Contribution of Jainism to the Philosophical Foundations of Democracy

Contribution of Jainism to the Philosophical Foundations of

Democracy

--By B. K. Sawangikar



[The author is a former Post Graduate teacher of Philosophy and

Gandhian Thought at the Nagpur University, Nagpur, Bharat, this

article has been taken from the Hindu Vishwa, Sept/Oct 1987]



Vicharochchar dhee shraddha Pujadishu swatantrata,

Nyayah samajike Arthe Rajakiya Vidhau Tatha



    Freedom of thought (Vichaar Swatantrata) and freedom of

Expression (Uchchar Swatantrata) are the basic pillars of any

Democracy. In addition to that, freedom of holding and practicing

any faith or Religion, in a nutshell, secularism, also goes hand in

hand with the first two in a Democratic set-up. Justice in social,

Economic and Political matters is also guaranteed by the

Constitution of any Democratic country.



    The values outlined above are considered to be of recent

origin. They are referred to as a gift of the Industrial Revolution

and other Political struggles which humans in various parts of this

world successfully underwent in the no-so-far off past.  In fact

this is not so.



    Bharat is known, throughout the world, as a land of profound

knowledge and wisdom.  If we cugitate over the philosophical

thoughts expressed in the various systems of Bharatiya philosophy,

we are astounded to find that they express in a subtle manner

various up-to-date views which the modern man considers as the gift

of modern age and scientific thinking.



    In this essay an effort is made to explain how Philosophical

Thought of Jainism contains some basic pre-suppositions of

Democracy as a political system and as a Way of Life. In this

connection we are primarily concerned, only with the first two

essentials of Democracy viz, freedom of thought and freedom of

expression.



    Jainism is atheistic in both the senses of the term. Jain's do

not believe in the existence of God and hence they are atheist.

Similarly, they do not believe in the testimony of Vedas and

therefore, in this sense also, they are atheists.



    Jain Epistemology, i.e. theory of knowledge propagates Anekant

Vaad and it is in the exposition of this doctrine that we find the

basic presuppositions of Democracy referred to above.



    Anekant Vaad presupposes and rightly so, that Reality or

anything in reality has many or for that matter, innumerable faces

or facets. Whereas, the knower has his own limited powers of

knowing; because he is engulfed in a body - Sharir which limits his

powers of knowing. The sense-organs, the intellect with which the

knower tries to know the Reality have limited powers. Thus what is

to be known is unlimited, whereas the knower is limited. This being

so, no individual or born Jiva (limited self in this "world or

Sansar) can get a full view of anything. What the knower gets are

the glimpses of reality and not the full or complete view of

reality. Some knower knows one face of the reality depending upon

the circumstances in which he is placed. The other knower gets

entirely a different or contradictory view of the same reality

because of his own peculiar circumstances. Each one of them is

right in his own way. Every Jiva gets his own view and not the view

of the other. This being so, no knower should take an extreme view

and propagate that he alone knows the Truth. The Truth known by

different knowers is relative. Nobody knows the absolute or

complete Truth. In the domain of knowledge we are like those

proverbial seven blind persons feeling whatever part of the anatomy

of an elephant that comes their way and giving their incomplete and

erroneous judgement about the nature of the elephant body.



    Thus it logically follows that every individual knower knows

the partial Truth and as much each one of them has a right to

express his own understanding of the Reality, particularly because

each one of us is similarly situated in this regard. It would be

unjust on our part to disallow any person an opportunity to express

his view or understanding of the Reality. Nay, in so doing we shall

be denying to ourselves the knowledge of his views which we do not

possess and which is equally valuable in order to know the whole of

Reality.



    Jainism advocates NON-VIOLENCE or AHIMSA as an Ethical value.

Killing or doing injury to any Jiva in any manner is forbidden by

Jain Dharma. Now this prescription of Non-violence has to be

practiced in the domain of knowledge also. Not to allow a person to

express his own views of Reality, is tantamount to killing his

views and as such it is intellectual violence, which is forbidden

by Jainism. Anekant Vaad thus propagates practice of Non-violence

in the domain of knowledge also.



    Anekant Vaad assumes two forms in the process of its

development. They are Naya Vaad and Syad Vaad. Let us find out what

these two views stand for.



    NAYA means the view of the knower - Nayo Gyaturabhiprayah. In

order to understand Naya Vaad, we must get acquainted with two

concepts of philosophical thought; viz SUBSTANCE and MODE.



    Substance is known as Dravya. It is the substratum or support

of all qualities and states; e.g. water is a substance, firstly

because it is something to which the qualities liquidity,

tastelessness, purity etc. belong and secondly, because it has its

three state i.e. solid state (ice), liquid state (Drinking water)

and gaseous state (vapor). In all these varying states water

continues to be the same H20. It is expected of a substance

that it continues to remain the same in its varying states. The

states of a substance are known as modes or Paryaya. Dravya is

defined in Jainology as one that has its qualities and states --

Guna paryayavat dravyam. It should be remembered in this context

that a substance could be animate as well as inanimate; e.g. Jiva

- i-e. individual soul is also a substance, because it has

qualities, such as knowledge, ignorance, capacity to become free

etc.; similarly, it has its own states, such as, state of bondage

and state



    Keeping these concepts in view, let us try to understand what

Naya Vaad advocates. A particular knower may say after viewing a

thing that it is a table.  Another knower may say in regard to the

same thing, that it is wood. That the thing is a table and that it

is wood are two different Nayas about the same thing.  The first is

Paryaya Naya where as the second is  Dravya Naya. Both are correct

in their own right; because they represent two different points of

view. This being so it would be an exercise in futility, if the two

knowers fight among themselves to assert that their individual view

alone is the right view. In one sense or considered Srom one angle

the thing is wood. And the same thing is a table if it is viewed

from a different angle. Naya Vaad, therefore, advocates that nobody

should consider that his own Naya or view is correct and that of

others is totally incorrect. We must avoid wrangling out of

ignorance over such silly matters. Dravya Naya is however, always

superior as a piece of knowledge as compared to Paryaya Naya.

Instead of labelling Hindu's as Jain, Marwadis, Sikhs etc., it is

always better to consider all of them as essentially Hindus or

humans.



    The second form of Anekant Vaad is known as Syad Vaad.

According to Syad Vaad, all our judgements are relative to time and

circumstances. No judgement contains absolute Truth. All judgements

express Relative Truths, relative to the time and place. This

being, so every judgement should be qualified by the word or

preceded by the word Syat. Syat literally means, "in a sense," "in

a particular context," "may be" etc.



    Shakespeare says in his famous play "Hamlet" -- "Frailty thy

name is woman".  This judgement is true or may be true in the

circumstances that obtained in England in his own times. It may not

be true in a different context. If Shakespeare was born in Bharat

during the Moghal period and had he visited the lanes or by-lanes

of the city of Lucknow, he would have perhaps made a statement

contrary to his own statement. Thus "in a sense", what he says is

true, whereas in a different context what Shakespeare states is not

true. This being so this judgement should be expressed as "May be

such and such is the case" - Syat Asti. In a different context the

statement does not hold. Hence, in that context we shall have to

say " May be that is not the case or that is not so" -- Syat Naasti



    Thus every judgement is relatively true and no judgement is

absolutely true. This being so every judgement should be qualified

by the word SYAT and we must value or respect all judgements alike

because they contain the fragments of Truth.



    Syad Vaad refers to seven such forms of judgements known as

Saptabhaangi Naya.  However, we are deliberately not going into the

details for obvious reasons.



    Thus both the forms of Anekant Vaad advocate that every

individual has a right to hold his own view or opinion, Similarly

every individual must be allowed to express his own view. No one

knows the whole truth. Every one knows the glimpses or fragments of

truth. Thus to know the whole truth, freedom of thought and freedom

of expression is a must. We must develop tolerance for accepting a

contradictory or a different view about the same situation or

state. We must learn to respect the views of our opponents in every

walks of life. Tolerance for different or contradictory views

Bhinnamata Sahishnuta is the very basis of democratic way of life.



    Freedom of thought and freedom of expression as envisaged by

Democrats are in no way different from the teachings of Anekant

Vaad.



    Jainism thus provides for the philosophical foundation of

Democracy.





******************************

Posted by: Ajay Shah

for the Hindu Students Council

******************************