Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome viewers to this session. In this session, we will discuss the jaina theory of nayavada
and syadavada. To recap what we had discussed in the last class, we said that jaina philosophy
as a school as a system took a long time for its own existence among other schools. And
as you know that there are many scholars contributed to the theory in Jainism; and we find there
are three theory that Jainism proposes, one is anekantavada, another is syadavada, and
the third one is nayavada. This syadavada and nayavada are derived from
the metaphysical doctrine anekantavada, and this syadavada and nayavada are the epistemological
and logical derivations form the metaphysical doctrine anekantavada. Jainism also said that
to conquer the passions, as you know, that this jaina stands for to conquer to conquer
the passions to anger dvesha, raga, and all attachment to the worldly affairs. So, therefore,
they said that there are two types of realities found in this earth.
In one side you find living creatures, which includes worms, insects, reptiles, animals,
plants, human beings, birds, etcetera, those who has life; in other hand, you find that
inanimate objects those who do not have life, those who have life you find that soul is
there in every life, and consciousness is the essential attribute or essential characteristics
of the soul. Therefore, Jainism prescribes the view that,
we should not hurt others, we should not kill any life, we should not harm to any life because
all life has a equal rights to live in this earth. And as a human being we must understand
that if you are killing a life, we are killing a soul, and therefore we should not kill any
life in this earth; while accepting these two realities they further said that there
are not only two realities, there more other realities we find among the realities.
Therefore, they said that there are plenty of realities found in this earth and each
reality talks about each substance; henceforth, you find there are many substances in this
earth, and each substance has many aspects. Therefore, we as a human being, we cannot
know all the aspects, and we cannot able to know even all the aspects of a particular
substance, what we can know about that object is very little about that object, that is
what Jainism said; the partial knowledge about that object.
And further said that, there will be a only one person may be named as [fl] or omniscient
person, who can able to know all the aspects of that substance, and able to claim what
the substance looks like. But we as a ordinary human being, we as a human being having very
little knowledge, we cannot claim about the about the whole object, we cannot claim anything
about the whole object as such. Because since we have a limited knowledge our judgment to
that object will be also act accordingly; therefore, our judgment on a particular object
which is relative and partial, we said all these things in the last class.
We continue with continuation to the continuation what we have discussed what we had discussed
in the last class. In today class, we will focus on nayavada and syadavada; nayavada
said that, and accept that the anekantavada, the doctrine of anekantavada, where anekantavada
said that there are plenty of substances exist in this earth, and each substance has innumerable
characteristics. Here, nayavada said that, even to know on
a particular aspect among other aspects of a substance it is very relative, because whatever
we claim on that aspect among other aspect of that substance it is a very little about
that aspect, because that aspect may have many more things, and we could not able to
know that, because we have a limited knowledge. And therefore, nayavada said that, whenever
we judge a particular object, we judge that object in relation to other object, we judge
the aspect in relation to other aspects, therefore our knowledge is very relative and partial.
If you see my slides, what I have said that nayavada states the analytic view of reality,
it expresses the partial reality of the object, as I said what is the partial, because of
we as human being having limited knowledge, we cannot claim about the object in its full
form; and whatever we claim about the object is very little, very partial and relative,
and whenever we judge on an object saying that the object is so and so, the object is
look like so and so, there also our judgment is relative and partial, because we cannot
able to know all the aspects of an substance or of a of an object or of a substance.
Judgment based on the partial knowledge is also included in nayavada, nayavada consists
of sevenfold judgment nayavada which is talks about the partial knowledge of a cogniser
towards an object; it says that nayavada though it has a sevenfold judgments, if you put together
the seven fold judgments, it is not even able to explain the complex nature of object; when
they said that the complex nature of object what they mean is that, each object has so
many characteristics both positive and negative. Positive characteristics are those characteristics
which are present in the object; and negative characteristics are those characteristics
which we do not find in that object; in this way Jainism explains what is positive character
of an object, and what is negative character of an object; here Jainism clearly said that
nayavada consist of sevenfold judgments, and this sevenfold judgments if you put together
they would not even able to explain the complex nature of object.
Further they said that, because the complex nature of an object whatever we express our
view on a particular object it is a partial in nature, it is a relative in nature; and
further they said that a cognizer when he or she cognizes the object, he or she must
have a particular opinion on that object, while appreciating that opinion he or she
should not decline others opinion on that object as well.
The reason behind that whatever his or her opinion on that object it is a partial and
relative, as a same thing may be found in case of others; therefore, one must respect
others opinion on an object, others opinion may be relatively true as it is like your
opinion. So, therefore, nayavada said that every ones opinion on object is true and relative,
because all their judgment on an object is very partial in its nature.
Now, let us discuss what are those seven nayas, so see the seven nayas I read it for you,
the first naya is known as naigama naya which talks about universal-particular standpoint;
the second one is samgraha naya, that means, we judge an object from an universal standpoint;
the third one is vyavahara naya, there we judge an object from the particular standpoint;
the fourth one is ruju sutra naya, the standpoint of momentariness that how that how you cognize
a particular moment, and our object, and our judgment of that particular moment of an object
is real and partial and also its true. Though things are changing from time to time,
further they said sabda naya the standpoint of synonymous the utterances, when somebody
utter something, how an individual judges, and how an individual understand that utterances,
as a result he or she able to communicate or able to interpret his or her utterances;
here you find the relation between speaker and the hearer, the speaker speak something,
and the hearer understands that one, and how it happens and how it is relative in its nature.
Then sixth point is a samabhirudha naya; the seventh point is evambhuta naya. So, now,
further I am reading for you in the same way you can also it utter, it this a naigama naya,
samgraha naya, vyavahara naya, ruju sutra naya, sabda naya, samabhirudha naya, evambhuta
naya. But if I see in all cases the judgment of it cogniser or an object is relative and
partial, and if you consider that partial and relative knowledge as a as the whole decision
about that object then we commit a error, the error is named as nayabhas, I repeat said
that whatever our knowledge on an object is very relative and partial in character.
Therefore, our judgment on an object also falls under the category of relative and partial;
here in Jainism claims that, if you consider that partial knowledge or relative knowledge
as a full knowledge or as a complete knowledge about that object then we commit a error,
because many times we think that whatever we know is correct, and whatever we know that
is the knowledge, and apart from that there is nothing, here Jainism very clearly emphasis
that whatever we are claiming on an object is very partial and relative.
Therefore, while respecting to others opinion on that object as well we must not claim that
our judgment on an object or our knowledge of an object which is relative in character,
we will be considering that one as a full-fledged knowledge about that object; therefore, it
will be always an error or a mistakes from an individual if he or she will consider his
or her opinion on an object conveys about the object in its full form. In this way,
he said that one should not think that his or her judgment on an object is expresses
about the whole object, because everything is relative and partial in its character.
Now, let us discuss all these nayas one after another; sequentially, as I had shown you
in my last slide, the first one is naigama naya - universal and particular standpoint.
Now, you first understand then we will read it what I have written in my slides. There
are many situations we as a human being, we as a cogniser, we cognize an object by justifying
universal, and particular character of an object; here Jainism claims that, if you separate
this particular and universal standpoint of an object, then we will commit an error, and
it is obvious, and it is an evident in the phenomenal work.
An example Jainism has jainism has given that, you find in all the books of Indian philosophy
where you find Jainism is a school, they said that a person carrying salt, rice, water,
fire, etcetera with him, now another person is asking that what are you doing, he saying
that now I am preparing the food; if you say that though the same though in that time in
that moment he is not preparing the food, but his intension is purpose of the action
is to prepare the food. Here Jainism is Jainism saying that we need
not to look to the object like water fire, then vegetables, then say other things, other
equipments in a very particular, from the particular standpoint; if you say that the
particular standpoint, and you are not making an universal standpoint by collaborating all
these ingredients or all these components, then we may commit a error, the error is that
we cannot able to know the purpose for which then individual is carry all these components
with him or her. Therefore, he is saying that, it states that,
naigama naya states that we look at a thing as having both universal and particular qualities,
and we do not distinguish between them, we know in one hand the particular qualities
of each and every component that he is carry, and in in other side or in other hand we are
also observing the fact that he is taking all these components for a particular purpose.
Therefore, he is saying that we should not distinguish between the particular and universal
standpoint while judging a particular phenomenon, it becomes fallacious when both universal
and particular qualities are considered are separately real and absolute.
If you consider that water is real and absolute in its own standpoint then rice is real and
its absolute own standpoint in the same as fire vegetables so on and so forth, then we
cannot come to a conclusion saying that he is preparing the food, and while claiming
that he is preparing the food as an universal standpoint if you are not consider in the
particular standpoint, then again we will commit an error, that means, we cannot even
know that for what purpose he is carrying all those things, we cannot able to identify
cannot able to judge what is his or her purpose. Therefore, he is saying that there are many
cases the cognizer judges an object or about an object by mixing both universal and particular
standpoint or by justifying both universal and particular standpoint, and again also
it is a relative in character; the way an individual judges to this phenomena other
people may not be judging in the same way, however since every judgment is a relative
in character one has to respect others opinion on that particular phenomena as well. In this
way, in naigama naya, jainism claims that, many times we must we must we must not distinguish
the universal and particular standpoint of an object while judging that object.
Now, moving further this is samgraha naya; samgraha naya states that universal standpoint,
there are many situations many context we as a cogniser, we judge an objects from a
universal standpoint; while judging from the universal standpoint we ignore the particular
standpoint in many occasions, and we thought that the universal standpoint is real and
absolute. However, the particular standpoint is unreal,
and it is so then again we commit the error, the false, that is nayabhas; therefore, we
must think that on the which standpoint we are judging an object, and also here the message
here Jainism conveying is that there are many stands point that one has to look to that
matter and judges accordingly. So, therefore, they claiming only one side that this is the
only final judgment, it is it cannot be the correct one, because judgment can be made
on that object from a different angle for different purposes.
Henceforth, just by considering the universal standpoint and rejecting others are unreal
it is not the correct judgment about that object; and henceforth, while we considering
the universal standpoint, we must also consider the particular standpoint to judge an object
to claim something about that object. The third naya say that vyavahara naya, vyavahara
naya talks about the particular standpoint in many occasions you consider the objects
from a particular standpoint, and you claim that this object and my this object is real
and absolute based on my judgment or whatever I judge to that object its real and final,
there would not be any further judgment to that object or no one can claim any other
judgment of different type on that object, because my judgment is final, because I have
considered the object from this or that standpoint. Here Jainism saying that, you may be consider
that object from a particular standpoint, this is one among the other standpoint, but
you cannot claim that others standpoint are unreal and not absolute. So, therefore, if
you consider the object from a particular standpoint, and claiming that your judgment
is real and absolute, and ignoring the fact that others judgment are unreal and absolute,
then we commit an error nayabhas; therefore, we must respect others opinion those who made
from a different standpoint on that object as well.
Now, further ruju suthra naya, the standpoint of momentariness, in this naya the real is
identified with the momentary the particulars are reduced to a series of moments and any
given moment is regarded as real; take an example, any example that you can see, see
for example, you are working in a laptop right, you are working in a laptop or you are writing
something in m s word you type each word you go and typing, whenever you type a particular
letter or a particular symbol, that particular symbol and letter is real for you for that
moment. Suppose, you are writing a word or typing
a word let us say horse, when you started typing h o r s e, each moment is different,
when you type the letter h is a different moment, then when you type the letter o it
is a different moment, but however, you find that h whenever you type that moment is true
and real for that time; henceforth, he is saying that, each moment its real and one
can judge to a particular moment by claiming that this moment is real for me.
There may be cases instead of typing h o r s e, you can type h u r s e, here though the
word spelling is wrong, but that typing for the particular moment u which is not a correct
over there in that word, still u also is a real over there in a particular moment, for
the next moment you can say that wrongly I might have typed. So, therefore, they say
that, each moment its real and it is a relative in character, but the fallacy will arise only
when you claim that you claim that your judgment on that your judgment on that particular time
which is real. You consider that reality on and over about
that object saying that the whole expression is also real, while considering the u in the
particular moment as a real and absolute you consider the whole word horse is also real
while typing h u r s e, then we commit a fallacy; but if you say that in a particular moment
you typed u, and u is real over there and absolute then Jainism has no problem with
this. Therefore, they say that though everything
is moving step by step, everything is as a momentary everything is moving step by step
or everything is a state of constant flux, but each moment is real and is absolute, and
while claiming each moment is real we cannot decline the others moment or we cannot decline
the absoluteness of other moments. So, for example, a table, a table is presented
before you, the way you see now after ten years if you back to see that table the table
would not be looks like the same as you are seen earlier; however, you can claim that
in that time in your past what you have seen to the table was real in that time, but now
what you are seen the table is also equally real, because each moment you have seen it
was a different, you have seen in the past moment, you have seen in the present moment
therefore, these two moment are totally different, the successive each successive moments are
different, however the each successive moments are real and absolute in that context.
Now, further if you see that sabda naya every word that we utter it refers to either a thing
or a quality or relation or a action, any word that you utter, see utter see if you
utter the word say horse, if you utter the word say computer, if you the utter the word
say relationship, if you the utter the word let us say color, see any word that you utter
it refers to either a quality or thing, thing is object over here, then here is a relation
or an action. So, if you ask someone stop is an action,
the word stop stands for action, so therefore here you find that each word has a relation
to its meaning, and we understand the word because of its meaning. So, therefore, there
is a relation of a meaning and the word it stands for there is a relation between a word
and the meaning it stands for or many times you find there is a word, and there is a correspondent
meaning of it which it signifies. But in many other cases or there are many
examples that we find that to express a particular word, to express a particular meaning there
are different words exist in our vocabulary system. So, therefore, we communicate the
same meaning for by using the different word in our communication, what the point here,
Jainism focused is that a word is necessarily related to the meaning which it signifies.
But sometimes a particular meaning may be conveyed by more than one word; however, a
word and its meaning have a relative relationship, and if we do not keep this in view we commit
the error. We know that each word stands for a particular meaning or each word signifies
a particular meaning, and there are many words may be conveying the same meaning in some
occasions; if this is so one must understand that particular word in a particular time
convey a meaning, and the same meaning may not exist in other moment.
For example, in a drama a person in the drama while performing some actions king in a drama
an individual doing some actions kings actions, so there you can say that he is a king, because
he behaves like a king, and he also acted like a king, but in the real life he may not
be king; so, therefore, the king while you utter when he or she is doing drama it is
a different then in his real life; therefore, one must understand that the word king will
be appropriate or will be fixed only when there is an action involved or there is a
context, that means, a particular word has a different meaning for a different context.
And if one ignores by considering the fact that a word is not necessarily changing its
meaning by time to time, then he or she commits the error; if he or she thinks that a word
has a particular meaning, and it will be across the context, then it is not so; therefore,
here Jainism saying that, a particular word may convey particular meaning, but there are
difference word conveying the same meaning as well, therefore you should not consider
that whatever the word and meaning stands for it will be remain as it is forever.
However, the relation for that moment the particular word and what it signifies it is
true and absolute; in the same way, if other people have utter some other word conveying
the same meaning it is also true and absolute for him. So, therefore, if you can see that
these two persons have their opinion on that meaning and word in a particular meaning by
using a different word is a relative in character, in this way you find that all our judgment
on a particular object while communicating through the words it is also relative in character.
Now, the next step will be samabhirudha naya, in this naya jaina distinguishes terms according
to their root, samabhirudha naya it distinguishes terms according to the root, any words that
we find or any term that we find it distinguishes from the root; that means, by considering
the root we get the meaning of that word, an example say pankaja, pankaja within caught
and what it conveys is that born of mud any creature of plant that born of mud, but conventionally
we have we have restricted the meaning of pankaja to the lotus.
So, here Jainism is claiming that though pankaja has a different meaning from its root, if
you if you if you find out its root it saying that something something something born of
mud, but however whenever somebody whenever somebody says that pankaja we immediately
refer or we immediately understand the concept lotus, because lotus is a is a is an is an
object refers to the pankaja. But if you just evaluate to find out the root of that word,
then it is different meaning in the same way.
There are many other examples I can give to you; suppose gauh in Hinduism we say that
gauh mata, it is a cow, but if you see the sanskrit term gauh, that means, someone is
moving then only you can say gauh, but however in the context of Hinduism it is restricted
to the cow; what he is saying that a particular utterances has a different meaning, sometimes
its restricted to a particular meaning or an object, and sometimes it conveys a different
meaning. Therefore, anything that you claim it is a
relative in its character; therefore, though we know that that that though we know that
pankaja which is a which is the root the root meaning of pankaja is born of mud, but in
conventional sense we refers to the object called lotus; in the same way if you say gauh
it also refers to the animal cow, in this way you find that everything is relate a relative
in its character, and we as a cognizer we have a partial judgment on any object that
we see in this earth. Further evambhuta naya, the last one this
naya it is a specialized form of naya, this naya holds that a particular object can be
referred by a particular name only when its meaning is fulfilled; what it says is that,
whenever you utter a word make sure that the word have a particular purpose, and the word
has a particular action in that particular moment. Therefore, they say that the naya
holds that a particular object can be referred by a particular name only when its meaning
is fulfilled; if you say gauh, that means, the animal has to move; if the animal is not
moving you cannot claim that animal is gauh. There are any there are n number of example
you find, for example, kalasa, kalasa in hindu religion, kalasa will be used for different
purposes, but generally what it meant is that whenever there is a pot you put in front of
your god or goddesses for the worship you say that kalasa, but whenever you say kumbha,
it is also have a different meaning. And kalasa and kumbha though it appears more
or less same, but however these two things has a different meaning in different context;
kumbha serves some particular purposes; and when a particular object used for particular
purposes you term that object with a different name say kumbha, but if let us say the object
is serving the purpose of kumbha you cannot I you cannot claim that object or you cannot
name that object say kalasa. So, therefore, here Jainism saying that how
it is relative or judgment about that object; an object is a an object has many purposes,
we the human being use the object for our different purposes; therefore, every object
is used in different context for different purposes, therefore the object should have
a different meaning; and whenever we claim with the particular name to that object its
simply employ that the object must be engaging or doing a particular action, and if this
is the case then our judgment is partially correct.
In the same way if other people will be judging that particular object with the different
name while that object is serving a different purpose then also it is true and correct and
also absolute; therefore, though the particular object is named differently, because they
are doing in different purposes, however both are true absolute and relative in their character.
Same thing I have written here; they said that a cow should be called gauh only when
it moves and not when it is lying down, the same thing kalasa I have explain to you now,
when an object is used for a specific purpose it is name or designation will be specific,
an object is thus treated differently for the different purposes.
So, that means, when an object is object is used for a particular purpose, you claim that
object with a different name or you name that object so and so, but whenever the object
again used for a another purpose you cannot name that object what you had named earlier,
because since it is doing to different purposes may have a different, may a have different
name as well. Therefore our knowledge about an object which
is very very partial and limited, as a result our judgment on an object is relative and
character, but in all this naya sevenfold naya you find that whenever Jainism talks
about a particular object or a judgment on a particular object they relate to that object
to other object like a universal and particular standpoint, universal standpoint, particular
standpoint, and many more things. Therefore, they claim that if you put together
all these nayas still it would not able to explain the complex nature of reality. So,
this is the way we must understand that how we are limited in our knowledge and understanding
about an object, and as a result we should not have a ego or ahamkara by claiming that
whatever we know about an object that is the whole about an object or opinion is the opinion
about the object, there cannot be any further or multiple opinion may exist on that object.
Now, continuing further the jainism claim they made the final claim saying that in this
way in this way means, all this naya after explanation of all the naya they said that
in this way nayavada states that every judgment expresses on an object is drawn from its relative
standpoint, but not of the whole object, but if your judgment which is which is relative
and partial, if you claim that judgment to be a final and whole about that object they
may commit the false, that is a nayabhas the continuing further continuing further to syadavada
We will see what syadavada is talking about, as I said there is a there is a metaphor was
used that anekantavada was the bird, and a bird has two wings, one is syadavada, and
other is nayavada, what we had discussed is all about nayavada. Now, we will explaining
now now we will explain or we will discuss syadavada, syadavada is derived from the word
syat, syat stand for may be perhaps probability or you say sometimes all these cases, it’s
not sure or partial correct. So, therefore, I have written syat stands
for somehow, perhaps, probably, may be, etcetera; and syadavada he also talking about that how
our knowledge, how the cogniser knowledge is relative in character while judging an
object, how we cannot judge an object in its full form; he is saying that syadavada by
accepting the claim from anekantavada saying that, there are many substances exist in the
earth, and each substance has innumerable characteristics; and here what they are saying
is that our judgment on any aspect of an substance is true and absolute if you consider the relative
standpoint. So, therefore, they said that knowledge of
an object is relative and conditional in character; syadavada is also known as saptabhanginaya
or seven forms of judgments; as like nayavada you find also sevenfold judgments in syadavada,
syadavada is also familiarized as dialectic of seven steps of judgments and all the seven
judgments of syadavada together can able to explain the complex nature of object unlike
nayavada. In nayavada what they said is that, whenever
they are judging on an object, these have a partial judgment and their judgment on that
object is also related to other objects as well, but here syadavada said that the sevenfold
of judgment if you put together it could able to explain the complex nature of object unlike
nayavada.
Now, we will see how this syadavada can able to explain, so this doctrine enunciates the
synthetic view of reality; however, if you see the nayavada, it states about the analytical
view of reality, synthetic view means it expresses about the worldly affairs, it expresses through
our which we experienced in this world. Now, it has also sevenfold of judgments, and all
are emphasizing what is an object of having relative and partial in character; see all
our judgments, syadavada said that, all our judgment is a relative and partial in character.
All these sevenfold judgments are emphasizing that our judgments on an object are relative
in character, because they are based on our partial knowledge; thus instead of saying
that the grass is green, what syadavada is claiming that we must say or we should say
relatively speaking the grass is green, because we as a human being having limited knowledge
neither we know all the varieties of grass nor we know all the characteristics of grass
that find in the object grass. Therefore, we must say that instead of grass
is green we say that relatively speaking the grass is green; and a famous example is a
very very familiar example, some of you may not be knowing it, therefore I think this
will be appropriate if I will discuss with you; there are six blinds men, and the task
has given to them stating that find how an elephant looks like, so the six blind men
touches the different parts of the elephant and claims the elephant in a different way.
If you see that the person who touches one of the leg of an elephant claim that the elephant
is a pillar; the person who again touches its tail claims that the elephant is a rope;
in the same way you find that persons who those who touch trunk of an elephant ear of
an elephant, belly, and tusk of an elephant respectively they claim that the elephant
is looks like a tree branch, hand fan, wall, and solid pipe; here Jainism conveying the
message clearly saying that, all these opinion on the elephant is true, because they are
relative in character. However, their relative judgment if you claim
that this judgment is all about the elephant, then here we commit the fallacy; here it is
a particular message that Jainism conveying saying that, that all these six blind men
whatever opinion they are giving on an elephant is a relatively correct and absolute; however,
that relative knowledge of an elephant or an object cannot be claimed, cannot be treated
as the knowledge of that object in its full form.
Therefore, Very judgment is relative in its character. Now, the sevenfold judgment of
syadavada we will discuss, before discussing that syadavada we must know that according
to Jainism everything exists from the standpoint of its own substance space, time, and form,
and it does not exist from the view point of other substance space, time, and form - an
example the table exists. So, that the table exist in a particular place,
particular time with a particular width, and made of a particular substance having a having
a particular height, having a particular softness, having a particular length, so on, and so
forth; and therefore, the same object cannot be exist in same objects cannot be exists
in other space, in the same time as well having all the features having the same length, same
width, same breadth, then having the same weight all these features.
Therefore, he is saying that, if an individual judges that object, the table on a particular
moment saying that this object exist in a particular space made of wood, so on, and
so forth, then his or her judgment on that object is true and absolute, and here he can
claim that whatever he is claiming is real. On the other side the person who is claiming
that the object or the table cannot exist in other space having the same features, having
the same width, length, breadth made of wood, etcetera, because a particular table can exist
in a particular space, and in a particular time it cannot be available in two places,
in the same time; if this is so those who negatively saying that the table cannot exist
in other room at the same time. Since it exists in other room, if this is
so then you find that in both the individual their claims are true and absolute, because
in one hand the individual is claiming that the table is exist before me and it is made
of wood and having so and so features, this is true and real. On the other side, the individual
claiming that, since the table exist in that room, it cannot be available in the same time
in other room having the same widths, same size, and made of wood as well; therefore,
there both the standpoint or both the individual are real and absolute, and henceforth no one
is contradicting with others; and therefore, both are true in their knowledge about that
object, and henceforth their judgment about that object is relative and partial in character.
The existence and non-existence of a table are viewed from different standpoints, and
there is no contradiction found in it, if you see in order to understand the complex
nature of objects completely we should understand the seven steps of syadavada, he is saying
that that every object has a innumerable aspects, and to claim about that object we must know
the sevenfold of judgments of syadavada, and once we know the sevenfold of judgment of
syadavada, we put together, it helps you to explain the complex nature of object.
So, in the next class we will discuss what are these sevenfold of judgment or seven forms
of judgment of syadavada, and how really the syadavada really put together all the all
fold of judgment put together in syadavada able to explain the complex nature of object
known as anekantavada; and further we will explain that how other schools really criticize
that Jainism view of anekantavada, syadavada, and nayavada, and after that we will discuss
the Jain ethics. So, this is all about for today class. Thank
you.