Sanjay Velatthiputta Aur Syadwad

This document, "Sanjay Velatthiputta aur Syadwad" by Darbarilal Kothiya, addresses common misconceptions about the Jain philosophy of Syadwad, particularly by contrasting it with the views of Sanjay Velatthiputta, a contemporary of Lord Mahavir. The author aims to clarify that Syadwad is not a form of agnosticism or indecisiveness, as often misrepresented by scholars.

The book highlights and refutes the interpretations of prominent scholars like Pt. Baldev Upadhyay and Rahul Sankrityayan.

Key points discussed in the document:

• Misconceptions about Syadwad: The author points out that scholars like Dharmakirti, Shankaracharya, Pt. Baldev Upadhyay, and Rahul Sankrityayan have misunderstood and misrepresented Syadwad, often equating it with Sanjay Velatthiputta's doctrine of uncertainty.

  • Pt. Baldev Upadhyay's Misconception: In his book "Baudh-Darshan," Upadhyay linked Sanjay's uncertainty to Buddhism's "Dighanikaya" and concluded that Mahavir's Syadwad was likely based on this foundation.
  • Rahul Sankrityayan's Misconception: Sankrityayan, in "Darshan-Digdarshan," claimed that modern Jain Syadwad, with its seven limbs (Saptabhangi), was an extension of Sanjay's four-limbed doctrine of "cannot say." He believed Jains adopted Sanjay's approach after his followers disappeared, expanding his four-pronged reasoning into a seven-pronged system. Sankrityayan also made a broad, critical statement about subsequent Indian philosophers being followers of Buddhist thinkers like Nagarjuna and Dignaga.

• Sanjay Velatthiputta's Doctrine: The text explains Sanjay's philosophy as presented in the "Dighanikaya." Sanjay, when questioned about metaphysical topics like the afterlife, deities, karma, and liberated souls, would respond with a "cannot say" approach using a four-stage reasoning. He refused to make definitive statements, expressing inability to know or say anything conclusively about these matters. He was an uncertainty-advocate or skeptic.

• Jain Syadwad and Anekantwad: The author strongly emphasizes that Jain Syadwad is fundamentally different from Sanjay's uncertainty.

  • Anekantwad: This is the Jain principle that reality is multi-faceted, possessing numerous attributes or inherent qualities. It is a natural characteristic of existence.
  • Syadwad: This is the Jain methodology or logical framework used to express and understand Anekantwad. It involves qualifying statements with "Syat" (meaning "in some way" or "from a certain perspective"). Syadwad is decisive, not indecisive, and aims to resolve apparent contradictions by revealing the underlying relative truths.
  • Distinction: While Sanjay's approach led to indecision, Syadwad leads to the determination of reality by acknowledging multiple perspectives. Syadwad explains the inherent multi-sidedness of reality (Anekantwad), which is the object of knowledge, while Syadwad is the means of knowing and stating it.

• Historical Accuracy: The book refutes Rahul Sankrityayan's claim that Jains adopted Sanjay's doctrine. It asserts that Jainism and its philosophy existed long before Mahavir and Sanjay. The founding Tirthankaras, starting with Rishabhadeva, were the originators of Jain principles, including Syadwad. Mahavir received this tradition from his predecessors, not from Sanjay. The author criticizes Sankrityayan's sweeping generalization about later Indian philosophers being mere followers of Buddhists as a significant historical error.

• The Meaning and Application of Syadwad:

  • "Syadwad" is derived from "Syat" (in some way, from a certain perspective) and "Vad" (doctrine or assertion).
  • "Syat" is not a word of doubt or uncertainty; it indicates a qualification and a specific viewpoint.
  • Syadwad rejects absolute, one-sided viewpoints (ekanta).
  • The author illustrates Syadwad with an example of "Devadatta" being a father, son, etc., demonstrating how each statement is qualified by the perspective.
  • The famous Saptabhangi (seven-limbed predication) is an application of Syadwad, explaining reality from seven different, potentially contradictory, perspectives. The author explains how these seven limbs are derived from combinations of affirmation, negation, and indescribability, and their logical basis.

• Critique of Sanjay's Doctrine by Jain Philosophers: The document notes that Jain philosophers like Akalankadeva and Vidyananda, in texts like "Ashtashati" and "Ashtasahasri," critically analyzed and found flaws in Sanjay's doctrine, demonstrating that Jains did not adopt it. Sanjay's doctrine is described as flawed and leading to mere silence or ignorance.

• Conclusion: The author concludes by urging scholars to correctly understand Jain Syadwad and Anekantwad, asserting that these principles, originating from the earliest Tirthankaras, are distinct from Sanjay's uncertainty and form the core of Jain philosophy. The text expresses hope that these scholars will revise their erroneous views.