The Significance of Syat
A Sanskrit word, “syat” is most often translated to mean “it may be,” perhaps, or perchance. It’s a word of doubt. Typically, that’s not something you want in religion. In Jain literature, however, this word is used quite often — but rather than denoting doubt, it expresses conditionality.
From the Basics
In Pathshala, modern Jain texts, or even on Jainism’s Wikipedia page, you might find three core tenets of Jainism listed: Ahimsa (non-violence), Aparigraha (non-possessiveness), and Anekantvad (non-absolutism). The first two are fairly self-explanatory, but the third has a depth that is often skimmed over. Also translated as “multiplicity of views,” Anekantvad has been interpreted in a variety of ways, ranging from moral relativism and religious tolerance to “an epistemological respect for views of others.”¹
Despite some of its interpretations, references from Acharya Siddhasen² and Acharya Haribhadra’s³ writings point to Anekantvad as a metaphysical doctrine, not a practical one. It is meant to operate where one is trying to understand the nature of truth, existence, and reality; it does not serve to justify everything. And while it may appear that the opposite of non-absolutism is relativism — the idea that if there isn’t just one truth, everything is the truth — further understanding of the doctrine indicates otherwise.
Anekantvad asserts that “no philosophic or metaphysical proposition can be true if it is asserted without any condition or limitation.”⁴ In some ways, this implies the limitation of language¹ to encompass the complete truth about the nature of existence. This is where the related doctrines of Nayavad and Syadvad come into play; the former outlines a method of analyzing different views while the latter allows one to synthesize them.
What is Nayavad?
The doctrine of partial standpoints, Nayavad recognizes that any statement we make is made from a specific and limited point of view.As formulated by Umaswati in the Tattvartha Sutra, there are five Nayas (standpoints).⁵ Here they are with examples of them applied to a plant:
- Naigama-naya: universally acceptable view (The plant is green.)
- Samgraha-naya: categorical view (The plant is a cactus.)
- Vyavahara-naya: practical view that assesses utility (The plant cannot bear fruit.)
- Rijusutra-naya: linear, time-based view (The plant is dying.)
- Shabda-naya: verbal view that names it (The plant is a seedling.)
In common discussion, seven Nayas are presented; the two additions are subcategories of Shabda-naya. Broadly speaking, however, the Nayas can be categorized into two categories: the first two fall into Nishchay-naya (absolute view) and the rest into Vyavahar-naya (relational).
What is Syadvad?
Syadvad is derived from two words, syat, and vad (doctrine). It’s a logical doctrine of “conditioned predication” — think truth tables, but slightly more complicated. In this logical system, there are not two, but three basic values: true (t), false (f), and inexpressible (x). In total, there are seven possible truth values based on combinations of these three, shown in the table on the next page.¹
Named the Saptabhangi (seven-fold predication)¹, this logical system serves as the basis for Jain logic and analysis. The addition of “inexpressible” to standard western logic and the use of the word “syat” before any statement demonstrates the significance of conditions to Jain logic.
How do they fit together?
Jain scholars have posited that some Vedic and Shramanic traditions hold partial views (from a single Naya) of the truth.⁶ These are reconciled in Jainism through Syadvad.
“Does the soul exist?”
- According to Vedanta thought, everything is a part of “Brahma” — a permanent and pure entity. So arguably, it exists.
- According to Buddhist thought, everything is constantly changing, and therefore transitory. So arguably, it does not exist.
A contradiction, right? Well, according to Anekantvad, these are Ekantik, or one-sided, claims. The Vedanta claim is from the Samgraha-naya, and the Buddhist claim is from the Rijusutra-naya. Though Jainism acknowledges that both are true when looked at from different standpoints, or Nayas, it also asserts syat-asti-nasti: arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn’t exist.
Applying Anekantvada
In records of conversations between Jain scholars and their contemporaries, which range from debates on core metaphysical questions such as the nature of the soul to the flaws of Anekantvad itself, we frequently see examples of them respectfully understanding, deconstructing, and challenging contrarian views. It’s not without its flaws; scholars of competing philosophies (and a few Jain ones, notably Akalanka⁴) have pointed out contradiction, paradox, one-sided argumentation (deconstructing others’ views but insisting on Jain views), and the use of Anekantvad to seemingly escape answering questions. While these elements are natural, designed characteristics of a context-based system, they nevertheless do not suffice in all practical matters.
Why should one seek an understanding of Anekantvad, then? After all, it’s not every day we sit down to have lengthy logical discussions on the nature of reality.
The nuance offered by Syadvad and Nayavad promotes increased empathy; understanding that views, including our own, are based on inherently limited standpoints (Nayavad) that must be complemented by alternate views enables us to consider multiple partial truths. It encourages us to put ourselves in others’ shoes, consider plurality (Syadvad), and respond calmly and completely. And while that doesn’t mean everyone or everything is always correct, one can better defend their principles and understand others’ with this framework.
At its crux, Anekantvad is about understanding the nature of truth. The full, absolute reality can only be understood by the omniscient, our Kevalis. What we perceive, however, is not entirely false; it’s just limited and qualified (Syadvad) from a particular standpoint (Naya). By exploring the Nayas and understanding the logical bases of our statements and others’, we can grow our sense of empathy and deepen our commitment to Ahimsa.
¹Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism. (2004). India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
²Acharya Siddhasena Divākara: Vardhamana Dvātrimṣikā 6/2.
³Dundas, P. (2002). The Jains. United Kingdom: Routledge.
⁴Matilal, B. K. (1984). The central philosophy of Jainism. Philosophy East and West, 34(1).
⁵Doshi, M. (2007). Tattvārtha sutra. United States: Federation of Jain Associations in North America.
⁶Lal, S. A., & Mal, B. M. (n.d.). The Doctrine of Non-one- sidedness. https://s3.amazonaws.com/jainworldwp/jainbooks/firstep-2/anekantavad.htm.
