Metempsychosis
Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
The Sanskrit compound an-eka-anta-vāda literally means "doctrine of non-exclusivity".
Proponents of anekāntavāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy—even Jainism—which clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view.
Anekāntavāda is one of the three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning. The other two are:
------->syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and;
------->nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints
Anekāntavāda is not about denying the truth; rather truth is acknowledged as an ultimate spiritual goal. For ordinary humans, it is an elusive goal, but they are still obliged to work towards its attainment.[27] Anekāntavāda also does not mean compromising or diluting ones own values and principles.[28] On the contrary, it allows us to understand and be tolerant of conflicting and opposing views, while respectfully maintaining the validity of ones own view-point. Hence, John Koller calls anekāntavāda as – “epistemological respect for view of others”.[29] Anekāntavāda, thus, did not prevent the Jain thinkers from defending the truth and validity of their own doctrine while simultaneously respecting and understanding the rival doctrines.
It does not mean conceding that all arguments and all views are equal, but rather logic and evidence determine which views are true, in what respect and to what extent. [29] While employing anekāntavāda, the 17th century philosopher monk, Yaśovijaya also cautions against anābhigrahika (indiscriminate attachment to all views as being true), which is effectively a kind of misconceived relativism. [31] Jains thus consider anekāntavāda as a positive concept corresponding to religious pluralism that transcends monism and dualism, implying a sophisticated conception of a complex reality.
Māhavīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions in his Acaranga Sutra: "Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one."[51]
In anekāntavāda, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or violence, leading quite logically to physical violence and war.[49] In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us" form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political, religious and social conflicts.
Jain monks have also used anekāntavāda and syādvāda as debating weapons to silence their critics and prove the validity of the Jain doctrine over others.[48] According to Dundas, in Jain hands, this method of analysis became a fearsome weapon of philosophical polemic with which the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism could be pared down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence, respectively, and thus could be shown to be one-pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality which they purported to be.
Proponents of anekāntavāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy—even Jainism—which clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view.
Anekāntavāda is one of the three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning. The other two are:
------->syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and;
------->nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints
Anekāntavāda is not about denying the truth; rather truth is acknowledged as an ultimate spiritual goal. For ordinary humans, it is an elusive goal, but they are still obliged to work towards its attainment.[27] Anekāntavāda also does not mean compromising or diluting ones own values and principles.[28] On the contrary, it allows us to understand and be tolerant of conflicting and opposing views, while respectfully maintaining the validity of ones own view-point. Hence, John Koller calls anekāntavāda as – “epistemological respect for view of others”.[29] Anekāntavāda, thus, did not prevent the Jain thinkers from defending the truth and validity of their own doctrine while simultaneously respecting and understanding the rival doctrines.
It does not mean conceding that all arguments and all views are equal, but rather logic and evidence determine which views are true, in what respect and to what extent. [29] While employing anekāntavāda, the 17th century philosopher monk, Yaśovijaya also cautions against anābhigrahika (indiscriminate attachment to all views as being true), which is effectively a kind of misconceived relativism. [31] Jains thus consider anekāntavāda as a positive concept corresponding to religious pluralism that transcends monism and dualism, implying a sophisticated conception of a complex reality.
Māhavīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions in his Acaranga Sutra: "Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one."[51]
In anekāntavāda, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or violence, leading quite logically to physical violence and war.[49] In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us" form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political, religious and social conflicts.
Jain monks have also used anekāntavāda and syādvāda as debating weapons to silence their critics and prove the validity of the Jain doctrine over others.[48] According to Dundas, in Jain hands, this method of analysis became a fearsome weapon of philosophical polemic with which the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism could be pared down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence, respectively, and thus could be shown to be one-pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality which they purported to be.
