Lord Mahavir, The 24th Tirthankar

Lord Mahavira was the 24th and last reformer or Tirthankara of Jainism. Lord Mahavir was born on the thirteenth day of rising moon of Chaitra month, in 599 B.C. in the present state of Bihar, India. His birthplace is believed to have been near the modern city of Patna. Lord Mahavira’s birthday falls in the month of April as per Gregorian calendar. Lord Mahavira’s mother’s name was Queen Trishla and his father’s name was King Siddhartha. Both his parents were followers of Lord Parshwanath, the 23rd Tirthankara, who lived during 877-777 BCE. When the soul conceived into Queen Trishala's womb, she saw the fourteen great dreams.

Trishala Mother's 14 Great Dreams

EARLY LIFE

Lord Mahavira was a prince and was given the name Vardhaman by his parents. Being the son of a king, he had many worldly pleasures, comforts, and services at his command. However, even at that tender age he exhibited a virtuous nature. He started engaging in meditation and immersed himself in self-contemplation. He was interested in the core beliefs of Jainism and began to distance himself from worldly matters. Even in his early youth he seems to have thought of renouncing the world, but he was always prevailed upon by his affectionate parents to change his resolve, nor did Prince Vardhaman desired to hurt his parents. It appears that Vardhaman’s parents were quite firm in making attempts to engage the boy’s mind in worldly things and in creating around him a luscious atmosphere of amusement and pleasure. Fairly early in life he was married to a charming princess, Yashoda. Yashoda gave birth to a girl who was named Priyadarsana. Although Vardhaman was not attached in worldly life since his young age but he had decided not to renounce the world as long as his parents were alive. His parents passed away by observing fast unto death (santhara) when Vardhaman was 28 years of age. 

Vardhamana taking permission from his elder brother

Now the moment had come for great renunciation but he decided to take permission from his elder brother Nandivardhan. Nandivardhan dissuaded him from renouncing worldly life for two more years because in the absent of their parents it was unable for him to handle responsibility single handedly and the renunciation of his younger brother would add more pain in their parents’ death.

Vardhamana practicing Samayika at his palace

Vardhaman Mahavir lived for two more years in the palace but he spent those years in meditation and spent this time living like a monk. He observed fasts and practiced celibacy until the day of renunciation approached.

GREAT RENUNCIATION

Vardhamana distributing his wealth to the needy

Vardhamana giving up his cloths and bonds

On the tenth day of Margsirsa Vardhaman renounced all his bonds, left his silver gold and riches, rejected his property, distributed his wealth in presents, and became a homeless monk. He tore his long hairs with handfuls, removed all his clothes and put a single garment on his shoulder. He then uttered “Namo Siddhanam”, (I bow down to the liberated souls) and started to walk toward the jungles.

SPIRITUAL PURSUIT

a depiction of Lord Mahavir's first meditation after renunciation and his wandering  

Lord Mahavir giving his half garment to a brahmin as alms 

Vardhaman spent 12.5 years in deep meditation and self control.  During these twelve years he spent most of his time meditating. He gave utmost regard to other living beings, including humans, animals and plants, and avoided harming them. He had given up all worldly possessions including his clothes, and lived an extremely austere life. He exhibited exemplary control over his senses while enduring the penance during these years. His courage and bravery earned him the name Mahavira – The Great Hero. This course of penance’s comprehended ‘uninterrupted meditation, unbroken chastity, and the most scrupulous observance of the rules concerning eating and drinking.’ The account of his spiritual practices given in the Acharanga Sutra is literally soul -stirring.

"He meditated day and night, undisturbed and non-perturbed. Avoiding women and giving up the company of householders, he realized singleness. He lodged in workshops, assembling places, manufactories, shed of straw, towns, garden-houses, in cemeteries and burial grounds, or at the foot of a tree, wherever shelter was available. He did not care for sleep for the sake of pleasure and he slept only for 3 hours in his 12.5 years of spiritual pursuit. In winter when cold winds blew, he did not seek sheltered places or kindle wood or seek to cover himself with clothes. In the cold season he meditated in the shade, in summer he exposed himself to the heat. He would meditate with his eyes fixed on a square space before him of the length of a man or in some of the posture without the smallest motion. While meditating he would concentrate on the things above, below, or beside. He meditated free from sin and desire, not attached to sounds or colors, and never acted carelessly. Being averse from the impressions of the senses, he spoke very little and was always calm.

‘Thoroughly knowing the earth-bodies and water-bodies and fire-bodies and wind-bodies, the lichens, seeds and sprouts’ and comprehending ‘that they are, if narrowly inspected, imbued with life’, he avoided all kinds of sin and abstained from all sinful activities. He did not use other’s robe, nor did he eat out of other’s vessel. He did not rub his eyes or scratch his body. Knowing measure in eating and drinking he was not desirous of delicious food, nor had he a longing for it.’ For more than a couple of years he led a religious life without using cold water. He completely abstained from indulgence of the flesh; whether wounded or not, he took no medical treatment. He lived on rough food-rice, pounded jujube and beans. Sometimes he ate stale food. He accepted moist or dry or cold food, old beans, old pap, or bad grain, whatever was available. But if where there were hungry birds, animals or thirsty beings or beggars standing in his way, he would go past that place without begging alms. He kept fasts; sometimes he ate only the sixth meal, or the eighth, or the tenth, or the twelfth; sometimes he did not drink for half a month or even for a month or for more than two months or even six months.

In accordance with the rules of the order he wandered about unceasingly, except for the four months of the rainy season. During the rest of the year, he lived in villages only a single night and in towns only five nights. He was indifferent alike to the smell of ordure and the sweet scent of sandal, to straw and jewel, dirt and gold, pleasure and pain, this world and the world beyond, to life and death. His mind was completely free from attachment. Circumspect in his thought, words and acts, he moved without wrath, pride, deceit and greed. Like water in a vessel, he was unattached in the midst of sin. During the course of his travels, he visited the pathless country of the Ladhas, in Vajrabhumi and in Subbhabhumi; and here his troubles were endless. The rude natives of the place attacked him and set dogs to bite him. He endured the abusive language of the rustics and bore pain, free from desire. “When he approached the village the inhabitants met him on the outside and attacked him, saying ‘Get away from here’. He was struck with a stick, the fist, a lance, hit with a fruit, a clod a potsherd. Beating him again and again many cried. Once when he sat in meditation, without moving his body they cut his flesh, tore his hair under pains, or covered him with dust. They disturbed him in his religious postures”. But like a hero at the head of a battle, bearing all hardships he reached on his path wholly undisturbed."

DETAILS OF LORD MAHAVIR’S ASCETIC LIFE

Within a few days of Mahavira's renunciation, he went to a village called Kummara. He stood there in meditation. One cow- herder took him to be a thief and wanted to hit him, and Mahavira had to leave the village. After a few months of wandering, Mahavira went to an ashram in Moraga, where he was invited to spend the four-month rainy season by its abbot. Mahavira was assigned a hut with a thatched roof. The previous summer had been so hot that the grass in the forest was destroyed, and the cattle ran to eat the ascetics' grass huts. The other ascetics beat off the cattle, but Mahavira just let the cattle eat the thatched roof. The ascetics complained to the abbot, and so Mahavira decided to leave the ashram and spent the rainy season in the village of Ashtikagram. Reflecting upon this experience, Mahavira resolved to follow the fivefold discipline of never living in the house of an unfriendly person, usually standing with the body like a statue (Kayotsarga), generally maintaining silence, eating out of his hand as a dish, and not showing politeness to householders.

Lord Mahavir calmly bearing Shulpani Yaksha's tortures

 Wandering Mahavira one day arrived near a small forlorn village on the banks of river Vegvati. There he took permission from the village headman to stay in an abandoned temple for a night long meditation. According to the scriptures, he was tortured by a Yaksha Shulpani but remained undisturbed in his meditation, free from attachment and aversion, unless the Yaksha gave up torturing Mahavira and fell at his feet. Mahavir opened his eyes and, raising his hand, said, “Shulpani! Anger supplements anger and love begets love. If you do not cause fear, you will become free of all fears always. So destroy the poison ivy of anger.”

During the second year, while Mahavira was crossing the river, his garment was caught in the thorns on the bank of the river. The lord did not look back or tried to put it back on his shoulders. He kept walking and from this time onwards he remained naked.

Lord Mahavir and the poisonous snake Chandkaushika 

Once while he was on his way to Shwetambika town, he had to go through a barren forest which was the habitat of a poisonous cobra snake. He was warned by the villagers to avoid that route but Mahavira did not show any fear. Reaching the snake’s hole he decided to stand there for meditation. According to the scriptures he was bitten by the snake that was a Jain monk in his previous births and had to take the birth of a snake because of anger. The snake was astonished to see milk oozing out instead of blood from the spots where it has stung on Mahavira’s toe. The milk was sign of boundless compassion he had for every living being. Then staring into Mahavira’s eyes full of compassion the snake regained memories of its previous lives and repented mentally for the sins it had committed in previous births. The snake then did not harm any living being and died peacefully.

Mahavira’s second rainy season was spent in Nalanda, a suburb of Rajagrha. While here he was met by Gosala Mankhaliputra. Gosala was then wandering about in the country showing pictures to the people, and was attracted by Mahavira owing to his extra-ordinary self-restraint and impressive habits of medication and by the fact that a rich householder of Rajagrha, by name Vijaya had shown respect and hospitality towards Mahavira. The Jaina books mention that Gosala approached Mahavira with a request that he may be adopted as his disciple, but that Mahavira declined his request, presumably because he at once sensed the great difference between their temperaments. Gosala’s request was repeated on two later occasions and on each successive occasion with greater earnestness, and was ultimately granted by Mahavira. From there they travelled for six years together.

In Choraga village, both Mahavira and Goshala were taken for spies and imprisoned. Tying them with ropes, the landlord Kalahasti torchered them. His elder brother Megh identified Mahavira as Vardhaman, King Siddhartha’s son. He fell at the feet of Mahavir and, with tears of repentance in his eyes he begged to be forgiven. When released Mahavir resumed his journey.

Goshala left Mahavira’s company after six years and started his own school known as Ajivika and declared himself as Jina or Omniscient where Mahavira continued his journey towards the ultimate truth.

twenty great afflictions by Sangam

In the eleventh year of his spiritual journey, one day Lord Mahavir was doing a special one night meditation in Polash Temple. In this practice one makes his body, mind, psyche and soul absolutely still and tranquil, observing the high degree of engrossment in meditation. According to the scriptures, on that night, he was tortured by the celestial being Sangam who gave twenty terrible physical pain to the Lord. Ultimately he couldn’t disturb the lord from his spiritual meditation. It was at this time, and only at this time, that tears rolled from the eyes of Bhagvan Mahavir. The reason behind the tears was not the pain caused by Sangam but they were for the cost of Sangam's own awful severe loss.

It was the 12th year of Mahavira’s spiritual practices. Spending the monsoon-stay at Vaishali he came to a garden in Kaushambi. It was the time around which the incidents of Shatanik’s attack on Champa, fall of Champa, sacrifice of queen Dharini, auction of princess Vasumati as a slave, etc. were occurring. Mahavira with his penetrating knowledge and perception had a glimpse of all this. He made an almost impossible resolution on the first day of the dark half of the month of Paush.

“I will accept alms for breaking my fast only from a princess that has become a slave. And that too only if she has a shaven head, her limbs are shackled, she has not eaten for three days, she is sitting on the threshold of a house, she has pulse-bran lying in a basket and she has a smile as well as tears in her eyes. Unless these conditions are met I resolve to continue my practice and not to break my fast.”

Lord Mahavir accepting alms from the hands of Chandanbala

Five months and twenty five days had passed since Mahavira had eaten anything. The twenty sixth day of the sixth month dawned. It was past noon when Mahavira, wandering for alms, approached the house where Princess Vasumati as a slave was kept. She had made a resolve not to eat before serving to some monk. She had stale pulse in the basket. Upon seeing the Lord approaching to the house she became happy and offered the alms. This is where all conditions of Lord Mahavira met except the one. There were no tears in Vasumati’s eyes. By seeing this Lord moved ahead without accepting alms. Vasumati became sad and thought, “How unlucky I am that Shramana Mahavira did not accept the alms from my hand.” And then she started to cry. When the lord saw back he saw tears in her eyes and thus all his conditions met. He accepted stale pulse and broke his six months long fast. Vasumati later became known as Chandana or Chandanbala and took initiation under Lord Mahavira’s hands and became head nun of the nun order and ultimately gained Omniscience and Nirvana.

The cow-herder hammering thorns into Lord Mahavir's ears

After spending his twelfth rainy season, Lord Mahavira started his journey to Chammani village and as night was approaching he decided to stand in Kayotsarg Meditation outside the village under a tree before it gets dark. A passing cow herder saw the lord and asked him to look for his oxen as he wanted to go back to the village. The lord was in deep meditation and didn’t reply him. The cowherd went into the village and returned a little late. The oxen had drifted away grazing. Not finding his oxen, he asked, “Ascetic, where are my oxen?” As the lord was in meditation he didn’t reply. The cowherd asked again, and once again he did not get any response. He got irritated and shouted, “You hypocrite! Are you deaf, don’t you hear anything?”

Again not getting any answer from Mahavira, the cow herder lost his temper and picked long nail like thorns from a nearby shrub of Kansa grass and pierced the ears of Mahavir deeply by hammering the thorns in. Even such excruciating agony did not move Mahavir from his meditation; neither did it evoke any feeling of anger or aversion in him.

The next afternoon the thorns were removed by doctor Kharak. Kharak used some medicated oil and forceps and pulled out the thorns. This caused such an unbearable agony to Mahavir that an anguished cry was forced out of him. Blood oozed out of his ears.

THE TEN GREAT DREAMS

After deep and exhausting spiritual practice for more than 12 years Lord Mahavir was extremely tired. The exhaustion resulted in a slumber for a few moments during the last hour of the night and Mahavir saw ten strange drams. The ten dreams are described in Jain scriptures as below:

1)  Defeating a lion: You will soon destroy the Illusory (Mohaniya) Karma.

2) A bird with white feathers is in attendance: You will always have purest attitude or feelings.

3) A bird with multicolored feathers: You will propagate multifaceted knowledge through the 12 Aagams (canons)

4)  Two gem strings appear in front: You will preach two-way religion. The conduct of ascetics and the conduct of laity.

5)  A herd with white cows: The four pronged organization will serve you.

6)  A pond with open lotuses: The celestial beings from four dimensions will serve you.

7)  Crossed a waxy ocean swimming: You will cross the ocean of rebirths.

8)  Sun rays spreading in all directions: Soon you will attain Omniscience (kevala jnana).

9) You are encircling the mountain with your bluish intestines: You will pervade the universe with your pure glory.

10) You are sitting on a throne placed on summit of the Mount Meru: You will give religious discourse sitting on a high throne.

ATTAINMENT OF OMNISCIENCE

It was the tenth day of the bright half of the month of Vaishakh. Twelve years five months and fifteen days had passed since the beginning of Mahavira’s spiritual practices. Lord Mahavir sat in mediation under a Shala tree in a garden on the back of the river Rijuvaluka (river Barakar in modern times). Sitting on both feet with knees touching his chest, he was feeling calm even in the scorching summer sun. Focusing all his physical, mental and spiritual energies he was engrossed in deep and pure meditation (shukla dhyana). Gradually the sun was setting in the west and within him the sun of omniscience was rising. He became omniscient or, or Arihanta. He became a Jina, the victorious over attachment and aversion. At that time he was 42 years of age.

Lord Mahavira’s attainment of Absolute Knowledge or Omniscience is mentioned in the Kalpasutra as below:

"During the thirteenth year, in the second month of summer, in the fourth fortnight, the light (fortnight) of Vaisakha, on its tenth day, when the shadow had turned towards the east and the first wake was over, on the day called Suvrata, in the Muhurta called Vigaya, outside of the town Grimbhikagrama on the bank of the river Rjupalika, not far from an old temple, in the field of the householder Samaga(shyamak), under a Sal tree, when the moon was in conjunction with the asterism Uttaraphalguni, (the Venerable One) in a squatting position with joined heels, exposing himself to the heat of the sun, after fasting two and a half days without drinking water, being engaged in deep meditation, reached the highest knowledge and intuition, called Kevala, which is infinite, supreme, unobstructed, unimpeded, complete, and full.”

“He knew and saw all conditions of the worlds, of celestial beings, men and animals and hellish beings; whence they came, whither they are born as men or animals or became celestial beings or hellish beings, the ideas, the thoughts of their mind, the food, doings, desires, the open and secret deeds of all the livings in the whole world; the Arhat, for whom there is no secret, knew and saw all conditions of all living beings in the world, what they thought, spoke, or did at any time.”

THE FIRST DISCOURSE

The divine preaching pavilion

According to scriptures, a divine preaching pavilion (Samavasarana) was created by the celestial beings for Lord Mahavir to spread his message. All Tirthankaras preach from a Samavasarana according to Jainism. Lord Mahavira spread his message of Ahimsa (Non-violence), but no enough mass gathered at that time and his discourse could not change anybody’s heart and thus his first discourse remained unsuccessful. Then after travelling a long distance he arrived at the city of Pava where the second Samavasarana was created in the garden of Mahasena. Here after a long philosophical discussion Lord Mahavira converted the eleven learned Brahmin Pundits into Jainism and made them his chief disciples (Ganadhars).  They were, Indrabhuti, Agnibhuti, Vayubhuti, Vyakta, Sudharma, Mandikata, Mauryaputra, Akampita, Achalbhadra, Metarya and Prabhasa. The first three were real brothers and were from Gautama clan. Indrabhuti is famously known in Jain scriptures as Gautama or Indrabhuti Gautama and was highly attached and impressed from Lord Mahavira. Each disciple had their own followers and all took initiation under Lord Mahavira’s order. Thus, eleven great scholars were inducted with their 4400 disciples into Lord Mahavira’s order during his first discourse. It is presumable that at this place not only Shramanas but also lay disciples joined Mahavira’s order; in Jaina texts there are references to the Lord having established a community of four orders i.e., monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen at the same time.

To his chief disciples, Lord Mahavira gave the knowledge of Three Pronouncements or Tripadi. These are Upaneiva (Emergence), Vigameiva (Distruction) and Dhuveiva (Permanence). There emerges a new phase of substance (any of the six substances), the old phase vanishes and yet the substance maintains its own essence and quality. Thus nothing new is created, but the substance undergoes modifications. From this knowledge the eleven disciples composed Dwadashangi or the 12 Angas.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FORD

Lord Mahavir initiating disciples 

Lord Mahavir established the Jaina Ford on the eleventh day of the bright half of the month of Vaishakh. After his first discourse he changed hearts of many listeners. There were many kings, including King Shrenik Bimbisar and Ajatshatru (Konik) of Rajgriha, King Chetaka of Vaishali, Nine Kings of Kashi, King Udayana, King Shatanik, King Chandrapadyot and Nine Licchavis Kings of Koshal were staunch devotees of Lord Mahavir.

Lord Parshwanath, the 23rd Tirthankara preached four vows namely, not to steal, not to Lie, not to commit violence and not to own property. Seeing the conditions of human minds in the present time, Lord Mahavir added the fifth vow namely Chastity and preached five vows.

LATER YEARS

Lord Mahavir devoted his life preaching the eternal truth he had realized through absolute knowledge. He had a huge community of more than five hundred thousand lay persons and fifty thousand monks and nuns. He organized his followers into a fourfold order, monk, nun, layman and laywoman. Lord Mahavir travelled barefoot, meeting people from all walks of life who came to listen his discourses.  Lord Mahavir gave discourses in the local language Ardhamagadhi, not in the classical Sanskrit.

Lord Mahavir preaching before kings

TEACHING

Lord Mahavir taught that from eternity every soul is in bondage of Karmic Atoms (the minutest atomic particles) that are accumulated by good or bad deeds. In a state of Karmic Delusion, the living being, trapped in worldly existence seeks temporary happiness from external objects and thus accumulates more karma. Lord Mahavir emphasized on self-realization and the knowledge of difference between the self-soul and matter to get rid of influx of fresh karma and to eliminate previously acquired karma to liberate the self from the cycle of birth and death. Lord Mahavir taught the necessity of Triple Gems (Right Knowledge, Right Faith and Right Conduct) in order to attain liberation. There are the Five Great Vows in the heart Right Conduct. These are Non-Violence, Truthfulness, Non-Stealing, Non-Possession and Chastity. The monks and nuns have to observe these vows strictly. Lord Mahavir denied the existence of Supreme God and stressed on self-effort to attain emancipation.

 Lord Mahavir’s philosophy has eight cardinal principles- three metaphysical and five ethical. According to Jainism, the Universe is eternal, was never created and will never be destroyed. The Universe is made up of six eternal substances namely Souls, Material Atoms, Medium of Motion, Medium of Rest, Space and Time. All the six are independent of each other. The six are eternal and yet undergo changes or modifications. To explain this multifaceted reality Lord Mahavir reestablished the philosophy of Anekantvada or The Principle of Non-Absolutism. Anekantvada refers to multiplicity of view-points and teaches us that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. The language, which is of human creation, has limits to express the absolute truth in words, the principle of Syadvada or the Principle of Seven Fold Predictions was later developed in order to express the multifaceted reality. Another theory called Nayvada also arose from Anekantvada. Nayvada means The Principle of Partial Stand Points. According to Jainism there are infinite stand points and each express partial truth.

Lord Mahavira taught that men and women are spiritual equals and that both may renounce the world in search of Moksha. Lord Mahavira attracted people from all walks of life, rich and poor, men and women, touchable and untouchable.

THE FINAL DISCOURSE

Lord Mahavir began his last discourse at Pavapuri. It was a marathon one and the world was bathed in the words of wisdom emanating from his lips. His last discourse lasted for consecutive 48 hours and is recorded as Uttradhyayana Sutra.  

NIRVANA

At age 72 years and 4 and half months, Lord Mahavir attained Nirvana at Pavapuri. Lord Mahavir’s great Nirvana is mentioned in the sacred text Kalpasutra as below:

“The non-destructive karma of the venerable ascetic Lord Mahavir got exhausted, when in this descending time cycle, the greater part of dushama-dushama period had elapsed and only three years and eight and a half months were left. Mahavira had recited the fifty-five lectures which detail the results of Karma, and the thirty-six unasked questions (the Uttaradhyana Sutra). The moon was in conjunction with the asterism Svati (Arcturus), at the time of early morning, in the town of Papa, and in king Hastipala's office of the writers, Lord Mahavir single and alone, sitting in the Samparyahka posture, left his body and attained nirvana, freed from all pains.”

“In that night in which the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira, died, freed from all pains, the eighteen confederate kings of Kasi and Kosala, the nine Mallakis and nine Licchavis, on the day of new moon, instituted an illuminations on the Poshadha, which was a fasting day; for they said: 'Since the light of intelligence is gone, let us make an illumination of material matter!”

Jains celebrate this as Diwali, the day he attained liberation or Moksha.

The day Lord Mahavir attained Nirvana, his chief disciple Indrabhuti Gautama attained Omniscience, the absolute knowledge. At that time his age was 80 years and couldn’t gain it since 30 years due to extreme attachment towards Lord Mahavir. With realizing the fact that everything is transitory and contemplating deeply on singleness of the soul, he gained Omniscience and became Arihanta. 

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LORD MAHAVIR
According to Jainism, all Tirthankars born with Vajrarishabha Narach Sanhanan joints as well as Samchaturasa Naracha Sanhanan. Vajrarishabha Narach Sanhanan mentions the strongest body which is capable of bearing  hardest tortures and difficulties. Samchaturasa Naracha Sanhanan literally means the Symmetrical Body. From this we can say that Lord Mahavira's bodily structure was Symmetrical built and was capable of bearing hardest tortures caused by the animals, humans and celestial beings. According to the scriptures, such symmetrical body is the most beautiful human structure in the universe. 

The conception of symmetry is explained in the following way. "Imagine a man with Paryanka Posture, i.e, crossing the legs and placing the hands over the navel. If straight lines are drawn across the two knees, from the right shoulder to the left knee, from the left shoulder to the right knee, and from the forehead to the hands, one gets four lines. If these are equal to one another, symmetry is apparent."

According to the scholars, he must have been a man of strong will power and patience. Otherwise he could not withstood the tortures and privations he suffered during the period of twelve and half years he was travelling before his attainment of Omniscience. He must have also had charisma and quality of attracting people. This conclusion can be drawn from the success he obtained in combining the Jaina (Nirgrantha) church into one, and creating a religious system, which has lasted almost unchanged these 2500 years. 

ALSO READ

--------------------------------------------------------

Lord Mahavira Quotes

Previous Births of Lord Mahavir

Anekantvada

Parasparopagraho Jeevanam

Nine Fundamentals

The Principle of Freedom of Substances

Three Pronouncements 

Opinions About Jainism and Lord Mahavir

The Vision of Non-Difference 

The Substantive and Instrumental Causes

The Types of Karma

The Four Great Principles By Lord Mahavir

14 Gunasthanas

Twelve Reflections

Triple Gems

Matter, Essence and Modes

Six Fundamental Truths

-----------------------------------------------------------

ANEKANTAVADA PART 4: SYADVADA

previous article

Syädväda or Sapta-Bhanga (Seven Predications)

‘‘The doctrine of Syädväda holds that since a thing is full of most contrary characteristics of infinite variety, the affirmation made is only from a particular standpoint or point of view and therefore it may be correct or true. However, the same assertion may be wrong or false from some other standpoint or point of view. Thus, the assertion made cannot be regarded as absolute. All affirmations in some sense are true and in some sense are false. Similarly, all assertions are indefinite and true in some sense as well as indefinite and false in some other sense. Assertions could be true, or false or indefinite. Thus, Jainism proposes to grant the non-absolute nature of reality and relativistic pluralism of the object of knowledge by using the word ‘Syät’ (or Syäd) before the assertion or Judgment. The word ‘Syät’ literally means ‘may be.’ It is also translated as ‘perhaps’, ‘some how’, ‘relatively’ or ‘in a certain sense’. The word ‘Syät’ or its equivalent in English used before the assertion makes the proposition true but only under certain conditions i.e. hypothetically. What is to be noted is that the word ‘Syät’ is not used in the sense of probability leading to uncertainty.

Probability again hints at skepticism and Jainism is not skepticism. Since reality has infinite aspects, our judgments are bound to be conditional. Thus, Syädväda is the theory of relativity of knowledge. The Jains quoted quite a good number of parables, which are conventionally used by Jain writers to explain the theory. The most famous one for the grip over the core of the theory is the famous parable of six blind men who happened to come across an elephant. Each one was sure and asserting about his own description alone being correct. However, each one was correct from his point of view though contrary to each other. Thus the Jains hold that no affirmation or judgment is absolute in its nature, each is true in its own limited sense only. The affirmations will tell either about the existence, or non-existence, or about the inexpressible. Combining these three will give four more alternatives. So, we derive the seven alternatives technically known as Sapta-Bhanga Naya or the sevenfold Judgment.

Theory of Seven Predications (Sapta-Bhanga)

To clarify the above approach of ascertaining the truth by the process of Syädväda, the Jain philosophers have evolved a formula of seven predications, which are known as Sapta-bhanga. ‘Sapta’ means ‘seven’ and ‘Bhanga’ means ‘mode’. These seven modes of ascertaining the truth are able to be exact in exploring all possibilities and aspects. For any proposition, there are three main modes of assessment, namely,
(1) Syad Asti (Perhaps it is), 
(2) Syad Nasti (Perhaps it is not), 
(3)Syad Asti Nasti (Perhaps it is as well as it is not), 
(4) Syad Avaktavya (Perhaps it is indescribable), 
(5) Syad Asti Avaktavya (Perhaps it is and it is indescribable, 
(6) Syad Nasti Avaktavya (Perhaps it is not and it is indescribable), 
(7) Syad Asti Nasti Avaktavya (Perhaps it is, as well as it is not and it is indescribable.

 All these seven predications are explained with reference to an ethical proposition that ‘Does the soul exist?’ With regard to this proposition, the seven predications noted above can be made as under:

1)      Syad Asti: Perhaps the soul does exist.

2)      Syad Nasti: Perhaps the soul doesn’t exist.

3)      Syad Asti Nasti: Perhaps the soul does exist as well as it does not.

4)      Syad Avaktavya: Perhaps it is indescribable.

5)      Syad Asti Avaktavya: Perhaps the soul does exist and it is indescribable as well.

6)      Syad Nasti Avaktavya: Perhaps the soul doesn’t exist and it is indescribable as well.

7)    Syad Asti Nasti Avaktavya: Perhaps the soul does exist as well as it doesn’t and it is indescribable as well.

All these seven modes can be expressed with regard to every proposition. The Jain philosophers have applied them with reference to self, its eternality, non-eternality, identity and character. In fact, this approach of Anekänta permeates almost every doctrine, which is basic to Jain philosophy. S. Gopalan quotes Eliot in this connection as saying: "The essence of the doctrine (of Syädväda) so far as one can disentangle it from scholastic terminology, seems just for it amounts to this, that as to matters of experience it is impossible to formulate the whole and the complete truth, and as to matters which transcend experience, language is inadequate." At no time in the history of mankind, this principle of Syädväda was more necessary than in the present.

This is the general view of the method of the Jain dialectic. Only this type of dialectical method can represent Syädväda. The theory of sevenfold predication is treated as synonymous with Syädväda owing to the fact that the number of possible or alternative truths under the conditional method of Syädväda is seven only.’’

Syädväda: Critical Evaluation

Jains admit that a thing cannot have self contrary attributes at the same time and at the same place. What Jainism emphasizes is the manyness and manifoldness of a thing or the complex nature of reality. Dr. Rädhäkrishnan says, "Since reality is multiform and ever-changing, nothing can be considered to exist everywhere and at all times and in all ways and places and it is impossible to pledge us to an inflexible creed." A. N. Upadhhye writes that Syädväda and Naya-väda has supplied the philosopher the catholicity of thought. It also convinces one that Truth is not anybody’s monopoly with tariff walls of denominational religion while furnishing the religious aspirant with the virtue of intellectual toleration. This is the part of that Ahimsa which is one of the fundamental tenets of Jainism.’’ Lastly, in the words of Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah, ‘‘Anekäntaväda is the heart of Jain metaphysics and Naya-väda and Syädväda (or Sapta-bhangi) are its main arteries. To use a happier metaphor: the bird of Anekäntaväda flies on its wings of Naya-väda and Syädväda.’’ Through Anekäntaväda, and thus through Naya-väda and Syädväda, Jains bring a solution to the age-old controversy between the absolutism and nihilism or between the one and the many or the real and the unreal.

Theistic Implication of Syädväda

Thus, the spirit to understand the other and other’s standpoint and to learn to tolerate the conflicting or contrary situation helps a lot towards the higher development of right conduct. It broadens the mind and makes a person quite objective and open in his thinking. Such a person, like Jain monks, reads extensively the treatises of other schools. It proves to be good training ‘‘to identify extreme views and to apply the proper corrections.” Thus, here also, we find Syädväda a great help towards right knowledge and right conduct. Syädväda, by molding a person towards better conduct and higher knowledge, proves to be of great theistic significance. One of the aims of life is to make the earth a better and worthier world. Syädväda in spite of its dry dialectic and forbidding use of logic is not without a lesson for the practical human beings of the world. Pundit Dalsukhbhai Malvania, an authority on Jainism, in one of his essays on Anekäntaväda explains that the motto of Anekäntaväda is Ahimsa and that is the prime reason that Jain philosophy is based on Anekäntaväda. The very idea of not to hurt others but to be kind and sympathetic towards others’ views and thus to be friendly is the logical outcome of Ahimsa. Ahimsa in its positive concept becomes love and compassion. A perfect theism, not in its narrow rigid sense, but in the sense where broad religiousness, deep spirituality and high knowledge are thought of for the soul’s ultimate liberation from bondage, require Syädväda as its valid approach to have an objective vision of truth, to be tolerant, to be sympathetic and to have an attitude of impartiality. Without all these, no theism in its actual practice is possible. Syädväda shapes a personality into a theistic one.

Moreover, subjective attitude and past recollections towards the same or similar objects play a decisive role in judgment. At the same time prejudices and predilections, social upbringing, environmental necessities and politico-social taboos also play a very decisive role in a judgment about an idea. In fact, every object and every idea has infinite characteristics and is required to be judged from a variety of standpoints. What should be our reaction towards a thing if we are convinced that everything in this universe has infinite characteristics and with limited knowledge, a human being is not capable of determining all these characteristics? Certainly, if our approach were objective and unbiased, we would not rush to take an absolute view of that thing or thought by keeping in mind the limitations of our knowledge. Our judgment based on limited data is likely to be wrong. We would, however, not have actual perception. Therefore, in our prudence, we would say that the judgment 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 Syädväda, which implies that each and all knowledge is relative. What we know by the analytical process of Naya-väda, we express by the synthesis of Syädväda. As already noticed, the etymological meaning of the word ‘Syäd’ is ‘Perhaps.’ However, it is used to suggest a relative truth. The theory of Syädväda 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 know everything and hence it is appropriate to avoid our absolute assertion.

For instance, when we say that a particular thing weighs 5 lb., our statement about the weight is related to the gravitational force exerted on that thing by our planet, the earth. The same thing may not weigh anything if removed from this gravitational field or may weigh differently on 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.

Is “Self” Permanent or Transitory?

In the field of metaphysics, there has been serious controversy about the real nature of ‘Self’. While Vedäntists believe that, everything that is found in this universe is ‘Brahma’, the super self, permanent, and the material things, which are found to 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 Jains say that both are relatively correct from the viewpoint 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 Jains would say that, from the point of view of substance (Dravya) self is permanent but from the point of view of modifications (Paryäya), 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 transitoryness should be taken into account. Both to the Vedäntists as well as to the Buddhists, the Jain seer would say ‘Syäd Asti’, i.e., "From one aspect you are right” and applying his ‘Anekänta 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-väda), is nothing but the doctrine of metaphysical synthesis. This doctrine has a great value in our day - to - day individual and social life.

Importance of Anekäntaväda

The importance of this comprehensive synthesis of ‘Syädväda’ and ‘Anekänta Naya’ in day-to-day life is immense in as much as these doctrines supply a rational unification and synthesis of the manifold and reject the assertions of bare absolutes. Mahatma Gandhi’s views (wrote in 1926) about the Jain theory of Anekänta are as follows: “It has been my experience, that I am always true (correct) from my point of view and often wrong from the point of view of my critics. I know that we are both (I and my critics) right from our respective points of view." "I very much like this doctrine of the manyness of reality. It is this doctrine that has taught me to judge a Muslim from his standpoint and a Christian from his. From the platform of the Jains, I prove the noncreative aspect of God, and from that of Rämänuja the creative aspect. As a matter of fact we are all thinking of the unthinkable describing the indescribable, seeking to know the unknown, and that is why our speech falters, is inadequate and been often contradictory."

The history of all conflicts and confrontations in the world is the history of intolerance born out of ignorance. Difficulty with the human being is his/her egocentric existence. If only the human being becomes conscious of his/her own limitations! Anekänta or Syädväda tries to make the human being conscious of his/her limitation by pointing to his narrow vision and limited knowledge of the manifold aspects of things, and asks him/her not be hasty in forming absolute judgments before examining various other aspects - both positive and negative. Obviously, much of the bloodshed, and much of tribulations of mankind would have been saved if the human being had shown the wisdom of understanding the contrary viewpoints.

The doctrine of Syädväda also clarifies the metaphysical doctrine of ‘Self’ envisaged by the Jains. The proposition ‘Syäd Asti’ is positive in character and points out the positive attributes of the thing in question. These are individual attributes, which belong to and are inherent in the thing in question. Therefore, when the proposition ‘Syäd Asti’ is applied to ‘Self’, it conveys that ‘Self’ is justified in its existence only from the point of view of its own individual attributes, modes, space and time. However, when the other proposition of the doctrine namely ‘Syät Nästi’ is applied to it, it means the ‘Self’ does not possess the attributes and modes which do not belong to it. It is just like a pot that can be identified as a ‘pot’ only if it carries the attributes of a ‘pot’ but it cannot be identified as a pot if it carries the attributes, which are foreign to it. So the negative identification of ‘Syät Nästi’ when applied to ‘Self’ would mean, that if the self tries to adopt the attributes of Pudgal (matter) which are foreign to it, it is not the ‘self’. In other words, Syädväda teaches us that ‘Self’ can be identified positively as ‘Syäd Asti’ only if it is viewed from its own attributes, and negatively as ‘Syäd Nästi’ to show that it is not Pudgal, etc. if it is viewed from the attributes that are foreign to it.

Thus, the doctrine of Syädväda gives clarity to the real character of the ‘Self’ and by the same process of reasoning, the real character of ‘Pudgal’, i.e., non-sentient things.

Anekäntaväda and Ahimsa

However, the important aspect of Anekäntaväda and Syädväda is the subtlety with which it introduces the practice of Ahimsa (nonviolence) even in the realm of thought. The moment one begins to consider the angle from which a contrary viewpoint is put forward, one begins to develop tolerance, which is the basic requirement of the practice of ‘Ahimsa’. The origin of all bloody wars fought on the surface of this earth can be traced to the war of ideas, beliefs and disagreements. Anekäntaväda and Syädväda puts a healing touch at the root of the human psyche and tries to stop the war of beliefs, which lead to the war of nerves and then to the war of bloodshed. It makes all absolutes in the field of thought quite irrelevant and naive, and it imparts maturity to the thought process and supplies flexibility and originality to the human mind. If mankind will properly understand and adopt this doctrine of Anekäntaväda and Syädväda, it will realize that real revolution was not the French or Russian; the real revolution was the one, which taught man to develop his/her power of understanding from all possible aspects.


continue reading

ANEKANTAVADA PART-3: NAYAVADA

previous article

The term Anekäntaväda consists of three terms: ‘Aneka’, ‘Anta’, and ‘Väda’, The term ‘Aneka’, means ‘many or more than one’, ‘Anta’ means ‘aspects’ or ‘attributes’ and ‘Väda’ means ‘ism’ or ‘theory’. In its simple sense, it is a philosophy or a doctrine of manifold aspects. It has been variously described and translated by modern scholars. Prof. S. N. Dasgupta expresses it as ‘relative pluralism’ against ‘extreme absolutism.’ Dr. Chandradhar Sharma translates it as ‘‘doctrine of manyness of reality’’. Dr. Satkari Mookerjee expresses it as a doctrine of ‘non-absolutism’. This is also expressed as a theory of ‘conditional predication’ or ‘‘theory of relativity of propositions.’’ Since the doctrine of ‘Anekäntaväda’ is opposed to absolutism or monism (Ekänta-väda), we would prefer a phrase ‘‘doctrine of non-absolutism’’ to convey the meaning of Anekäntaväda. The doctrine of Anekäntaväda can be subdivided in two categories:

• Naya-väda relates to thoughts and analysis

• Syädväda relates to speech

What we know by the analytical process of Naya-väda, we express by the synthesis of Syädväda and the base of both is knowledge. According to the Jains, in order to have a complete and comprehensive judgment of reality one has to take into account the main substance that has the element of permanence and undergoes changes in various forms. In this process of change, the previous form dies away and a new form comes into existence. The birth of the new form is called Utpäd (emergence), the death of the old form is called Vyaya (disappearance) and the substance, which remains constant during this process of birth and death, is called Dhrauvya (Permanence). When one is able to comprehend all these three, one can arrive at a proper judgment about the thing in question. When the self takes the form of a human being, you can know it as a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’. When it takes a form of vegetable, you can describe it as ‘grass’. All these descriptions are true from the standpoint of the forms that the self has assumed. Therefore, when we recognize a thing from the point of view of the modification or change, it is called ‘Paryäyärthika Naya’. Paryäya means modification, change. However, when we recognize that thing from the point of view of substance, it is called Dravyärthika Naya. In the former mode is predominant and substance subordinate, in the latter substance predominant and mode subordinate. The former considers changing aspect of reality while the latter considers its permanent aspect.

The greatest contribution that the Jains have made to the world of thought is by their theories of Naya-väda and Syädväda. The word ‘Syäd’ in Sanskrit means ‘perhaps’ but in Jainism it is used to show the relativity of a judgment and the word ‘Naya’ means ‘Standpoint’. Truth or reality is always complex and has many aspects. If one is impressed by one of the aspects of a complex reality and begins to identify the reality, only by that aspect, he is bound to make a wrong judgment about reality. Therefore, the Jain seers exhort us to look at the complexities of life and knowledge from every standpoint and from positive as well as negative aspects. They recognize that the comprehension (view) of an ordinary human being is partial and hence valid only from a particular point of view, which cannot give a correct or even a nearly correct comprehension of the whole. The complex reality has not only an infinite number of qualities but also an infinite number of relations. Again, it may be looked at differently by different people and under their different circumstances. It assumes different forms and appearances for which due allowance ought to be made. All this makes it difficult to form a correct judgment about it unless a systematic and logical method is found to identify it. This method is called Naya-väda.

As Dr. S. Rädhäkrishnan observes: "The doctrine of Nayas of Standpoint is a peculiar feature of Jain logic. A Naya is a standpoint from which we make a statement about a thing. What is true from one standpoint may not be true from another. Particular aspects are never adequate to the whole reality. The relative solutions are abstractions under which reality may be regarded, but do not give us a full and sufficient account of it. Jainism has a basic and fundamental principle that truth is relative to our standpoint."

Thus ‘Naya’ can be defined as a particular viewpoint; a viewpoint which gives only a partial idea about an object or view which cannot overrule the existence of another or even a contrary view about the same object. If an object or theory is judged only from one standpoint, the judgment is one sided and it is termed as ‘Ekänta’. ‘Eka’ means ‘one’ and ‘Anta’ means ‘end’. Thus, Ekänta means one-sidedness. The Jains therefore ask us to judge from all aspects, which is called ‘Anekänta’. This is the basic principle of Jain philosophy. Every fundamental principle of Jain philosophy is based on Anekänta. Throughout its approach, Anekänta has been to accept the different aspects or even contradictory aspects of reality and to evolve a synthesis between the contradictory philosophical theories.

A Jain seer would say, both are correct from the standpoint from which they look at the problem, but both make their statements, which do not conform to the principle of Anekänta and hence do not give a correct judgment of reality. Jains say that changes are as real as the original substance. A jug made of a clay substance cannot be used as anything except as a jug and since the use is real, the form of a jug which clay has assumed cannot be unreal. If the clay substance assumes some other form of an earthen vessel meant for cooking, that vessel could not be used as a jug even though the clay substance remains the same. If this is so, how can we say that the form the substance assumes at a particular time is unreal and only the substance is real? The substance of clay appears to be the only real thing to those who concentrate on substance and ignore the form. It is not correct to say that because there is a change in the form, the changing form is unreal. If it is real even for a moment, its reality must be accepted and recognized. If a comprehensive view of the whole reality is to be a comprehensive perception of a thing, it is possible only when its permanent substance (Dravya) is taken into account along with its existing mode (Paryäya). As Ächärya Siddhasen states “we can understand a thing properly by perceiving its various aspects.”

Classification of Nayas

Jain philosophers have given broad classifications of different aspects (Nayas) through which we can perceive a thing. Naya can be classified as the following 2 types.

Absolute point of view (Nishchaya Naya)

Here one takes a substance and picks up one of its attributes (Guna) and analyzes one part of its attribute. This is called absolute point of view, e.g. to call a clay pot as a clay as it is made of clay. Here clay is a substance and one of its attributes is represented in the form of a pot. The standpoint that concentrates on the original pure nature of a thing is called Nishchaya Naya. It implies the real or the ultimate meaning or interpretation of an object.

Practical points of view (Vyavahär Naya)

The substance and its attributes are interdependent and can never be separated. To consider them as separate is called the practical point of view. For example, to know is an attribute of the soul. In addition, to consider knowledge in a separate way from the soul is called practical point of view. In the practical point of view, one takes into account the association of a substance with another substance. Even though it is not right to know a substance this way, day-to-day activities become somewhat easier. E.g. we use clay pot to hold water, so now we call this pot a water pot. Here the pot is not made of water, but clay. However, because of water’s association with the pot, we call it a water pot. The right way of telling will be that this is a pot made of clay, and we use it to store water. This absolute way of saying a sentence takes a long time and not practical. That is why we call it a water pot. It conveys the meaning. The day-to-day activities become easier thereafter. Even though the soul and body are separate, we use the word interchangeably. We do indicate the body as living because of the association of the soul and body.

From Nishchaya Naya or absolute stand point, a soul is independent, self existed and uncontaminated by matter. From Vyavahär stand point it can be called impure as soul is bound with Karma leading to the cycle of birth and death. Such classification of Naya or standpoints enables identification or distinction of objects or theories according to particular class of Naya.

Classification of Naya:

1. Naigama Naya: Generic and Specific view or teleological view

2. Sangrah Naya: Collective view

3. Vyavahär Naya: Practical view

4. Rujusutra Naya: Linear view

5. Shabda Naya: Literal view

6. Samabhirudha Naya: Etymological view

7. Evambhuta Naya: Determinant view.

There are hundreds of sub classifications of these seven Nayas but without going in details, we shall presently discuss the bare outlines of these seven Nayas. Before doing so, it may be noted that first three Nayas are with reference to the identification of the main substance called ‘Dravya’ and hence are known as ‘Dravyärthika Nayas’. The remaining four refer to the standpoints, which identify the modes of the main substance and hence are known as ‘Paryäyärthika Nayas’.

Dravyärthika Nayas (Substantial Point of View)

Dravyärthika Naya means the standpoint that concentrates on a substance (the generic and permanent aspect). Dravyärthika Naya (substantial standpoint) considers all things to be permanent or eternal. For example, it states that a pot qua substance clay is permanent or eternal. In this point of view one considers the substance as a whole and gives its modes subsidiary status. E.g. while talking about the soul, one will consider the soul as immortal, was never created, nor will it ever be destroyed. On the other hand, Paryäyärthika Naya regards all things as impermanent, because they undergo changes (transformations). Hence it declares that all things are non-eternal or momentary from the standpoint of modes or changes. The standpoint that grasps the generic aspect is Dravyärthika Naya. And the standpoint that grasps the specific aspect is Paryäyärthika Naya.

This can be subdivided as follows

Naigama: Generic or Specific or Teleological

Sangrah: Collective Generic

Vyavahär: Practical

Paryäyärthika Nayas (Modification Point of View)

Modification point of view (Paryäyärthika Naya) Paryäyärthika Naya regards all things as impermanent, because they undergo changes (transformations). Hence it declares that all things are non-eternal or momentary from the standpoint of modes or changes. In this point of view one considers modes of a substance as a primary subject. The substantial consideration becomes secondary. One considers a substance with origination and perishing of its modes, e.g. while talking about soul, one will consider ever-changing modes of soul. One will consider the four realms (Gati) of existence, birth, growth, decay, death of a living being, etc. This can be subdivided as follows

Rujusutra: Linear Point of View

Shabda: Literal or Verbal

Samabhirudha: Etymological

Evambhuta: Determinant Point

Dravyärthika Nayas:

01. Naigama Naya (Generic)

The etymological meaning of the word Naigama is the end product or result. Tattvärtha-sära gives an illustration of a person who carries water, rice and fuel and who, when asked what he was doing, says he is cooking. This reply is given in view of the result, which he intends to achieve though at the exact time when the question is put to him he is not actually cooking. His reply is correct from the point of view of Naigama Naya, though technically it is not exactly correct because he is not actually cooking at the time when he replies. The general purpose, for which we work, controls the total series of our activities. If someone passes his judgment on the basis of that general purpose, he asserts Naigama Naya, i.e., the teleological viewpoint. These empirical views probably proceed on the assumption that a thing possesses the most general as well as the most special qualities and hence we may lay stress on any one of these at any time and ignore the other ones. It overlooks the distinction between the remote and the immediate, noting one or the other as if it were the whole, depending upon the intention of the observer. A man has decided to perform an act of theft. The religious works regard him as defiled by the sin of theft, though he has actually not performed the act of theft. The standpoint adopted by the religious works is that the act, which is sought to be undertaken, is as good as being accomplished. This is also an instance of Sankalpi - Naigama.

02. Sangrah Naya (Collective point of view)

We get this Naya (viewpoint) when we put main emphasis on some general class characteristics of a particular thing ignoring altogether the specific characteristics of that class. Such a view is only partially correct but does not give the idea of the whole and it ignores the specific characteristics of that thing. In the collective point of view, the knowledge of an object is in its ordinary or common form. The special qualities of the object are not taken into account. E.g. there were 500 people in the hall. Here we are now considering only general qualities like people and not considering like how many were men, women, children, old, young, etc. One considers the general attributes of a substance like a substance has existence and eternality. Now these attributes are common to all six universal substances. Here we are considering the general attributes of a substance and ignoring the specific attributes of each substance. Concentrating on a common quality, viz., consciousness that is found in all souls, one can say that all souls are equal. Its scope is more limited than Naigama Naya.

03. Vyavahär Naya (Practical):

If we look at a thing from this standpoint, we try to judge it from its specific properties ignoring the generic qualities, which are mainly responsible for giving birth to the specific qualities. This amounts to the assertion of empirical at the cost of universal and gives importance to practical experience in life. This point of view sees an object in its special form rather than the common form. The special attributes of an object are taken into consideration. The practical view, concentrates on the function of a thing or being. It is analytic in approach and often uses metaphors to explain the nature of things.

On the basis of the collective point of view, and after describing things in a collective form, it is necessary to find out their special characteristics. For example, when we utter the word “medicine” it includes all branches of medicine but when one says allopathic, osteopathic naturopathic, homeopathic, etc. then we can understand its specialty. This can be further divided by its name, patent, quality, uses, etc. These divisions are examples of a distributive point of view and have a tendency towards greater exactitude. With understanding of Naigama Naya we should recognize the potentiality of achieving liberation by all souls. As all souls are capable of liberation, we should appreciate that potentiality in all souls. And we show our respect and humbleness to all living beings. When we act accordingly with all, this becomes Vyavahär Naya. Many times we act in accordance to Paryäya, however if we realize to Dravya we can reduce our internal and external conflicts.

Paryäyärthika Nayas

04. Rujusutra Naya (Linear point of view.)

It is still narrower than Vyavahär in its outlook, because it does not emphasize all the specific qualities but only those specific qualities, which appear in a thing at a particular moment, ignoring their existent specific qualities of the past and the future. The past and future modes of a thing are not real as they have served or will serve their purpose and do not exist at the moment. The approach of the Buddhists is of this type. To ignore the specific qualities of the past and future and to emphasize only continuing characteristics of Reality is the fallacy involved here. In this point of view, one considers ideas like reality, etc. as the direct grasp of here and now, ignoring the past and future. It considers only the present mode of a thing. Ruju means simple, sutra means knowledge. Suppose a man was a king and he is not a king now, thus his past is of no use in a linear point of view. Similarly, a person will be a king in the future, but is meaningless in a linear point of view. Only the present mode is recognized in a linear point of view making the identification easier and scope narrower.

05. Shabda Naya (Literal point of view)

The Verbalistic approach is called as Shabda Naya. This standpoint maintains that synonymous words convey the same meaning or thing, provided they are not different in tense, case ending, gender, number, etc. In other words, it states that two synonymous words can never convey the same thing if they have different tenses, case endings, genders, and numbers. So it is not appropriate to use words in different genders, number etc. to refer to the same object or event. The literal point of view uses words at their exact face value to signify the real nature of things. Each word has a very particular meaning. In the literal view, even changing the gender, numbers, words ending or tense of a word is thought to change its meaning and therefore to change the object to which it refers. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use words in different genders, numbers, etc. to refer to the same object or event. E.g. the words pot and pitcher signifies same meaning, but in the following sentence, the meaning gets changed, “why did you bring a pot? I only want a pitcher”.

06. Samabhirudha Naya (Etymological point of view)

It is different from Shabda Naya because it concentrates on the etymological distinction between the synonyms. If carried to the fallacious extent this standpoint may destroy the original identity pointed to by synonyms. It discards the conventional use of a word in favor of the meaning derived from its root. The etymological view asserts that, because the roots of synonyms are different, they are not actually “synonyms” in the sense of words that mean the same as each other. A group of words may basically mean the same things but as individual words, they represent a special condition, e.g. hut and palace are places to live. However, poor people live in a hut and king lives in a palace, in an etymological (word historical or derivation) point of view, it represents a specific quality or grammatical property of a word.

07. Evambhuta Naya (Determinant point of view)

This Naya recognizes only that word which indicates the actual action presently attributed to the individual. In other words, among synonyms only that word should be selected which a correlation with the action has referred to. In this point of view, the word or sentence, which further determines its characteristic property in its present state, is used. It recognizes only the action implied by the root meaning of a word. To be real, the object must satisfy the activity meant by the word. A word should be used to denote the actual meaning. e. g. the word thief is to be used only when a person is caught stealing and not because a person is a known thief. It represents a strict application of a word or statement.

Partial truth of Individual Naya:

As already noted, the purpose of pointing out to this detailed classification of Nayas is to show how differently, different individuals can view the same object. However, these different aspects are only partially true and since they are only partially true, they are not capable of being wholly true. They, however, cannot be rejected as wholly untrue also. These different aspects can be illustrated by the reactions of some blind people who were asked to go to an elephant and give its description after touching and feeling it. One who touched its legs described it like a pillar; one who touched the tail described it like a rope and so on. Each one was right from his own standpoint because he could experience only a particular limb of the elephant and not the whole elephant. Each one of them was, however, wrong because his description did not conform to the reality, which the elephant possessed. Only one who could see the whole could comprehend this reality.

Utility of Naya Theory

The analysis of Naya shows that every judgment is relative to that particular aspect from which it is seen or known. This is also called Säpeksha-väda that means relativity of our particular knowledge or judgment to a particular standpoint. Since human judgments are always from particular standpoints, they are all relative and hence not absolutely true or absolutely false. Their outright acceptance as a sole truth or rejection as totally false would not be correct. This led the Jain seers to their famous doctrine of ‘Syädväda’, which means the doctrine of relativity. Naya-väda reveals a technique to arrive at such an understanding. It teaches us that truth is revealed 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 the whole life and hence the cause of great irritation to him, once he applies the principles of Naya-väda his irritation begins to subside. The simple reason being is that he begins to realize the real cause for that contrary proposition.

continue reading....