Bhartiya Darshanik Chintan Me Nihit Anekant

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Bhartiya Darshanik Chintan me Nihit Anekant" by Sagarmal Jain:

This book, "Anekant Inherited in Indian Philosophical Thought," by Sagarmal Jain, argues that the principle of Anekant (Many-sidedness), while most prominently associated with Jainism, is not exclusive to it. The author asserts that other Indian philosophical systems also contain elements of Anekant, even if not explicitly named or developed to the same extent as in Jainism.

The core argument of the book is that Anekant is a natural outcome of acknowledging the multi-faceted nature of reality. Disagreements in philosophy arise not from the substance of experience itself, but from the expression of that experience, which is inherently limited and relative due to the use of language. Anekant emerges as a way to reconcile these differing linguistic expressions and acknowledge the relative truth within them. The development of Anekant is based on three foundations:

1. Negation of exclusive viewpoints about a multi-dimensional reality.
2. Acceptance of the relative truth of contradictory statements presented from different perspectives.
3. Efforts to synthesize seemingly contradictory schools of thought.

The author then proceeds to demonstrate the presence of Anekant in various Indian philosophical traditions:

1. Vedic Viewpoint and Anekant: The author traces the roots of Anekant back to the Vedas, particularly the Rigveda. The Rigveda's Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda 10.129.1) questions the ultimate nature of reality, stating it cannot be definitively called "existent" or "non-existent." This acceptance of the multi-dimensionality of ultimate reality and the possibility of seemingly contradictory aspects co-existing is seen as an early form of Anekant. The famous verse "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" (Truth is One, the wise call it by many names) from the Rigveda (1.164.46) is presented as a direct acknowledgment of the relative truth in different perspectives.

2. Upanishadic Literature and Anekant: The Upanishads, according to the author, also contain numerous indications of Anekant. This is observed in:

• Presentation of contradictory ideologies in different contexts.
• Negation of exclusive (ekantik) ideologies.
• Attempts to reconcile contradictory ideologies.

Examples are provided where Upanishads present opposing views on the origin of the universe (sat or asat) and the nature of consciousness (material or conscious). The Upanishads also explicitly negate exclusive viewpoints, stating the ultimate reality is neither gross nor subtle, short nor long. They accept the simultaneous presence of contradictory attributes in the ultimate reality, such as being both subtle (than an atom) and great (than the greatest), knowable and unknowable, perishable and imperishable. This acceptance of contradictory qualities is interpreted as a clear indication of Anekant. The Upanishads' concept of the ultimate reality being "indescribable" or "unutterable" is also linked to Anekant, as it avoids definitive pronouncements. The Isha Upanishad is highlighted for its practical application of Anekant in daily life, reconciling renunciation and enjoyment, action and inaction, and the oneness and manyness of the self.

3. Sankhya Philosophy and Anekant: Sankhya, an ancient Indian philosophy, is shown to have Anekant tendencies. It posits two fundamental principles, Purusha and Prakriti. While Purusha is considered eternally unchanging (kutashtha nitya) and Prakriti eternally changing (parinami nitya), this duality itself represents differing perspectives on reality. Furthermore, Prakriti is characterized by three qualities (gunas) – Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas – which are themselves contradictory but coexist within Prakriti. The author draws a parallel between Sankhya's triguna theory and Jainism's concept of product, decay, and permanence (utpad-vyaya-dhrauvya). Sankhya also accepts both permanence of substance and impermanence of modes, and acknowledges both activity and inactivity within Prakriti, depending on the perspective. Even Purusha is seen to possess contradictory qualities like knower/non-knower and doer/non-doer in its worldly state. The need to accept both subtle difference and subtle non-difference between Purusha and Prakriti for explaining the world and liberation is seen as the foundation of Anekant.

4. Yoga Philosophy and Anekant: The Yoga Sutras and their commentaries, particularly by Vachaspati Mishra, are cited as evidence for Anekant. The Yoga philosophy accepts the interdependence of substance (dharmi) and attributes (dharma), recognizing them as both different and non-different. This is illustrated by the example of a woman being a mother, daughter, and sister from different perspectives, or gold remaining gold even when reshaped into different utensils. Yoga also views reality as possessing both general and specific aspects (samanya-vishesha), and the permanence of substance and impermanence of form. Vachaspati Mishra explicitly negates exclusive viewpoints and establishes Anekant, stating that reality is characterized by both general and specific attributes.

5. Vaisheshika Philosophy and Anekant: Vaisheshika philosophy, which categorizes reality into substance, quality, and action, is shown to accept a form of Anekant through the concept of "inherent relationship" (ashraya-ashrayi bhava). While considering these categories as independent, Vaisheshika acknowledges their interconnectedness, implying a relative non-difference. The dual concepts of "common" (samanya) and "specific" (vishesha), and the idea that a substance can be both common (in relation to its specific instances) and specific (in relation to its genus or ultimate existence), are presented as core to Vaisheshika's Anekant perspective. The Vaisheshika understanding of a thing being existent in its own nature and non-existent in the nature of another is also aligned with Anekant.

6. Nyaya Philosophy and Anekant: The Nyaya school, through its commentaries, also embraces Anekant. Vatsyayana, in his commentary on the Nyaya Sutras, acknowledges the validity of accepting multiple, even seemingly contradictory, attributes in an entity when they are supported by valid reasoning or arise from different perspectives. The concept of "kind" (jati), which is considered both general and specific (samanya-vishesha), is seen as an embodiment of Anekant, as it implies an interpenetration of the universal within the particular and vice versa. The Nyaya explanation of the nature of the effect before its production, being neither purely existent nor non-existent, but a combination of both, is also interpreted as an Anekant view.

7. Mimamsa Philosophy and Anekant: The Mimamsa school, like Jainism, views existence as having three aspects: production (utpatti), decay (vyaya), and permanence (dhrauvya). The author equates this with Mimamsa's concept of eternal permanence of the substance despite the production and decay of its attributes. Kumarila Bhatta's acceptance of the material as having production, decay, and permanence, the non-difference between constituent parts and the whole, and the relativity of common and specific, are seen as evidence of Anekant in his thought. Mimamsa even explicitly validates Anekant, stating that knowledge about a thing being non-exclusive does not lead to doubt about its validity.

8. Vedanta Philosophy and Anekant: Even within the diverse schools of Vedanta, the author finds traces of Anekant. While Vedanta philosophers critique Jainism's Anekant, they often rely on similar principles to explain their own doctrines. Shankaracharya's acceptance of contradictory attributes in God (creator and non-creator) and his concept of Maya (neither entirely real nor unreal, neither completely different nor identical to Brahman) are presented as essentially Anekant viewpoints, albeit expressed through negation. Other Vedanta commentators like Bhaskara, Vijnanabhikshu, Nimbarka, and Vallabha also expound on the idea of Brahman being simultaneously different and non-different, many-formed and unchanging, encompassing all contradictory attributes, which the author sees as supporting Anekant.

9. Shramana Tradition and Anekant: The author then shifts to the Shramana tradition, emphasizing its ancient and liberal philosophical outlook supportive of Anekant. The contemporary thinkers of the Upanishadic period – Sanjaya Belatthiputta, Gautama Buddha, and Vardhamana Mahavira – are highlighted.

• Sanjaya Belatthiputta: Is considered an early proponent of Anekant because he negated all exclusive viewpoints, offering no definitive answers. His method is seen as a precursor to the rejection of extremes.
• Gautama Buddha: The author argues that Buddha's adoption of "Vibhajjavada" (analytical or discriminative doctrine) was a form of Anekant. Buddha's avoidance of definitive answers on certain metaphysical questions (like the nature of the soul) and his emphasis on conditional statements (e.g., "this being, that becomes") are seen as embracing a multi-faceted understanding. While Buddha's approach was often negative (negating extremes), it paved the way for the development of Shunyavada (emptiness).
• Vardhamana Mahavira: Jainism's emphasis on "Syadvada" (the doctrine of "perhaps" or "may be") is presented as the affirmative counterpart to Buddha's negation. Mahavira's method involved providing conditional and relative answers, and his philosophy of Anekant (or Syadvada) is seen as the positive articulation of this multi-sidedness.

The author concludes that both Buddhist Shunyavada and Jain Syadvada aim to overcome the limitations of exclusive viewpoints, with Shunyavada negating extremes and Syadvada incorporating them through conditional statements. The underlying principle of accepting an infinite number of attributes (ananta-dharmatmaka) in reality is common to both, though expressed differently.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the author asserts that an Anekant perspective is inherent in all Indian philosophical thought. Anekant is not merely a theory but a methodology required to express the multi-dimensional nature of reality. Since any expression of an infinite reality through language is inherently limited and relative, adopting an Anekant approach is inevitable for any philosophical system attempting to articulate such truths. The author quotes Upadhyay Yashovijayji to emphasize that various schools of Indian philosophy, including Yoga, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta, implicitly or explicitly accept Anekant by acknowledging both difference and non-difference, the simultaneous existence of contradictory qualities, and the relativity of knowledge.