(The doctrine of non-absolutism) The doctrine of Syadvada or the philosophy of many-sided aspects is a valuable contribution of Jainism to world-thought.
This doctrine is also termed as Anekantvada. In fact every substance consists of infinite attributes. The philosophy which deals with the consistent and complimentary des¬cription of these attributes is known as the doctrine of Syadvada.
The word ‘Anekantvada’ consists of three words; ‘Aneka’ (I%P), ‘Anta’ (skr) and ‘Vada’ (51s). ‘Aneka’ means many; ‘Anta’ signifies attributes and ‘Vada’ means description. Therefore etymologically the whole word means the descripton of many-fold attributes. In Syadvada we have also the similar idea.
It consists of two words; ‘Syat’ and ‘Vada’. This ‘Syat’ suggests the existence of infinite attributes, although the expression asserts about a particulal attribute. ‘Syat’ Suggests that from a particular stand-point the truth reveals itself in a particular form.
From other view-point the same substratum appears to possess other attributes. Thus Syadvada deals with truth having many-fold-aspects. With regard to the description of sub-stratum or its attributes, it deals with particular aspects, but does not deny the existence of other attributes or qualities. Prof. Das Gupta calls this non-absolutism doctrine as ‘Relative Pluralism.’
In fact in the world of philosophy this doctrine adopts the policy of ‘co-existence’. As in Ahimsa we have the practice of ‘live and let live’ ideal, similarly in the domain of philosophy the intellectual aspect of impartiality upholds the similar treatment of attributes. It treats and describes the attributes of a substratum in a friendly way.
Syadvada has not the out look of a tyrant, who, due to short-sighted motive, wants to destroy others, and enjoy peace upon the pyre of other’s happiness.
This is not the case of a gentleman and a cultured person. As a cultured fellow, taking care of his own rights, does not infringe upon the legitimate rights of others; in the like manner in the intellectual world Syadvada ordains us to adopt the policy of a cultured man, whose out-look is not blurred by short-sightedness. If this judicious attitude is kept in view while treating philosophical subjects, discord will disappear, on the other hand real concord and harmony will be established.
Some persons ignorant of Jain philosophy observe that ‘Syat’ is the third person, singular number, potential mood of the root ‘Ash’ (srcr). The great Jain logician Samanta Bhadra explains in his excellent monumental philosophical treatise ‘Aptamimansa’ that Syat is an indeclinable (srsqzra;).
It indicates the existence of infinite attributes () in the substratum. Some writers trans¬late it by the word ‘Perhaps’ which shows that we have no idea of definiteness of reality, but reallv speaking in Syadvada we get precise, definite, and clear description of reality.
Therefore Syadvada should not be misinterpreted as a philosophy of indefinite aspects. It banishes all confusion and gives a “correct perspective of truth. In Apte’s Sanskrit dictionary Syadvada is explained as ‘a form of scepticism.’ The view is in-correct, because Syadvada gives us definite guidance and there is not an iota of doubt or suspicion.
In suspicion the mind oscillates, moves to and fro and no definite decision is arrived at. Here in Syadvada we have definite predication from the particular view-point e.g. a substance is perishable from the view-point of its ever-changing modifications.
This assertion is definite. The same object is above change and is also permanent, if viewed from the stand-point of the material out of which it is com¬posed. This view also is definite. Therefore Syadvada cannot be called a ‘may be or ‘perhaps predication’.
It is precise and exact e. g. a piece of paper is brunt in the fire. From the view-point of paper it is destroyed, for we don’t see its existence, but the particles, rather the matter which was present in the form of paper is not at all destroyed. It has changed its form and it exists in another form.
Everybody feels that what is existent cannot be non-existent. This statement avers partial truth, because from the point of modifications every moment the conditions are under-going change.
The ocean from the point of water looks the same always but from the point of its everchanging waves it cannot be described as without any change. Thus in Syadvada doctrine there is no place for sceptic-ism. Every predication is definite and precise.
This Syadvada philosophy establishes harmony and order in our worldly life. Swami Samant- bhadra explains this point clearly.
He says truth or substance undergoes change every moment from the view-point of the conditions or modifications. Peeped from the peak of this transitoriness there is nothing in the world, which is out of the grip of the doctrine of impermanence.
Therefore Buddha rightly observes the fickleness of all objects (ns If this view owes its allegiance to the Syadvada doctrine that is all right, but if it does not acknowledge the other view-point of stationariness or permanence, chaos and complications will come in our way. Samantbhadra Swami says that one-sided adherence to the doctrine of momentariness will lead to a state of chaos and confusion; e. g. some body is murdered.
The person who had the ‘mens rea-’ the evil intention to murder, disappears and the person who brought about the murder is a new figure from the philosophy of ‘Kshnikvada’. The murderer disappears next moment and another fellow is born who undergoes punishment and so on. This places us in a very awful and unsettled situation.
Supposing X gives his watch to Y and Y does not return it saying that the watch, the lender and the borrower all are changed in a moment, therefore there is no need of returniug the watch. This sort of jugglery of words will altogather disturb social harmony, hence Jain sages have said that chaos and confusion inevitably result by holding onesided view of Substratum.
Suppose one sticks to the philosophy of per-manence, (‘Nityavada’) and denies the existence of other view-points, all our affairs of the world will be upset; for if there is absolutly no change why to struggle and strive for progress ? Progress itself suggests change from the worse to the better condition.
Chamber’s dictionary explains progress ‘a going forward or onward, advance, improvement of any kind.’ How can we have such progress if we honestly and faithfully follow this school of philosophy that there is absolutely no change in the world ? All such observations and expression of reality become erroneous fantasy if they quarrel at logger- heads since every stand-point is equally fastened to truth or reality.
Acharya Pujyapada Swami’s words are conspicuous in this context, “Substances are cha-racterised by an infinite number of attributes. For the sake of use or need, prominence is given to certain characteristics of a substance from one point of view and prominence is not given to other characteristics as these are of no use or need at the time.
Thus even the existing attributes are not expressed as these are of secondary importance. There is no contradiction in what is established by these two points of views.’’ ( Reality—P. 157 )
Some thinkers like Shanker and Ramanuja see contradiction in the above statement. Jain logician Anant Virya has refuted the charges asserting that reality consists of positive and negative assertions, therefore we should be honest and faithful to reality. We cannot change the nature of objects, according to our conjectures. Our duty is to describe the reality as we experience it.
Our thinking cannot effect the nature of the objects. Supposing the Parliament passes a resolution that the Sun has no right to always rise in the East, other directions also should have the blessings of having the Sun’s rise; do you think that this sort of suggestion or desire of the members will any way change the Sun-rise from East to the other directions ? Certainly not; therefore it is fair on our part to describe reality in its naked majesty without fear or favour.
We must owe our allegiance not to our books but to unmasked truth. Blind faith in the perverted stand of our ancestors will put hurdles in the way of our intellectual as well as material advancement. Reality has no relationship with ancestors or antiquity or the views of the majority.
The crucifica- tion of the idol of love and goodness Jesus Christ explicitly proves that the majority view should not always be supposed to reflect truth or justice. Reality is in fact related to Truth and Justice.
It is associated with head and not counting of hands. The forgetfulness of this basic point has brought about tragedy of huge errors resulting in horrifying incidents in human history.
The remarks of James Froude are illuminating; “We cannot make true things false or false things true by choosing to think them so. We cannot vote right into wrong or wrong into right. The eternal truths and rights and things exist fortunately independent of our thoughts or wishes fixed as mathematics inherent in the nature of man and the world” ( Selected Essays of Froude P. 69 ).
We should make experience our guide Over-reliance upon striptural texts at the cost of one’s experience puts the man into difficulties. The fact is that truth is not one-sided; it is like a prism.
If we look at it through our own particular peep-holes, we get conflicting glimpses of reality. If we seriously think over the point the quagmire will disappear and harmony will illumine our vision. The dilTerent facts will appear not in conflicting form but having coordination among them-selves.
The whole prism will be the sum-total of all the visions attained from different places. In this regard the words of A. G. Gardiner are worthy of note, Alpha of the Plough-PP.27-29 “In some degree we all have this restricted professional vision. The tailor runs his eye over your clothes and reckons you up according to the cut of your garments and the degree of shinniness they display.
The boot-maker looks at your boots and takes your intellectual, social and financial measurement from their quality and condition. It is so with the dentist. He judges the world by its teeth. In the same way the business man looks at life through the.
key-hole of his counting house. The world to him is an ‘emporium’ and he judges his neighbour by the size of his plate glass, in short, we all go through life wearing spectacles coloured by our own tastes, our own calling, and our own prejudices, measuring our neighbours by our own tape-measure, summing them up according to our own private arithmetic .
We see subjectively, not objectively; what we are capable of seeing, not what there is to be seen.” Similarly in the world of philosophy and thought reality is visualised through different peep-holes; hence there appears variety of contradictory observations.
The judicious, gentlemanly and friendly outlook of Syadvada establishes harmony and coordination and the disputants become affectionate friends. The vanity of outlook that I monopolise the entire reality or Truth-this type of extreme view upsets the whole beauty and the tragedy of errors springs up.
Syadvada, therefore acts as an arbitrator amongst conflicting and diamentrically opposite views adjudicating an award that the conflicting views should not be taken to an extreme point since truth resides in both. From the stand-point of substance or the material, the object is not in the clutches of change but from the view-point of modifications every object is under the Jaws of change.
Therefore, it is right to say that every object is subject to change from the view-point of modifications; it is permanent from the view-point of the substance, hence both the schools are correct, if they become friendly and adopt the synthetic attitude of compromise.
An interesting anecdote will make the philosophy of Syadvada intelligible to a person of weak intellect and poor reasoning.
Once upon a time two goats resided by the side of a hill. They lived on the grass of the rugged mountain. Since the goats often quarrelled their king one day said, I shall be the judge in your disputes.” Kext day both picked up a quarrel for an insignificant matter.
One said; “This mountain is rough and there is no grass here to live upon. The other goat retorted angrily; ‘Thou art utterly false, there is plenty of grass.” Their wrangling immediately developed into a serious fight wherein both of them fell down and died. The king enquired into the matter; and inspected the site. He saw that both the goats were right and both were wrong.
On one side of the hill there was plenty of grass, but the other side was really rugged. The foolish goats saw only one side, therefore they fought and died. Had they seen the other side there would not have been any cause for dispute. This short story suggests us not to behave like the goats and bring our destruction but act wisely and live long like friends and comrades. The light of Syadvada dispels all darkness and gives us external as well as internal illumination.
Truth is not one-sided, therefore, one-sided view is sure to go against truth and reality. Let us have another example. You cannot describe that your pencil five inches long is small or a big one. It can equally be predicated big as well as small When compared with three inches long object, the pencil is longer but the same pencil is smaller when described from the view-point of the object which is six inches long; although we feel that one thing cannot possess the quality of smallness and otherwise, but we can’t help it.
This shows the hollowness of the attacks made upon this invincible philosophy of harmony and concord. This instance will clear the point well. It is known, Buddha was the son of king Suddhodhan.
He was the father of Rahul, and husband of princess Yashodhara. He was the brother of Deo- datta. When we speak of Goutam Buddha as the son of his father Suddhodhan, it does not mean that Buddha is only the son and he cannot be called a brother, a father or a husband. Although fatherhood, brotherhood etc.
are terms which have different meanings and cannotations, they find place in one object Gautam Buddha. Buddha can be described thus; Buddha is a son; Buddha is not a son; he is a father; he is not a father. These apparently opposite-looking predications cannot be challenged. Buddha is a son from the view-point of his father only.
He is not a son from the view-point of his wife Yashodhara, brother Deodatta and son Rahul; therefore the assertions that Buddha is a son and Buddha is not a son are both correct, since our own experience bears testimony to these viewpoints. It is our duty not to twist truth by jugglery of words or display of our learning in contravention of our experience. Verily, intellect and experience help us a great deal in testing the veracity or falsity of any predication.
The sober-minded souls cordially receive truth and their intellect is free from the entanglements of sectarianism. This Syadvada doctrine is based upon our experience. Let us take the example of one John, who dips his right hand in a bucket full of hot water and the left one in the icy cold water.
Soon after he dips his both hands into a basin containing luke¬warm water. What is the result ? The right hand experiences cold; whereas the left hand gets the sensation of heat; but the water is lukewarm. It gave rise to two contradictory sensations. The judicious men will say that from the experience of right hand the water is cold; on the other hand it is hot also from the view point of left hand.
This simple example gives us a clue to understand andappreciate the noble and edifying doctrine of Syadvada which opposes absolute predications,In the light of above elucidation an impartial thinker will be puzzled, why great erudite philosophical leaders had the audacity to assail this invisible doctrine-the representative of truth and reality ? What right have we to mock and scoff at the doctrine, which is the peerless protector of truth.
Acharaya Hemchandra in his Syadvada Manjari ( which was much liked by Gandhiji) says; “The entire world from a lamp to the limitless sky bears the stamp of Syadvada. Oh ! Lord Jinendra ! those who are opposed to your command prattle that the reality is permanent only or it is momentary only.”
Philosopher Hegel seems to support this Syadvada system of thought. He says, “Every-thing contains within itself its opposite. It is impossible to conceive of anything without conceiving anything of its opposite.
A cow is a cow and is at the same time not a cat. A thing is itself only because at the same time it is not something else. Every thesis for an argument has its anti-thesis. The truth lies on both sides of every question. The truth is either sided. All nature is a reconciliation of opposites”.
In this context scholars should note that Jainism does not fully share with Hegelian way of approach. The great philosopher and Jain Scholar Prof. A. Chakravarti had observed; “Hegel’s direct approach to the nature of reality is more or less analogous to the Jaina approach.
Hegel’s dialectic- consisting of thesis, anti-thesis and syn-thcsis, which may be described as identity of the opposites or the resolution of the contradictories, is exactly corres ponding to the Jaina doctrine of Asti-Nastivada. But in other respects, Hegelian Idealism is quite different from the Jaina meta-physics and hence we cannot afford to emphasise the similarity between the two Schools beyond this one particular fact.”
Acharya Amritchandra explains this doctrine by citing the example of seven blind-born persons. When they came accross an elephant, each got contact with a particular limb of the animal and began to describe the whole elephant according to his experience acquired by touch.
G ne of them told that the animal is like a pillar, since he had touched his legs. One who had caught hold of his trunk explained him like a thick wood and one who had felt his ears affirmed him like a winnowing fan.
Similarly each one had his own way of expression. This led them to quarrel among themselves. Everyone was adamant in his assertion because it was based upon his experience. Fortunately a wise passer-by out of pity came to the disputing party and found out the real cause of discord and quarrel. He said to them, “Friends, everyone of you is correct.
The only mistake is, that you have the knowledge of partial truth, which you suppose to be the whole truth about the elephant. Since you could not comprehend the entire body of the huge animal, you have unfortunately taken a wrong stand. If all your statements are properly combined, we get the complete description of the elephant.
” For want of suitable word we have to say that we cannot simultaneously describe the positive and the negative attributes or relationship of Buddha. Due to the bankruptcy of vocabulary, both the relations cannot be simultaneously described.” There¬fore from this view-point we have to say that Buddha is indescribable; so we come across this third way of predication‘indescribable’.
Some philosophers describe reality by the word ‘indescribable’ and also say that reality cannot be described by any word. Samant-bhadra doesn’t agree with this stand. If the object is indescribable how do you describe it by using the word indescribable ?
He says in his ‘Aptamimansa’ suwmWh 3 those who take the view of one sidedness with regard to indescribable nature, cannot properly use the word indescribable. This kind of expression is similar to the utterances of a fellow, “My mother is a barren woman ( uraT Jr )” or “I have taken a vow of silence (These statement are contradictory, therefore onesided assertion would not serve our purpose of describing reality. The Vedic hymn of creation gives one an insight into this predication of Syadvada, There was neither existence, nor non-existence in the beginning.
According to the law of permutation and com-bination the said three predications about Buddha; that he is a sdn, that he is not a son, that he is indescribable, give rise to other four more combinations, which are called seven-fold logical predica- tion-‘Saptabhangi’.
These four predications will be; Buddha is a son and is not a son, when described successively. This is known as Asti-Nasti predication. Similarly we get Asti-Avaktavya and Asti-Nasti- Avaktavya.
When we think Buddha as a son and at the same time think of his attribute indescribable, explained above, we come to the attribute ‘Asti- Avaktavya’. When we describe him as a son, as not a son and as indescribable; our mode of expression will be ‘Asti-Nasti-Avaktavya’. In the like manner various systems of thought are in fact various visions of reality. Syadvada doctrine tries to reconcile the conflicting approaches to truth.
Let us see how this Syadvada establishes har-mony and concord amongst antagonistic approaches. The Advaita or Monistic philosophy opposes the doctrine of Dualism or Dwaitvada.
If these thoughts do not co-ordinate, they never lead to right know¬ledge. Acharaya Samant Bhadra’s observations are very illuminating; “Advaita philosophy (monism ) cannot exist without Dwait doctrine, since Advaita is the negation of Dwaitvada ( Duality ). This shows that there cannot be pure Advaita-vada.
Those who see everything right in Advaita or monastic doctrine should seriously con¬sider over the above argument. For example, when we say X is a Non-Hindu, it shows the existence of Hindu sect also, which is negatived by the term Non-Hindu. In the absence of Hindus the expres¬sion Non-Hindu would not have any significance.
Unless there is a particular thing existing nobody will be wise to speak against it. In the like manner the very expression Advaita would be meaningless, unless we admit the existence of Dwaita. The said Acharaya further argues in favour of Syadvada, t“Do you establish your Advaita doctrine by some reason ? If so, there will be the duality of reason and the effect cause and its consequence.
If you assert your doctrine without assigning any reason merely by word of mouth the opposition can also follow your footsteps and support his view of DwaUavada ( dualism).
At this stage of conflict and intellectual acrimony Syadvada approaches as an angel of peace and adjudicates m these significant words; “Look here, don’t quarrel; both approaches are correct. From the generic view-point of mere existence all are one.
There is no dualism or pluralism since everything, be it a mode, attribute or subs’ratum is spoken of by the nomenclature “Sata or Existence”; there is no difference from this generic view-point But there is other view-point also.
From the stand-point of Substratum, attributes or modes there is no Monism but Pluralism. Therefore reality would be described both ways. From the view-point of existence Monism represents the truth, whereas from the stand-point of details and diversities Pluralism is equally true.
When we have the sense-of-class without its component parts we adopt the generic view; but when we have the individual-sense instead of the class-view we speak of reality, which denies generic-sense. The class-view is different from the particular view; e. g. The word “Europcon” comprises of the English, Germans, Russians etc.
When we have the idea of different nationalities the nomenclature “Europeon” would not serve our purpose; in that case we will be inclined to distribute the word into different nations of Europe only. The sub-division will be confined to only Europeon countries.
If we use a wider term ‘man-kind’ the entire human race will be covered by this general word. The widest term is Sat or Existence. This Term knows no divisions. The view-point that the world of our experience is a mere illuson-‘Maya’ like the objects comprehends?
ded in a dream is not accepted by the Jain thinkers. The existence of objective world cannot be denied merely on the basis of analogies without assigning any reason. We see that crow is black; the cuckoo is also of black complexion therefore on the analogy of black colour the crow cannot become the cuckoo. The irrational stand will be immediately falsified, the moment one hears the melodious song of the cuckoo.
Our knowledge of objective world consisting of water, fire, house, horse and the like cannot be termed as mere illusion or appearance. The reality is perceived by our concrete experience and other sources of knowledge, whereby we differentiate truth from the mire of falsehood. Prof. A.Chakravarti’s observations are thought-provoking; “The external world revealed through the Pramanas consists of real objects and hence should not be dismissed as illusory.
In this respect the Jain theory of knowledge rejects the theory of Maya of Advaitism as well as the Buddhistic doctrine of illusoriness of the objective world. The function of Jnana ( knowledge ) is merely to reveal on the one hand the objective reality, which is already existing and also to reveal itself, on the other hand. Knowledge therefore, is like a lamp which on account of its luminosity reveals other objects ; s well as itself, the objects so revealed being real.
The external objects so known are independent, in-asmuch as they exist by themselves and yet are related to knowledge as they are revealed by knowledge. Similarly, in the case of the soul, it is both the subject and the object of knowledge in one; this inner experience is able to reveal the nature of Chetna entity-the soul” ( The Cultural Heritage of India-PP. 2 9 210 ).
This philosophy of Maya can be true also. When a man is disgusted with the world and gets deep mental shock due to some horrifying tragedies in life, his entire outlook is changed. He loses all interest and attachment for the alluring objects of the world and retires in seclusion to pass his time as a saint whose attention is mainly centred upon his Self in utter disregard of the luxuries of the world.
From the view-point of this disgusted person the entire world appears like a phantom of imagination; but from the view point of other persons every object of the world which is cognized by the intelligent soul is real and true. In this light the summary rejection of the objective world as mere illusion is unsound and opposed to reason and experience. We should bear in mind that Syadvada, doctrine stands for harmony, coordination, cooper¬ation and concord.
It is never hostile and has always a friendly approach. As positive and negative wires of electricity, when joined together produce brilliant light, similarly seemingly opposite ap¬proaches of truth like positive and negative aspects of thought when coordinate produce light as well as delight. Acharya Aanritcbandra says, that Syadvada leads us to reality.
As a milk-maid obtains butter out of curd by drawing one side of the rope and loosening the other side, similarly this Syadvada doctrine makes one attribute essential from a particular point of view only; but then other attributes become un-essential or secondary. This process of thinking and its expression undergoes a change like the tightening and loosening of the rope by the milkmaid while churning.
This subject of reconciliation and harmony of disputing approaches to truth has been dealt with by the master logician Samantabhadra in his monumental work ‘Aptamimansa’ in 114 couplets-slokas. Akalankdeo has written a commentary thereon called ‘Astasati’.
Vidya- nandi again wrote a commentary thereon consisting of eight thousand slokas in Sankrit language known as Ashta sahastri If the modern thinkers make a thorough study of these works, they will fully grasp the glory and sublimity of Syadvada, and its importance for universal intellectual fraternity.
In ancient India, when sectarian sim and fanaticism were rampant some Indian writers had cruelly discarded and condemned this priceless treasure of sublime approach to truth; but these days due to contact of East and West, eminent scholars come forward to appreciate the doctrine of Syadvada in glowing terms, without any hesitation or hitch. The Hindu University Prof.
P. B. Adhikari, Head of the philosophy department observes, “It is this intellectual attitude of impartiality without which no scientific or philosophical researches can be successful, is what Syadavada stands for. Even learned Sankaracharya is not free from the charge of injustice that he has done to the doctrine. Syad¬vada emphasises the fact that no single view of the universe or any part of it would be complete.
There will always remain the possibilities of viewing it from other stand-points.” The erudite Vedic scholar Dr. Ganganath Jha’s words are very significant, “When I read the refutation of this Syadvada by Sankaracharya I had come to the conclusion that the doctrine of Syad¬vada is very sound and that the Acharyas of Vedanta have failed to understand it.
I am sure if Sankara had taken the trouble to study the Jain scriptures, he would not have taken the pains to criticise this doctrine.” In fact an impartial thinker’s admiration for the doctrine increases, the more he dives deep into its beauty. Poet Dhananjaya says, “The voice of a person shows that he is free from fever, similarly the Syadvada doctrine establishes the fact that the Jain Tirthankara is free from mental flaws”.
Poet Jinasena observes; that this Syadvada doctrine is sufficient to prove that its propounders, the Tirthamkaras, must have been equipped with omniscience, for without the all-embracing know¬ledge of all the attributes and substances one could not have revealed this marvellous solution of all the philosophical riddles and tangles.
In Majjhim Nikaya we find the reference of the omniscience of Lord Nataputta Mahavira. Hearing this Buddha says15 “a” qa sjffrqi swfer” I like this thing He does not speak any word against the omniscience of Mahavira. This is sufficient to establish the omniscience of Lord Mahavira, who preached the doctrine of Syadvada.
According to the Logician Akalamka, Lord Rishabha Dev and all the remaining Tirthamkaras had expounded the glory of Syadvada, therefore they must have been equipped with that all-embracing unique know¬ledge called Kewal-gyana . The Western scholars like Jacobi, Thomas and others are to be thanked for bringing into light this glorious doctrine, otherwise the dark and dismal clouds of sectarianism and pettimindedness would have enveloped the glory of this lustrous doctrine.
Practical value of the doctrine : This doctrine of Syadvada or relative-pluralism is of immense value in our every day life. Most of the conflicts and complications arise due to our vanity that whatever I say is only true and all else is wrong.
This short-sighted, pettyminded and perverted vision stands as an impediment in understanding the point that truth is universal. We are too small to comp¬rehend the entire reality. Our limited intellect can have a glimpse of few facts of the grand truth. In this connection Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s observations are remarkable ; “We have to realise that truth is manysided and it is not the monopoly of any group formation.”
( Bhartiya Vidhya Bhavan Journal, Bombay, April 1958 ). Before closing it appears proper to reproduce the balanced and fair remarks of
Dr. Sir M. B. Niyogi Ex-Chief Justice, Nagpur : “The Anekanta- vada or the Syadavada stands unique in the world’s thought. If followed in practice it will spell the end of all the warring beliefs and bring harmony and peace to mankind”. May the sun of Syadvada illumine the path of concord, and intellectual fraternity.