•  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

Non - One - Endedness (Anekantavada)

By Mr. Amar Salgia

Truth is knowledge of reality. According to Jain philosophy, truth is a vast and wondrous complexity.

However, reality is extremely difficult to fully grasp because of its four aspects : (1) its extension over time (past, present, future), (2) its extension across space, (3) the mix of changing forms and fixed qualities that characterize the different substances which make up the universe, and (4) the fact that those substances and forms are constantly undergoing new beginnings (origination) and endings (destruction) while still remaining permanent, all at the same time.

We often see some individuals pushing what they feel is the only correct point of view. The dogma monger sees his or her perspective on human experience and the world as the only one that matters or makes sense. He tends to dismiss, ridicule or condemn those holding a different perspective. He may also prompt antagonism. In doing so he commits violence against others in his thoughts and speech which all too often leads to physical violence by people mistaking dogma for intelligence. We've heard it said that in order to understand things as they truly are we need to be "objective". However, unless we know how to detach ourselves from the things we wish to understand, and comprehend that true objectivity starts with letting go of all our forgone views and biases, we can never be objective. We are each clouded by an environment that prejudices us, by past experiences that have shaped us, and by fixed ideas about the world that seem to make sense in our limited minds.

If we would approach our own natural omniscience we could fully comprehend this great universe. We would see the origins and destinies of every soul and substance, including our own selves. Persons who have attained such autonomy, whom Jains refer to as Jinas or Kevalins, experience this state of omniscience at all times.

We, however, aren't quite there yet. Our situation is different. Our five senses are our indirect means to knowledge, but whatever they may grasp is always partial, and not always reliable. We see this partiality in the proverbial study of an elephant by seven blind men. Each man touches only part of the elephant and concludes that the creature is like a tree trunk, a rope, a fan, a wall, and so on. The same applies to our views and beliefs. We worldly souls tend not to rise above the limitations of our senses and experiences. So, our individual concepts of reality are not just incomplete, they are valid only from a particular point of view.

"Absolute truth" cannot be grasped from any one point of view, by itself, because any viewpoint is dependent on the time, place, nature and state of both the viewer and whatever is being viewed. Hence, we can point to an infinity of partially valid perspectives. What appears true from one point of view is open to question from another. Naturally, we need to benefit from the labors of seeing things from different perspectives - including ones we might not prefer initially - in order to gain any kind of realistic impression. 

This attitude begins a science of thinking called Anekantavada, which is the principle of "Non-one-endedness". Anekantavada is an informed and engaging method of reason. Such a principle does not ask us to try balancing in our minds a "multiplicity of viewpoints" regardless of whether they hold merit or not. It is also not the same as "relativism" or "non-absolutism", meaning the belief in no absolutes. Rather than denying the existence of absolute truth, Anekantavada only reaffirms it - but with the cutting admission that truth is such an intricate and many-ended thing that no single belief system, no tower of dogma, no "grand unifying theory", and no faith or religion can ever do it justice.

Exploring the idea's four components will further reveal its meaning:

AN is like the prefix "non-", which makes the opposite of whatever comes after it
EKA means "one" or "singular"
ANTA means "end", "boundary" and "conclusion", a conclusion drawn from an observation or an investigation or analysis
VADA means "way of being", similar to the suffix "-ness".

Together they mean Non-one-endedness, or Nonsingular Conclusivity. A remarkable term it might seem but its tremendous practicality is for any of us seeking to learn, reason, investigate, theorize, visualize, systemize, solve or understand some issue, something, or someone. 
Non-one-endedness is the principle of not settling for just one single conclusion about the truth or untruth of a given statement, or about the actual nature or makeup of an object or thing. While the whole truth about anything is a wide and complex reality, a particular object or issue of interest can be anything we choose: the mind of a person, a philosophy, an event, a physical object, or any claim such as, "The universe is infinite," or "Man has free will," or "War is a necessary evil," or "Emotional stress causes cancer," or "Corporations are beneficial to society", or "Light is composed of energy particles," or anything else more simple or complex. 

And why not be satisfied making just one conclusion about these things, whatever that conclusion may be? 

To help us see why, first let's simplify our words a bit. We'll use the term "picture" or "big picture" to stand for the full, unobstructed truth about the given statement or object, with all its broad aspects and its tiny intricacies. "Angle" will denote our one chosen way of looking into or investigating that big picture, and the word "part" will simply mean that limited area of the big picture that we see from one particular "angle", perspective, or point of view.

Just like every one of the seven blind men, any single perspective that we might take is inherently blind to some part, or many parts, of the big picture. Being attached to just one set of criteria for judging the truth or validity of something tends to distort our perception of it, by making other relevant facts and other possible criteria seem less significant to us, or by excluding them from our thinking altogether. If we would actually see and be aware of those other parts of the picture, we would also see that they could be crucial to the validity of whatever conclusion we might draw. One conclusion, by itself, can be the result of only one single investigation coming from one way of perceiving or approaching the reality or situation at hand. If one blind man investigates only the elephant's leg, and on that basis alone decides an elephant is like a tree trunk, he would be partly right but mostly wrong. 

That is because any one way of looking at things almost always leaves out some or most aspects of whatever is actually and fully going on in the big picture. Doing any observation or analysis based on the limited part of the picture we're able to grasp at one given time - what little bit of the proverbial "elephant" we can observe in just one attempt - leads to only one limited conclusion, which often appears wrong from a different angle, or way, of studying the picture. A single conclusion, by itself, is usually a mere part of the whole truth because it comes from a study of only part of the big picture. 

In other words, there's a lot more to a great big elephant than just a leg that feels like a tree, or an ear that feels like a fan, or a tail that feels like a rope. It is clear that just one way of looking at an object or a statement, and just one investigation based upon that one way or theory, and just one judgment about the object or statement derived from that one single investigation, just isn't enough! Say we even try to see the reality from a very wide angle, thinking that this way we will get a sense of the big picture. Even then, because we are not yet perfect and all knowing, we typically miss important details and nuances that would impact the validity of the conclusion we would draw from seeing the matter so broadly. And on the other hand, when we look only at details, we obviously lose perspective on the larger system or grand scheme of things. 

Non-one-endedness is a solution. To really understand something as fully as we can, first we need the steel to set aside and relax (but not discard) our initial biases, preconceptions, paradigms and theories. This means among other things that we shouldn't shrink from considering either the fine details or the broad generalizations.  We set out to do one investigation after another, multiple inquiries into our object, statement or issue of interest - each investigation or observation done from a different perspective, angle, paradigm or theory. 

In order to accomplish this we simply change our position, meaning we put ourselves in different shoes or we adopt a totally new or different method of investigation (depending on the kind of subject matter we're dealing with). We shift our sights to as many different perspectives as we are able to discover or synthesize. At each unique angle we stop for the opportunity to do a brand new observation or analysis, each one leading us to perhaps a new and unique conclusion. Then, we consider each conclusion that we are able to draw as one partial truth, as one aspect, dimension, sampling or part of the whole truth about the object or statement. 

At last we have the more involved intellectual job of attempting to integrate together each of those partial truths into a more complete understanding of the big picture. We use each conclusion - each anta, or boundary - to help structure a whole new concept of what the object under study, or the statement under analysis, entails. We might not get the big picture quite right the first time we try integrating all the partial truths we have derived. But that only means we need to continue the process. The more different perspectives we adopt, and the more different independent investigations we do, the more different conclusions we will gain, and the more deeply and comprehensively we are bound to understand. The more powerful will be our information, our ability to analyze, our solutions and our creativity. 

Non-one-endedness multiplies the freedom of the mind. Jains see even this principle from more than one angle. Its two philosophical developments are known as Nayavada, which is the scrutiny of contentions through a variety of specific perspective modes, and Syadvada, which is the truth-analysis of any given statement using disparate combinations of (1) its affirmation, (2) its negation, and (3) the admission of its inexpressibility. While academic in nature, these methods of insight are a major contribution to epistemology and logic.

A Jain thinker named Siddhasena Divakara (5th century) remarked, "All schools of thought are valid when understood from their own standpoints. A knower does not categorize them as true or false. They become false only when they deny that the others also express aspects of the truth." (Sanmati Tarka Prakarana 1:28)

Anekantavada is intellectual humility that empowers the user. It is an essential part of being nonviolent in our thoughts and words. It shows us why we shouldn't wed ourselves to rigid opinions that disconnect us from reality and stifle the pursuit of fuller understanding. It also demonstrates why we should not cower to ambiguous or nihilistic positions with little or no sense of right and wrong. Non-one-endedness encourages us to examine and be critical of all beliefs and claims from many different angles, helping us recognize the value of others' views and opinions as well as the limitations of our own. This means respecting a person's individuality by discovering his or her concept of the world and trying to see things through that model. 

Fostered by a mature view of human experience, on a different level Jains are able to appreciate the sincere insights of those who may interpret Jain ideas in new or innovative ways. 

 

 

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

Excerpted from "Pure Freedom : The Jain Way of Self Reliance"
By Mr. Amar Salgia, E-Mail : asalgia@yahoo.com

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

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R261208