Bharata Manisha,
Varanasi, (1974)
14. Jain dharma ek jhalak-Dr Anekant Kumar Jain, Pub. Shanti sagar
Chani smriti Granthmala,
Meerut
15. Bhartiya Ahimsa Darshan- Dr Anekant kumar Jain,
Under Pub.
16. Ahimsa,
Anekanta and Jainism, MLBD, Delhi, 2004
17. “Why is Anekantavad
Important,”- John M. Koller,
18. Sanmati
Tarka, Siddhasen diwakar, Bhartiya gyan peeth, New Delhi
टिप्पणियाँ