The Place of Jainism Among Other Philosophies

By Mr. Nathuram Dongariya Jain

The correct invention and discovery about the things Tatvas is called Darshan and it is the duty to describe about the world and its matters. The accepted Tatvas of Jain Darshan (Philosophy) and method of their thinking is all together different from the all religions of the world and it is unequalled and important. The other philosophies while desire to consider the matter from only one sight having taken it to be a complete one and the elements of things which have been seen with one and the elements or things which have been seen with different sights from them, which are correct with the other sight are called false by them and they turn their faces from the complete knowledge of the state of things they take shelter of obstinacy, try to take to the deep pit while Jain Philosophy with liberal look at the things with Anekant and its liberal sights and consider over its each and every quality and state with different sights take the help of their different qualities, have discussions amongst themselves, do not pay proper respect to each other's ideas and do not hear them but dare to call false to each other. For example, Buddhism has its sight only on the state of things looking to their changing forms, presumes them to be temporary (Anitya) and calls the logic of permanency to be false, while Samyak Darshan only considers about the qualities of things (because the qualities never destroy), hence, it tries to prove that the things are everlasting and it does not consider about their changing states at all and makes its sight short, tries the principle of everlasting according to Buddhism as false. The same thing is stated by Jainism that 'Friends, you should leave both these principles of truthfulness, should leave both these principles of truthfulness, should not enter into discussion by taking favour of short sightedness and call each other with bad names. Because the things are everlasting from the point of view of being matter and qualities and from the sight of the state, they are temporary. The nature of the things are Anekantatmak i.e. having different shapes and varieties in one thing they are everlasting qualities as well as its changing temporary states are found truly without oppose and the qualities and state of things collectively are called matter (Dravya). One matter only with all is qualities changes into various states (Anant Paryaya) and so it is partly temporary and partly permanent i.e. from the sight of its qualities it is permanent and with its state being changing it temporary.

The Vedant Philosophy also observes :

"Sarva Khalvidam Brahma Neh Nanasti Kinchana
Aramama Tasya Pashyanti Na Tam Pashayati Kashchan"

It means that all that we feel is Brahma itself and there is nothing except it. We all see its different forms but no one sees it.

It is clear that Vedant philosophy makes difference in living and non-living actually. All that we see as the difference the effect of its Maya (Illusion). Actually here is only one Brahma which is seen in different states. There is no actual truth in difference which seems due to its Maya (illusion) because the illusion itself has not actual existence. Thus by Vedant philosophy with their self and free status the innumerable non-living substances there being no acceptance of real difference in any form, it totally mitigates the difference between salvation (Mukti) and living in this world. Because all of us are part of that one whole and omnipresent Parma Brahm (Almighty), who is always full of everlasting happiness and open knowledge. It is clear that the inseparatable part of the whole Brahm should also be always full with happiness and knowledge because the illusion has no actual existence, cannot effect us in any way. Besides this, here we have got in everybody a separate living power and with it we have experiences and feeling of pains, desire, efforts, holiness, sin, love and envy including anger and other different kinds of feelings also in a separate position from each of them, the form of which in one whole Param Brahm is in the form of everlasting happiness (Parmanand) and knowledge which does not seem to be possible at all. Nor in such condition the position of the world and Moksha (Heavenly abode) may exist. Because only some of the particles of one Brahm may wander in this world and may have peaceful life. This may not happen unless we adopt the principle indivisible innumerable creatures is to accepted. Thus, the philosophy of Vedant thing about one Brahma only and disappears the theory of innumerable non-living substances called them palace of ego and tries to wipe it out. While the Charvak philosophy (Nastik) on the other hand declares in a loud voice that except the physical non-living elements (earth, water, fire, air and sky) there is no other independent authority like the soul or Brahma in the world in any form. What ever it is, it is the game of non-living substances. The earth, water, fire air and sky are the real substances and these non-living substances in the special contact appears to be living for some time, which is called life or living and for those reasons that form gets disappeared which is called earth. There is neither any independent element like soul (or the life) nor Parlok (the other world), hence, punya (holy deeds), sin, bondage, and salvation etc. are nothing.

Thus, these two principles only with one sided thinking and supposition flows in it as far from truth and with proof and experience get disappearance of innumerable and independent lives and non-living substances seem to be arising dispute. This is the saying of Jainism that in this world the authority of non-living and living substances is a real one and both are present innumerably. Neither there is one whole imaginary Param Brahma in this world in which there may be no difference of living and non-living and nor there is complete non-existence of living only the existence of Panchabhut. This whole description with different sights according to their reach and understanding is the result of the inspection of the world, in which one sight is supposed to be quite true and the other totally untrue or the second one to be totally false which arises dispute and with it the authority of proved substances and the authority of the elements and its existence which is actual, gets destroyed.

On thinking deeply, Gyana, Darshan and real happiness cannot be felt by this life-less, non-sensitive body and its limbs. It is clear that everybody having its physique has got separate authorities of the living bodies with their properties of knowledge with their differences for ever and it will remain for ever. In the same manner the authority of majority of non-living bodies having no sensitiveness are present with their own specialties with the form, taste and sensitiveness innumerable atoms and molecules are being felt openly. Thus neither there can be scarcity of different non-living substances and nor the living or Brahma having spirit of life or soul at all.

The actual fact is that when we examine the existence of the substances with the common sight of their existence or in the state of Samadhi (Meditated condition), busy in thinking about self (soul) in Gyana Swaroop them out sight does not fall on the separate state of the soul, which is separate from non-living bodies and living substances and neither on our own different qualities of Gyana, Darshana and happiness. AT that time we feel only one undivided (Akhand) soul element (whether it may be called Param Dharam). There lie no room for variety of thoughts nor at that time there is necessity to feel them in separate forms. Therefore if those persons who are busy in self concentration of the soul do not see anything except the soul itself (being out of sight for them), if they feel about the elements of the soul in the thoughtless condition them with the sight of their own views of self concentration there is nothing wrong in it. But when the same self concentrated person says that there is nothing like substance except me or my soul or whatever is being felt about other substances is hypothetical or unreal, then it becomes away from the reality. Because in concentration position of a man may though not think about his own soul and its qualities but not from only this much the infinite living and non-living substances with different souls may not cease to exist and it cannot also be supposed to be so.

On thinking over the utility of the substances and their infinity, with the view of common living being all the creatures of living innumerable substances is existence my be called happiness-pain etc. are felt to be looking and feeling at them with varieties and personality and every body feels himself about his authority to be limited to the extent of body. Then the element of life is supposed to be infinite in number and is mentioned accordingly. To be only one, whole, omnipresent Brahmatma, having knowledge of personal variety of happiness and pain and neither its existence and nor is proof and feeling are proved.

In the same way according to the non-believers in the existence of God like Charvaka, if the non-living substances only with the five elements are supposed to be reality and the living elements and its existence be uprooted then it is also not proper. The difference between the form of substances are made by their symptoms and qualities. One thing or substance is different from the other can be judged from the difference in qualities of those substances in soul (i.e. living element) and non-living substances the difference in their qualities at apparent and experience proved. This is my body and these are my limbs (Indriyas), one who talks in this manner as a doer, the same is the separated element from body which is living being (soul element) which is separate from the shape or form, taste and touching etc. and full of knowledge, thoughts, happiness and other qualities and itself feels different from self.

In short, the living being with its own knowledge and thinking as well as qualities of happiness is which is four in every body and seems openly and experienced itself is not imaginary but realistic. In the same manner the non-living substance called Pudgal can also be seen and known in its form, taste, smell and touch etc. in is different shapes and conditions. It is also an element which is different from the living beings. The forms and qualities of both of them prove their difference with clearness. In this way we all see these substances with common view i.e. the sight of substantiality, then all of them seem one and not different and when we see it with personal or special view then the severalty and difference is proved.

In the same way every thing or substance has got its unity of matter and severalty of qualities in it. For example only one living being has got severalty with the view of its knowledge, thinking and other qualities and their livelihood of men and creatures of hell. Because the knowledge is not thinking and the manhood is not the creatures of hell. But when we think in accordance with the livelihood then the power of the qualities of knowledge and thinking does not seem to be different because the qualities of knowledge etc. does not have separate powers from the soul as if the soul may be separate substance and the knowledge, thinking etc. qualities be separately living in it, but it is not so, there is difference of qualities and having qualities for the sake of understanding and making to understand in order to state with the aim and symptoms of the form of the substance. But in one substance there being the resemblance in qualities, thy are also without difference. The qualit8ies are with the substance itself and the substance is with its qualities.

Thus the Jain philosophy by its liberal and realistic views describes the substantial qualities elements without partiality in actual form and accepts its innumerable qualities and shapes, explains them without obstacles leads the knowledge of human beings towards perfection and tries to quench their thirst for knowledge. Every wise man shall agree that the incomplete, in extensive view with favoritism can not claim to be a complete knowledge nor any one can become by it a man with complete knowledge or omniscience because the substances present in the world are innumerable and their properties and activities are clearly different and in majority and to bring them under one view completely is not only difficult but impossible. Hence, the other philosophies in the world have expressed their thoughts about the substance with their only one view and have tried to close their eyes from their properties seeing from other views or have refused to express their thoughts about them and due to their inextensive views they have told them to be false and imaginary and told their own partial knowledge to be true while Jain philosophy has taken liberal view and has given opportunity to get complete knowledge of substances without favoritism have tried to instigate for thinking with different views, which is the greatest originality of Jainism which compels to call it a complete philosophy. It mitigates the quarrels of the caste and creed system and brings unity between them with feelings of respect to the thoughts of all (if they are without partiality then declares them to be true), leads the world towards truth. This is the liberal and impartial view of Anekant by which the elements or substances are expressed without force is called Syadavad in Jainism, which expresses one property of substance while explaining it to be the main property or quality and its other properties are said to be understood and says that the form of the substance is such due to its different and with the other view it is indifferent i.e. in one form and in different forms always in existence and non-existence, are called to be existing, non-existing etc. which should be called and acknowledged as such, actually it is also as such.

Question -  There is opposition in presuming one substance in existence as well as not in existence. If one substance is in existence, then how it can be not in-existence?

Answer - This opposition might have been correct if the view which tells it to be in existence might have also said that it is not in existence, but it is not so. The substance with respect to its shape it is called not-in-existence, which does not create any obstacle. With respect to a substance the experience is also such. If we take living being then with the view of its properties and conditions it is in existence and with respect to non-living it is not in-existence. It means that a living thing is full of life and not a non-living substance. If the living being have been called or supposed as untrue with the view of its liveliness then it should have been opposed but it is not so. Gold is after all gold and not silver. Thus if one substance called gold in its form is in existence and the other forms absents i.e. not in-existence, both things are present definitely and equally. It is not so recognized then neither the form of substance might have its properties nor there might have been knowledge about it. For example, if the gold is supposed to be in existence with all the views and not in existence due to other forms, then it might be also silver, copper etc. as well as everything. Hence, with several views the innumerable properties present in substance actually, should be supposed at one or several times in different forms with the mainlines of one and the remaining being not apparent. This is the principle of Syadvad, which establishes the realistic form of the substance and carries the knowledge of elements scientifically towards completion. The knowledge of a substance known by narrow view shall be incomplete and partial, unless it is not completely considered. But the philosophers of the world often want to acknowledge and suppose their one side as systematic knowledge of substance and call their only view as completely true knowledge and the other to be untrue having taken shelter of obstinacy and favoritism, become narrow minded and un-polite and have their separate creed and give rise to envy and hatred among them. While Jainism take all religions at the same level to the thoughts of all religions and tries to get them relieved of favoritism and accept the substance with several properties (as it exists) and carrying their incomplete knowledge towards perfection with liberal declaration and thus gives the world proper, true and realistic, scientific direction.

This liberal view of Jainism which is the correct of method of religious philosophy and is full of equality, it is proved to be solid ground for all religious thoughts and on this basis it becomes entitled to be called as complete thought.

Shri Mangal Deoji Shashtri, M. A. D. Phil. (Oxen), who is ex-principal of Govt. Sanskrit College, Banaras and a learned man with several titles write in 'Jain Darshan Ki Den' (Gifts of Jain Philosophy) as under - 'In the history of Indian philosophy, Jain philosophy had provided a unique thing. It is clear that elemental view about any of the element may not be one sided. There should be manifolded forms naturally in every element and any view can not establish it elementally. The same principle in the language of Jain Philosophy is called Anekant Darshan (Manifold vies). No doubt, it is the foundation pillar of Jainism but actually for every philosophical thought it must be regarded as necessary.'

'On wisdom stage, if this principle is adopted then a adopted then a man may have a great change in his traditional and worldly behavior. Character is the sum and substance of human life. The elementary essentiality for this is that a man should keep himself away from proud and save himself from low feelings also. Clearly, this path is very difficult. In real sense, one who understands his own state of form and pays respect to self and pays equal respect to others has got an original importance. The importance of above mentioned Anekant Darshan (Manifold view) is also n the basis of this principle that the respect of person is found under it. He further writes -

'Where a man is given proper respect, there naturally the narrowness of caste, quarrel or any deceive, caste difference etc. such improper practices can not provoke the defeat from debates. In traditional life also in place of opposing the constructive leveled practice is found there. The holiness of the and its resources are also followed by the said principle with its great ideology. Thus Anekant Darshan is a source of social uplift which is a great gift of Jain Philosophy for purifying behavior.'

In my thinking of world, the principle of Anekant changes in the moral world. Therefore, in other thoughts stress is laid upon opposing other thoughts, the chief aim of Jainism is to equalise all the different thoughts of substantial grounds on the basis of the principle of Anekant. With the view of present world also the principle of non-violence of Jain Philosophy is also very important. The greatest necessity of the present world is that keeping the specialties of own traditions, the men of different castes should come into content with each other and should develop a wide humanly view amongst them. This is possible only with the view of Anekant Darshan which is the view of equalization.

There is not doubt that only for the development of Indian philosophy but in order to understand the development of the form of Indian culture also Jain philosophy is very important. In Indian thinking, in the form of non-violence or in the form which is the gift of Jainism and Jain Philosophy, without understanding it actually the development of Indian culture can be understood.

Shri Phanibhushan Adhikari, Ex-Professor of Philosophy, Banaras University says

"The Syadavad principle of Jainism is so much wrongly understood s none of the other principle has been. Even Shankaracharya is also not free from this fault. He has also done injustice to it. This world have been pardonable for a man of low understanding. If I have a right to say then I shall say that this great man of India can also not be pardoned. Though I have a great respect for this saint, it seems that he has not taken pains to go through the original thoughts of Jain Philosophy."

Shri Ganganathji, Professor of Prayag University has also expressed the same thing. Professor Anand Shankar Bahubhai Dhruva writes about the principle of Syadavada -

'So many persons call Syadavad as Sanshaywad (Doubtful thought) but I do not agree. Syadavad is not doubtful thought but it makes available a point of view, as to how we should look at the world, is taught to us by it. It is definite that without examining by different points of view, any substance cannot be understood in completed form. Hence, it is improper to blame Syadavad.

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

Mail to : Ahimsa Foundation
www.jainsamaj.org
R27111