|
by Jayaram V
Seven different ways of saying the same thing.
There is a general argument among intellectual circles that most of
our knowledge is
unreliable and inaccurate because it is relative knowledge, which
appears to be true from a particular point of view and false from
another. Unfortunately our knowledge is driven by the senses and the
mind and these are imperfect organs of truth. They cannot present to
us the multidimensional view of our reality but only a tunnel vision.
Jain scholars are well aware of this human predicament and have
therefore put forward the theory of syadavada or standpoints. Jain
scholars explain the theory of standpoints using the story of six blind men trying to
describe an elephant each using a particular sense organ. According to syadavada or
theory of standpoints, each truth can be represented in different ways, as a
possibility or probability, but not as the entire
truth in itself. Each proposition is true in the context of certain
conditions and can neither be completely affirmed nor denied. It
may not hold good otherwise. Thus from any given point
of view:
1. A thing is
2. A thing is not
3. A thing is and is not.
4. A thing is simply inexpressible.
5. A thing is but inexpressible
6. A thing is not but and inexpressible and
7. A thing Is inexpressible
1. Syad asti (IS): A thing exists in the context of its self or
from the perception of a perceptor. You saw a tree through your own eyes at
a particular place in your backyard and so you know from your experience
that the tree of such and such type, shape, color and size exists at such
and such place and time.
2. Syad nasti (IS NOT) : A thing does not exist in the
context of other forms, other substance, another place or another time. The
same tree that you saw does not exist as another type, shape, color and size
tree or at a different place or time. Simply, a thing does not exit other
than what it is. (Hope this is not rather too much for you to understand.)
3. Syad asti nasti (IS and IS NOT): A thing may or may not
exist at the same time. It may exist from one point of view and many not
exist from another point of view. If you see an object with your eyes
it exists, but if you close your eyes and want to perceive it
with your hearing, it may not exist. Also if you are preoccupied
with some other matter, you may not see it even if it is there.
Similarly, if you are familiar with the concept of a tree, you would
say the tree that you saw is a tree. But if you are not at all
familiar with the concept of a tree, you would perhaps argue that what
you saw was something else.
4. Syad avyaktaya: A thing is inexpressible when we try to
express in term other than what it is. For example I cannot speak
about a tree other than what it is or I cannot speak about a tree
other than in its own terms.
5. Syad asti avyaktaya: A thing exists but I cannot express
it. A tree exists but certain aspects of it are indescribable. We know
that some of the things that exist in the universe are inexpressible,
either because we do not know about them or because we do not have the
capacity to express them. or because of our own limitations. This
is a predicament many of us experience. Sometime we know for sure
something exists, but we do not have adequate words to express it or
the means to express it. This is especially true about abstract
concepts that are difficult to express.
6. Syad nasti avyaktaya: The thing does not exist, and also
cannot be expressed. If the tree does not exist from my vantage point,
how can I express it? We can speak about things that exist. But how
can we speak about things that do not exist at all? We can speak about
existence. But what can we say about non-existence? We can express
what is known and perceivable. But how can we speak about what is
unknown and what is not? So we cannot express that which does not
exist.
Syad asti nasti avyaktaya: A thing is there and also not there at the time
and it is inexpressible. The tree exists in the present. It might not
have existed in the past. The tree exists when I am standing near it and
does not exist when I am far away from it. When the same thing exists and
also does not exist, how can it be expressed correctly without losing the
truth of its simultaneous existence and non-existence?
In conclusion we may say that according to Jainism we can
make many statements or draw many conclusions about the same truth. A thing may exist in the context
of its own form, substance, place and time. Similarly a thing may not exist in the context of another
form, another substance, another place and another time. For example you may
say a thing exists because you know it and saw it. You may say the
tree does not exist because you do not know it and did not see it. You
may say a tree exist at so and so place and so and so time. You may
also say the same tree does not exist at so and so place and so and so
time because the same tree cannot exist at the same time at two
different places. The other variations that are
described here are further elaboration of these two fundamental
statements of pure logic.
Suggested Further Reading
|
