World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 614

Gunaratnasūri (early 15th cent. A.D.) in his commentary on the Saddarśanasamuccaya of Haribhadrasūri (c. 3rd quarter of the 8th cent. A.D.) has quoted a verse, which explains: "a biased person tries to justify whatever he has already accepted, while unprejudiced person accepts what he feels logically justified”. Jainism supports ‘rational thinking'. Supporting the rational outlook in religious matters Ācārya Haribhadra syas : "I possess no bias for Lord Mahāvira and no prejudice against Kapila and other saints and thinkers. Whosoever is rational and logical ought to be accepted 17". While describing the right faith Amrtacandra (c. early 10th cent. A.D.) condemns three types of idols namely superstitions relating deities, path and scriptures18. Thus when religion tends to be rational there will hardly by any room for intolerance. One who is thoroughly rational in religious matters, certainly would not be rigid and intolerant. Non-Absolutism the Philosophical Basis of Tolerance
Dogmatism and fanaticism are the born children of absolutism. An extremist or absolutist holds that whatsoever he propounds is correct and what others say is false, while a relativist is of the view that he and his opponent both may be correct, if viewed from two different angles and thus a relativist adopts a tolerant .outlook towards other faiths and ideologies. It is the doctrine of 'Anekantavada' or non-absolutism of the Jainas on which the concept of religious tolerance is based. For the Jainas non-violence is the essence of religion from which the concept of nonabsolutism emanates. Absolutism represents Violence of thought, for, it negates the truth-value of its opponent's view and thus hurts the feeling of others. A non-violent search for truth finds non-absolutism.
Jaina thinkers are of the view that reality is a complex one!9. It has many facets, various attributes and various modes. It can be viewed and understood from different angles and thus various judgments may be made about it. Even two contradictory statements about an object may hold true. Since we are finite beings, we can know or experience only a few facets of reality at one time. The reality in its completeness cannot be grasped by us. Only a universal-observer-Sarvajña can comprehend it completely. Yet even for an Ommiscient it is impossible to know and explain it without a standpoint or viewpoint20. This premise can be understood form the following example. – Take it for granted that every one of us has a camera to clic a snap of a tree. We can have hundreds of photographs but still we find most portion of the tree photographically remains uncovered, and what is more, the photographs differ from each other unless they are taken from the same angle. So is also the case with diversified human understanding and knowledge. We only can have a partial and relative view of reality. It is impossible for us to know and describe reality without an angle or viewpoint. While
565