Anekanta and its parallels between Jain and Hindu mythologies

Summary

In "Anekānta and its parallels between Jain and Hindu mythologies," Deven Yashwant explores the Jain doctrine of Anekānta (non‑absolutism) and compares its ethical and philosophical implications with Hindu mythological narratives. Jainism upholds three golden principles—ahiṃsā (non‑violence), aparigraha (non‑possession) and anekānta (many‑sidedness). Anekānta teaches that reality has infinite aspects and no single viewpoint captures the whole truth. Drawing on thinkers such as Bimal K. Matilal, Yashwant emphasises that Anekānta fosters tolerance by encouraging acceptance of diverse theses without rejecting them. Jain scholars like Y. J. Padmarāja have described Anekānta as a theory of manifoldness, while the 13th‑century polymath Malliṣeṇa likened it to a doctrine recognising that every element of reality contains mutually opposite characteristics such as permanence and impermanence or being and non‑being. Anekānta counters the absolutist standpoint (ekāntavāda) and promotes reconciliation of conflicting views. Yashwant compares this philosophical openness with Hindu mythological stories in which competing sects exalt their own deities. He recounts episodes where sectarian zealots—whether Jains criticising followers of other faiths or Brahmanical devotees condemning Buddhists and Jains—contradicted the spirit of Anekānta. For instance, commentators on the Ācārāṅgasūtra such as Ācārya Ātmā Rāma Sūri advised Jain monks not to offer food or water to saints of other faiths, reflecting exclusivist tendencies. Hindu tales similarly depict rivalries among devotees of Rāma, Kṛṣṇa and Śiva. Yashwant notes that such stories reflect ignorance of Jaina doctrines among the masses and that subsequent teachers like Haribhadra Sūri and Yaśovijaya Sūri criticised claims of monopoly on truth, arguing that only Vardhamāna Mahāvīra possessed omniscience and that supposed miracles by gods are akin to magic tricks. By juxtaposing Jain philosophical concepts with examples from Hindu mythology, Yashwant illustrates both parallels and divergences: while Hindu narratives sometimes acknowledge multiple viewpoints, they often revert to one‑sided glorification. Anekānta, by contrast, insists that truth emerges from synthesising different perspectives. The article thus argues that applying Anekānta to mythological interpretation can reduce sectarian antagonism, encourage dialogue between Jains and Hindus and cultivate humility. Yashwant concludes that the Jains’ doctrine of many‑sidedness remains relevant for inter‑religious understanding and that both communities can benefit from recognising the provisional nature of their myths.