Syadvad is the most significant
contribution of Jainism to the human society. The term Syat means
relatively probable and Vad means Ism or method of presentation. Thus
Syadavd literally means the method of examining different probabilities.
Every one kno ws that lot of disputes arise on account of difference of
opinions. People generally believe that whatever they think is right. They
therefore tend to oppose any view that does not agree with theirs. Even a
slight analysis of such disputes would indicate that there might be
partial truth in the apparrently opposing views and the parties to the
dispute might be merely stressing their views from different angles.
Everything in the world is
multi-propertied. For instance, sugar is white, sweet, granular etc. Now
if a person simply states that sugar is sweet, he is not wrong. He has
however mentioned only one property of sugar. His statement is therefore a
partial t ruth, not the whole truth. If another person states that sugar
is white, he also states partial truth. The properties of sugar are
universally known and there is hardly any possibility for a person to pick
up dispute about its properties. But to a person, who has simply seen
sugar but has never tasted it and has not otherwise known about its
sweetness, the statement of sugar being sweet makes no sense. For him,
sugar is white and granular. There arises therefore a hypothetical
probability of his disputing the sweetness of sugar until someone brings
sugar and asks him to taste it.
Real disputes arise in the case of
substances having variable properties. For instance, grapes may be green.
red or black. Any one of these colors signifies the simultaneous
nonexistence of other colors. Therefore any one who has seen only green
grapes, w ould dispute the existence of red or black grapes. We can also
visualize disputes about grapes being seeded or seedless. People normally
do not pick up disputes on such scores, because they do not happen to hold
strong views about them. They usually tend to ignore such differences. On
ideological issues like capitalism vs. communism or ephemeral vs.
everlasting nature of soul, however, people generally hold very strong
views. Since such views happen to be diametrically opposite, such people
cannot tolerat e the differing views. Let us take the case of soul. Vedant
believes in eternal, immutable, indestructible soul; while Buddhism
believes it to be ephemeral, ever-changing, destructible. Each of them
would insist that it is right and anything to the contra ry is wrong and
irreligious. Now, science states that no substance is entirely
destructible. Since soul is also a substance, obviously it is eternal and
indestructible. On the other hand, every substance undergoes changes in
its states. States of the soul also undergo changes. The state of a
person, when overcome with defilements, is totally different from the one
when he is equanimous. Every change means destruction of earlier state and
emergence of the new one. Thus in terms of changing states, soul is
ephemeral and destructible. Syadvad would therefore state that the views
of Vedanta as well as Buddhism express partial truth and not the whole
truth. It would exhort both of them to admit the partial truth of the
other. The dispute over such issues can t hus be easily averted by
resorting to Syadvad.
Much criticism has been levelled
against Syadvad by other schools of thought. It has been labelled as the
ism of uncertainty and as the theory of avoiding the issues. All such
accusations are however ill based. Syadvad does not give rise to any
uncertain ty. It rightly states that every view, every aspect can have
some truth and therefore partial justification. One may state that Mahavir
was son of Siddhartha, another may state that he was the son of Trishala,
the third may state that he was the nephew of Suparshwa, the fourth may
state that he was the brother of Nandivardhan and so on. None of these
statements is incorrect. All of them have been made, keeping in view some
particular relation of the Lord with a specific person. It would therefore
be futil e for any one to deny any of those statements. None of them
however singly presents the complete truth about the relations of the
Lord. Real truth is the sumtotal of all such statements. The Syadvad
states that every statement can have some truth. We have simply to examine
it from some specific standpoint. It endeavors to find the relative truth
of seemingly opposite views and would like to give justice to the
respective view to the extent concerned. It is the Jain theory of
relativity propounded at least 2500 years back. This justification of
different views from the respective perspective is also known as
Anekantvad.
Making any statement from one single
view point is known in Jain traditions as Naya. The term literally means
to lead. Naya therefore means leading to a truth from a particular view
point. There could be as many Nayas as there are view points. Broadly, ho
wever, they can be classified in two categories. Those relating to
substantial aspect are known as substantial or Dravyarthic Naya and those
relating to changing aspects are known as Subjective or Paryayarthic Naya.
The statement of the soul being eternal has been made from Dravyarthic
Naya; and that of its being ephemeral has been made from Paryayarthic Naya.
These two main categories are subdivided into seven sub-categories. Each
of these seven Nayas is supposed to present partial truth of any phenomeno
n expressed from a particular angle. Significance of this method lies in
the fact that it leads to tolerance of differing views. Students of
history are aware of the havoc perpetrated on account of intolerance. How
much blood has been spilled all over the world, simply because people in
power could not appreciate the differing views of others? Paradoxically
enough, this was mostly done in the name of religion. It was conveniently
forgotten that tolerance is the essence of religion. If they had learnt
Syad vad, they could have accepted at least the partial truth of the
differing views and avoided the bloodshed.
Jainism does not stop with the
admittance of different views. Its objective is to arrive at the complete
truth, the absolute truth. This cannot be done without considering each
and every view point. If one fails to consider the truth of any single
view, h e cannot hit upon the complete truth, By Syadvad Jainism tries to
give appropriate justice to all the views of any phenomenon and eventually
to derive unequivocal, indisputable truth. This can also be termed as
arriving at final truth on the basis of all partial truths. For instance,
after examining the different views about the soul, Jainism would state
that the soul, as a substance, is eternal but its states undergo changes
from time to time. Thus, instead of leading to uncertainty or doubts,
Syadavd he lps in leading us to the ultimate certainty, where there is
absolutely no scope for any doubt. It is the process of arriving at Ekant
truth through Anekant truths.
