Central Philosophy of Jainism Anekanta Vada

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

Page 33

DIFFERENT SENSES OF ANEKĀNTA
“Sugato yadi sarvajñah kapilo neti kā pramā Tāv ubhau yadi sarvajñau matabhedah katham tayoh." “If Sugata (the Buddha) is omniscient, how do we know that Kapila is not (also omniscient)? If both of them are omniscient, how is it then that the view of the former differs from the latter ?"
This verse quoted in Tattvasangraha (verse 3148) was apparently used to refute the Jaina doctrine of omniscience. But the same statement can be used, perhaps with a shift in the emphasis or intonation, by a Jaina to defend his anekānta doctrine. In fact, the anekānta doctrine can be vindicated if we assume the omniscience of Mahāvira. Thus, Samantabhadra has said : 35
“Since the doctrines of all 'non-Jaina' (tirthakrt) philosophers contradict each other, none of them is trustworthy. Who, then, could be the guru 'instructor'?"
This also reveals the wonderful power of assimilation of the Jaina doctrine. And thus I have called it a philosophy of synthesis and reconciliation.
H. Kapadia analysed "anekānta-vāda" as an+eka+anta +vāda (“notone-a side (an end) - a statement"). He explained the meaning as "manysided exposition". He added : “Thereby it is implied that it is a statement made after taking into account all possible angles of vision regarding any object or idea.”36 This explanation is somewhat inaccurate. For "vāda" in this context usually means a theory or a philosophic position (e.g., sat-kārya-väda, Sünya-vāda). Thus one can translate anekāntavada as 'the theory of many-sidedness or manifoldness of reality.'
To be precise, anekānta-vāda is to be contrasted with ekānta-vāda, which stands for a definite, categorically asserted philosophical position. But aneka 'many' is not diametrically opposite of eka 'one', for many includes one. Different ekānta-vādas may thus be only constituents of the anekānta doctrine. Dr. Satkari Mookerjee explained anekānta as the philosophy of “non-absolutism." 37 But this seems hardly acceptable, for, according to some, even the Mādhyamika philosophy can be described as one of “non-absolutism'. Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah has translated