Jainism as Metaphilosophy

SR No.: 001194
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S Gopalan
Publisher: Satguru Publications Delhi
Publication Year: 1991
Total Pages: 92
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 5 MB

Page 65

Philosophy As Criticism-Il
in bringing together the different aspects of a discussion is facilitated by each view bringing in its own contribution from its own angle.
The idea of criticism espoused by the Jaina tradition in Syādvāda then may be understood as being born out of the observation that divergent schools of thought proceed on the uncriticial assumption that there is absolutely nothing in the other schools' which deserved consideration. In view of this it is not surprising that they are highly critical of each other and indulge in polemics,-throwing away valuable viewpoints and writing off whole schools of philosophy. It looks as if schools of philosophy have inadvertently taken on themselves mainly two functions, viz. formulating certain propositions concerning Reality and coming out with tirades against others which offer alternative points of view.
Metaphilosophical considerations weighing with Jainism perhaps resulted in asking the more fundamental question as to why schools of philosophy should vary so much in their visions of Reality and coming out with the answer that Reality being complex in its complexion and structure was responsible for the emergence of divergent, critical and uncompromising stances. Formulating simple, categorical propositions on the nature of Reality, as the various schools did, was hence unacceptable to Jainism.
When the situation of mutually recriminatory viewpoints characterising philosophical speculation is analysed, three possibilities suggest themselves :
(a) All viewpoints may be locally wrong; (b) Some viewpoints may be wrong and others, right; and (c) All viewpoints may be right.
Jainism seems to have rejected the first alternative on the count that it would lead to agnosticism, and the second, on the ground that it was also a case of indulging in categorical assertions and denials. The third was acceptable for the reason that it made for the attitude of considering all viewpoints as worthwhile analysing. Obviously the viewpoints being but different perspectives which have been brought in, could not be unconditionally accepted. They could be accepted with