Jain Pluralism for a Divided World
By: Dr. Jeffrey Long
A Dangerous Situation
One of the most urgent problems facing humanity today is the ongoing clash and general mood of divisiveness among people of differing worldviews and faith commitments. Particularly on social media, one quickly becomes aware that any conversation on topics relating to deeply held views, whether the subject is religion or politics or some other aspect of life, is likely to devolve into the cyberspace equivalent of a shouting match, with people condemning entire communities and belief systems in the strongest and harshest possible language. There is no room for moderation in these conversations–no space for saying, for example, that it is impossible to generalize about an entire community and about traditions that are centuries old–for such moderation is taken to be a sign of compromise with the other side (whatever it may be). And that other side is taken to be not only mistaken, but evil.
This state of affairs is not only sad, but dangerous. When taken in tandem with another especially urgent problem that humanity faces–the problem of climate change–it could well lead to the death of the human species. The scarcer the resources of our planet become, as the effects of climate change become increasingly serious, the more important it will be for people of different cultures and belief systems to work together for our shared survival. This would be a daunting challenge in even the best of times. But if we have already decided that we hate one another even before the worst stresses of the planetary situation befall us, the likelihood that we will pull together as one human species becomes less and less–and with it, the prospects for our survival.
Hope for the Future in Indian Philosophy
All, however, is not yet lost. For all of our flaws, we are a clever species. We still possess many intellectual resources that can enable us to survive the twenty-first century. In addition to our skills in the realms of science and technology, which will be essential to resolving, or at least mitigating, the effects of the disaster we have created, the ancient wisdom of India, and of the Jain tradition in particular, has something to offer us in our shared struggle.
Hovering behind all of the angry and divisive conversation is an assumption that many have begun to take for granted in today’s world. This is the assumption that, given two alternative truth claims, only one can be true. Either I am right and you are wrong (if you disagree with me), or I am wrong and you are right. And I can never be wrong. (The words “I’m sorry” or “Pardon me, I was wrong about that,” are extremely difficult to find in anyone’s social media feed.)
Is this, however, the only way to think about truth? The long history of the Indian philosophical tradition suggests another alternative.
The adherents of the various darshanas, or systems of Indian philosophy, argued, in ancient times, almost as fiercely as we do on social media today. The followers of each system believed deeply that their system communicated the highest truths of existence.
Several important differences, however, exist between the debates of the traditional Indian thinkers and today’s debates. For one, the standards of logical argumentation were far more rigorous. In order for one’s argument to be regarded as valid, or even as worthy of debating, one had to adhere to a shared system of rules and to apply these rules consistently. One also had to be in possession of a deep and wide knowledge base, understanding not only the intricacies of one’s own view, but those of one’s opponents as well. It was not enough simply to fling insults at the other, or to make insinuations. One had to present a detailed argument demonstrating the flaws in the positions of one’s opponents. A better comparison than bickering on social media would be between traditional Indian philosophy and the presentation of a legal case by an attorney, or the advancement of a new theory by a researcher contributing an article to a science journal. Indian philosophical debate, in short, was serious work.
Another important difference, though, had to do with the assumption that only view can be true: that the only alternatives in debate are “true” and “false.”
Traditional Indian philosophers often compiled doxographies, or texts which present the views of many different schools of thought. Often, these views would be presented in an order reflecting the degree of truth which the author found reflected in their perspective. The author might start with a view he found deeply flawed (usually that of the Lokayata, or Materialist school of thought, which all other systems of philosophy rejected). He would then present the views of other schools in an ascending order, concluding with the siddhanta, or perfected end of philosophy, represented by his own school of thought. Or he might present the views of his own school first, and then give the views of the other systems in descending order.
In short, the ancient Indians did not view their schools of thought as simply true or false. A school of thought could be ‘more true’ or ‘less true’ than another. The truth of a worldview admitted of degrees. It was not that one’s own view was simply true and everyone else was wrong (as we too often tend to think today). One’s own view was the most true, and the others were less so. Even the least true view still had some truth in it. The materialists, for example, accurately described the world of material phenomena, even if they were seeing as wrong in denying a spiritual reality.
The Jain Contribution to Pluralism
One of the most sophisticated and best developed theoretical models of this idea of degrees of truth was developed in the Jain system of philosophy. According to a Jain understanding, reality is not something that can be described simplistically. It is anekanta. That is, it is complex. It is multi-faceted. It therefore lends itself to being seen from multiple perspectives, or nayas. Each of these nayas is a valid way of perceiving reality. If this is the case, then the best way for us to express truth is to use the word syat–that is, to say something is true, not simply or absolutely, but from a certain point of view. The views of different schools of philosophy can be reconciled using this way of thinking. The perspective of one system of thought can be seen as true and valid, from a certain point of view–when looking at a particular facet of reality that has become the focus of the attention of that school of thought. But the perspective of another, contrary system of thought, can also be seen as true and valid from another point of view–when looking at a different facet of the total, complex reality that we all experience.
This way of thinking fits very well with the Jain ethos of ahimsa, or nonviolence, and is even seen by some Jain thinkers as a form of ‘intellectual ahimsa.’ It also fits with the Jain teaching that all beings possess jiva, or spirit, which is characterized by infinite consciousness. The perspectives of all of us are partial and obscured, so long as we are not enlightened. But they also each contain and arise from a facet of the infinite knowledge–kevala jñana–that is our highest potential.
Conclusion
In talking with others, therefore, and in engaging with different views, our aim should not be to show that the other is wrong, but to draw out the grain of truth, the kernel of insight, in all views. Only then can we work together for a better world.
