Sanjay Ka Vikshepvada Aur Syadwad - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Sanjay ka Vikshepvada aur Syadwad" by Mahendrakumar Jain:

The article critically examines the assertion by scholars like Rahul Sankrityayan and Hermann Jacobi that the Jain concept of Syadvada (and its seven-fold predication, Saptabhangi) originated from the teachings of Sanjay Velatthiputta, a contemporary of Buddha.

Sanjay Velatthiputta's Philosophy:

The author, Mahendrakumar Jain, clarifies that Sanjay Velatthiputta was a Vikshepvadi (a sophist who evades definitive answers) or Amaravikshepvada (one who leaves questions undecided).
Sanjay refused to make definitive statements about metaphysical matters like the afterlife, deities, or karma. He expressed this refusal in four ways:
1. "Is it?" (He cannot say yes).
2. "Is it not?" (He cannot say no).
3. "Is it and is it not?" (He cannot say it is both).
4. "Is it neither?" (He cannot say it is neither).
Sanjay's stance was characterized by ignorance or uncertainty ("If I know, then I will tell"). He wasn't just a skeptic but a firm believer in his own uncertainty.
Rahul Sankrityayan interprets Sanjay's approach as a desire not to mislead people with determined, potentially false beliefs, but also not to confirm wrong notions. The author, however, labels Sanjay as agnostic.

Comparison with Buddha's Awyakrita (Undetermined Questions):

The text draws a parallel between Sanjay's approach and Buddha's handling of certain "Awyakrita" (undetermined) questions concerning the world's eternality, its finiteness, the existence of a soul, and the state of an enlightened being after death. Buddha also avoided definitive answers to these questions, deeming them not conducive to spiritual liberation.
The author points out a significant difference: Sanjay openly admitted his lack of knowledge ("If I know, then I will tell"), whereas Buddha declared these questions as irrelevant to the monastic life and spiritual progress. The author suggests Buddha skillfully avoided these topics, while Sanjay was more forthrightly evasive.
The author questions the exact distinction between Buddha's "Awyakrita" and Sanjay's "uncertainty" regarding the mind's decision-making process, suggesting that Sanjay was more blunt in his evasion while Buddha maintained a more dignified approach.

The Broader Philosophical Context:

The article highlights that the four categories of existence – Sat (is), Asat (is not), Ubhaya (both), and Anubhaya (neither) – were already prevalent in the philosophical discourse of the time, seen in Vedic and Upanishadic thought. These categories were used to discuss metaphysical questions.
The author questions the validity of Rahul Sankrityayan's claim that Syadvada was formed by manipulating Sanjay's four categories, given the long history of these four conceptual frameworks.

Mahavira's Philosophy and Syadvada:

The text contrasts Sanjay and Buddha with Niggantha Nataputta (Mahavira), who was known for his omniscience and all-seeing nature.
Mahavira's approach was diametrically opposed to Sanjay's. He believed in providing definitive answers to disciples' queries to foster intellectual strength and resolve doubt. He aimed to engage disciples with the true nature of reality rather than shielding them.
Unlike Buddha, Mahavira did not fear that affirming the soul might lead to eternalism or denying it to nihilism. He believed that existing doubts and confusions should be resolved based on the actual nature of things.
Mahavira taught that every entity (sat) possesses infinite attributes (anekanta) and is in constant flux (parinami). Our limited knowledge grasps only one aspect at a time. Therefore, we must consider the vast, multi-faceted nature of reality.
From an anekanta perspective, there is no fear of eternalism or nihilism. The soul, though it undergoes changes in its modes (paryaya), remains unbroken and eternal in its essential stream (dhara).
The article demonstrates how Mahavira applied this principle to the question of the world's eternality:
- Is the world eternal? Yes, from the perspective of the number of substances, which are eternal and unchanging.
- Is the world non-eternal? Yes, from the perspective of the momentary transformations (paryayas) of these substances.
- Is the world both eternal and non-eternal? Yes, when considering both the substance and its modes.
- Is the world neither eternal nor non-eternal? Yes, the complete nature of reality is beyond words (avaktavya), as no single word can encompass all its infinite attributes simultaneously.

Critique of Rahul Sankrityayan's Interpretation:

The author vehemently criticizes Rahul Sankrityayan's assertion that Jainism adopted Sanjay's philosophy after his followers disappeared. This is likened to claiming that Indians adopted subjugation from the British simply because the word "subjugation" contained letters from "freedom."
The author argues that Syadvada overcomes the uncertainty and ignorance of Sanjay's philosophy and resolves philosophical contradictions and doubts.
The article expresses astonishment that Rahul Sankrityayan lists Mahavira alongside Sanjay as an "uncertainty theorist" and calls Sanjay an "anekantavadi."
The author clarifies that the word "Syat" (may be) in Syadvada does not imply doubt or possibility but is a linguistic convention used to indicate the existence of multiple perspectives or attributes of an object.
The author disputes Rahul Sankrityayan's reconstruction of the fifth, sixth, and seventh limbs of Saptabhangi, calling it imaginative and inaccurate. He argues that the concept of "avaktavya" (unspeakable) in Jainism is distinct from Sanjay's "neither" and does not align with his extreme agnosticism.

Conclusion:

The article strongly refutes the notion that Jain Syadvada is derived from Sanjay Velatthiputta's Vikshepvada. It argues that while both dealt with similar questions, their approaches and philosophical underpinnings were fundamentally different. Sanjay was characterized by agnosticism and evasion, while Mahavira's Syadvada provided a systematic and epistemologically sound framework for understanding the multi-faceted nature of reality, resolving doubts rather than perpetuating them. The author concludes that Rahul Sankrityayan's interpretation is based on superficial wordplay rather than a deep understanding of Jain philosophy.