Why is Anekantavada Important

SR No.: 269145
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: John M Koller
Publisher: Z_Lessons_of_Ahimsa_and_Anekanta_for_Contemporary_Life_014006.pdf
Publication Year: 2002
Total Pages: 11
Language: English
Classification: Article & 0_not_categorized
File Size: 394 KB

Page 10

John Koller, "Why Anekantavada is Important?"
Advaitins deny the reality of change, giving it merely the status of māya, while affirming only the reality of the unchanging Brāhman/Ātman. On the other hand, the Buddhists deny the reality of the unchanging, declaring the unreality of Ātman (anātmun) and affirms only the changing as real. From the Jain perspective, if there were no unchanging substance to undergo the modifications that involve arising, endurance, and decay, there could be no change. But since we experience change it cannot be denied that substances actually undergo change. Thus, in some way, both the Buddhists and the Advaitins must be right. Within the Advaitin's conceptual scheme, however, the Buddhists cannot be right because their contradictory claims are excluded by the claimed truth of the unchanging as the real. Similarly, from within the Buddhist conceptual scheme, the Advaitins cannot be right for their contradictory claims are excluded by the claimed truth of the changing as the real. Indeed, if taken at the same level and from the same perspective, even the Jains would see the Advaitin and Buddhist claims as contradictory and mutually exclusive. However, from the perspective of a higher, inclusive, level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of anekantavada and syadvada, their claims can be seen as ekāntika, or partially true, and therefore not mutually exclusive contradictory claims
In conclusion, Nayavada supports the metaphysical doctrine of anekantavada as a way of thinking about existence as simultaneously both being and becoming. It demonstrates how opposing views are one-sided and limited because they are based on only one, or a limited number of, standpoints. In this way the use of nayas help us in avoiding the one-sided errors of identifying existence with either the permanence and sameness of being on the one hand, or with the ever-changing process of becoming on the other. Syadvada grounds and supports anekantavāda in the sense that it explains how a statement about something that is permanent, remaining identical with itself over time, and that is simultaneously impermanent, becoming something else, can be true. Syadvāda is essentially a theory of predication