Central Philosophy of Jainism Anekanta Vada

Author(s): Bimal Krishna Matilal, Nagin J Shah, Dalsukh Malvania
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 31

22
The Central Philosophy of Jainism
of time, and infinite (unlimited in number) from the point of view of its modifications."
It is clear from the above that when Mahavira tried to answer the so-called avyakata questions through the vibhajya method, he had analysed the different senses of, and thereby clarified the ambiguity contained in, such predicate-expressions, "infinite" and "finite." "Infinite" may mean 'limitless in number or measurement' or 'everlasting.' Similarly, "finite" may mean 'limited in number or measurement' or 'of limited duration.' Notice that all these senses have been taken into account in Mahavira's method of analysis. One can thus agree with the principle of Mahavira without necessarily agreeing with the Jaina mythical account of the universe and man. Notice also that Mahavira's analysis differed from that of the Buddha in that the Buddha maintained his doctrine of the Middle Way by rejecting the two alternative questions, positive and negative, while Mahavira came closer to the anekanta-vāda by accepting both alternatives with proper qualifications and conditionalization.
To the fifth and the sixth questions, Mahavira gave also positive answers (cf. Bhagavati 13.7.494).34 For the last four questions too, Mahāvira's answer would be very definite, for he would say, following the Jaina religious faith, that the Tathāgata or the saint exists and reaches the end of the universe after death.
The above sketch shows how the vibhajya method in the hands of Mahavira was transformed into the anekanta philosophy of the Jainas. If the vibhajya method is interpreted only as a method of analysis and classification then the Jaina anekānta method may be regarded as the opposite of it, i.e., synthesis. But, in fact, the vibhajya method was a generic name for any non-dogmatic and exploratory approach to philosophic and metaphysical questions. It included both analysis and synthesis, differentiation and integration.
Schematically we can represent the difference between analysis and synthesis (involved here) as follows: In reply to the question "Are all A's B's ?" one can say: "Some A's are B's, and some are not". Here we answer by discriminating between the two groups of A's, i.e., the two subclasses of the class denoted by the subject term. This was what the Abhidharmika Buddhist called one kind of the vibhajya method, i.e., analysis. In reply to the question "Is A B ?" one can also say: "It depends." In other words, it is said that A's being B depends upon one's