•  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

Interreligious Dialogue In Jainism

 

By Dr. Bhagchandra Jain Bhaskar. D. Litt

 

Conceptual clashes and religious conflicts have been the natural phenomena in the history of human society since time immemorial. Under the spirit of religious intolerance a particular group of a particular religion or sect committed unfortunately the most heinous and atrocious inhuman activities and crushed the morality and welfare of the society. In the name of religion the societies and nations used to have been indulged into blood-shedding and ethnic riots, deviation from prescribed rules of morality, atrocity, outrage and transgration due to being incapable in comprehending the true nature of reality and religion.

Ours is an age of intellectual drafts and selfish giants. We are so elated at our achievements, small or big, that we attribute to ourselves all the good qualities of head and heart. We regard ourselves as extra ordinarily unusual. We are so sure of our righteousness that anybody who differs from us is promptly labelled as imbecilic. Honest divergence of opinion has become a rare commodity. Our egoistic tendency and mean mentality cause us to disregard other conceptions and notions. Further on account of our materialistic and atheistic tendencies we are unable to overcome the social problems that are staring us in the face. 

The clashes and conflicts that around the world are due mainly to the dirth of economic equality, sound ecclesiastic outlook, tolerance and humility. On such grounds Marx considered religion opium and recognised it an instrument for atrocity on humanity. Napolian, Musolini and others committed such atrocities. The real threat to the world-peace comes from superstitious of suffen ideological gulf which exists between one nation and another, between one people and another. It is the doctrine of Anekantavada and Syadvada that can sound the death-knell of this ideological conflict and establish the interreligious diologue.

The progenitor question is whether there can be manifold and numerous religions. The reply to the specific question may be made through relative standpoint. Religion is relatively one and many. But the object of all the religions is one and the same, i.e. the detachment with materialistic world attainment of spiritual delight and emancipation from karmic matter. Attachment, greed, hate, antipathy, rage, deception, arrogance, megalomania etc. are recognised as the rudiments of immoral deeds in all religions. They are main instruments which invite the mental disturbance, social contempt and quarrels between men and men, between nation and nation. Therefore, all the religions are unanimously of view that such elements should be overthrown from the the mind of individual and society. Then the difference and unlikeness of opinion regarding religious point and other conceptions start with the line of action as to how the aim and object could be achieved. The spiritual practices, as a matter of fact, create distinctions and separate the society from one another. But mere doctrinal difference cannot be recognised a base for religious hostility and contravention. The spiritual practices cannot be totally contradicted. Unless one becomes demon and devil, the religion cannot be made a tool for ethnic activities. All the spiritual practices are practically prone to achieve one and the same object. It is mathematical truth that even the thousands of lines from a circumference of not possess the capability for cutting them each other till they are attached with the centre. Likewise the outward religious practices may differ from time to time and tradition to tradition, but their fundamental principles and universal truths cannot so much differ which make the men cruel, intolerant, violent and peevish.

The problems of philosophy are related to metaphysics, epistemology, logic, semen tics, axiology, aesthetics, ethics religion etc. The controversies are mainly connected with the field of epistemology, metaphysics, cosmogony, ontology, self, eschatology, axiology etc. These fields are enriched by profounder and scholars with their different theories in the East and West. Empiricism of John Locke, Secpticism of Hume, Rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza and Leionitz, Criticism of Kant on Rationalism and Empiricism, Mysticism of Plotinus, Underhill etc., Materilism of Leucippus, Democritus Thomas Hobbes etc., Naturalism of August Comte, Mechanism of Spinoza, Dualism of Plato and Aristo, Pluralism of Empedocles, Conception of self, Realism, Idealism, God etc. may be mentioned in this regard.

These conceptions and idealogies are also propounded by the eastern by the eastern philosophers of Jainas, Buddhists, Sanhyas, Mimamsakas, Nyaya-Vaishesikas and others with their own standpoints which differ from one to another angles. They used to be indulged in logical discussions. Such discussions and debates as the sceptics and sophists engaged in ancient Greece, were prevalent in Ancient India. They aimed at defending their own theories while refuting those of their opponents.

Of these, Eastern philosophies, both Jainism and Buddhism, are the main institutes of Sharamana culture of India. They are the religions which came into existence as a result of most non - violent cal approach and humanitarian viewpoints towards all creatures. The sharmana cultural system was prevalent in the society at the tome of Brahmanic system, if no earlier. Buddhism is, of course, an origin of 5th -6th cent.B.C.Sharamana cultural philosophy is based on equality and equanimity and self-efforts leading to salvation. According to it, a being is himself responsible for his own deeds, Salvation, therefore, can be attained by any body. Ritual in its opinion is not a means of emancipation from karmas. The only means of escaping from misery of Samsara is the path of oral, mental and spiritual development based on complete non-violence and truth.

The controversial point in all these ideologies since inception has been as to how to know and perceive the object with its complete forms. The object of knowledge is truth. The knowledge is the fundamental instrument to penetrate it. Consciousness has its own independent existence with two main characteristics perception and knowledge. The knowledge of the object depends mainly on (1) senses, (2) mind, (3) intelligence and (4) super-senses. All the philosophical and religious trends are somehow or other related to one of these sources of knowledge is a result of constant practice of meditation. Practically all the Indian philosophers like Jainas, Buddhists, Sankhyas, Naya-Vasesikas and Mimamsakas, therefore, accept the transcendental knowledge and the scriptural knowledge as well.

Different philosophical systems have admitted different kinds of reals on the basis of diversified cognitive powers. They realised whether it is possible to know or perceive the absolute truth completely and whether it is possible to express the view in words. The philosophers put forth different solutions over these perennial issues of philosophical field. Jaina thinkers tried to solve the problem on the basis of Anekantavada and Syadvada, while the Buddhists adopted the theory of Vidhajjavada and Madhyamamarga.

Syadvada is a strange weapon in the armoury of Jainism. It can uproot our differences no matter how deep-set they are. Syadvada believes in bridging the gulf yawning between the conflicting ideologies. It strives to establish a liberal attitude in our feeling and dealings. Difference of opinion is bound to exist between one person and another. But one must not be adburate in his opinions. He must make room for admitting opinions other than his own.

In the eyes of Jaina philosophy, everything is multifaceted. It is neither only true nor only false, neither eternal nor transitory. It can be true from some angle and false from some other. According to one notion, it may be eternal and according to another it may be transitory. Existence of various shades of one and the same thing amounts to Anekantavada, Syadvada is an apt synonym for it. while Anekantavada deals with the descriptive aspect, Syadvada refers to the terminologicals aspect of any given thing. In other words, we can say that Anekantavada, the theory of non-absolustic standpoint, strives to incorporate the truth of all systems with its two organs that of Nayavada, the doctrine of relatively in thought and expression. It does not imply probability of doubt as some philosophers falsely proclaim. The natural outcome of this view point is the feeling of understanding and sympathy. So long as we regard only our own notions as practical and consistent, we cannot respect and evaluate other opinions. Anekantavada, in the shape of Syadvada, is the only remedy to overcome all evil in thought, speech and action.

According to Anekantavada, the truth can never be explained through words. The words have their own limitations and the truth keeps infinite modes. A word can express a single mode of the object at a time. In Jainism the substance is neither absolutely expressible nor absolutely inexpressible. The infinite modes of the object cannot be expressed simultaneously by any linguistic device. This can be done only if one keeps always open the door for others views by using the particle "Syat" at the starting point which indicates the existence of other characteristics in the object. This device is also applied for creating interreligious harmony by accepting other views partly.

This synthetic attitude of Jainism can be traced out from its scriptures. For instance the Acarangasutra says.

1) One should not injure, subjugate, enslave, torture or kill any animal, living being, organism or sentient being. The Doctrine of Non-violence (Ahimsa-dharma) is immaculate, immutable and eternal (1.4.2)

2) Does a seer of Truth ever has any extraneous impositions? No, he has none (1.3.87).

3) A Sadhaka who observes non-violence and forbearance is described as one who has perfectly comprehended the Truth and attained the Equanimity (1.5.27).

4) One, having an unbiased outlook should say to one who has a biased outlook, " For the attainment of Truth, you should adopt the unbiased attitudes" (1.5.97).

5) One who you think should be hit is none else but you. One who you think should be governed is none else but you. One who you think should be tortured is none else but you. One who you think should be enslaved is none else but you (1.5.101).

6) An unbiased Muni commanding Right Perception or Spiritual Experience should expatiate upon religion (1.6.100).

7) The Trithankaras have asserted that Dharma (i.e. Righteousness ) subsists in equanimity (samiyae) (1.5.40)

Acarya Samantabhadra and Siddhasena further considered the unbiased attitude towards all the religions as the fundamental approach to the Truth. It helps us in establishing the interreligious dialogue and comprenending the reality in right perspectives. Siddhasena Divakar is quite right when he says that opinions mean Nayavadas. Nayavadas are as there are type of words. I other words we should understant that there are mutually contradictory thought-processes and they all are non-Jaina in contradict each other. The controlling and conditioning factors of non-Jaina and Jaina philosophies are "contradiction" and "Synthesis" respectively (Sanmati Tarka, 3.47).

An entity is composed of both the general and the particular aspect. Both these aspects or Nayas when take in their exclusiveness are false Nayas, all other Nayas also are wrong when taken in their isolated standpoints. Similarly if all the Nayas arrange themselves in a proper way and supplement to each other, then alone they are worthy of being termed as "the whole truth" (Samyagdarsana) or the right view in its entirety. But in this case they merge their individuality in the collective whole (ibid. 2. 15,25).

All the Nayas or philospohies are right in their own respective spheres, but if they encroach upon the province of other Nayas and they try to refute their views, they are wrong (ibid.1.29). This is the best statement which clarifies the contribution of Jainsim to establish the interreligious diologue. It is therefore, said that the right Jaina view consists of the combination of these two Nayas with all their attendant statements. It means, all such comprehensive statements and thoughts have a place in Jaina Philosophy only if they lead to truth. It wants, as a matter of fact, to accommodate liberally all such statements. (ibid. 153).

This Anekanta guards us from holding opinions that are based on views that are one-sided and extreme and that under the cloak of Anekanta really maintain one sided views. The thoughts in Jaina scriptures are really based on Anekantacada. If instead of knowing their nature of many-sidedness, a man lapses into one-sidedness, his viewpoint is wrong. (ibid. 3.27-28).

Every person ventilates his views about a given object according to his attitude and capacity. His limited knowledge is inadequate to throw a flood of light on the entire object. Out of some many facts, he deals with only one or some. This partial knowledge and partial success is dangerous especially when he feels that his knowledge is complete and correct. It is, therefore, imperative that we should study understand others and accommodate others views, eventhough they clash with ours, is a real humanitarian outlook. Samantabhadra said it the "Sarvidayatirtha". Haribbhadre's quotation points out in the same direction. He means to say that we must think objectively irrespective of our religion and ideology.

Agrahi vata ninisati yuktim, tatra yatra matirasya nivista.
Paksapatarahitasya tu yuktir yatra tatra matireti nivesam.

Acarya Hemacandra also opins that we must not swallow uncritically any idea simply because it comes from a great man. The validity of that idea must be tested on the touch-stone of logic.

Paksapato na me vire, na dvesah kapiladisu.
Yuktimadvacanam yasya, tasya karyan pratigrahah.

The Sutrakrtanga (1.14.19) says that the wise man should not joke or explain without conditional prepositions. He should expound the analytical theory (Vibhajjavayam ca viyagarejja) and use the two kinds of speech, having among virtuous men, impartial and wise. The Buddha also himself claims to be an analyst and not ( a dogmatist), who makes categorical assertions" (Vihajjavado.....aham...nakam...ekamsavado, M. 11. 197). Vibhajjavada and Anekantavada are orginally not much differed. 

These instances indicate that the righteousness subsists in equanimity. The word Samana itself reveals the fact that Jainism is based on equality and equanimity (Dhammapada 388; Uttaradhyayana, 25-32). The Samyuttanikaya of Buddhism says that they are the Sambuddha and Samdrasta who have rightly understood the nature of religion and are not attached with any particular religion or ism (1.1.8; 1.2.6). According to Majjhimanikaya (3.40.2) Samata means the status of the self which has destroyed attachment, hatredness and deception. Kundakunda also opines the same in the Pravacanasara.

Such Samatavadis were of the view that the criticism of others and appreciation of self do not solve the problem (Suyagado, 1.1.50). One should be detached with any attachment, even with the attachment of his own religion, if he is really interested in understanding reality. This is the reason why the Jainas have been defending their religious dogmas by way of synthesis- oriented steps towards following the non-violence and strengthing the search for truth. Haribhadrasuri rightly said "How can the authors of scriptures, the great souls, be the propounders of wrong views if it is, one should find out their intentions of. To point out the contradiction without knowing the implication is not an attempt at knowing the truth ". (Shastravartasamuccayaya, 3.15) Siddhasena Divakar also said" Like all the rivers in the ovean, thy views, o Lord, are in motion together towards Thee."

Jainism is of the view that even the attachment with the propounder or religion becomes the impediment for the attainment of omniscience or salvation. The Bhagawatisutra refers the event that Gautam, your attachment with me was the main hinderance for the attainment of salvation. Like- wise, the same event is found in the Pali Tropitakea where the Buddha replied the same question put forth by Ananda in the same manner.

The method of refutation had been further synthesized by Acarya Samantabhadra and Siddhasena. All the divergent views are partially of relatively true. No particular thought is complete unless it is connected with other thoughts. Samantabhadra clarifies the question as how could the congregation of false beliefs be perfect and complete". He said that the views are not absolutely wrong, and incomplete. No rational proposition can be absolutely untrue. It becomes an exponent of truth as soon as it tolerates the co-ordinate rational propositions.

Mithyasamuho mithya cenna mithyaikantatasti na.
Nirapeksa naya mithya, sapeksa vastu te 'rthakrta. Aptamimasa,108

This point is more explained by Siddhasena Divakara. He states that all the religions and conceptions reveal the only partial truth. Opinions means Nayavadas. Nayavadas, as already said, are as many as there are types of words. Therefore, there are as many non-Jaina doctrines as there are mutually contraditory Nayas or thought-processes. Jaina and Buddhist philosophies which comprise pf non-violence synthesize all such thoughts or philosophies which contradict each other. This is the unusal instance of religious tolerance.

Thus the Anekantavada of Jainism is zig-zag to the peace lovers. They are world-court which walks the chalk for welfarism. They are vertoscope and video which stall off staircase illusin about the objects. These views pave the way to establish the world-peace, social harmony and interreligious diologue and wash away waspishness of persons and nations.

 

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

Source : From Souvenir "Sixth World Jain Conference" 1995

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

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R12111