Theory of judgment(theory of relatively)

Syadvada -->  theory that "Every judgment is relative".

Logical and epistemological side

Every object has innumerable characters i.e. reality has many aspects but ordinary being, like us, can know only few characters from particular view point, hence all our judgments are partial, relative ,conditional and limited.

Such partial knowledge is Naya and judgments based on it are also Naya.

(every judgment expresses one aspect of reality and is therefore relative and subject to some condition).

The story of blind men and elephant illustrates this truth.

Every judgment should be qualified by some word like 'somehow' or 'syat', so that limitation of this judgment and the possibility of other alternative judgments from other points of view may be always clearly borne in mind.

According to Jainas, we can know an object in 3 ways -

1.      Durniti -(bad judgment) : mistaking partial truth as the whole and complete truth.

2.      Naya - mere statement of relative truth

3.      Parmana - valid judgment

By prefixing 'syat' before nyaya, we acknowledge that every judgment can only be partial/relative and thus gain knowledge in its correct from.

Naya in order to become Parmana must be qualified by 'syat'.

Significance

This view makes Jaina philosophy catholic and tolerant. The parmanas may be different, but they are not contradictory as negation and affirmation are not made from the same stand point. This way, syadvada also promotes respect for other's  point of view.

Example

·         Syad this 4 angled figure is square

·         Syad this 4 angled figure is rectangle

·         Syad this 4 angled figure is rhombus

As we see, each statement is correct from a different point of view without being mutually contradictory.

·         It make our ideas errorless and authentic

·         It provides a middle path between Buddha's theory of momentariness and Sankara's theory of eternity , by accepting and harmonizing both.

Justification

Jiva due to kasaya(passions) attracts karmic particles. These karmic particles causes hindrance in attaining knowledge. Thus, all we know is relative and conditional.

SYADVADA - realistic and not pragmatic

Jainas theory of Syadvada is sometimes compared with the pragmatism of some western thinkers.

Although there is a striking point of resemblance as - pragmatics also recognizes that no judgment is true/false without particular reference to its context and purpose. Even so called self-evident judgments like 2+2=4, is true only in a specific sense.

But there are great differences also.

Jainas are realist but pragmatists have a distinct idealistic bias. According to Jainas, the different judgments about an object are not simply different judgments about object, but they reveal the different real aspects of object. Jainas accept realistic view of truth.

Syadvada is a kind of Relativism, but is realistic and not idealistic

- compared with western theory of relativity

If Jainas is to be called a relativists, they must be understood to be of the realistic type. Our judgments about things are relative - but relative to or dependent upon not simply the mood of judging mind, but upon the relational characters of the many-sided reality itself.

Interpretation of Jainas word 'syat' as 'may be' impart this theory a skeptical or agnostic view. But there is no room for skepticism. It is not the uncertainty of judgment but its relative or conditional character that is  expressed by addition of qualifying word 'syat'.

Criticism of syadvada

1.      Rejected as self-contradictory theory - not justified because contradictory attributes - real and unreal are two different aspects of same thing.

2.      Criticized as theory of probability - everything is probable, then syadvada is also probable. (Jainas theory of relativity of knowledge).

3.      Jainas have rightly pointed that all our knowledge is relative, partial and conditional, others schools have also accepted that. But other schools have made a distinction between relative and absolute but Jainas blindly rejected this. They have strong biasness against absolutism.

4.      They forget their biasness against absolutism when they assert that their teachings alone represents the whole truth. It is claimed that Anekantvada is the only philosophy but it is certainly an half-hearted confession of absolutism.