Refutation Of Jain Darshan

Here's a comprehensive summary of Vijay Pandya's "Refutation of the Jaina Darshan," focusing on Shankara's critique of Syadvada:

This article by Vijay Pandya examines how Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary (Bhasya) on the Brahmasutras (specifically 2-2-33 to 36), refutes certain core tenets of Jain philosophy. The primary target of Shankara's critique is Anekantavada and its associated doctrine, Saptabhanginaya, often identified with Syadvada. Pandya argues that while Shankara's logical arguments are noteworthy, they fail to grasp the true essence and intention of Syadvada.

Shankara's Critique of Syadvada and Anekantavada:

• Contradictory Attributes: Shankara's main argument is that an object cannot simultaneously possess contradictory attributes. He asserts that the Jaina doctrine of Syadvada, which allows for seemingly contradictory statements about an object, leads to a lack of definiteness.
• Indeterminacy of Knowledge: If every statement can be qualified with "perhaps" (syat), then all knowledge becomes uncertain. This indeterminacy, according to Shankara, makes it impossible for the Tirthankaras (Jain spiritual leaders) to provide definitive teachings on valid means of knowledge (pramana), objects of knowledge (prameya), the knower (pramātā), and the knowledge itself. Such uncertain pronouncements, he argues, would be rejected by people seeking clear guidance, akin to the babbling of a madman.
• Rejection of Saptabhanginaya: Shankara specifically targets the seven-fold predication (Saptabhanginaya) of Syadvada. He questions the validity of the statement that something is "inexpressible" (Avaktavya), arguing that if it's inexpressible, it cannot be spoken of, and if it is spoken of, it is no longer inexpressible. This, he claims, is a contradiction.
• Anarchy in Knowledge: Shankara believes that taking Syadvada at face value would lead to an "anarchy in the world" where distinctions are blurred. He implies it equates to agnosticism or skepticism.

Pandya's Defense and Clarification of Syadvada:

• Misinterpretation by Shankara: Pandya contends that Shankara's refutation is a simplification and misrepresentation of Anekantavada's actual meaning. He argues that Shankara conflates Syadvada with the agnosticism of Sanjaya Belatthiputta, who declared uncertainty about existence.
• Grasping Polarity of Truth: According to Pandya, Syadvada is not about denying certainty but about grasping the "polarity of truth." It acknowledges that a thing can be described in multiple ways, depending on the perspective or context.
• "In a Sense" Qualification: Pandya clarifies that Syadvada asserts, "the thing in a sense is, and the thing in a sense is not." This is exemplified by saying a jug exists in its own nature (svarūpeṇa asti) but does not exist in the form of a cloth (pararūpeṇa nāsti). Both statements are true simultaneously when viewed from different angles.
• Distinguishing between Sakaladesa and Vikaladesa: The Saptabhanginaya is employed from the viewpoints of sakalādeśa (holistic view) and vikalādeśa (partial view). Syadvada, in this context, represents a holistic perspective, which is seen as an "ornament" or positive contribution rather than a flaw.
• Jain Acknowledgment of Self-Critique: Pandya points out that the Jain system itself anticipates the possibility of its doctrine being applied to itself. Jain philosophers like Samantabhadra have addressed this by stating that from the perspective of ultimate reality (pramana), it is anekanta (manifold), while from a specific viewpoint (naya), it can be ekanta (one-sided or definite).
• Naya as a Partial Viewpoint: The concept of naya is crucial here. A naya is a partial viewpoint or a perspective that grasps only a part of an object, excluding other characteristics. Pandya states that naya is neither entirely valid nor invalid, but a part of pramana. Similarly, Anekantavada encompasses both manifoldness and singularity.
• Syadvada as a Reconciliation: Syadvada is presented as a method that reconciles differing partial positions and accommodates all points of view. This is seen as a strength.
• Shankara's "Māyā" Analogy: Pandya draws a parallel between Shankara's critique of the "inexpressible" aspect of Syadvada and Shankara's own concept of Māyā (illusion), suggesting that Māyā also faces similar charges of being inexpressible yet spoken of.

Conclusion:

Pandya concludes that Shankara, despite his intellectual prowess, did not fully appreciate the "multi-linked splendor" of Syadvada. He suggests that Shankara's critique might have been influenced by the contemporary socio-political climate. Ultimately, Pandya argues that Syadvada is a significant and resilient contribution of Jain thought to Indian philosophy, remaining relevant even today, and that Shankara's refutation had minimal impact on the subsequent trajectory of Indian thought.