________________
Whitehead's Constructive Metaphysics.... : 31
Anekāntavāda and Whitehead Philosophy of Organism in Conversation The purpose of this paper is not to question the continued existence of Orthodox Jainism. It would be a false statement to say that Orthodox Jainism is in a stagnant state, precisely since in one perspective there is a permanence, in another there is a flux. It is constantly engaging, in acceptance or rejection, the world around it. However, in the case of Diaspora Jains, can the Jain system be open to a notion of faith, knowledge and conduct, which is not predominantly controlled by the Orthodox ascetic tradition, in the form of Karma theory and reincarnation? Can the notion of the soul be decentralized for a notion of the web of souls, that liberation is only found in its all being free from violence?
The orthodox tradition of anekāntavāda seems to supply an answer. Anekāntavāda asserts that not only are there a plurality of determinate truths, but also that each truth is an indetermination of alternative truths. The notion of multiple viewpoints, that knowledge is always perspectival and ultimate knowledge can only be found upon liberation, will bring forth the notion of multiple viewpoints. The notion of anekāntavāda is best explained through the story of the five men and the elephant: A king once brought five blind men into his courtyard where he had fastened a large elephant and asked them to tell him what it was. Each man touched the elephant and on the basis of their perspective, told the king that he knew this thing to be. The first felt the trunk and declared that it was a huge snake. The second touched the tail and said it was a rope. The third felt the leg and called it a tree trunk. The fourth took hold of the ear and called it a winnowing fan, while the fifth felt the side of elephant and declared it to be a wall. Because each insisted that his claim was correct and truly described the object in question, the five men were soon in the middle of heated argument, unable to resolve the dispute because they failed to recognize that each of their claims was true only from limited perspective.
The blind men are considered as perspectives, each limited by their context, sense, rea-soning, etc. Based on their perspective, they see some form of truth. But these are only partial truths, or tentatively true. For the Jain, the goal is to seek full truth, absolute truth by seeking liberation of the Jīva (soul) from ajīva (matter). Only then can the soul reach omniscience and thus fully know.
The brilliance of anekāntavāda is in its seven-fold argumentation, syādvāda and is expressed in these formulas: 1) A pot simply exists in some respect. 2)A pot does not exist in some respect. 3)A pot does exist in one respect and does not exist in another respect. 4)A pot is inexpressible in some respect. 5) A pot exists and is inexpressible in some respect. 6)A pot does not exist and is inexpressible. 7)A pot exists and does not exist and is inexpressible.18
Any observation based on the limitation of parts of a picture leads one to a limited conclusion, which often appears wrong from a different perspective. A single conclusion, is a mere part of
