Jain Evam Kantiya Darshano Ki Samanvaya Vadi Shaili - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jain evam Kantiya Darshano ki Samanvaya vadi Shaili" by Dr. Vasishtha Narain Sinha:

The book explores the syncretic (Samanvayavadi) style of Jainism and Kantian philosophy, highlighting striking methodological similarities despite their vast temporal and cultural differences. While Jainism is ancient Indian philosophy and Kant's thought is modern Western philosophy, both aimed to reconcile seemingly opposing viewpoints. The key difference lies in their approach: Jainism primarily used metaphysics to achieve syncretism, while Kant utilized epistemology.

The Core Problem: Sat (Reality) - General vs. Particular, Eternal vs. Non-eternal

A central philosophical debate concerns the nature of reality. Is it general or particular? Eternal or transient?

Buddhism posits that reality is particular and transient, emphasizing impermanence (Kshanikavada) as the ultimate truth. For them, only the particular, which is inherently impermanent, is real. They argue that the general cannot be perceived, using analogies like seeing a horn on one's own head. Buddhist arguments against the general include:
- Generals arise from particulars and cannot be separated from them.
- If a general is one, it's either pervasive or not. If pervasive, it should exist between things, not in them. If it's in everything, it's not a general. If it's not pervasive, it's essentially a particular.
- Things are known by their function (arthakriyakaritva), which is always performed by a particular, not a general.
- If a general is considered many, it becomes particulars. Therefore, only particulars exist.
Advaita Vedanta asserts that only Brahman is real, and everything else is Maya (illusion). Brahman is one, eternal, and unchanging, embodying the characteristics of the general. They argue that:
- The "essence" of a substance is singular, without which no substance can be known.
- The particularity of a specific object is its nature, and this particularity itself implies a general, without which it cannot be understood.
- Distinction (vyavritti) signifies the particular, while continuity (anuvritti) signifies the general. However, fully understanding a distinction requires knowing all other things in the universe, which is only possible for an omniscient being. Thus, the existence of the particular cannot be proven without omniscience.
- If distinction is real, is it one or many? If one, it leads to infinite regress. If many, each distinction needs another to differentiate it, again leading to infinite regress.
- Advaita Vedanta thus establishes the reality of the general and negates the particular.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika accepts both the general and the particular as real, but they are separate and independent. Their relation is only through samavaya (inherence), which is an eternal relationship.

Jainism's Syncretic Approach

Jainism attempts to resolve these disputes by labeling the aforementioned views as one-sided (ekangi). It introduces the concept of Nayas (standpoints) to explain how different perspectives can apprehend different aspects of reality without contradicting each other.

Those who emphasize the general are supported by the Sangrahanaya.
Those who prioritize the particular are adherents of the Paryayarthikanaya.
Those who accept both the general and the particular are guided by the Naigamanaya.

Jainism's metaphysics states that a thing has infinite properties (anantadharmakam vastu). Some properties are permanent (guna - quality), and some are impermanent (paryaya - mode). From the perspective of guna, the object is general; from the perspective of paryaya, it is particular. Thus, the general and the particular coexist within the substance and are relative to each other, not absolute.

When one speaks of "humanness," all its characteristics are understood, along with its distinction from other beings. This shows that the particular is understood along with the general.
When one names a specific person, like "Ram," it refers to a particular individual, but the concept of "humanness" within him is also apprehended. Thus, the general is understood along with the particular.
The general and the particular are not entirely different. To the extent they share identity, they are identical; to the extent they don't, they are different.

This dual nature extends to eternity and non-eternity. From the perspective of guna, an object is eternal; from the perspective of paryaya, it is non-eternal.

For example, a lamp is considered non-eternal because it burns and extinguishes. However, from the perspective of its fiery essence (Agni/Tejatattva), which persists through the changes of light and darkness (both considered paryayas of fire), the lamp's essence is eternal.
Similarly, the sky provides shelter (its guna, which is eternal). However, the specific shelter it provides to a person or object is a paryaya, as that specific shelter ceases to exist when the person moves. Thus, the sky, in its essential quality of providing shelter, is eternal, but in its specific instances of providing shelter, it is non-eternal.

Kantian Philosophy: Reconciling Rationalism and Empiricism

Immanuel Kant's philosophy aimed to bridge the gap between Rationalism and Empiricism, two dominant schools in Western philosophy.

Rationalism, pioneered by René Descartes, believed that true knowledge is derived from reason and innate ideas, which are self-evident and independent of experience. Descartes emphasized the certainty of mathematics and sought to apply its rigor to philosophy. He distinguished between self-evident truths (requiring no proof) and derived truths (requiring proof). For rationalists like Spinoza and Leibniz, knowledge is based on innate, universal, and a priori concepts, with knowledge gained through deductive and analytical methods.
Empiricism, championed by John Locke, argued that all knowledge originates from sensory experience. Locke refuted the notion of innate ideas, stating that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth. He argued that if innate ideas existed, everyone, including children and the insane, would possess them, and religious and moral doctrines would be uniform globally, which is not the case. Locke proposed that ideas are formed through sensation (of external objects) and reflection (on the mind's operations). Knowledge is thus empirical and a posteriori, acquired through inductive and synthetic methods, as also advocated by Berkeley and Hume.

Kant's Syncretism: Critical Transcendental Idealism

Kant, finding both Rationalism and Empiricism to be incomplete and flawed, sought to synthesize them. He criticized Rationalism for:

Arriving at different conclusions despite a shared method.
Placing faith in mathematics, which relies on experience, while asserting the objectivity of objects beyond experience.
Relying on intellectual speculation, leading to superstition.

He criticized Empiricism for:

Sensory experiences being fleeting and disorganized, thus unable to yield certain knowledge.
Inability to prove the existence of transcendent entities like God and the soul, or even the external world.
Failing to establish universal laws like causality or to resolve skepticism, ultimately becoming self-destructive.

Kant proposed that knowledge requires both reason (form) and experience (matter).

Matter of knowledge comes from experience.
Form of knowledge comes from reason.

Sensory data alone does not constitute knowledge until it is structured by the categories of the understanding. He famously stated: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."

This synthesis led to his philosophy, Critical Transcendental Idealism. "Critical" refers to his examination of the limits of reason and experience. "Transcendental" relates to the a priori conditions of knowledge, which reason provides. "Idealism" acknowledges the role of the mind in shaping our experience of reality.

Conclusion: A Shared Vision of Harmony

Both Jain and Kantian philosophers, in their respective contexts, aimed to resolve intellectual conflicts and promote societal harmony. Jain acharyas, through their metaphysical syncretism, sought to bridge differing viewpoints, leading to practical accord. Similarly, Kant's epistemological synthesis between rationalism and empiricism was revolutionary, comparable to Copernicus's heliocentric model in its impact on intellectual paradigms.

However, the author notes a disparity in reception: While Kant's synthesis was widely celebrated in the West and earned him a paramount position in philosophy, the efforts of Jain acharyas to achieve similar intellectual and practical harmony in Indian society were met with criticism and neglect. Despite this, both represent a profound attempt to integrate diverse perspectives for the betterment of thought and society.