Anekanta Madhyama Pratipada

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Anekanta and Madhyama Pratipad" by Nathmal Tatia, based on the given pages:

The text contrasts the foundational principles of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha, highlighting their respective starting points and the core problems they addressed. Mahavira, rooted in implicit faith in ahimsa (non-violence) and austerities, was primarily concerned with resolving the ontological conflicts of his era. This led to the formulation of the doctrine of anekanta. In contrast, Gautama Buddha was drawn to meditation and focused on psycho-ethical discipline, particularly the ultimate goal of meditation and the rational reconciliation of life's opposing principles, which he termed madhyamá-pratipad (the middle course).

The author explains that Mahavira's and his followers' ontological inquiries revealed inherent conflicts within the nature of reality itself. Their solution, anekanta, posits that a real entity must necessarily undergo change, and this change is only possible through a combination of origination, passing, and a persistent aspect that allows for continuity. In essence, a real entity is a substance capable of assuming various modes, embodying both continuity and change. Anekanta, therefore, embraces the multi-sidedness of reality.

The text then delves into Buddha's perspective, emphasizing his focus on the moral aspect of life and his discovery of the causal doctrine of pratitya-samutpada (origination dependent on causes and conditions). This doctrine identified avidya (ignorance) as the ultimate source of the cycle of life and death. According to pratitya-samutpada, substance is a mere imaginative construct, with only modes being truly real. These modes follow each other in an unbroken causal chain, replacing one another. The concept of unity is seen as a composite act of imagination (upadaya-prajñapti), a concept dependent on other constituent concepts.

Nagarjuna, a prominent Madhyamika Buddhist philosopher, is cited as equating madhyama-pratipad with these three aspects of the real: pratitya-samutpada, shunyata (emptiness), and upadaya-prajñapti. The text further elaborates on another key aspect of pratitya-samutpada and madhyama-pratipad: the non-acceptance of extreme or dichotomous views. Nagarjuna is presented as venerating Buddha for negating all sets of conflicting concepts. The Yogacara Buddhists are also mentioned as praising Buddha's doctrine for its negation of the cognized and the cognizer.

The author observes that while madhyama-pratipad originated as a doctrine of life, later Buddhist thinkers interpreted it from both ontological and epistemological viewpoints. Anekanta, conversely, was always an ontological doctrine, aiming to explain causation and the nature of relations. Anekanta allows for a substance to possess multiple modes while maintaining its unity and identity, with the criterion of unity being inseparability. This means modes can be distinct from each other and from the substance, but not separate from it. The relationship between substance and modes in Jaina philosophy is characterized as identity-cum-distinction.

The text highlights a crucial divergence: Buddhists do not accept this Jaina view and consequently fail to find unity in the psychological experiences (knowing, feeling, willing) of a single person, leading them to deny the entitative character of personality. Madhyamika Buddhists, in fact, ultimately reject knowing, feeling, and willing as unreal.

In conclusion, the author argues that while anekanta sought to synthesize the conflicts apparent in experience and reason, the Buddhist interpretation of madhyama-pratipad, particularly by later thinkers, accentuated these conflicts and rejected both extremes. The text suggests that if anekanta might give an impression of eclecticism, madhyama-pratipad was made to serve a role perhaps unintended by its originator.