Jivto Anekant

This text, "Jivto Anekant" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published by Z_Darshan_ane_Chintan_Part_2, explores the concept of Anekant (many-sidedness) within Jainism and its practical application in various aspects of life.

The author begins by establishing a hierarchy among human attributes: imagination, philosophy (tattvajnan), and religion (dharma). While imagination is fleeting and often inaccurate, philosophy is more stable and universal. Religion, however, is considered the most elevated, being the mature fruit of philosophical understanding.

Sanghavi argues that true philosophical insights, once tested by truth and found free of delusion, gain universal acceptance and become enduring principles. When these principles are consciously incorporated into human conduct, they evolve into religion, driving the progress of the human race.

The text then delves into the nature of imagination, illustrating with concepts like the existence of "soul," "Atman," or "God" versus their non-existence, or the unity of the soul and the supreme soul versus their distinctness. These are presented as varying imaginative constructs. However, underlying all these shifting ideas is a fundamental, unchanging experience: the sense of self ("I am"), the feeling of pleasure and pain, and the inclination towards pleasure and aversion to pain. This shared human experience, accepted across all times and places, forms the basis of philosophical truth and, ultimately, religion, exemplified by the principle of "Satya-Ahimsa" (truth and non-violence). The author emphasizes that no one chooses unpleasant behavior from others, and this expectation of good conduct from others shapes our own good conduct, driving human evolution towards righteousness.

The author then critically examines the role of sects (sampradayas) in the development and propagation of philosophy and religion. While sects have been instrumental, they have also, due to narrow-mindedness and ignorance, led to sectarianism. This sectarianism, the text explains, results in:

• Mistaking unproven imaginations for philosophical truths.
• Fearing and shying away from accepting truths proven by others.
• Seeing uniformity in one's own sect and inferiority in others, even when the principles are the same.
• Prioritizing one's own sect's superiority, real or imagined, and demeaning others.
• Maintaining the prestige of one's own sect's leaders and scriptures, even while acknowledging internal weaknesses, and deriving satisfaction from the perceived inferiority of other sects, leading to conflict and debate.

The core argument shifts to Anekant, the central principle of Jainism, accepted in both philosophy and religion. Anekant and Syadvada are often used interchangeably and are recognized as defining characteristics of Jain philosophy. The author stresses that Anekant is a way of thinking, an open-minded perspective that views subjects from all possible angles, with details and depth. Its vitality lies in its adherence to truth and reality. Anekant is not just an imagination but a truth-tested philosophy and a principle of ethical conduct. Its essence is to encourage open-minded consideration of oneself and one's own principles, just as it does for others. The more open, clear, and neutral the thought process, the stronger and more alive Anekant becomes.

The author poses critical questions:

1. Is this Anekant perspective unique to Jains, or can it be found in other traditions?
2. Should we accept and respect Anekant principles found in other traditions, despite differences in terminology and practice, or should we be blinded by sectarian bias?
3. If Jainism, founded on Anekant, hasn't fully embodied it in practice, is there any reason for Jains to take pride in it, and what does such pride truly mean?

Sanghavi asserts that few Jains would deny the existence of Anekant thought or practice in other traditions. He observes that many prominent figures and followers in other well-known sects have expressed themselves in ways consistent with Anekant, even if their terminology differs. He further suggests that the possibility of adopting an Anekant perspective is as viable for followers of other traditions as it is for Jains, and sometimes, educated and cultured individuals outside Jainism exhibit this perspective more prominently.

To illustrate, he recommends comparing texts like the Uttaradhyayan Sutra with Buddhist Dhammapada and Vedic Gita, focusing on how virtues like purity of mind, self-control, and non-violence are presented. He also suggests comparing the philosophical explanations of Buddha and the spiritual practices described in the Yoga Sutras and Upanishads with Jain spiritual practices, as done by Acharyas Haribhadra and Yashovijay. The author concludes that truth and its perspective are not confined to any single path.

He then proposes a practical approach: select individuals of similar standing from different sects and objectively study their life and thought processes. This, he believes, will reveal the extent to which non-Jains embody Anekant compared to Jains.

The author then critically examines the practical application of Anekant within the Jain tradition itself. He questions whether Anekant has truly been alive in Jainism, both historically and presently. He points to the internal divisions within Jainism, such as the Digambara and Shvetambara sects, and the subsequent sub-sects (gana-gachchha), as evidence of Anekant's failure to unite. He argues that if Anekant were truly alive, it would have resolved these internal conflicts, not exacerbated them. The existence of numerous disputes over minor issues, such as the number of senses or rituals, highlights the death of living Anekant in Jain religious life. While a vast literature on Anekant exists, the author questions the practical applicability of the examples provided by scholars, such as the dispute over whether one can dance on the head of a snake. He notes that even after much debate, Jain scholars have not provided a clear resolution on how Shvetambaras and Digambaras can live together harmoniously in a shared pilgrimage site. He concludes that those who claim the presence of Anekant in their tradition while being divided by internal disputes are deceiving themselves and others.

The text then moves to the realm of karma (work/profession). Sanghavi asserts that Anekant can certainly be applied to work. However, he observes that Jains have become narrowly focused on trade and employment, neglecting other essential professions like agriculture, shipping, aviation, and physical training for self-defense. This singular focus, he argues, leads to a decline in their physical and mental strength. The author suggests that Anekant, in this context, seems to be confined to scholars and religious leaders, having been divorced from practical life.

In literature, the author notes that despite Jainism's claim of a broad and generous perspective, Jain scholars and even ascetics often appear dependent on others, seeking validation and imitation from scholars of other traditions. This lack of originality and dependence, he argues, indicates that the Anekant perspective is not alive in Jain literary pursuits.

Examining society, the author discusses marriage as a fundamental institution. He posits that Anekant is present in society as long as the intention behind marriage is to channel and regulate human instincts for societal progress. However, he observes that in Jain society, the emphasis has been on marriage as a burden and impurity, leading to a situation where people fulfill the ritual of marriage but lack genuine commitment. This is attributed to the continuous preaching by ascetics that marriage is an unnecessary affliction and impure. The author believes that if Anekant principles had been instilled from the beginning, individuals would have focused on cultivating inner purity rather than labeling marriage itself as impure. This, he contends, has weakened both family life and the monastic order.

The text then addresses the issue of social hierarchy. While ancient traditions emphasized birth, power, and wealth, Mahavir and Buddha promoted virtue as the true measure of superiority. However, the author laments that the inheritors of Mahavir's legacy have failed to uphold this principle of Anekant. Instead, they have fallen back into the old caste-based divisions. Instead of upliftment, internal divisions based on castes and sub-sects (like Porwal, Shrimall, etc.) have emerged, leading to fractured relationships, particularly in marriage. This sectarianism has even seeped into religious practices, with disputes over temple access and worship rights between different Jain sects. The author concludes that when Anekant, which advocates for virtues as the sole basis of superiority, becomes lifeless, it leads to irreconcilable divisions.

Finally, the author touches upon nationalism. He observes that the Jain monastic order has not historically proactively fostered national sentiment. While they may praise national heroes after their achievements, this praise is often a follow-up to public acclaim rather than intrinsic motivation. He criticizes the tendency of some Jain ascetics and scholars to dismiss national activities as distractions or as being against the dharma, discouraging youth from participating. He recalls a time when non-violence was interpreted as an impediment to nationalistic activities involving violence. Later, when national movements became non-violent, some argued that non-violence was impractical in political activities. The author questions this inconsistency, suggesting that if non-violence is impossible in national activities, how can it be possible in social or family activities? He fears that this leads to a narrow interpretation of non-violence, equating it with absolute renunciation and inactivity, which is no more valuable than the inactivity of other sects. He critiques the paradox of advocating for non-violence while passively accumulating wealth at the expense of others' comfort, and then considering it sinful to use that wealth appropriately. This misinterpretation of non-violence, he believes, is prevalent throughout society.

Regarding national activities like the promotion of Khadi, the author questions whether abstaining from foreign clothes and supporting local industries by purchasing Khadi is more aligned with non-violence than the alternative. He also points out that Jain adherents of non-violence have largely ignored the movement for the upliftment of oppressed castes.

In conclusion, Sanghavi argues that when faced with situations requiring a change in habitual behavior to ensure the well-being of the country and the community, resorting to inactivity or specious arguments to protect oneself is the death knell of practical Anekant. He emphasizes that the Jain community, like others, possesses a will to live that necessitates compromise and reconciliation. He believes that Anekant, when practiced out of obligation, misunderstanding, or imitation, is neither brilliant nor vital. Given the long history of Jainism's contemplation of Anekant and its extensive literature, society can justifiably expect a more vibrant application of this principle from them. However, when even enlightened individuals whose thought and practice embody Anekant are not recognized and embraced by Anekant followers, it raises questions about the very existence of the Anekant spirit within the Jain tradition.