Jinamanjari 2002 04 No 25

Author(s): Jinamanjari
Publisher: Canada Bramhi Jain Society Publication

Page 60

We can talk about or discuss only one of them at a time. The seeming differences in statements vanish when we understand the particular point of view. I say, "I am mortal." Another man says, "I am immortal." These are diametrically opposite statements between which there seems to be very little common ground. Can we accommodate both in one system? Jainism says, 'Yes! Please try to understand the viewpoint of each statement before declaring them to be irreconcilable.' Is it not that the one who says he is mortal is emphasizing the phenomena of birth and death of this body, about which there can be no dispute; while the other who says he is immortal is thinking of the imperishable nature of things in their essence. The form of things may change, but their substance, call it the soul or primal matter, continues to subsist. Nothing that is, can be annihilated.
In Jain terminology, the one who refers to himself as mortal is true from the point of view of 'form' or acquired qualities; while the other who calls himself immortal is true from the point of view of 'substance' or inherent and essential qualities. Thus, what is irreconcilable opposition in the eyes of others is, to a Jaina, not only a mere difference of point of view but the necessary stage in understanding a thing in all its aspects. The two statements are supplementary of each other and go together to convey the truth. It is because a part is mistaken for the whole that the difference arises.
Jainas illustrate this by a significant story of seven blind men who went to get an idea of the elephant. One of them grabbed the tail and described an elephant as being like a rope. Another grabbed a leg and described and elephant as being like a tree. Another grabbed the side of the elephant and described it as being like a wall, and so on. They were all right and all wrong. They were right because each of them had stated a part of the truth; and they were wrong because they wanted to pass a partial truth for the whole truth. Put all the partial truths together and you get the whole elephant. Every difference in religious and philosophical ideas, all opinions and beliefs may, in this light, be understood to furnish not a cause for quarrel, but a welcome step towards the knowledge of the real truth. It is from this many-sided point of view that its own logicians have claimed the Jaina system as a synthesis of the so-called false beliefs.
There can hardly be anything of practical value in a life which will hold good for all times and all places in exactly the same way, Yet, these important factors of time and place are frequently neglected or forgotten in estimating the truth of different statements, And this furnishes yet another fertile source of misunderstanding.
56