Why relativity ? (Ksetra : place, Kala : time Akara
: shape and Bhava : concept, Contribute to our judgement, Hence all
knowledge is relative) , Importance of a negative (The word ‘Syat' not
used to express doubt but is used to indicate many-fold aspects, Sankara's
comments and reply of scholars) , Is the ‘Self' permanent or transitory (Paryaya,
the changing mode and Dravya, the unchanging substance, All things are
within their own limitations, but ‘are not' beyond their limitations) ,
The doctrine of duality , Importance of Anekanta , How the doctrine
clarifies ‘Self' and ‘Ahimsa' , Aneknata and Animsa (Real revolution is
enlargement of man's power of understanding), Einstein's Theory (What
Einstein did on the plane of physics, Mahavira did in the field of
thoughts and metaphysics) , Theory of Seven predications .
"Of ten things that annoy us, nine would not be able to
do so, if we understood them thoroughly in their own causes, and therefore
know their necessity and true nature."
"... ... to see things purely as objects of
understanding is to rise to freedom."
Schopenhauer.
Indeed, proper understanding of conflicting factors in
individual or social life is more than a mere oiling of universal
mechanism. How to get such an understanding ? Nayavada reveals a technique
to arrive at such an understanding. It teaches us that truth reveals to us
only partially if viewed from a particular aspect. Even if one finds that
a proposition is quite contrary to the conviction he had for whole life,
hence the cause of great irritation to him, once he applies the principles
of Nayavada his irritation begins to subside. The simple reason being that
he begins to realize the real cause for that contrary proposition.
Why Relativity
When we judge an object, we take into account not only
its intrinsic-substance, i.e., Dravya, but also the place (Ksetra) where
it is found, the time (Kala) when it is found, and the shape (Akara) as
well as the concept (Bhava) in which it is found.
Moreover, subjective attitude and past recollections
towards the same of similar objects play a decisive role in judgement. At
the same time prejudices and predilections, social upbringing,
environmental necessities and politico-social taboos also play a very
decisive role, in a judgement about an idea.
In fact every object and every idea has infinite
characteristics and is required to be judged from varieties of
standpoints. What should be our reaction towards a thing if we are
convinced that everything in this universe has infinite characteristics
and that limited knowledge a human being is not capable of apprehending
all these characteristics. Certainly, if our approach is objective and
unbiased, we would not rush to take an absolute view of that thing or
though, keeping in mind the limitations of our knowledge. Our judgement
based on limited data is likely to be wrong. We would, however, not be
actual perception. So in our prudence, we would say that the judgement,
formed about actually perceived things is ‘likely' to be true. While
saying so we would not rule out the possibility that it may turn out to be
untrue if looked at from any other perspective. This is the approach of
Syadvada which implies that each and every knowledge is relative. What we
know by the analytical process of Nayavada, we express by the synthesis of
Syadvada. As already noticed, the etymological meaning of the word ‘Syad'
is ‘Perhaps'. But it is used to suggest a relative truth. The theory of
Syadvada is based on the premise that every proposition is only relatively
true. It all depends upon the particular aspect from which we appreciate
that proposition. Since all propositions are related to many
circumstances, our assertions about them depend entirely upon the
particular circumstances through which we are viewing them. Since our view
has a limited aperture, we cannot see everything, and hence it is
appropriate to avoid our absolute assertion.
For instance, when we say that a particular thing
weighs 5 lbs, our statement about the weight is related to the magnetic
force exerted on that thing by our planet, the earth. The same thing may
not weigh anything if removed out of this magnetic field or may weigh
differently in a different planet. The same can be said about our
statements relating to time and space and about every human experience. It
is the matter of our daily experience that the same object which gives
pleasure to us under certain circumstances, becomes boring under different
circumstances. Scientific truths, are, therefore, relative in the sense
that they do not give complete and exhaustive knowledge of the objects
under study and contain elements that may be changed with further advance
in knowledge. Nonetheless, relative truth is undoubtedly useful as it is a
stepping stone to the ultimate truth.
Importance of a Negative
Again, it is important to bear in mind that when we
make a positive assertion about a thing, there is an implied negative
which, if not taken properly into account, may create confusion in
understanding that thing. For instance, a man is a father to his sons but
not to his own father, or to many other persons. He has different
relations with different persons in the society. So when his parent hood
is referred to, it is true only in relation to his children but untrue in
his relations with his wife or friends. Both these positive and negative
aspects are necessary for the correct identification of the relationship
with other persons. Syadvada states the positive aspect by saying ‘Syad
Asti', i.e., ‘it is true from a particular aspect'; it states the negative
aspect by saying ‘Syad Nasti', i.e., ‘it is not true, if viewed from some
other aspect.' In order to identify an object correctly both positive and
negative aspects are necessary to show what that object is and what it is
not. The Jaina logic also admits a third kind of judgement, that of
indescribability called ‘Avaktavya'. It is at this stage important to note
that the word ‘Syad' is not used to express ‘doubt' but is used to avoid a
absolute assertion in view of the fact that our knowledge about the
manifold aspects of a thing is limited. Acarya Hemacandra equates Syadvada
with Anekantavada (non-absolutism). "The word ‘Syat' is an adverb, it
conveys the relativity of a statement, which is based on the manifold
nature of reality, i.e., Anekanta." The expression ‘Anekanta' is made of
two words, ‘Aneka' means manifold and ‘Anta' means Aspect. For everything
has many aspects, so any absolute judgement about it is not the correct
approach. Syadvada is nothing but the relative linguistic expression. As
Dasgupta explains :
"This (Syad asti) will indicate that the affirmation is
only relative, made somehow, from point of view and under some
reservations and not in any sense absolute. There is no judgement which is
absolutely true, and no judgement which is absolutely false. All
judgements are true in some sense and false in another."
We observe that the process of creation, maintenance
and destruction is constantly going on around us in this universe. On the
study of this process the Jaina seers concluded by applying the doctrine
of Syadvada that every object is permanent as well as transitory. To a
layman, such a statement would at once appear to be contradictory as a
thing cannot be permanent and at the same time transitory. In fact such a
criticism is levelled against Jainism by great Vedantists like Sankara and
Ramanuja. The criticism is, however, based on the incorrect presumption
that these apparently contradictory statements are made with reference to
the same aspect and in the same sense and time. Since reality is one and
permanent as well as multi-fold and ever changing, when the Jainas refer
to the attribute of permanence, they are aspecting the substratum which
remains constant, and when they refer to the attribute of transitoriness,
they are aspecting the changing modes of the substratum. They contend that
if you want to have a proper judgement about a thing, you have to bear in
mind the nature of substratum as well as of its changing modes. In other
words you have to bear in mind that the object which you perceive has the
quality of permanence so far as its substratum is concerned and that of
transitoriness so far as its changing modes are concerned. If one
understands in this sense there is no contradiction. As Dr.S.Radhakrishnan
puts it :
"Attributes which are contradictory, in the abstract
co-exist in life and experience. The tree is moving in (the sense) that
its branches are moving, and it is not moving since it is fixed to a place
in the ground. It is necessary for us to know a thing clearly and
distinctly, in its self-existence as well as in its relations to other
objects."
Prof. Ananda Sankara Dhruva, a venerated Gujarati
Scholar and a top literary critic has also criticised Sankara's comments
on Syadvada as under :
"The doctrine on Syadvada seeks to achieve the
synthesis of different theories (of philosophy). Sankaracarya's criticism
of Syadvada has no relevance to its central theme. It is certain that a
thing cannot be properly understood so long as it is not examined from
various aspects. The doctrine of Syadvada is useful for this reason. Some
people call this doctrine of Mahavira as the doctrine of ‘doubt'. But I do
not agree with them. Syadvada is not a doctrine of doubt because it
teaches us the comprehensive art to judge a thing properly."
Prof. A.N.Upadhye says :"This doctrine of seven-fold
predication is often misunderstood and misrepresented by idealists who
have not been able to appreciate the metaphysical basis and intellectual
approach. It reminds one, of the realist-relativists of the west, such as
Whitehead and others. The Jaina logician is neither a sceptic nor a
agnostic; but he is a realist working with sound common sense. He does not
want to ignore the relative or conditional character of the judgement
arising out of the very nature of the object of knowledge."
Is Self Permanent or Transitory ?
In the field of metaphysics, there has been serious
controversy about the real nature of ‘Self'. While Vedantists believe that
everything which is found in this universe is ‘Brahma', the super self,
which is permanent, and the material things which are found have no
reality as they are transitory in nature, the Buddhists would say that
everything in this universe including the super-self is transitory and
constantly changing. These are the two extreme views as they concentrate
only on particular aspects to the exclusion of other aspects. The Jainas
say that both are relatively correct from the view point through which
they see the thing, but both are incorrect in as much as they fail to take
the comprehensive view of all the aspects involved. The Jainas would call
to aid their doctrine of Syadvada, i.e., Anekantavada and would say that
from the point of view of substance, self is permanent, but from the point
of view of modifications, it is transitory. Since substance and its modes
should be taken as an integrated whole in order to comprehend it properly,
both the attributes of permanence and transitoriness should be taken into
account. Both to the Vedantists as well as to the Buddhists the Jaina seer
would say ‘Syad asti', i.e., "From one aspect you are right" and applying
his ‘Anekanta-naya', i.e., looking at the problem from different angles,
would come to the above conclusion. Thus the doctrine of relativity, which
is the practical application of the theory of multifold aspects (Naya-vada),
is nothing but the doctrine of metaphysical synthesis. This doctrine has a
great value in our day to day individual and social life. But before we
touch that aspect, let us take an usual illustration which clarifies the
doctrine fully.
Suppose there is a pot made of earth. The earth by
which it is made, could be used even for making other types of earthen
vessels. Now if the pot which is before us is broken and some vessel is
made out of the earth of the broken pot, the new vessel so made would not
be known as a pot because for all practical purposes the pot is destroyed
and no more exists. This proves that the pot was merely a shape given to
earth and, independently of earth, it had no existence. This also proves
that pot's existence consisted of earth coupled with a particular shape.
Now let us consider which of the two-earth and shape-can claim to have an
attribute of permanence ? The obvious answer is ‘earth' because shape is
transitory and ‘earth' was there before the pot came into existence and
continues to be there even after the pot is destroyed. In fact what was
destroyed was the shape. The Jaina philosophers call the changing modes as
‘Paryaya' and the unchanging substance as ‘Dravya'. Therefore, it can be
said that from the ‘Dravya' aspect, i.e. from the aspect of ‘earth' the
pot is permanent but from the aspect of shape, it is transitory. So long
as it continues in the shape of a pot both the aspects have to be kept in
mind, if its proper cognizance is to be taken.
Whatever is said above about a pot applies on all the
fours, i.e. time, space, etc. to living being.
Doctrine of Duality
The Jaina doctrine of duality of self and matter (Pudgala)
also arises out of the application of ‘Anekanta' and ‘Syadvada' because
the self which is unchanging and permanent cannot be the same as Pudgala
which is ever changing and transitory. Advaita Vedantists such as the
great Sankara look only from one aspect of permanence and ignore the
aspect of change by dubbing it as Maya, i.e. illusion. It should not be
forgotten that every object in this universe has its own limitations as to
form, size, shape, taste, smell and other qualities. These limitations
determine their identities. These objects ‘are' there in the limitations
which they possess but ‘are not' there beyond limitations. Thus they both
‘are' and ‘are not'. They are thus both ‘Sat' and ‘Asat' and not merely
‘Sat' as claimed by the Vedantists nor they are merely ‘Asat' as claimed
by Buddhists and ‘Sunyavadins'.
Email this page 
Philosophy
