Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
The Concept of Vibhajjavada and its Impact on Philosophical and Religious Tolerance in Buddhism and Jainism
Buddhism and Jainism both belong to the same Sramanic tradition of Indian Culture, Gautama, the Buddha and Vardhamāna, the Mahavira were contemporaries. The philosophical awakening was the main feature of their age. The various religio-philosophical problems and questions were put before the religious leaders and thinkers and they were expected to answer and to solve these. The various answers were given to the same problem by different thinkers, and owing to this difference of opinions on the philosophical problems, the various philosophical schools emerged in that age. According to the Pali Tripitaka there were sixty two schools or sixty two different views held by different teachers on the nature of man and world, and according to Prākta Agamas there were three hundred sixty schools. Each one of them was claiming that his view was the only right view (samyagdrsti) and other's views were false views (mithyadrsti). But according to Buddha and Mahāvīra all of them have one sided picture of the reality or the phenomenon which is a complicated one. Both of them found that these various philosophical and religious schools and sects were conflicting with each other without understanding the problem itself and cling to onesidedness. This onesidedness, is due to the absence of analytic approach towards the pro- blems and improper method of answering the questions. If philosophical questions are answered catregorically or absolutely they present only onesided picture of the fact or phenomenon and thus create a false notion. According to the Jaina thinkers the onesidedness (ekânta) and the claim that my view is the only right-view (ägraha) are considered as false notions (mithyātva).
For Buddha and Mahāvīra both, the true method of answering the philosophical questions is the method of analysis. Only an analytic approach towards the philosophi- cal problems can give us a right vision. Both of them suggested that the philosophical questions should be answered after analysing them. This method of analysis was called as vibhajjavāda in both the canons. Buddha and Mahavira both claimed themselves as vibhajjavădins. In Buddhist order at the time of Asoka only the Vibhajjavädins were considered as the true followers of Buddha. In Anguttarnikāya it is mentioned that there are four methods of answering a question -- (i) answer to a question en-toto
i.e. absolutely (ekāmśavāda), (ii) answer to a question after analysing it into various parts (vibhaijaväda), (iii) answer to a question by raising a new question and (iv) to keep silence.' Buddha and Mahavira both preferred the second method i.e. vibhajjavāda, though Buddha sometimes used the first, third and fourth methods also. It is mentioned in the texts that Buddha himself claimed as Vibhajjavădin. Prof. S.Dutt in his book "The Buddha and Five After Centuries' says "perhaps the word Vibhajjavādin originally meant one whose method was to divide a matter posited into its component parts and deal with each part separately in his answer and not with the whole matter in en-toto fashion." This method of vibhajjavada i.e. the method of analysis is well illustrated in Subha-sutta of the Majjhimanikäya. Subha asked Lord Buddha, 'whether a busy life of a man of the world is to be preferred or a monk's reposeful life?' Buddha answered - 'the busy life may be a failure or success and so too the life of repose.' Similarly in the Jaina text Bagavatīsūtra, Jayanti asked Mahavira whether sleeping is good or awakening is good ? Lord answered that for a sinner sleeping is good and for a saint awakening is good. This analytic approach towards the problems shows that the relative answer is the proper method to deal with the problems, whether they are philosophical, religious, ethical or the problems of everyday life. Absolute or categorical answer explains only one aspect or the part of the problem and other aspects of the problem remain unexplained.
Thus, we can say that analytic approach towards the problems gives us broader outlook to understand them and we are more nearer to the truth.
It is due to vibhajjavāda, an analytic approach, the theory of anekantavada, in Jainism and sünyavāda in Buddhism came into existence. The positive analytic approach of Lord Mahavira gave birth to anekäntavāda and syādvāda and the negative analytic approach of Lord Buddha later on gave birth to Sünyavada. Both are, in fact, the ofshools of vibhajjaväda, or analytic method. Here I am not going into the details that how the theories of anekantavada and sūnyavāda emerged from vibhajjaväda. It is a matter of an independent paper. Here my submission is that this method of analytic approach towards the philosophical, ethical and other problems, has given a
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
The Concept of Vibhajjavāda and its Impact on Philosophical and Religious Tolerance in Buddhism and Jainism
99
broader perspective to understand the things. Buddha and Mahāvira, both condemned onesided narrow outlook. For both, it is the main cause of religious as well as philosophical quarrels leading to intolerence. It is said, "one, who sees only one aspect of the reality is ignorant, a real scholar sees hundreds of aspects of it."2 "The person who possesses only onesided view quarrel with each other." ' In Suttanipäta Lord Buddha says, "He, who does not acknowledge an opponent's doctrine (dhamma), is a fool, a beast, a person of poor understanding. All those who abide by their own views, are fools with a very poor understanding". "One who is firm in his own view and holds that his opponent is a fool; thus he himself brings on strife calling his opponent a fool and impure."' Further, Buddha says "There are two results of a dispute, first it is incomplete (picture of the truth) and secondly it is not enough to bring about tranquility. Having seen this, let no one dispute understanding khema (i.e. peace). It is the place where there is no dispute." "Those who maintain their own dhamma as perfect and other's dhamma as wretched, say that their own views (opinions) are the truth and so having disagreed, they dispute. One becomes low by the condemnation of the others. There will be no one distinguished amongst the dhammas if they condemn other's views." Here I have mentioned only a few passages of Lord Buddha in support of religious tolerance. For further details in this regard, the study Culla-viyūha and Maha-viyüha-suttas (i.e. chapter 50 and 51) of Suttanipāta, is suggested where these points are further elaborated.
Jainism believes in the theory of anekantavāda which means that the views, the ideologies and the faiths of others should be respected. Mahavira like Buddha mentions in Sutrakrtānga. "Those who praise their own faiths and ideologies and blame that of their opponents and thus distort the truth, will remain confined to the cycle of birth and death." It is further maintained that "all the nayas (view-points) are true in respect of what they have themselves to say, but they are false in so far as they refute totally other nayas (i.e. the view points of the opponents). Those, who take different view points (nayas) together and
thus grasp all the aspects of a thing (fact or phenomenon) have a right understanding, just as those who with eyes, are able to grasp an elephant as a whole and not like the blindmen, who take one particular part of an elephant as a whole elephant." It is this broader outlook which can establish harmony among the apparently conflicting views of various religions.
This broader outlook for religious tolerance is maintained in Buddhism till the period of Asoka, because we find so many evidences about religious tolerance and religious co-existence from the inscriptions of Asoka. But I do not know, whether this outlook of religious tolerance and harmony was further maintained or not by Buddhism in India. I request the scholars of Buddhism to enlighten us in this regard. Though it is true that Buddhism has shown this broader outlook every where outside India and remained there co-existing with the earlier religions of those countries.
So far as Jainism is concerned this religious tolerance and harmony is maintained by the later Jaina Acaryas also. In one famous Jaina text of 3rd B.C. namely Isibhāsiyăim the views of different teachers of Sramanic and Brahmanic trends like Narada, Bhāradvāja, Gautama Buddha, Markhali Goşāla and many others, have been presented with regards. They are called as Arhat Rsis and their preachings are regarded as Agamas. I would like to conclude my paper by quoting these two beautiful verses of religious tolerance of Haribhadra (C. 8th A.D.) and Hemacandra (C. 12th A.D.) respectively. Haribhadra says --
na me pakşapāto vire na dveşo kapiladişu / yuktimadvacanar yasya tasya karya parigraha //
I have no bias towards Lord Mahävira and no disregard to Kapila and other saints and thinkers. Whatsoever is rational and logical ought to be accepted. Hemacandra says -
bhava bijankurajanana rāgadyakşayamupagata yasya brahmă vă visnurvă haro va jino-vä namastasmaih//
I bow all those who have overcome the attachment and hatred which are the cause of worldly existence, be they Brahmä, Vişnu, Siva or Jina.
Reference 1. Anguttarnikāya, Vol. II, p. 47. 2. Theragātha, 1/106. 3. Udāna, 6/4. 4. parassa ve dhammamananujanam balo mago hoti nihina
panno
sabbe bala sunihina panna sabbevime ditthi parivvasana
- Suttanipāta, 50/3(880) sakayane capi datthaham vadano kamettha balo ti para daheyya sayameva so methagamavaheyya para vadam balamasuddha dhammam
-- Suttanipata 50161893)
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 100 Aspects of Jainology Volume VI 6. appam hi etam na alam samaya dube vivadassa phalani brumi evam pi disva na vivadiyetha khemami passam abibada bhumim -- Suttanipata 51/2(896) sakam hi dhammam paripunna mahu annassa dhammassa pana hinamahu evam pi viggataha vivadiyanti sakam sakam sammuti mahu saccam parassa ce vambhayitena hino na koci dhammesu visesi assa puthu hi annassa vadanti dhammant nihinato samhi davvaham badana -- Suttanipata, 51/10-11(904-905) sayam sayam pasamsamta garahamta param vayam je u tattha viusamti samsare te viussiya -- Sutrakrtanga, 1/1/2/23. See, Samanasuttam, 728, 730 and 731. 8. 9.