Facets of Jain Philosophy Religion and Culture

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

Page 51

34 Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda
as, for example, that between the simultaneously existing prākstika, i.e. physical, modifications like jars and cloths, etc.), or innate diversity irrespective of space and time (desa-kala-nirapeksa sahajika : as, for example, that between prakrti, i.e. the root physical element, and
a, i.e. the root conscious element, or that between one puruşa and another).
As against this, the second standpoint sees dissimilarity (asamănatā) everywhere, and gradually searching for the root of this dissimilarity it finally reaches that stage of analysis (vislesanabhumika) where even similarity, (samanata), nothing to say about identity (ekata), appears to be something artificial (krtrima, unreal); hence it arrives at the conclusion that the universe is but a conglomeration (puñja) of several discrete existents (bheda) utterly dissimilar from one another. According to it, there really exists no single element (at the root of diversities), nor does there obtain any real similarity (between one existent and another). This applies to single elements like prakrti which (allegedly) pervade all space and persist for all time, as also to single elements like atoms which (allegedly) are mutually different substances (occupying different points in space) but ones that persist for all time.
The above stated two standpoints are fundamentally different
one another, for one of them is based exclusively on synthesis, the other exclusively on analysis. These two fundamental lines of thought (vicara-sarani) and the derivative lines of thought developing out of the two give rise to a number of mutually conflicting views on a number of topics. We thus see that the first standpoint with its tendency to generalization led to the formulation of the doctrine of 'one, non-dual Brahman (Brahmadvaita)-the sole real element-occupying all space and time (samagra-desa-kāla-vyāpin) and free from the limitations of space and time (desa-kāla-vinirmukta)'. This doctrine, on the one hand, dubbed as unreal (mithya) all diversity and all organs of knowledge taking note of this diversity, while, on the other hand, it asserted that the real-element (sat-tattva) lies beyond the reach (pravrtti) of speech (vāni) and logic (tarka) and is amenable lo bare experience (i.e. experience untrammelled by speech and logic) (mātra anubhava-gamya). Likewise, the second standpoint with its tendency to particularization led to the foundation of the doctrine of an infinite number of discrete existents, each different from the rest not only as to its spatio-temporal location but as to its very nature'. This doctrine too, on the one hand, dubbed all non-distinction (abheda) as unreal while,