$JES 904 Compendium of Jainism (Jain Academic Bowl Manual 3rd Edition)

Author(s): JAINA Education Committee
Publisher: JAINA Education Committee

Page 107

PHILOSOPHY
Naya (sevenfold judgment). Syädväda is known as the theory of relativity of propositions or theory of relativity of judgments. Some critics call it the theory of relativity of knowledge. We can say that Syädväda is the epistemological explanation of reality; Sapta-bhangi Naya is the method or the dialectic of the theory of sevenfold judgment. It is the logical side of the theory.
The doctrine of Syädväda holds that since a thing is full of most contrary characteristics of infinite variety, the affirmation made is only from a particular standpoint or point of view and therefore it may be correct or true. However, the same assertion may be wrong or false from some other standpoint or point of view. Thus, the assertion made cannot be regarded as absolute. All affirmations in some sense are true and in some sense are false. Similarly, all assertions are indefinite and true in some sense as well as indefinite and false in some other sense. Assertions could be true, or false or indefinite. Thus, Jainism proposes to grant the non-absolute nature of reality and relativistic pluralism of the object of knowledge by using the word 'Syät' (or Syäd) before the assertion or Judgment.
The word 'Syät' literally means 'may be.' It is also translated as 'perhaps', 'somehow', 'relatively' or 'in a certain sense'. The word 'Syät' or its equivalent in English used before the assertion makes the proposition true but only under certain conditions i.e. hypothetically. What is to be noted is that the word 'Syät' is not used in the sense of probability leading to uncertainty. Probability again hints at skepticism and Jainism is not skepticism. Since reality has infinite aspects, our judgments are bound to be conditional. Thus, Syädväda is the theory of relativity of knowledge. The Jains quoted quite a good number of parables, which are conventionally used by Jain writers to explain the theory. The most famous one for the grip over the core of the theory is the famous parable of six blind men who happened to come across an elephant. Each one was sure and asserting about his own description alone being correct. However, each one was correct from his point of view though contrary to each other. Thus the Jains hold that no affirmation or judgment is absolute in its nature, each is true in its own limited sense only. The affirmations will tell either about the existence, or non-existence, or about the inexpressible. Combining these three will give four more alternatives. So, we derive the seven alternatives technically known as Sapta-bhanga Naya or the sevenfold Judgments.
B12 - Anekäntaväda II - Pramäna, Naya and Syädväda
Theory of Seven Predications (Sapta-Bhanga)
To clarify the above approach of ascertaining the truth by the process of Syädväda, the Jain philosophers have evolved a formula of seven predications, which are known as Sapta-bhanga. 'Sapta' means 'seven' and 'Bhanga' means 'mode'. These seven modes of ascertaining the truth are able to be exact in exploring all possibilities and aspects. For any proposition, there are three main modes of assessment, namely, (1) A positive assertion (Asti), (2) A negative assertion (Nästi), (3) Not describable or expressible (Avaktavya). However, for greater clarity four more permutations of these three are added as under: 'Asti-nästi', 'Asti-avaktavya', 'Nästi-avaktavya' and 'Asti-nästi-avaktavya'. The word 'Syät' is prefixed to each of these seven predications to prevent the proposition from being absolute.
All these seven predications are explained with reference to an ethical proposition that 'It is sin to commit violence'. With regard to this proposition, the seven predications noted above can be made as under:
Asti
Nästi
Asti-nästi
Avaktavya
Astiavaktavya
Nästiavaktavya
It is sin to commit violence with an intention to commit the same
It is not a sin to commit violence on an aggressor who harms an innocent and helpless person
It is sin to commit violence in breach of moral and social laws, but it is not a sin if violence is required to be committed in performance of moral or social duties
It is not possible to say whether violence is a sin or virtue without knowing the circumstances under which it is required to be committed
Indeed violence is sinful under certain circumstances, but no positive statement of this type can be made for all times and under all circumstances.
Violence is not indeed sinful under certain circumstances, but no positive statement of this type can be made for all times and under all circumstances
Compendium of Jainism - 2015
Page 107 of 398