Jains in Inner-Indian Dialogue

chapter 3 Jains in Inner-Indian Dialogue

Jainism originated in a culture that was shaped by a plurality of worldviews. This cultural background contributed to Jainism’s particular soteriological outlook. Dialogue between different traditions, a topic that is increasingly gaining prominence, has a long history in India, both as a practice of public life and as a subject for learned study. While the image of India as a peaceful, spiritual and harmonious country is oversimplified and has never matched historical realities, the role of dialogue and debate in Indian culture was indeed emi- nent since earliest times. The appreciation of both amicable and controversial exchanges of views not only marked but also contributed to the status of India as an ancient high civilization. Even today, Indian culture holds good speakers and rhetoricians in high regard, as anyone attending one of the many Indian functions – ceremonies with talks by distinguished speakers – will notice. Public debate in India frequently, if not usually, went beyond the matters of the day to address wider and deeper issues of philosophical and religious relevance. These could be concerned with what is real in the universe, with ethical issues or with questions about what the highest good consists of for humans and how this highest good can be attained. The contribution of Jain- ism to this pan-Indian discussion derived from its contribution to the theories of karma and rebirth, but also particularly the development of anekāntavāda, a teaching that addressed all of these levels while also promoting reflection on the role and value of debate and dialogue in life. This chapter will examine the cultural context in which the “most non- violent [religion…] in the world” (Fohr 2015: 1) developed. It will show that the root of the dialogic outlook that marks Jainism in interreligious dialogue today was present in the community since earliest times and can be traced through- out the period of Jainism in which debate was largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent. It also aims to show that the relationship between reality and salvation in Jainism naturally points towards dialogue and the acknowledge- ment or even appreciation of plurality. Like the other chapters of this book, this chapter does not presuppose background knowledge in Indian philosophy or religion. Rather it seeks to provide this background for those interested in Jain philosophy for a variety of reasons and from a variety of backgrounds. It seeks to serve the reader who wants to know about Jain philosophy in general and those who take an interest in the

Jains in Inner-indian Dialogue 31 deeper cultural anchorage of anekāntavāda. Some of the classical debates on anekāntavāda may sound rather technical and abstract to the contemporary reader. They will nevertheless be presented in some length for three reasons: readers from the field of intercultural or World philosophy might be interested in the philosophical application of anekāntavāda that may or may not com- pare to similar developments elsewhere. Readers who are more interested in contemporary Jain thought may appreciate the classical background to under- stand the shift in emphasis that occurred in the modern understandings of anekāntavāda. The third reason is that by providing the fuller picture, those Jain or non-Jain readers who might see anekāntavāda as a resource in their work, for example in intercultural theology, could get some ideas for elements of Jain philosophy that could be (re-)introduced into the contemporary dis- course beyond the simple understandings of anekāntavāda as synonymous with tolerance and non-violence. Readers, who are interested more in contemporary Jainism and who want to gain only a general knowledge about anekāntavāda may want to skip the more specialised sections and go directly to some of the following sections: ‘The historical development of Jain philosophy,’ ‘An ontology of organic plurality,’ ‘Origination, destruction and persis- tence,’ ‘Jain logic: every statement is conditional,’ ‘Jain soteriology’, ‘False views and absolutism,’ and ‘What the omniscient know.’

The Schools of Indian Philosophy

Any element of classical Jain philosophy can only be understood in the context of Indian philosophy, because this was the context in which dialogue between different worldviews was located for many centuries.1 However, just as with ‘Western’ philosophy, it is difficult to make meaningful generalisations about a tradition so geographically, historically and ideologically diverse. Neverthe- less, there are certain features that are characteristic for philosophy in India, such as the respect for old sources, which led to a tradition of philosophical commentaries and sub-commentaries on authoritative works with a particular style and set of questions, images and illustrations.

1 In general, I would like to stress that my use of ‘Indian philosophy’ and ‘Jain philosophy’ aims to be pragmatic without a normative connotation. ‘Indian philosophy’ is used here as an um- brella term for the various systems (darśana), that is, for the various philosophical traditions that were developed in India by Jaina, Buddhist and ‘Hindu’ thinkers, not with the intent that Indian philosophy should in some way differ from ‘philosophy proper.’