Jainism from the View Point of Vedantic Acaryas

Author(s): Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: B J Institute

Page 9

(sevenfold predication). Anekānta denotes that reality is manifold, each entity consists of may forms and modes of innumerable aspects. We are all imperfect human beings. We cannot comprehend an object or reality in its totality and our view of it is limited. We are wrong when we emphasize and say that our view is perfect and final. Our view towards reality is always partial. Anekāntavāda or Syādvāda allows all different viewpoints in it and reveals complete picture of reality. Thus, this Anekāntavāda is accepted to co-ordinate, unify and harmonize the divergent, seemingly disagreeing philosophical viewpoints into a practical whole. When an object which is possessing many characteristics (anekāntātmaka) is expressed in a particular form of judgment the expression is known as Syādvāda. We can express the characteristics of an object from different points of view and those points of view are expressed by the word Syāt. Thus the judgment. about an object possessing many characteristics is called Syādvāda. Syādvāda is neither a doctrine of doubt nor a doctrine of probability.
This Jaina's Anekāntavāda or Syādvāda as a philosophical method is criticized by the Buddhists as well as by all the Vedāntic Ācāryas. The superficial understanding of Syādvāda seems to be the main reason behind their criticisms. The word ‘Syāt in Syādvāda is taken in the sense of probability (sambhāvanā) or may be (not in the sense of certain point of view or in certain respect) by all these non-Jaina Philosophers. So, this kind of understanding led them to criticize Syādvāda as a doctrine of doubt or probability. Another principle of Jainism which is a subject of severe criticism of Vedāntic Acāryas is Dehaparimāņavāda (the doctrine according which size of the soul is body size). Their criticism is centered round on these two principles of Jainism. While criticizing these two doctrines of Jainism, Bhāskara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and Vallabha followed Sanskarācārya (borrowing almost same arguments) except pointing out some minor defects.