What are the problems which Jainas face when they reject the concept of Absolute? Why should they accept an Absolute to do away with the attacks faced? I know basic points like
1) relatives are there always wrt Absolute only
2) they have take reality as mathematical sum of all relatives but reality is something more than that
3) they have shown half hearted acceptance of an Absolute by accepting various differences like kevala jnana VS syadvad
As far as relative knowledge is concerned, some others schools have also accepted that knowledge is relative but Jainas are satisfied by accepting knowledge is relative and they have not tried to synthesise various relatives into a higher reality like Absolute.
So what's the problem if they don't want to explain reality this way? They anyway can describe what reality means in empirical world i.e. realistic pluralism. Though they have not accepted the concept of Absolute, does any other problem arise apart from the above points? Also, how accepting absolute can solve their problem. Also, is there any other way to solve the problems and at the same time not accepting the concept of Absolute reality?
Please help. TIA.
Comments
problems because of no Absolute -
1) When souls have same attributes initially, then why they are many? This questions cannot be answered by pluralistic reality. If they had accepted ==> there is an Absolute with is the ultimate reality like Shankara, this prob would have been solved.
2) How can spirit and matter unite? If soul's essence is ignorance ==> no liberation possible, If ignorance is not souls essence ==> no bondage possible. Thus there cannot be a case of ignorant soul from antiquity or a soul free from ignorance since beginning as both matter and soul cannot combine as they are different realities and with different characters. ==> SOLUTION ==> Accept Absolute as reality and matter & soul as its aspects ==> problem of justifying bondage and liberation is solved. But then, what will liberation look like if matter and soul are aspects of same reality? (this is my problem)
3) Similarly no absolute paves a way for attacks on ==> Kevala Jnana (attackers will say ==> it is nothing but absolute).
The conception of non dualistic absolute is so logically and strongly propounded by Shankara, that any dualistic/pluralistic philosophy can be criticised by Shankara's standards.
It is said that absolutism creeps in Jaina philosophy through the backdoor because of
1) relatives presume the existence of an absolute 2) reality otherwise according to Jaina becomes a mathematical sum of relatives, which it is not and cannot be 3) Kevalajnan 4) Syadvada , or relativistic theory falls short of its own standards. which you have mentioned is all correct. Keep it simple.
You may add other points though, without making it complex. Thanks for posing a real doubt . I see ForumIAS full of only Mains appeared candidates these days becoming very Prelims unfriendly and people seeking advice on which coaching to join, instead of discussing questions or current affairs.
When they reject absolute....then problems arise that
1-anektaa ki vyaakhyaa ektaa se darshan me taarkik tarike se hoti hai as shankaras brahm rupi ektva se jagat rupi vividhatva ki vyakhya...but jaina ne anekaantvaad se jagat ki vyakyaa tarktah nhi becoz yahaa bahutatvavaad ko swikaar karne se sabhi tatva ek dusre ko simit kar dete hain atah absolute ya nirpeksha tatva ko swikaar krnaa aavasyak
2-syaad vaad ke anusaar saara gyaan saapeksha satya...lekin gyaan ki visheshtaa anivaaryataa va saarvabhaumtaa hai...acc shankar brhm hi gyaan hai va gyaan trikaalabaadhit hai...isliyee absolue na maanne se acc shankar jain darshan sandehvaadi darshan ban jaata hai
3-absolute substance as iswar ya brahm hi mukti ka prayojan hai as shankara saarupya mukti...raamanuja saayujya mukti...etc...jain ka jiva keval anant chatustaya se yukt ho jaata but pehli baar bandhan me kaise aaya ya jiva ki rachnaa kisne ki ...yah vyaakhya binaa absolute ke logically nhi..
4-saapeksha tatva ki baat logically nirpeksha tatva ke context me hi ki jaa sakti hai...
5-yadi absolute knowledge nhi to kevali gyaan nhi....aur yadi kevali gyaan nhi to kaivalya ya mukti bhi sambhav nhi..na hi panch mahaavrat jise neeti meemansaa ki jarurat...atah binaa absolute ke jain dharma hi adambhav
But jis tarah shankar vyaavhaarik va naagarjun samvritti ke star par jagat ki vividhtaa va mithyaa gyaan ki baat krtee hain vaise hi jaina vyaavhaarik star par syaadvaad ya saapekshataa ka samrthan krtee hain...jis tarah parmaarth ke star parsaare bhed mit jaate hain va nirpeksha brahm ka gyan hotaa hai usi tarah jaina bhi kaivalya gyan ke roop me nirpeksha gyan ko swikaar bhi kartee hain jo ki vastuon ke anant dharmon avadhi paryaay manah paryaay jaise alaukik shaktiyon se yukt hai
Lekin fir bhi substance ke level par shankar ki bhaati bram ya nirpeksha tatva ko swikaar na kiyaa
Niriswarvaadi ya nirpeksha tatva ko swikaar na krnee se shankar ne jiva va jagat ki garimaa badhaayi
Got your following points -
2 - Here you are indicating how Shankara says that Jains are skeptic (Par yaha mujhe lagta hai k unki Philosophy sandevaadi nhi hai, 'syat' ka matlab 'may be' nhi hai, uska matlab to 'saapekshta' hai (relative) )
3 - You are explaining the problem which the concept of liberation and bondage faces if there is no Absolute.
4 - Relatives can be described logically in context of Absolute.
5 - Yaha aap kevaljnana hi Absolute hai aur saath me kaha hai k Sankara, nagarjun take this phenomenal reality of manyness to a higher level.
I didn't get your first point. Initially aap kehena chahte hain k relatives are described by an absolute like Sankara does, aage ka nhi samjha. I think you are raising the same point which i have raised in 1st point of my second comment. I think i have understood all the problems which Jainas face.
But thank you reply k liye. Hindi me hi sahi.