________________
22
NON-ABSOLUTISTIC ATTITUDE OF THE JAINAS [CH.
responsible for their uttermost carefulness regarding speech which was required to be unassaulting as well as true. Only the merits of a fact should be stressed and not the demerits. One should not hurt the feelings of others. If there are different doctrines, there must be reasons for their origin. It is the duty of a patient thinker to find out the sources of these doctrines. Non-violent search for truth should inspire the enquiries of a thinker. He should not be prejudiced by preconceptions. It is this attitude of tolerance and justice that was responsible for the origin of the doctrine of Non-absolutism (Anekānta). Out of universal tolerance and peace-loving nature was born cautiousness of speech. Out of cautiousness of speech was born the habit of explaining problems with the help of siyāvāya (=syādvāda) or vibhajjavāya.' This habit, again, developed into a non-absolutistic attitude towards reality. Our thought is relative. Our expressions are relative. The whole reality in its completeness cannot be grasped by this partial thought or expression. Nor can it be comprehended by combining these thoughts or expressions. What is required is the radical change in our absolutistic attitude. The error lies with the attitude and not with the thought or expression. Attachment and repulsion are the two great enemies of philosophical thinking. A thinker should not be guided by abstractionist tendencies which are responsible for mutually contradictory systems of thought. These tendencies are born of predilections, more or less inherent. It is as much difficult to get rid of these predilections as to get rid of the other evils of life. Truth reveals itself to an impartial thinker. This origin of the doctrine of Anekānta can be clearly seen from a study of the solutions by Lord Mahāvīra of the problems which were left unexplained by the Buddha as stated above.
Let us begin with the problem of eternalism. The Buddha avoided both eternalism (śāśvata-vāda) and nihilism (uccheda-vāda). But Mahāvīra explained both these attitudes as real with reference to different aspects of the same reality. This will be clear from the following dialogue between Mahāvīra and his disciple Gautama :
Are the souls, O Lord, eternal or non-eternal?' The souls, O Gautama, are eternal in some respect and noneternal in some respect.' With what end in view, O Lord, is it so said that the souls are eternal in some respect and non-eternal in some respect?' They are eternal, Gautama, from the view point of substance, and non-eternal from the view-point of modes. And with this end in view it is said, O Gautama, that the souls are eternal in some respect and non-eternal in some respect.'3
1 Cf. Haribhadra's Dharmasangrahani, gathā 921 (Bombay 1918 ed.). 2 Cf. Ibid., 925.
3 Bhsa, VII. 2. 273.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
