Difference between Anekantavada and Syadvada| Important Points

Share it

Table of Contents

Concept of Anekantavada And Syadvada

In Jainism, the metaphysical side of reality has innumerable aspects is called Anekantavada, the epistemological and logical side which we can know only some aspects of reality and therefore all judgements are necessarily relative, is called Syadvada.

According to 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.

Anekantavada

The Jain metaphysics, called Anekantavada or the doctrine of the manyness of reality, is a realistic and relativistic pluralism. A thing has got an infinite number of characteristics of its own.

It refers to the simultaneous acceptance of multiple, diverse, even contradictory viewpoints.
It emphasises that the ultimate truth and reality is complex, and has multiple-aspects i.e theory of plurality.

Out of these innumerable characteristics of a thing, some are permanent and essential (attributes or guna) – without which the thing will cease to be what it is. Others are changing and accidental – (modes or paryaya) – which allow for modification.
To mistake any one sided and partial view as the whole truth is to commit the fallacy of Ekantavada. As Jainism takes into account all these partial views, it is called Anekantavada.
It seeks to reorient our logical attitude and asks us to accept the unification of contradictions as the true measure of reality. It is the key to unlock the mystery of the paradoxical Reality.
It affirms that there is no opposition between the unity of being and plurality of aspects. The identity of a real is not contradicted by the possession of varying attributes.
It also asserts that there is no contradiction between identity and otherness, as they are not absolute characteristics.

Thus Anekāntavāda—non-absolutism—is the law of the multiple nature of Reality.

Anekantism can be understood in a very simple way with the story of an elephant and five blind people. Five blind people touch an elephant and then narrate their experiences. When a blind man catches the tail of an elephant, he thinks that it is something like a rope, similarly another blind person grabs the trunk of an elephant and he thinks that it is a snake.

Similarly, the third took the elephant’s leg and said that it is something like a pillar, if someone held the elephant’s ear, he said that it is some soup-like thing, everyone has their own interpretations. When everyone came together, there was a big ruckus. Everyone had realized the truth but not the absolute truth, there are many qualities in the same thing, but because of each person’s own point of view, he sees some qualities of the object as secondary and some prominently. This is the essence of pluralism.

Difference between Buddhism and Jainism

Syadvada

The word ‘syat’ used here is in the sense of relative and the correct translation of Syadvada is the theory of relativity of knowledge. Reality has infinite aspects. To know all of them is to become omniscient (through kevala-jnana). But it is not possible for us, laymen, to know all these aspects. Therefore, all our judgements are necessarily relative, conditional and limited, holding good only in certain conditions, circumstances, or senses.

‘Syat’ or ‘relatively speaking’ must precede all our judgements. Absolute affirmation and absolute negation are both wrong. All our judgements are conditional and double edged.

Syadavada literally means the ‘method of examining different probabilities’.

Ordinary human beings do not have the power to recognize the whole reality, but in the greed of claiming the perfection of their knowledge, they present their limited knowledge as absolute knowledge. Just as the six blind people are unable to understand that their claims are far from the truth, similarly the common man keeps on making useless claims throughout his life, but does not understand that there is no substance in his words.

Mahavira suggests that man should make it clear before every claim that his point is only relative. In simple language, while giving your opinion to the person, keep using some relativistic phrases like ‘as far as I understand’, ‘I believe’, ‘I think’, ‘according to the information I have’ etc. needed. Such language not only shows humility, but there is also no danger that the person’s words will be proved wrong.