________________
Jainism As Metaphilosophy
moments put together would constitute Reality. What is meant is that the chain of continuity running through and relating the moments rather than moments qua moments, constitute Reality. The acceptance of the significance of moments does not (rather, should not) entail a denial of the idea of persistence as such. It rather means that considering moments is helpful in understanding continuity and persistence.
42
The Buddhists have, according to this line of thinking, overshot the mark by denying the value of standpoints other than that of moments: And to this extent, such a stand is to be regarded as one-sided and hence is not to be accepted absolutely. Relative acceptance of its claims rather than an absolute rejection of its counter-claims, is all that the Jaina philosophers could grant while reacting critically to such a view of momentariness. It is worth reiterating here that the Jaina philosophers adopted the same approach to other one-sided viewpoints, i.e. critically assessed the aspects (of those views) which could be accepted.
This brings us to a concluding observation regarding the Jaina philosophy of criticism in general and the significance of Anekantavāda in particular. If critical reflection is considered an important aspect of philosophising in the Jaina tradition, as the brief survey of the various nayas has revealed, criticism is deemed necessary to be a "functional corrective" of the attitude of philosophers who have resorted to taking extreme positions and vehemently arguing that the positions taken rule out all other alternative standpoints.
The critical attitude taken by the Jaina philosophers against other schools of Indian philosophy in this regard and, by implication, - their advocating the need to scrutinise carefully the extremist viewpoints taken in philosophy - may then be described aptly as espousing a non-one-sided approach to problems in philosophy. Anekäntavada may be understood as standing for not (na) a one-sided (ekänta) argument (vāda). It seems to say 'No' (na) to one-sided views (ekäntavādas). It may be interpreted as countering one-sided arguments.
But the expression 'countering one-sided arguments' and the point intended to be made have to be carefully understood. The countering of one-sided arguments suggested by Anekäntaväda is not in the spirit of putting them down in order to advance a counter-argument. Anekāntavāda which stands for an acceptance of aspects of many (aneka) views is not
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
