________________
The Right Perspective of Anekânta
case with an ordinary man. When substance in itself is permanent-cum-temporary, how can the omniscient express it in absolute terms? He will have to use the language of syādvāda e.g. substance is relatively (i.e. with respect to a particular point of view) permanent and relatively temporary. A part of molecule of three atoms is expressed from one view point, while another part of the same molecule is not expressed from the point of view. There would be no difference, whether this molecule of three atoms is expressed by an omniscient or by an ordinary man.
The explanation of the methodology of anekanta does not admit of any difference between an omniscient and an ordinary śrutajñānî. The theory of Syadvāda is not connected with perfection or imperfection of knowledge. There is no reason to accept that the knowledge of imperfect being is aikāntika. Anekānta does not imply that the knowledge of one who knows partial truth is aikāntika and the knowledge of one who knows the whole truth is anekāntika. The basis of anekānta is the triplicate nature (i.e. origination, cessation and permanence) of substance and not limitation or unlimitation of knowledge (i.e. śrutajñāna and kevaljñāna). The object of knowledge of an omniscient in its entirety can be the object of the partial knowledge of śrutajñāni also. As already stated, the omniscient knows directly the whole truth whereas a man of partial knowledge can know it through the
Jain Education International
31
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
