________________
Chapter 15 SYÄDVÄD, Theory of Relative Truth
Jena Vina Logassa Vi, Vavahäro Savvaha Na Nivvahai; Tassa Bhuvanekkaguruno, Namo Anegantväyassa.
Saman Suttam (660)
Obeisance to the multiplicity of views, which is the unique guide and without which even the worldly matters cannot be effectively handled.
Syadvad is the most significant contribution of Jainism to the human society. The term Syät indicates the probability and Väd denotes the method of presentation. Syädväd therefore means the method of examining different probabilities. Every one knows that lot of disputes arise on account of the difference of opinions. People generally believe that whatever they think is right. They therefore tend to oppose any view that does not agree with theirs. But even a slight analysis of such disputes would indicate that there was some truth in either of the opposing views and the parties to the dispute were stressing the views from their own angles.
Everything in the world has multiple properties. For instance, sugar is white, sweet, granular etc. Now if a person simply states that sugar is sweet, he is not wrong. He has, however, mentioned only one property of sugar. His statement is therefore a partial truth, not the whole truth. If another person states that sugar is white, he also states a partial truth. The properties of sugar are universally known and there is hardly any possibility for a person to pick up any dispute about its properties. But to a person, who has simply seen sugar but has never tasted it and has not otherwise known about its sweetness, the statement of sugar being sweet makes no sense. For him, sugar is white and granular. Hypothetically therefore there arises the probability of his disputing its sweetness until sugar is brought to him and he tastes it.
The real disputes arise in the case of substances having variable properties. For instance, grapes may be green, red or black. Any one of these colors signifies the simultaneous nonexistence of other colors. Therefore one, who has seen only green grapes, would dispute the existence of red or black grapes. One can also visualize some dispute about grapes being seeded or seedless. But the people normally do not pick up such disputes. They do not hold strong views on such aspects and tend to ignore the differences. But on the ideological issues like capitalism vs. communism or ephemeral vs. everlasting nature of soul, many people hold very strong views Since such views happen to be diametrically opposite, the people find it hard to tolerate the views differing from theirs.
Let us take the case of soul. Vedant believes in eternal, immutable, indestructible soul; while Buddhism believes it to be ephemeral and ever changing. Each of them would insist that its viewpoint is right and anything to the contrary is wrong and irreligious. The science now admits that no substance is entirely destructible. Since soul is also a substance, obviously it is eternal and indestructible. On the other hand, every substance undergoes changes in its states. The soul also thus undergoes changes in its states. When one is overcome with defilement, his state is totally different from the one when he is in the undefiled state. Every such change denotes the destruction of the earlier state and the emergence of the new one. Thus, in terms of the changing states, soul is ephemeral and destructible. It can therefore be stated that the views of Vedant as well as of Buddhism express the partial truth and not the whole truth. Admitting the partial truth of different viewpoints is termed as Syädväd. Most of the disputes can be averted, if the people resort to it.
Much criticism has been leveled against Syädväd by other schools of thought. It has been labeled as a theory of uncertainty and as a device to avoid the issues. All such accusations are, however, ill based. Syädväd does not give any scope for uncertainty. It merely emphasizes that every view, every aspect can have some truth and therefore can have partial justification. One may state that Lord Mahavir was a son of Siddharth, another may state that he was a son of Trishalä, the third may state that he was a nephew of Supärshwa, the fourth may state that he was the brother of
