ISJS Jainism Study Notes E5 Vol 04

Author(s): International School for Jain Studies
Publisher: International School for Jain Studies

Page 311

as the theory of relative, pluralism or of relativity, the theory of co-existence, and the philosophy of realism.
Sy dv da or Conditional dilectic
Closely associated with anek ntav da is the syadavada, which is the theory of conditional predication and is based on the sapta-bhangi. In fact anek ntav da is concerned with the thought process and sy dv da indicates the manner in which that thought process is given expression to.Sy dav da is on of the aspect of the Jaina philosophy, which has been much misunderstood, and often misconstrued, by many non-Jaina philosophers, ancient and modern, who looked upon this approach to reality as indicative of uncertainty and indefiniteness of knowledge. This is, however, far from being the truth. One reason of the misunderstanding seems to have been that they did not grasp the true significance of the term sy t, and interpreted it to mean "perhaps'. But, it is not so. Jainism says, that the term sy t used by them in this context means 'in a way, from one point of view', or viewed at from a particular angle or stand. Instead creating doubt or uncertainty, sy dv da helps a correct, precise and through comprehension of the reality. Based as it is on anek ntav da and the related nayav da, this theory manifests the realistic, rational and highly tolerant spirit of Jainism.
Sapta-bhangi or Seven-combinational mode of predication
Connected with nayas is the seven-combinational mode of predication (sapta-bhangi), which is also a peculiarity of Jaina logic. When we speak of a thing as exists on its own substance (dravya), space (ksetra), time (k la) and essence (bh va). Thus from point of view of its own quadruplet the thing in question exists, that is, its 'is-ness' is established. At the same time, from the point of view of the quadruplets of all things other than this one, its "is-not-ness" is implied. Thus a thing "is" (asti) and also "is - not" (N sti) and since it cannot be said to be "is" and "is-not" at one and the same time, it is also inexplicable (avaktavya). These three conditions produce seven permutations: asti, n sti, asti - n sti, avaktavya, asti-avaktavya, n sti-avaktavya, and asti-n sti-avaktavya. And in order to avoid the pitfall of being misunderstood, the speaker uses the adverb sy t before every one of these modes of predication. This term sy t in this context is the most significant; it means 'in a way, from a certain point of view', 'also', or 'not absolutely'. So when we say, 'sy t' 'A' is a son; we mean that he is also a son and not only a son; that in relation to his father 'B', 'A' is a son and not only a son; that in relation to his son 'C' he is a father, similarly, he may be a brother, a friend, a husband, an enemy and so on, in his relationships with different persons. If we do not use the prefix sy t the statement we make, it is likely to be a categorical affirmation, a dogmatic assertion, precluding the possibility of the existence of other relationships or other aspects of the person 'A' in question. The use of term sy t limits the sense of the seven permutational, and for the matter of that, any other relevant vocal statement. In making an assertion, the institution of sy dv da thus curbs down, limits, qualifies, and modifies and harmonies the absolutist view conveyed by the individual nayas.
In fact, in order to give shape and expression to our comprehension of an idea or object, we start analytically, resolving, separating and differentiating its parts: aspects or facets. But while considering one of the many aspects, the rest must not be denied. Synthesis follows analysis, putting together the various aspects in thought so as to realize that the truth consists in the irresolvable combination of all the seven modes of predication detailed above, have to be accepted. This theory implies the non-isolation of parts, ingredients, properties, aspects, etc., of a thing and the method to comprehend and speak of it synthetically. It is impossible to predicate the various and numerous aspects of a thing in a single statement, but the statement, which predicates any one of them, must imply them. In this way there is no likelihood of the person spoken to being misled. Recognizing the complexity of existence, the Jaina philosopher says since a thing has several aspects and relations, there will be as many determinations, and the apparently conflicting attributes inheriting in the thing can be expressed only through this process of predication.
Page 301 of 556
STUDY NOTES version 4.0