________________
The Concept of Vibhajjavada and its Impact on Philosophical and Religious Tolerance in Buddhism and Jainism
Buddhism and Jainism both belong to the same Sramanic tradition of Indian Culture, Gautama, the Buddha and Vardhamāna, the Mahavira were contemporaries. The philosophical awakening was the main feature of their age. The various religio-philosophical problems and questions were put before the religious leaders and thinkers and they were expected to answer and to solve these. The various answers were given to the same problem by different thinkers, and owing to this difference of opinions on the philosophical problems, the various philosophical schools emerged in that age. According to the Pali Tripitaka there were sixty two schools or sixty two different views held by different teachers on the nature of man and world, and according to Prākta Agamas there were three hundred sixty schools. Each one of them was claiming that his view was the only right view (samyagdrsti) and other's views were false views (mithyadrsti). But according to Buddha and Mahāvīra all of them have one sided picture of the reality or the phenomenon which is a complicated one. Both of them found that these various philosophical and religious schools and sects were conflicting with each other without understanding the problem itself and cling to onesidedness. This onesidedness, is due to the absence of analytic approach towards the pro- blems and improper method of answering the questions. If philosophical questions are answered catregorically or absolutely they present only onesided picture of the fact or phenomenon and thus create a false notion. According to the Jaina thinkers the onesidedness (ekânta) and the claim that my view is the only right-view (ägraha) are considered as false notions (mithyātva).
For Buddha and Mahāvīra both, the true method of answering the philosophical questions is the method of analysis. Only an analytic approach towards the philosophi- cal problems can give us a right vision. Both of them suggested that the philosophical questions should be answered after analysing them. This method of analysis was called as vibhajjavāda in both the canons. Buddha and Mahavira both claimed themselves as vibhajjavădins. In Buddhist order at the time of Asoka only the Vibhajjavädins were considered as the true followers of Buddha. In Anguttarnikāya it is mentioned that there are four methods of answering a question -- (i) answer to a question en-toto
i.e. absolutely (ekāmśavāda), (ii) answer to a question after analysing it into various parts (vibhaijaväda), (iii) answer to a question by raising a new question and (iv) to keep silence.' Buddha and Mahavira both preferred the second method i.e. vibhajjavāda, though Buddha sometimes used the first, third and fourth methods also. It is mentioned in the texts that Buddha himself claimed as Vibhajjavădin. Prof. S.Dutt in his book "The Buddha and Five After Centuries' says "perhaps the word Vibhajjavādin originally meant one whose method was to divide a matter posited into its component parts and deal with each part separately in his answer and not with the whole matter in en-toto fashion." This method of vibhajjavada i.e. the method of analysis is well illustrated in Subha-sutta of the Majjhimanikäya. Subha asked Lord Buddha, 'whether a busy life of a man of the world is to be preferred or a monk's reposeful life?' Buddha answered - 'the busy life may be a failure or success and so too the life of repose.' Similarly in the Jaina text Bagavatīsūtra, Jayanti asked Mahavira whether sleeping is good or awakening is good ? Lord answered that for a sinner sleeping is good and for a saint awakening is good. This analytic approach towards the problems shows that the relative answer is the proper method to deal with the problems, whether they are philosophical, religious, ethical or the problems of everyday life. Absolute or categorical answer explains only one aspect or the part of the problem and other aspects of the problem remain unexplained.
Thus, we can say that analytic approach towards the problems gives us broader outlook to understand them and we are more nearer to the truth.
It is due to vibhajjavāda, an analytic approach, the theory of anekantavada, in Jainism and sünyavāda in Buddhism came into existence. The positive analytic approach of Lord Mahavira gave birth to anekäntavāda and syādvāda and the negative analytic approach of Lord Buddha later on gave birth to Sünyavada. Both are, in fact, the ofshools of vibhajjaväda, or analytic method. Here I am not going into the details that how the theories of anekantavada and sūnyavāda emerged from vibhajjaväda. It is a matter of an independent paper. Here my submission is that this method of analytic approach towards the philosophical, ethical and other problems, has given a
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
