Facets of Jain Philosophy Religion and Culture

Author(s): Shreechand Rampuriya, Ashwini Kumar, T M Dak, Anil Dutt Mishra
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati

Page 112

Anekāntavāda, Nayavāda and Syädvāda 95
fact the anekantavāda is the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy.
The claim that Anekantavāda is the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy hinges mainly on the fact that it has allowed the maximum scope for distinction to play its role. It will take us far afield if we go closely into the problem of elucidating how the analytical function of distinction is inherent in any realistic procedure. This problem deserves to be specifically brought within the focus of the discussion of comparative Indian philosophical thought although some broader questions--like how the notion of anekanta is found, in some measure and form, even in some non-anekāntal schools of
41. The reconciliatory spirit (samanvayadrsti) which consists in an endeavour to
harmonise, by various methods, different or appearently conflicting views in a new synthesis, is found, in however imperfect a manner it may be from the Jaina point of view, aniong the several non-Jaina schools of philosophy. Some of the notable instances are : (a) the Ajñānavāda (agnosticism) of Sanjaya (vide B.M. Barua's A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, Calcutta Univ., 1925), pp. 328-330: and JSJ, Pt. II, Intro. p. XXVIII-IX, (b) the Vibhaj yavāda ('the Critical Method of Investigation' as contrasted with what the Buddha himself describes as the Ekantavada, or the one-sided method, in Majjhimanikāya, sutta 99, vide NVVS, Prastāvanā, p. 11) of the Madhyamapratipada (sanyutta, vide PMHS, Bhāsauppanāni, p. 621 of the Buddha which induced him 'to treat prevalent opinions with all due consideration' (JSJ, Pt. II, Intro., p. XXIX); (c) the celebrated four-fold (catuskoti) antinomial method of the Madhyamika founder, Nägărjuna (cf. atastattavam sadasadubhayānubhavätmakacatuskotivinirmuktam sünyameva/Sarva-darsana-sangraha, Ed. V.S. Abhyankar, Govt. Oriental (Hindu) Series, Poona, 1924; see also pp. 572-3 in Nāgārjuna's Milamādhyamikakärika, Ed. la Vallee Poussin, Bib. Bud., St. Petersbourg, 1913); and (d) the critique, on the eight doctrines, of Gautama (vide ch. IV, Ahnika, sátras 14-43 in Gautama's Nyāyasūtras, E.T. Ganganatha Jha, Poona Oriental Series, Poona, 1939). Despite the fact that these methods are treated in the respective systems with which they are severally associated, in the spirit and form resembling the Anekantavāda, they have not been considered to be so fundamental and pervasive (vyapaka) as they have been in Jainism. It is, therefore, no surprise that the early critics of Anekantavāda like Dharmakirti (see PVD, ch. III, kās. 180-] and MV thereon, and f.n. 30, and Sankara, the earliest commentator on the Brahmasatras of Bandarayana, make Jainism the target of their polemic against Anekantavada. This is done on an even more elaborate scale by Arcata also (HBT, pp. 104-107).
Furthermore, some schools like the Bhedabhedavāda, especially of Bhartrprapanca whose system is even referred to as anekānta' (vide PMHS, Bhasatippanani, p. 62. f.n. 3); the Bhatta-Mimansä and the Sankhya have an anekanta bias with respect to some of their methods and ideas. While criticising the concept of 'vaicitrya' which is so vital to Anekantavāda, Santaraksita significantly attributes it to the Mimanisa (Vipra) as well as the Samkhya (Kapila) systems also