HOME
The Info List - Anekantavada



--- Advertisement ---


(i) (i) (i) (i)

ANEKāNTAVāDA ( Sanskrit
Sanskrit
: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India
India
. It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex, has multiple aspects. Anekantavada
Anekantavada
has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, "intellectual Ahimsa", religious pluralism, as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence.

According to Jainism
Jainism
, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth . This knowledge (_Kevala Jnana _), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants . Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth. Anekāntavādais a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.

The origins of _anekāntavāda_ can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra (599–527 BCE
BCE
), the 24th Jain _Tīrthankara _. The dialectical concepts of _syādvāda_ "conditioned viewpoints" and _nayavāda_ "partial viewpoints" arose from _anekāntavāda_ in the medieval era, providing Jainism
Jainism
with more detailed logical structure and expression. The details of the doctrine emerged in Jainism
Jainism
in the 1st millennium CE, from debates between scholars of Jain, Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu schools of philosophies.

The principle of _anekāntavāda_ was one of the ancient principles that influenced Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
.

CONTENTS

* 1 Etymology

* 2 Philosophical overview

* 2.1 Syādvāda * 2.2 Nayavāda * 2.3 Jiva, the changing soul * 2.4 Inclusivist or exclusivist

* 3 History and development

* 3.1 Origins * 3.2 Early history * 3.3 Parable of the blind men and elephant * 3.4 Medieval developments

* 4 Influence

* 4.1 Role in Jain history * 4.2 Influence on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
* 4.3 Against religious intolerance and contemporary terrorism

* 5 Comparison with non-Jain doctrines

* 6 Criticism

* 6.1 Nyaya
Nyaya
Hindu philosophy * 6.2 Vaisheshika Hindu philosophy * 6.3 Vedanta
Vedanta
Hindu philosophy * 6.4 Buddhist
Buddhist
philosophy * 6.5 Self-criticism in Jain scholarship

* 7 See also

* 8 References

* 8.1 Citations * 8.2 Bibliography

* 9 External links

ETYMOLOGY

The word _anekāntavāda_ is a compound of two Sanskrit
Sanskrit
words: _anekānta_ and _vāda_. The word _anekānta_ itself is composed of three root words, "an" (not), "ek" (one) and "anta" (end, side), together it connotes "not one ended, sided", "many-sidedness", or "manifoldness". The word _vada_ means "doctrine, way, speak, thesis". The term _anekāntavāda_ is translated by scholars as the doctrine of "many-sidedness", "non-onesidedness", or "many pointedness".

The term _anekāntavāda_ is not found in early texts considered canonical by Svetambara tradition of Jainism
Jainism
(denied by Digambara tradition as canonical). However, traces of the doctrines are found in comments of Mahavira
Mahavira
in these Svetambara texts, where he states that the finite and infinite depends on one's perspective. The earliest comprehensive teachings of anekāntavāda doctrine is found in the _ Tattvarthasutra_ of Umasvati, considered to be authoritative by all Jain sects. In the Digambara
Digambara
tradition texts, the two-truths theory of Kundakundaalso provides the core of this doctrine.

PHILOSOPHICAL OVERVIEW

The Jain doctrine of _Anekantavada_, also known as _Anekantatva_, states that truth and reality is complex and always has multiple aspects. Reality can be experienced, but it is not possible to totally express it with language. Human attempts to communicate is _Naya_, or "partial expression of the truth". Language is not Truth, but a means and attempt to express Truth. From Truth, according to Mahavira, language returns and not the other way around. One can experience the truth of a taste, but cannot fully express that taste through language. Any attempts to express the experience is _syāt_, or valid "in some respect" but it still remains a "perhaps, just one perspective, incomplete". In the same way, spiritual truths are complex, they have multiple aspects, language cannot express their plurality, yet through effort and appropriate karma they can be experienced.

The _Anekantavada_ premises of the Jains is ancient, as evidenced by its mention in Buddhist
Buddhist
texts such as the _Samaññaphala Sutta_. The Jain Agamas
Jain Agamas
suggest that Mahavira's approach to answering all metaphysical philosophical questions was a "qualified yes" (_syāt_). These texts identify _Anekantavada_ doctrine to be one of the key differences between the teachings of the Mahavira
Mahavira
and those of the Buddha. The Buddha taught the Middle Way, rejecting extremes of the answer "it is" or "it is not" to metaphysical questions. The Mahavira, in contrast, taught his followers to accept both "it is" and "it is not", with "perhaps" qualification and with reconciliation to understand the Absolute Reality. _Syādvāda_ (predication logic ) and _Nayavāda_ (perspective epistemology ) of Jainism
Jainism
expand on the concept of _anekāntavāda_. _Syādvāda_ recommends the expression of _anekānta_ by prefixing the epithet _syād_ to every phrase or expression describing the nature of existence.

The Jain doctrine of _Anekantavada_, according to Bimal Matilal, states that "no philosophic or metaphysical proposition can be true if it is asserted without any condition or limitation". For a metaphysical proposition to be true, according to Jainism, it must include one or more conditions (_syadvada_) or limitations (_nayavada_, standpoints).

SYāDVāDA

_Syādvāda_ ( Sanskrit
Sanskrit
: स्याद्वाद) is the theory of _conditioned predication_. It is derived from the Sanskrit
Sanskrit
word _syat_ (स्यात्) which literally means "perchance, may be, perhaps". The word has roots in the more ancient Vedic era literature. For example, sutra 1.4.96 of Panini 's Astadhyayi explains it as "a chance, may be, probable". However, in Jainism, _syadvada_ and _anekanta_ is not a theory of uncertainty, doubt or relative probabilities. Rather, it is "conditional yes or conditional approval" of any proposition, state Matilal and other scholars. This usage has historic precedence in other ancient Indian religions ( Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism), particularly in its classical Sanskrit
Sanskrit
literature with the phrase _syad etat_ meaning "let it be so, but" or "an answer that is 'neither yes nor no', provisionally accepting an opponent's viewpoint for a certain premise". Traditionally, this debate methodology was used by Indian scholars to acknowledge the opponent's viewpoint, but disarm and bound its applicability to certain context and persuade the opponent of aspects not considered.

According to Charitrapragya, in Jain context _syadvada_ does not mean a doctrine of doubt or skepticism, rather it means "multiplicity or multiple possibilities". _Syat_ in Jainism
Jainism
connotes something different from what the term means in Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism. In Jainism, it does not connote an answer that is "neither yes nor no", but it connotes a "many sidedness" to any proposition with a seven fold predication.

_Syādvāda_ is a theory of qualified predication, states Koller. It states that all knowledge claims must be qualified in many ways, because reality is manysided. It is done so systematically in later Jain texts through _saptibhaṅgīnāya_ or "the theory of sevenfold scheme ". These _saptibhaṅgī_ seem to be have been first formulated in Jainism
Jainism
by the 5th or 6th century CE Svetambara scholar Mallavadin, and they are:

* Affirmation: _syād-asti_—in some ways, it is, * Denial: _syān-nāsti_—in some ways, it is not, * Joint but successive affirmation and denial: _syād-asti-nāsti_—in some ways, it is, and it is not, * Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: _syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ_—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable, * Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: _syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ_—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable, * Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: _syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ_—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable, * Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: _syād-avaktavyaḥ_—in some ways, it is indescribable.

Each of these seven predicates state the Jain viewpoint of a multifaceted reality from the perspective of time, space, substance and mode. The phrase _syāt_ declares the standpoint of expression – affirmation with regard to own substance (_dravya _), place (_kṣetra_), time (_kāla_), and being (_bhāva_), and negation with regard to other substance (_dravya_), place (kṣetra), time (kāla), and being (_bhāva_). Thus, for a ‘jar’, in regard to substance (_dravya_) – earthen, it simply is; wooden, it simply is not. In regard to place (_kṣetra_) – room, it simply is; terrace, it simply is not. In regard to time (_kāla_) – summer, it simply is; winter, it simply is not. In regard to being (_bhāva_) – brown, it simply is; white, it simply is not. And the word ‘simply’ has been inserted for the purpose of excluding a sense not approved by the ‘nuance’; for avoidance of a meaning not intended.

According to Samantabhadra 's text _Āptamīmāṁsā_ (Verse 105), "_Syādvāda_, the doctrine of conditional predications, and _kevalajñāna_ (omniscience), are both illuminators of the substances of reality. The difference between the two is that while _kevalajñāna_ illumines directly, _syādvāda_ illumines indirectly". _Syadvada_ is indispensable and helps establish the truth, according to Samantabhadra.

NAYAVāDA

_Nayavāda_ ( Sanskrit
Sanskrit
: नयवाद) is the theory of standpoints or viewpoints. _Nayavāda_ is a compound of two Sanskrit words—_naya_ ("standpoint, viewpoint, interpretation") and _vāda_ ("doctrine, thesis"). Nayas are philosophical perspective about a particular topic, and how to make proper conclusions about that topic.

According to Jainism, there are seven _nayas_ or viewpoints through which one can make complete judgments about absolute reality using _syadvada_. These seven _naya_, according to Umaswati, are:

* Naigama-naya: common sense or a universal view * Samgraha-naya: generic or class view that classifies it * Vyavahara-naya: pragmatic or a particular view assesses its utility * Rijusutra-naya: linear view considers it in present time * Sabda-naya: verbal view that names it * Samabhirudha-naya: etymological view uses the name and establishes it nature * Evambhuta-naya: actuality view considers its concrete particulars

The _naya_ theory emerged after about the 5th century CE, and underwent extensive development in Jainism. There are many variants of _nayavada_ concept in later Jain texts.

A particular viewpoint is called a _naya_ or a partial viewpoint. According to Vijay Jain, _Nayavada_ does not deny the attributes, qualities, modes and other aspects; but qualifies them to be from a particular perspective. A _naya_ reveals only a part of the totality, and should not be mistaken for the whole. A synthesis of different viewpoints is said to be achieved by the doctrine of conditional predications (_syādvāda_).

JIVA, THE CHANGING SOUL

_ Mahāvīra did not use the word anekāntavada_, but his teachings contain the seeds of the concept (painting from Rajasthan
Rajasthan
, ca. 1900)

Ancient India, particularly the centuries in which the Mahavira
Mahavira
and the Buddha lived, were one of intense intellectual debates, especially on the nature of reality and self or soul. Jain view of soul differs from those found in ancient Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu texts, and Jain view about _jiva_ and _ajiva_ (self, matter) utilizes _anekantavada_.

The Upanishadic thought (Hindu) postulated the impermanence of matter and body, but the existence of an unchanging, eternal metaphysical reality of _ Brahman_ and _Ātman _ (soul, self). The Buddhist
Buddhist
thought also postulated impermanence, but denied the existence of any unchanging, eternal soul or self and instead posited the concept of anatta (no-self). The Jain thought accepted impermanence as well, but stated that the concept of "changing eternal jiva (soul, self)" thereby stating the jiva to be a substance and a process. In Jaina thought, there are infinite eternal _jivas_, predominantly all of which are in their cycles of rebirth ever changing by accumulating or destroying their karmic particles, and a few who have liberated themselves through an ascetic life and become _siddhas_.

INCLUSIVIST OR EXCLUSIVIST

Some Indian writers state that Anekantavada
Anekantavada
is an inclusivist doctrine positing that Jainism
Jainism
accepts "non-Jain teachings as partial versions of truth", a form of sectarian tolerance. Others scholars state this is incorrect and a reconstruction of Jain history because Jainism
Jainism
has consistently seen itself in "exclusivist term as the one true path". Classical Jain scholars saw their premises and models of reality as superior than the competing spiritual traditions of Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism, both of which Jainism
Jainism
considered inadequate. For instance, the Jain text _Uttaradhyayana Sutra_ in section 23.63 calls the competing Indian thought to be "heterodox and heretics" and that they "have chosen a wrong path, the right path is that taught by the Jinas ". Similarly, the early Jain scholar Haribhadra, who likely lived between the 6th and 8th century, states that those who do not follow the teachings of Jainism
Jainism
cannot be "approved or accommodated".

John Koller states _anekāntavāda_ to be "epistemological respect for view of others" about the nature of existence whether it is "inherently enduring or constantly changing", but "not relativism; it does not mean conceding that all arguments and all views are equal".

In contemporary times, according to Paul Dundas, the _Anekantavada_ doctrine has been interpreted by some Jains as intending to "promote a universal religious tolerance", and a teaching of "plurality" and "benign attitude to other positions". This is problematic and a misreading of Jain historical texts and Mahavira's teachings, states Dundas. The "many pointedness, multiple perspective" teachings of the Mahavira
Mahavira
is a doctrine about the nature of Absolute Reality and human existence, and it is sometimes called "non-absolutism" doctrine. However, it is not a doctrine about tolerating or condoning activities such as sacrificing or killing animals for food, violence against disbelievers or any other living being as "perhaps right". The Five vows for Jain monks and nuns, for example, are strict requirements and there is no "perhaps, just one perspective". Similarly, since ancient times, Jainism
Jainism
co-existed with Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism, according to Dundas, but Jainism
Jainism
was highly critical of the knowledge systems and ideologies of its rivals, and vice versa.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

The principle of _anekāntavāda_ is one of the foundational Jain philosophical concept. The development of _anekāntavāda_ also encouraged the development of the dialectics of _syādvāda_ (conditioned viewpoints) and _nayavāda_ (partial viewpoints).

According to Karl Potter, the Jain _anekāntavāda_ doctrine emerged in a milieu that included Buddhists and Hindus in ancient and medieval India. The diverse Hindu schools such as Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Samkhya- Yoga
Yoga
and Mimamsa-Vedanta, all accepted the premise of Atman that "unchanging permanent soul, self exists and is self-evident", while various schools of early Buddhism
Buddhism
denied it and substituted it with Anatta(no-self, no-soul). Further, for causation theories, Vedanta
Vedanta
schools and Madhyamika Buddhists had similar ideas, while Nyaya- Vaisheshikaand non-Madhyamika Buddhists generally agreed on the other side. Jainism, using its _anekāntavāda_ doctrine occupied the center of this theological divide on soul-self (_jiva_) and causation theories, between the various schools of Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu thought.

ORIGINS

The origins of _anekāntavāda_ are traceable in the teachings of Mahāvīra, who used it effectively to show the relativity of truth and reality. Taking a relativistic viewpoint, Mahāvīra is said to have explained the nature of the soul as both permanent, from the point of view of underlying substance, and temporary, from the point of view of its modes and modification.

EARLY HISTORY

Early Jain texts were not composed in Vedic or classical Sanskrit, but in ArdhamagadhiPrakrit language. According to Matilal, the earliest Jain literaturethat present a developing form of a substantial _anekantavada_ doctrine is found in Sanskrit
Sanskrit
texts, and after Jaina scholars had adopted Sanskrit
Sanskrit
to debate their ideas with Buddhists and Hindus of their era. These texts show a synthetic development, the existence and borrowing of terminology, ideas and concepts from rival schools of Indian thought but with innovation and original thought that disagreed with their peers.

The early Svetambara canons and teachings do not use the terms _anekāntavāda_ and _syādvāda_, but contain teachings in rudimentary form without giving it proper structure or establishing it as a separate doctrine. _Śvētāmbara_ text, _ Sutrakritanga_ contains references to _Vibhagyavāda_, which, according to Hermann Jacobi , is the same as _syādvāda_ and _saptibhaṅgī_. For example, Jacobi in his 1895 translation interpreted _vibhagyavada_ as _syadvada_, the former mentioned in the Svetambara Jain canonical text _ Sutrakritanga_. However, the Digambara
Digambara
Jains dispute this text is canonical or even authentic.

A monk should be modest, though he be of a fearless mind; he should expound the _syādvāda_, he should use the two permitted kinds of speech, living among virtuous men, impartial and wise. — _Sūtrakritānga_, 14:22, A Svetambara text disputed by the Digambaras

According to Upadhyaye, the _Bhagvatisūtra_ (also called Vyākhyāprajñapti) mentions three primary predications of the _saptibhaṅgīnaya_. This too is a Svetambara text, and considered by Digambara
Digambara
Jains as unauthentic.

The earliest comprehensive teachings of anekāntavāda doctrine is found in the _ Tattvarthasutra_ of Umasvati, considered to be authoritative by all Jain sects including Svetambara and Digambara. The century in which Umaswatilived is unclear, but variously placed by contemporary scholars to sometime between 2nd and 5th century.

The Digambara
Digambara
scholar Kundakunda, in his mystical Jain texts, expounded on the doctrine of _syādvāda_ and _saptibhaṅgī_ in _Pravacanasāra_ and _Pancastikayasāra _. Kundakundaalso used _nayas_ to discuss the essence of the self in _Samayasāra _. Kundakundais believed in the Digambara
Digambara
tradition to have lived about the 1st-century CE, but has been placed by early modern era scholars to 2nd or 3rd century CE. In contrast, the earliest available secondary literature on Kundakundaappears in about the 10th century, which has led recent scholarship to suggest that he may have lived in or after 8th-century. This radical reassessment in Kundakunda chronology, if accurate, would place his comprehensive theories on _anekantavada_ to the late 1st millennium CE.

PARABLE OF THE BLIND MEN AND ELEPHANT

Seven blind men and an elephant parable

The Jain texts explain the _anekāntvāda_ concept using the parable of blind men and elephant, in a manner similar to those found in both Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu texts
Hindu texts
about limits of perception and the importance of complete context. The parable has several Indian variations, but broadly goes as follows:

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, "elephant is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

This parable is called _Andha-gaja-nyaya_ maxim in Jain texts.

Two of the Jain references to this parable are found in _Tattvarthaslokavatika_ of Vidyanandi (9th century) and it appears twice in the _Syādvādamanjari_ of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). According to Mallisena, whenever anyone takes a partial, unconditional view of the ultimate reality, and denies the possibility of another aspect of that reality, it is an instance of the above parable and a defective view. Mallisena goes further in his second reference to the above parable and states that all reality has infinite aspects and attributes, all assertions can only be relatively true. This does not mean scepticism or doubt is the right path to knowledge, according to Mallisena and other Jain scholars, but that any philosophical assertion is only conditionally, partially true. Any and all viewpoints, states Mallisena, that do not admit an exception are false views.

While the same parable is found in Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu texts
Hindu texts
to emphasize the need to be watchful for partial viewpoints of a complex reality, the Jain text apply it to isolated topic and all subjects. For example, the _syadvada_ principle states that all the following seven predicates must be accepted as true for a cooking pot, according to Matilal:

* from a certain point of view, or in a certain sense, the pot exists * from a certain point of view, the pot does not exist * from a certain point of view, the pot exists and does not exist * from a certain point of view, the pot is inexpressible * from a certain point of view, the pot both exists and is inexpressible * from a certain point of view, the pot both does not exist and is inexpressible * from a certain point of view, the pot exists, does not exist, and is also inexpressible

MEDIEVAL DEVELOPMENTS

Ācārya Haribhadra
Haribhadra
(8th century CE) was one of the leading proponents of _anekāntavāda_. He was the first classical author to write a doxography , a compendium of a variety of intellectual views. This attempted to contextualise Jain thoughts within the broad framework, rather than espouse narrow partisan views. It interacted with the many possible intellectual orientations available to Indian thinkers around the 8th century.

Ācārya Amrtacandra starts his famous 10th century CE work _Purusathasiddhiupaya_ with strong praise for _anekāntavāda_: "I bow down to the principle of _anekānta_, the source and foundation of the highest scriptures, the dispeller of wrong one-sided notions, that which takes into account all aspects of truth, reconciling diverse and even contradictory traits of all objects or entity."

Ācārya Vidyānandi (11th century CE) provides the analogy of the ocean to explain the nature of truth in _Tattvarthaslokavārtikka_, 116:

Yaśovijaya Gaṇi , a 17th-century Jain monk, went beyond _anekāntavāda_ by advocating _madhāyastha_, meaning "standing in the middle" or "equidistance". This position allowed him to praise qualities in others even though the people were non-Jain and belonged to other faiths. There was a period of stagnation after Yasovijayaji, as there were no new contributions to the development of Jain philosophy.

INFLUENCE

The Jain philosophical concept of Anekantavada
Anekantavada
made important contributions to ancient Indian philosophy
Indian philosophy
, in the areas of skepticism and relativity. The epistemology of _anekāntavāda_ and _syādvāda_ also had a profound impact on the development of ancient Indian logicand philosophy.

While employing _anekāntavāda_, the 17th century Jain scholar Yasovijayastated that it is not _anābhigrahika_ (indiscriminate attachment to all views as being true), which is effectively a kind of misconceived relativism. In Jain belief, _anekāntavāda_ transcends the various traditions of Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism.

ROLE IN JAIN HISTORY

_Anekāntavāda_ played a role in the history of Jainism
Jainism
in India, durng intellectual debates from Śaivas , Vaiṣṇavas , Buddhists , Muslims , and Christians at various times. According to John Koller, professor of Asian studies, _anekāntavāda_ allowed Jain thinkers to maintain the validity of their doctrine, while at the same time respectfully criticizing the views of their opponents. In other cases, it was a tool used by Jaina scholars to confront and dispute Buddhist
Buddhist
scholars in ancient India, or in the case of Haribhadra justify the retaliation of the killing of his two nephews by Buddhist monks, with capital punishment for all Buddhist
Buddhist
monks in the suspected monastery, according to the Buddhist
Buddhist
version of Haribhadra's biography.

There is historical evidence that along with intolerance of non-Jains, Jains in their history have also been tolerant and generous just like Buddhists and Hindus. Their texts have never presented a theory for holy war. Jains and their temples have historically procured and preserved the classic manuscripts of Buddhism
Buddhism
and Hinduism, a strong indicator of acceptance and plurality. The combination of historic facts, states Cort, suggest that Jain history is a combination or tolerance and intolerance of non-Jain views, and that it is inappropriate to rewrite the Jainism
Jainism
past as a history of "benevolence and tolerance" towards others. Gandhi explained his inconsistencies to be Anekantavada.

INFLUENCE ON MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI

Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
was influenced by the principle of Anekantavada. He attributed his seemingly contradictory positions over a period of time to the learning process, experiments with truth and his belief in _anekāntavāda_, in the journal "Young India
India
– 21 Jan 1926":

I am an Advaitist and yet I can support Dvaitism (dualism). The world is changing every moment, and is therefore unreal, it has no permanent existence. But though it is constantly changing, it has a something about it which persists and it is therefore to that extent real. I have therefore no objection to calling it real and unreal, and thus being called an _Anekāntavadi_ or a _Syādvadi_. But my _Syādvāda_ is not the _Syādvāda_ of the learned, it is peculiarly my own. I cannot engage in a debate with them. It has been my experience that I am always true from my point of view, and am often wrong from the point of view of my honest critics. I know that we are both right from our respective points of view. And this knowledge saves me from attributing motives to my opponents or critics. (...) My _Anekāntavāda_ is the result of the twin doctrine of Satyagraha
Satyagraha
and _ahiṃsā _.

AGAINST RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AND CONTEMPORARY TERRORISM

Referring to the September 11 attacks
September 11 attacks
, John Koller states that the threat to life from religious violence in modern society mainly exists due to faulty epistemology and metaphysics as well as faulty ethics. A failure to respect the life of other human beings and other life forms, states Koller, is "rooted in dogmatic but mistaken knowledge claims that fail to recognize other legitimate perspectives". Koller states that _anekāntavāda_ is a Jain doctrine that each side commit to accepting truths of multiple perspectives, dialogue and negotiations.

According to Sabine Scholz, the application of the _Anekantavada_ as a religious basis for "intellectual Ahimsa" is a modern era reinterpretation, one attributed to the writings of A.B. Dhruva in 1933. This view states that _Anekantavada_ is an expression of "religious tolerance of other opinions and harmony". In the 21st century, some writers have presented it as an intellectual weapon against "intolerance, fundamentalism and terrorism". However, other scholars such as John E. Cortand Paul Dundasstate that, while Jainism
Jainism
indeed teaches non-violence as the highest ethical value, the reinterpretation of _Anekantavada_ as "religious tolerance of other opinions" is a "misreading of the original doctrine", according to Sabine Scholz. In Jain history, it was a metaphysical doctrine and a philosophical method to formulate its distinct ascetic practice of liberation. Jain history shows, to the contrary, that it persistently was harshly critical and intolerant of Buddhist
Buddhist
and Hindu spiritual theories, beliefs and ideologies. John Cort states that the _Anekantavada_ doctrine in pre-20th century Jain literaturehad no relation to religious tolerance or "intellectual Ahimsa". Jain intellectual and social history toward non-Jains, according to Cort, has been contrary to the modern revisionist attempts, particularly by diaspora Jains, to present "Jains having exhibited a spirit of understanding and tolerance toward non-Jains", or that Jains were rare or unique in practicing religious tolerance in Indian intellectual history. According to Padmanabha Jaini, states Cort, indiscriminate open mindedness and the approach of "accepting all religious paths as equally correct when in fact they are not" is an erroneous view in Jainism
Jainism
and not supported by the _Anekantavada_ doctrine.

According to Paul Dundas, in and after the 12th century, the persecution and violence against Jains by Muslim
Muslim
state caused Jain scholars to revisit their theory of Ahimsa
Ahimsa
(non-violence). For example, Jinadatta Suri in 12th century, wrote during a time of widespread destruction of Jain temples and blocking of Jaina pilgrimage by Muslim
Muslim
armies, that "anybody engaged in a religious activity who was forced to fight and kill somebody" in self-defense would not lose any merit. N.L. Jain, quoting Acarya Mahaprajna, states _Anekantavada_ doctrine is not a principle that can be applied to all situations or fields. In his view, the doctrine has its limits and _Anekantavada_ doctrine does not mean intellectual tolerance or acceptance of religious violence, terrorism, taking of hostages, proxy wars such as in Kashmir, and that "to initiate a conflict is as sinful as to tolerate or not oppose it".

The reinterpretation of _Anekantavada_ as a doctrine of religious tolerance is novel, popular but not unusual for contemporary Jains. It is a pattern of reinterpretation and reinvention to rebrand and reposition that is found in many religions, states Scholz.

COMPARISON WITH NON-JAIN DOCTRINES

According to Bhagchandra Jain, one of the difference between the Buddhist
Buddhist
and Jain views is that " Jainism
Jainism
accepts all statements to possess some relative (_anekāntika_) truth" while for Buddhism
Buddhism
this is not the case.

In Jainism, states Jayatilleke, "no proposition could in theory be asserted to be categorically true or false, irrespective of the standpoint from which it was made, in Buddhism
Buddhism
such categorical assertions were considered possible in the case of some propositions." Unlike Jainism, there are propositions that are categorically true in Buddhism, and there are others that are _anekamsika_ (uncertain, indefinite). Examples of categorically true and certain doctrines are the Four Noble Truths, while examples of the latter in Buddhism
Buddhism
are the avyakata-theses . Further, unlike Jainism, Buddhism
Buddhism
does not have a Nayavāda doctrine.

According to Karl Potter and other scholars, Hinduism
Hinduism
developed various theory of relations such as _satkaryavada_, _asatkaryavada_, _avirodhavada_ and others. The _anekantavada_ overlaps with two major theories found in Hindu and Buddhist
Buddhist
thought, according to James Lochtefeld. The _Anekantavada_ doctrine is _satkaryavada_ in explaining causes, and the _asatkaryavada_ in explaining qualities or attributes in the effects. The different schools of Hindu philosophy further elaborated and refined the theory of _pramanas _ and the theory of relations to establish correct means to structure propositions in their view.

CRITICISM

Indologistssuch as professor John E. Cortstate that _anekāntavāda_ is a doctrine that was historical used by Jain scholars not to accept other viewpoints, but to insist on the Jain viewpoint. Jain monks used _anekāntavāda_ and _syādvāda_ as debating weapons to silence their critics and defend the Jain doctrine. According to Paul Dundas, in Jain hands, this method of analysis became "a fearsome weapon of philosophical polemic with which the doctrines of Hinduism
Hinduism
and Buddhism
Buddhism
could be pared down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence, respectively, and thus could be shown to be one-pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality they purported to be". The Jain scholars, however, considered their own theory of _Anekantavada_ self-evident, immune from criticism, needing neither limitations nor conditions.

The doctrines of _anekāntavāda_ and _syādavāda_ are often criticised to denying any certainty, or accepting incoherent contradictory doctrines. Another argument against it, posited by medieval era Buddhists and Hindus applied the principle on itself, that is if nothing is definitely true or false, is _anekāntavāda_ true or false?

According to Karl Potter, the _Anekantavada_ doctrine accepts the norm in Indian philosophies that all knowledge is contextual, that object and subject are interdependent. However, as a theory of relations, it does not solve the deficiencies in other progress philosophies, just "compounds the felony by merely duplicating the already troublesome notion of a dependence relation".

NYAYA HINDU PHILOSOPHY

The Nyaya
Nyaya
school criticized the Jain doctrine of _anekantavada_, states Karl Potter, as "wanting to say one thing at one time, the other at another", thereby ignoring the principle of non-contradiction. The Naiyayikas states that it makes no sense to simultaneously say, "jiva and ajiva are not related" and "jiva and ajiva are related". Jains state that _jiva_ attaches itself to karmic particles (ajiva) which means there is a relation between ajiva and jiva. The Jain theory of ascetic salvation teaches cleansing of karmic particles and destroying the bound ajiva to the jiva, yet, Jain scholars also deny that ajiva and jiva are related or at least interdependent, according to the Nyaya
Nyaya
scholars. The Jain theory of _anekantavada_ makes its theory of karma, asceticism and salvation incoherent, according to Nyaya
Nyaya
Hindu texts.

VAISHESHIKA HINDU PHILOSOPHY

The Vaisheshikaand Shaivism
Shaivism
school scholar Vyomashiva criticized the _Anekantavada_ doctrine because, according to him, it makes all moral life and spiritual pursuits for moksha meaningless. Any spiritually liberated person must be considered under _Anekantavada_ doctrine to be both liberated and not liberated from one point of view, and simply not liberated from another point of view, since all assertions are to be qualified and conditional under it. In other words, states Vyomashiva, this doctrine leads to a paradox and circularity.

VEDANTA HINDU PHILOSOPHY

_Anekāntavāda_ was analyzed and critiqued by Adi Sankarācārya (~800 CE) in his _bhasya_ on _ Brahmasutra_ (2:2:33–36): He stated that _anekantavada_ doctrine when applied to philosophy suffers from two problems: _virodha_ (contradictions) and _samsaya_ (dubiety), neither of which it is able to reconcile with objectivity.

It is impossible that contradictory attributes such as being and non-being should at the same time belong to one and the same thing; just as observation teaches us that a thing cannot be hot and cold at the same moment. The third alternative expressed in the words — they either are such or not such — results in cognition of indefinite nature, which is no more a source of true knowledge than doubt is. Thus the means of knowledge, the object of knowledge, the knowing subject, and the act of knowledge become all alike indefinite. How can his followers act on a doctrine, the matter of which is altogether indeterminate? The result of your efforts is perfect knowledge and is not perfect knowledge. Observation shows that, only when a course of action is known to have a definite result, people set about it without hesitation. Hence a man who proclaims a doctrine of altogether indefinite contents does not deserve to be listened any more than a drunken or a mad man. — Adi Sankara, _Brahmasutra_, 2.2:33–36

Sankara's criticism of _anekantavada_ extended beyond the arguments of it being incoherent epistemology in ontological matters. According to Shankara, the goal of philosophy is to identify one's doubts and remove them through reason and understanding, not get more confused. The problem with _anekantavada_ doctrine is that it compounds and glorifies confusion. Further, states Shankara, Jains use this doctrine to be "certain that everything is uncertain". According to Karl Potter, Shankara does not take Jains seriously and admits that he doesn't understand Jainism's theory of relations.

Contemporary scholars, states Piotr Balcerowicz, concur that the Jain doctrine of _Anekantavada_ does reject some versions of the "law of non-contradiction", but it is incorrect to state that it rejects this law in all instances.

BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY

The Buddhist
Buddhist
scholar Santaraksita, and his student Kamalasila, criticized _anekantavada_ by presenting his arguments that it leads to the Buddhist
Buddhist
premise "jivas (souls) do not exist". That is, the two of the most important doctrines of Jainism
Jainism
are mutually contradictory premises. According to Santaraksita, Jains state that "jiva is one considered collectively, and many considered distributively", but if so debates Santaraksita, "jiva cannot change". He then proceeds to show that changing jiva necessarily means jiva appear and disappear every moment, which is equivalent to "jiva don't exist". According to Karl Potter, the argument posited by Santaraksita is flawed, because it commits what is called in the Western logic as the "fallacy of division".

The Buddhist
Buddhist
logician Dharmakirticritiqued _anekāntavāda_ as follows:

With the differentiation removed, all things have dual nature. Then, if somebody is implored to eat curd, then why he does not eat camel?" The insinuation is obvious; if curd exists from the nature of curd and does not exist from the nature of a camel, then one is justified in eating camel, as by eating camel, he is merely eating the negation of curd. — Dharmakirti, _Pramānavarttikakārika_

SELF-CRITICISM IN JAIN SCHOLARSHIP

The medieval era Jain logicians Akalankaand Vidyananda , who were likely contemporaries of Adi Shankara, acknowledged many issues with anekantavada in their texts. For example, Akalankain his _Pramanasamgraha_ acknowledges seven problems when _anekantavada_ is applied to develop a comprehensive and consistent philosophy: dubiety, contradiction, lack of conformity of bases (_vaiyadhi karanya_), joint fault, infinite regress, intermixture and absence. Vidyananda acknowledged six of those in the Akalankalist, adding the problem of _vyatikara_ (cross breeding in ideas) and _apratipatti_ (incomprehensibility). Prabhācandra
Prabhācandra
, who probably lived in the 11th-century, and several other later Jain scholars accepted many of these identified issues in _anekantavada_ application.

SEE ALSO

* Problem of universals * Contextualism * Degrees of truth * False dilemma * Indian logic * Jain epistemology
Jain epistemology
* Jaina seven-valued logic * Logical disjunction * Logical equality * Logical value * Multiplicities * Multi-valued logic * Perspectivism * Principle of bivalence * Propositional logic * Relativism * Rhizome (philosophy) * Value pluralism

REFERENCES

CITATIONS

* ^ Cort 2000 , p. 325-326, 342. * ^ Dundas, Paul (2004). "Beyond Anekāntavāda: A Jain approach to religious tolerance". In (ed.) Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Motilal Banarsidass
Publ. pp. 123–136. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) * ^ Cort 2000 , p. 324. * ^ Wiley 2009 , p. 36. * ^ Koller, John (2004). "Why is Anekāntavādaimportant?". In (ed.) Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 85–88. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) * ^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998). _The Jaina Path of Purification_. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 91. ISBN 81-208-1578-5 . * ^ Matilal 1981 , pp. 2-3. * ^ Matilal 1981 , pp. 1-2. * ^ Gandhi, Mahatma (1955) * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Charitrapragya 2004 , pp. 75–79. * ^ _A_ _B_ Dundas 2002 , pp. 229–231. * ^ Grimes, John (1996) p. 34 * ^ Monier Monier-Williams (1899), "वाद", Sanskrit
Sanskrit
English Dictionary with Etymology, Oxford University Press, pages 939-940 * ^ Philip C. Almond (1982). _Mystical Experience and Religious Doctrine: An Investigation of the Study of Mysticism in World Religions_. Walter de Gruyter. p. 75. ISBN 978-90-279-3160-3 . * ^ Nicholas F. Gier (2000). _Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives_. State University of New York Press. pp. 80, 90–92. ISBN 978-0-7914-4528-0 . * ^ Andrew R. Murphy (2011). _The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence_. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 267–269. ISBN 978-1-4051-9131-9 . * ^ Matilal 1981 , p. 1. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Dundas 2002 , pp. 229-231. * ^ _A_ _B_ Jain philosophy, IEP, Mark Owen Webb, Texas Tech University * ^ Matilal 1990 , pp. 301–305. * ^ Balcerowicz 2015 , pp. 205–218. * ^ Matilal 1998 , pp. 128–135. * ^ Koller 2000 , pp. 400–407. * ^ Sangave 2006 , p. 48-51. * ^ Matilal 1981 , p. 2. * ^ Matilal 1981 , pp. 2-3, 30-32, 52-54. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Matilal 1981 , pp. 52-53. * ^ _A_ _B_ Charitrapragya 2004 , pp. 81–83. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Koller, John (2004). "Why is Anekāntavāda important?". In (ed.) Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 93–95. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) * ^ _A_ _B_ Koller, John (2004). "Why is Anekāntavāda important?". In (ed.) Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 90–92. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) * ^ Dundas 2002 , p. 230. * ^ _A_ _B_ Grimes, John (1996) p. 312 * ^ Vijay K Jain 2016 , p. 29. * ^ _A_ _B_ Vijay K Jain 2016 , p. 30. * ^ Vijay K Jain 2016 , p. 163. * ^ Vijay K Jain 2016 , p. 174. * ^ Grimes, John (1996) p. 198, 202–03, 274, 301 * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Long 2009 , p. 125. * ^ _A_ _B_ Dundas 2002 , pp. 230-231. * ^ Grimes, John (1996) p. 119, 198–03, 274, 301 * ^ Vijay K Jain 2016 , p. 28. * ^ Walter Benesch (1997). _An Introduction to Comparative Philosophy_. Springer. pp. 133–134. ISBN 978-0-230-59738-9 . * ^ Karl H. Potter (1991). _Presuppositions of India\'s Philosophies_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 145–149. ISBN 978-81-208-0779-2 . * ^ _A_ _B_ For a complete discussion of _anekantavada_ on the Jain concept of _jiva_:W. J. Johnson (1995). _Harmless Souls: Karmic Bondage and Religious Change in Early Jainism
Jainism
with Special
Special
Reference to Umāsvāti and Kundakunda_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 232–253. ISBN 978-81-208-1309-0 . * ^ Dundas 2002 , pp. 87-88. * ^ Wiley 2004 , pp. 2-5. * ^ Long 2013 , pp. 122-125. * ^ Jaini 1998 , pp. 103-106. * ^ Cort 2000 , pp. 329-330. * ^ Hiriyanna 1993 , pp. 157–158, 168-169. * ^ _A_ _B_ Paul Dundas(2004). Tara Sethia, ed. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 123-125. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4 . * ^ Paul Dundas(2004). Tara Sethia, ed. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 125-127. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4 . * ^ John Koller (2004). Tara Sethia, ed. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 88–89. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4 . * ^ _A_ _B_ Dundas 2002 , pp. 232–234. * ^ Sethia 2004 , pp. 86-91. * ^ Long 2009 , pp. 98–106. * ^ Dundas 2002 , p. 233. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Karl H. Potter (1991). _Presuppositions of India\'s Philosophies_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 114–115. ISBN 978-81-208-0779-2 . * ^ Charitrapragya, Samani (2004) p. 75 * ^ Dundas 2002 , pp. 60-62. * ^ _A_ _B_ Matilal 1981 , pp. 1-3. * ^ Jacobi, Hermann (1895) 14:21–22 * ^ _A_ _B_ H Jacobi (1895). _Gaina Sûtras_. Clarendon Press. pp. 327 with footnotes. * ^ _A_ _B_ Jaina canon, Encyclopaedia Britannica * ^ _A_ _B_ Upadhyaye, A. N. (2001) pp. 6136–37 * ^ Walter Slaje (2008). _Śāstrārambha: Inquiries Into the Preamble in Sanskrit_. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 35 with footnote 23. ISBN 978-3-447-05645-8 . * ^ Jaini 1998 , p. 81. * ^ Dundas 2006 , pp. 395–396 * ^ Piotr Balcerowicz(2003). _Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 280–282. ISBN 978-81-208-1977-1 . * ^ Dundas 2002 , pp. 107-109. * ^ E. Bruce Goldstein (2010). _Encyclopedia of Perception_. SAGE Publications. p. 492. ISBN 978-1-4129-4081-8 . * ^ C.R. Snyder; Carol E. Ford (2013). _Coping with Negative Life Events: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives_. Springer Science. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4757-9865-4 . * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Piotr Balcerowicz(2003). _Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 40–43 with footnotes. ISBN 978-81-208-1977-1 . * ^ John D. Ireland (2007). _Udana and the Itivuttaka: Two Classics from the Pali Canon_. Buddhist
Buddhist
Publication Society. pp. 9, 81–84. ISBN 978-955-24-0164-0 . * ^ Paul J. Griffiths (2007). _An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic
Logic
of Interreligious Dialogue_. Wipf and Stock. pp. 46–47. ISBN 978-1-55635-731-2 . * ^ E. Bruce Goldstein (2010). _Encyclopedia of Perception_. SAGE Publications. p. 492. ISBN 978-1-4129-4081-8 . * ^ Matilal 1981 , pp. 54-56. * ^ Dundas, Paul (2002) p. 228 * ^ Jain, J. P. (2006) Verse no. 2 * ^ T. W. Rhys Davids (1980) pp. 576 * ^ Dundas, Paul (2004) p. 134 * ^ Jain, J. C. (2001) p. 1487 * ^ McEvilley, Thomas (2002) p. 335 * ^ Dundas, Paul (2004) pp. 131–132 * ^ Wright, J. C. (2000). "Reviewed work(s): Jaina Theory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Anekāntavāda) by Nagin J. Shah". _Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London_. London: Cambridge University Press. 63 (3): 435–37. JSTOR
JSTOR
1559507 . doi :10.1017/s0041977x00008594 . * ^ John Koller (2004). Tara Sethia, ed. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism_. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 8. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4 . * ^ Cort 2000 , pp. 335-336, 338-339. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Cort 2000 , pp. 336-337. * ^ Cort 2000 , pp. 340-341. * ^ _A_ _B_ Long 2013 , p. 169. * ^ Hay, Stephen N. (1970). "Jain Influences on Gandhi's Early Thought". In (ed.) Sibnarayan Ray. _Gandhi India
India
and the World_. Bombay: Nachiketa Publishers. pp. 14–23. CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) * ^ Gandhi, Mahatma (1955) * ^ Koller, John (2004) pp. 85–98 * ^ Stroud, Scott R. (2014-07-03). " Anekāntavādaand Engaged Rhetorical Pluralism: Explicating Jaina Views on Perspectivism, Violence, and Rhetoric". _Advances in the History of Rhetoric_. 17 (2): 131–156. ISSN 1536-2426 . doi :10.1080/15362426.2014.933721 . * ^ James William Jones 2008 . * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Sabine Scholz (2012). Julia A. B. Hegewald and Subrata K. Mitra, ed. _Re-Use-The Art and Politics of Integration and Anxiety_. SAGE Publications. pp. 282–284. ISBN 978-81-321-0981-5 . * ^ _A_ _B_ Cort 2000 , pp. 324-347. * ^ Cort 2000 , pp. 329-331. * ^ Cort 2000 , pp. 333-334. * ^ Dundas 2002 , pp. 162-163. * ^ N.L. Jain (2008). Colette Caillatand Nalini Balbir, ed. _Jaina Studies_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 82–84. ISBN 978-81-208-3247-3 . * ^ Bhagchandra Jain; _The Rudiments Of AnekāntavādaIn Early Pali Literature_ * ^ _A_ _B_ Jayatilleke; Early Buddhist
Buddhist
Theory of Knowledge. Publisher: George Allen and Unwin, 1963, pp. 279-280. * ^ Jayatilleke; Early Buddhist
Buddhist
Theory of Knowledge. Publisher: George Allen and Unwin, 1963, p. 280 * ^ Richard King. _Early Advaita
Advaita
Vedanta
Vedanta
and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika_. State University of New York Press. pp. 194–203. ISBN 978-1-4384-0904-7 . * ^ James G. Lochtefeld (2002). _The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M_. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 133, see Causal Models. ISBN 978-0-8239-3179-8 . * ^ Julius Lipner (1986). _The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of Ramanuja_. State University of New York Press. pp. 82–89, 133–136. ISBN 978-0-88706-038-0 . * ^ _A_ _B_ Dundas, Paul (2002) p. 231 * ^ Webb, Mark Owen. "The Jain Philosophy". _The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18. * ^ Pandya, V. (2001) p. 5210 * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ _E_ _F_ _G_ _H_ Karl H. Potter (1991). _Presuppositions of India\'s Philosophies_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 145–149. ISBN 978-81-208-0779-2 . * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Matilal 1981 , pp. 57-58. * ^ Nakamura, Hajime (1992) pp. 169–70 * ^ Piotr Balcerowicz(2003). _Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion_. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 42–43 with footnotes 15 and 16. ISBN 978-81-208-1977-1 . , QUOTE: "This is the sense in which it is correct to say that the Jainas reject the "law of non-contradiction". * ^ Matilal 1981 , p. 57. * ^ Pandya 2001 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* Balcerowicz, Piotr (2015), _Early Asceticism in India: Ājīvikism and Jainism_, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-53853-0 * Charitrapragya, Samani (2004), Sethia, Tara, ed., _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm_, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4

* Dundas, Paul (2002) , _The Jains_ (Second ed.), London
London
and New York : Routledge
Routledge
, ISBN 0-415-26605-X * Dundas, Paul (2006), Olivelle, Patrick, ed., _Between the Empires : Society in India
India
300 BCE
BCE
to 400 CE_, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-977507-1 * Acarya Siddhasena
Siddhasena
Divakara (2004). Bhadrankar Vijaya Gani, ed. _Vardhamana Dvatrimsika_. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy. * Dhruva, A. B., ed. (1933). _Syadvadamanjari of Mallisena with the Anya-yoga-vyavaccheda-dvatrimsika of Hemacandra_. Bombay: Sanskrit
Sanskrit
and Prakrit Series No. 83. * Burch, George Bosworth (1964). "Seven-Valued Logic
Logic
in Jain Philosophy". _International Philosophical Quarterly_. Bronx, NY. IV (1): 68–93. ISSN 0019-0365 . doi :10.5840/ipq19644140 . Archived from the original on 10 December 2011. * Chatterjea, Tara (2001). _Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy _. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0692-9 . * Cort, John (2000). "Intellectual Ahimsa
Ahimsa
revisited: Jain Tolerance and Intolerance of Others". _Philosophy East and West_. University of Hawai'i Press. 50 (3): 324–47. JSTOR
JSTOR
1400177 . * Dasgupta, S. N. (1932). _History of Indian Philosophy_. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Duli Chandra Jain, ed. (1997). _Studies in Jainism: Reader 2_. New York: Jain Study Circle Inc. ISBN 0-9626105-2-6 . * Dundas, Paul (2002). John Hinnels, ed. _The Jains_. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26606-8 .

* Nagendra Kr. Singh, ed. (2001). _Encyclopedia of Jainism
Jainism
(Edited by Nagendra Kr. Singh)_. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. ISBN 81-261-0691-3 .

* Jain, J. C. (2001). "Development of doctrine of Anekāntavāda". In Nagendra Kr. Singh. _Encyclopedia of Jainism_. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. ISBN 81-261-0691-3 . * Pandya, V. (2001), "Refutation of Jaina Darsana by Sankaracarya", in Nagendra Kr. Singh, _Encyclopedia of Jainism_, New Delhi: Anmol Publications, ISBN 81-261-0691-3 * Upadhyaye, A. N. (2001). " Syādvādain the ArdhamagadhiCanon". In Nagendra Kr. Singh. _Encyclopedia of Jainism_. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. ISBN 81-261-0691-3 .

* Gandhi, Mohandas (1955). Jitendra Thakorbhai Desai, (comp.) R.K. Prabhu, ed. _Truth Is God: Gleanings from the Writings of Mahatma Gandhi Bearing on God, God-Realization and the Godly Way_. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. * Grimes, John (1996). _A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit
Sanskrit
Terms Defined in English_. New York: SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-3068-5 . * Humphreys, Christmas (1969). _The Buddhist
Buddhist
Way of Life_. London: Unwin Books. * Hiriyanna, M. (1993), _Outlines of Indian Philosophy_, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-1086-0 * Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1998) , _The Jaina Path of Purification_, Delhi
Delhi
: Motilal Banarsidass
Motilal Banarsidass
, ISBN 81-208-1578-5 * Jones, James William (2008), _Blood That Cries Out From the Earth : The Psychology of Religious Terrorism: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism_, Oxford University Press
Oxford University Press
, ISBN 978-0-19-804431-4 * Jacobi, Hermann (1884). (ed.) F. Max Müller, ed. _The Ācāranga Sūtra_. Sacred Books of the Eastvol.22, Part 1 . Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-7007-1538-X . CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link ) _Note: ISBN refers to the UK: Routledge
Routledge
(2001) reprint. URL is the scan version of the original 1884 reprint._ * Jacobi, Hermann (1895). F. Max Müller, ed. _The Sūtrakritanga_. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-7007-1538-X . _Note:ISBN refers to the UK: Routledge
Routledge
(2001) reprint. URL is the scan version of the original 1895 reprint._ * Jain, Vijay K (1 January 2016), _Ācārya Samantabhadra\'s Aptamimamsa(Devāgamastotra)_, ISBN 9788190363983 * Jain, J. P. (2006). _The Art and Science of Self Realisation: Purusathasiddhiupaya of Ācārya Amrtacandra_ (in Sanskrit
Sanskrit
and English). Delhi: Radiant Publishers. * Koller, John M. (2000). "Syādvadā as the Epistemological Key to the Jaina Middle Way Metaphysics of Anekāntavāda". _Philosophy East and West_. Honululu. 50 (3). ISSN 0031-8221 . JSTOR
JSTOR
1400182 . doi :10.1353/pew.2000.0009 . * Long, Jeffery D. (2009), _Jainism: An Introduction_, I. B. Tauris, ISBN 978-0-8577-3656-7 * Long, Jeffery D. (2013), _Jainism: An Introduction_, I. B. Tauris, ISBN 978-0-8577-1392-6 * Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1990), _Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy
Indian Philosophy
and Contemporary Issues_, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0717-4 * Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1998), Ganeri, Jonardon; Tiwari, Heeraman, eds., _The Character of Logic
Logic
in India_, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0-7914-3739-1 * Majmudar, Uma (2005). _Gandhi's Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light_. New York: SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-6405-9 . * Matilal, B.K. (1981), _The Central Philosophy of Jainism (Anekāntavāda)_ (PDF), L.D. Series 79, Ahmedabad * McEvilley, Thomas (2002). _The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies_. New York: Allworth Communications, Inc. ISBN 1-58115-203-5 . * Nakamura, Hajim (1992). _Comparative History of Ideas_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Motilal Banarsidass
Pub. ISBN 81-208-1004-X .

* Sethia, Tara (2004), _Ahiṃsā, Anekānta and Jainism_, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4

* Charitrapragya, Samani (2004). "Mahāvira, Anekāntavādaand the World Today". In Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 75–89. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . * Jain, Kamla (2004). " Anekāntavādain present day social life". In Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ. pp. 113–122. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 . * Vallely, Anne (2004). "Anekānta, Ahiṃsā and question of Pluralism". In Tara Sethia. _Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 99–112. ISBN 81-208-2036-3 .

* Sangave, Vilas Adinath (2006) , _Aspects of Jaina religion_ (5 ed.), Bharatiya Jnanpith
Bharatiya Jnanpith
, ISBN 81-263-1273-4 * Shah, Natubhai (1998). _Jainism: The World of Conquerors_. Volume I and II. Sussex: Sussex Academy Press. ISBN 1-898723-30-3 . * Sharma, Arvind (2001). _Jaina Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion_. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1760-5 . * Sonnleitner, Michael W (1985). _Gandhian Nonviolence: Levels of Satyagraha_. India: Abhinav Publications. ISBN 81-7017-205-5 . * T. W. Rhys Davids (1980). _Sacred books of the East_. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass. ISBN 81-208-0101-6 . * Webb, Mark Owen. "The Jain Philosophy". _The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-18. * Wiley, Kristi L. (2009), _The A to Z of Jainism_, 38, Scarecrow, ISBN 978-0-8108-6337-8 * Wiley, Kristi L. (2004). _Historical Dictionary of Jainism_. Scarecrow. ISBN 978-0-8108-6558-7 .

EXTERNAL LINKS

* The Doctrine of Relative Pluralism (anekāntavāda), Surendranath Dasgupta, 1940 * Pravin K. Shah on Anekantvada * The Indian-Jaina Dialecticof Syadvadain Relation to Probability by P. C. Mahalanobis , Dialectica 8, 1954, 95–111. * The SyadvadaSystem of Predication by J. B. S. Haldane, Sankhya 18, 195–200, 1957. * Anekantvada. * The Pluralism Project at Harvard University
Harvard University
.

* v * t * e

Indian philosophy
Indian philosophy

TOPICS

* Atheism * Atomism * Idealism * Logic
Logic
* Monotheism * Vedic

.