Jainism and ‘syadvad’
‘Jainism’ is one of the most ancient religions of India. Today is Mahavira’s birth anniversary is being observed in many part of India. Mahāvīra, whose original name was Vardhamāna, was the twenty-fourth ‘Tirthankara’-spiritual guide (literally ford-maker) of Jainism.
According to Jain tradition Mahavira was born in the 6th century BC into a royal family in present day Bihar, India. He left his home at the age of thirty and abandoned all worldly possessions in pursuit of spiritual awakening. He devoted himself in search of ultimate truth. He even shunned clothing and tolerated severe pain and hardships in pursuit of his goal.
After attaining omniscience (Kevala Jnana), he taught that the observance of five vows ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacharya (chastity), and aparigraha (non attachment) are necessary for spiritual liberation. He was the pioneer of observing non violence in day to day life. Doctrine of Jainism so strictly follows non-violence that even Jain monks wear a piece of cloth before their mouth so that their respiration may not harm minuscule life forms.
Although, I don’t like their strict observance of vegetarianism and many other theories, because of their extreme forms in actual behavior, Jain doctrine of anekantavada (many-sidedness) which is also known as ‘syadvad’ and ‘nayavad’, seems to me a very valid doctrine which one should adopt in order to understand this world without prejudices. The word anekāntavāda is derived from Sanskrit word anekānta (not one ended or manifoldness) and vada means doctrine or way. This doctrine states that truth and reality is complex and always has multiple aspects. No one can fully be aware of every aspect of truth.
Though, reality can be experienced, but it is not possible to totally express it with language. We can experience the taste of something or feel the touch of a thing but we cannot fully express that taste or touch through our words. According to this doctrine we should say ‘perhaps’ in place of ‘certainly’ in context of truth.
Following story explains this doctrine effectively.
Once in a village where seven blind men lived, an elephant came. Those blind men also wanted to get knowledge of it. For this they touched different part of it. One, who touched its feet, said elephant was like a pillar, while other who touched his ear said it was like a leaf. Others also described the elephant according to their experiences but they had no agreement on it. So they began to quarrel. A wise man saw them fighting and told them that they all were right and also wrong because everyone of them could get a touch of only a part of the elephant while the elephant had every such characteristics as they had described individually. Likewise those blind men we all fight with each other to prove our point. Everyone may be right but it depends on the aspects of the truth that one sensed or experienced.
Buddha was the contemporary of Mahavira. Where Buddha taught the Middle Way, rejecting extremes of the answer "it is" or "it is not" to metaphysical questions, Mahavira, in contrast, taught his followers to accept both "it is" and "it is not", with "perhaps" qualification and with reconciliation to understand the Absolute Reality.
Perhaps, both were right as sometimes things are not as easy as they seem or sometimes they are not as complex as we think them. Everything is relative in this world. Nothing is absolute.
I think we should not see it mere a religious doctrine or some metaphysical conundrum. We can observe the importance of this doctrine in our day to day life. It encourages us to ask questions and keep us from becoming an extremist. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, nothing is absolute in this world except the velocity of the light.
We should not think that everything is right. We should not make ourselves realize that the governments are doing everything for the betterment of us. We should be skeptical when some religious leader tells us that other religions are our enemies and are on the wrong path. Every suicide bomber must realize that perhaps he/she might be exploited by powerful people for their own vested interest.
This doctrine can be our principal guide. It does not create confusion in our minds. In fact it opens our eyes and changes the way we see this world with our narrow mindedness. In the present world, where we are having bombardment of myriad data in disguise of the information, the significance of this doctrine has increased.
