Rgveda says that the truth is one, but the wise call it by different names. Jain philosophy takes it a few steps further to say that the truth doesn’t just have different names, but also has different aspects to it. There are so many ways to look at the truth, and all of them are valid from their own perspective for Jainas.
If we take an example of a single flower, someone might be admiring its color, someone else might be admiring its fragrance, and yet another person might be admiring its shape. All of them are admiring the same flower, but they are admiring different aspects of it. On one hand, science takes an analytical approach to study the flower, where a chemist might be interested in the chemical composition of the flower, while a botanist might be interested in its structure and growth. On the other hand, a poet might be interested in the emotions that the flower evokes in them.
Gestalt psychologists have argued that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If we dissect the flower into its different parts, we might be able to understand each part in isolation, but we will miss out on the beauty that emerges when all the parts come together to form the whole flower. To understand the flower in its entirety, we need to understand and grasp all the different perspectives of the flower. This requires us to synthesise all the different aspects or characteristics of the flower.
This involves grasping how the flower interacts with everything else and how everything else interacts with the flower. We need to see how everything in reality has interacted with the flower in the past, how it is interacting with the flower in the present, and how it will interact with the flower in the future. Thus, to have knowledge of a single flower, we need to know everything about everything in the universe. Our knowledge of even a single flower is incomplete so long as there’s even one unanswered question in the universe.
Jain philosophy acknowledges how limited humans are in their capacity to understand anything in reality. Our limited perspective and cognitive abilities combined with our finite lifespan and the veil of ignorance on our soul makes our understanding of anything relative and incomplete. Our knowledge is always partial and relative to our point of view. This doctrine of manyness and manifoldedness of reality is called Anekantavada in Jainism.
Anekantavada logically leads to Jaina’s theory of relativity of knowledge, called Syadvada, which says that any statement about the truth is only conditionally true, depending on the perspective from which the truth is viewed. Syadvada acts as a tool against dogmatism, encouraging dialogue and a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints.
Jainism’s emphasis on the relativity of knowledge and the multiplicity of perspectives is quite visible in Saptabhangi-naya, which is their framework for talking about reality from seven different perspectives. The most interesting judgement in this is Syad Avyaktam, which suggests that the truth can be so complex sometimes that it cannot be expressed in words and in such cases, its best to not say anything about it. Some even say that this is what Buddha did. On truths which language cannot express, Buddha remained silent.
Western philosophy has talked about similar limitations. Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena approaches this from a different angle. We don’t know what reality is really like (noumena), but our mind together with our senses presents us with a processed version of reality (phenomena). We don’t know (and can probably never know) how different the phenomena is from the noumena.
The question we should ask is, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that what we believe to be true might not be the whole truth?
Psychologist Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development says that learning proceeds through two stages: assimilation and accommodation. We have these tiny little concepts or schemas in our minds that we use to understand the world. When we encounter something new, we first try to fit it into our existing schemas (assimilation). An example of this is a child labeling any 4 legged animal as a “dog”. When we encounter something that doesn’t fit into our existing schemas, we have to modify our schemas to accommodate the new information (accommodation). An example of this is when the child learns that the cat they are seeing is not a dog, and they have to create a new schema for “cat”.
We use both these processes to make sense of the world. Our first instinct is to assimilate new information into our existing beliefs, even if it means distorting the truth. This is our state of comfort. We are more comfortable with our existing beliefs. Change is uncomfortable. It requires us to question our knowledge and to accept that these beliefs are insufficient. But once we’ve passed the initial discomfort, our mind is able to accommodate the new information. It is able to see the world in a new light.
We do all sort of weird things to protect our beliefs. This might involve denying the evidence, rationalizing our actions, or even attacking those who challenge our views. Religious people can justify their existing beliefs based on a book, even if their actions are completely against what the very book recommends. By protecting our beliefs, we are trying to protect our sense of self. We tie our sense of self very tightly to the beliefs we hold. Accepting that our perspective on the truth is incomplete or even wrong can feel like a threat to our identity.
It’s the same mindset (acting on a much larger scale) that prevents us from accepting our mistakes in life. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized people who hide behind God’s will in order to escape responsibility. Freud’s concept of defense mechanisms also explains this phenomenon. For example, denial is a defense mechanism where a person refuses to accept reality or facts in order to protect themselves from the painful truth. Exes blame each other for the failure of their relationship and how the other person burned their life or gave them insecurity issues for life. Rationalization is another defense mechanism where a person justifies their behavior or beliefs with seemingly logical reasons, even if those reasons are not the real cause. When rationalizing, we might say things like “I failed the interview because the interviewer was biased”.
People always find someone to blame for their problems. It’s easier to blame others than to accept that we might be wrong. If not God or ex partners, we find other scapegoats to blame for our problems like our parents, our childhood, our upbringing, our society, our friends, or our government. This is related to the slave mentality that Nietzsche criticized. This martyrdom complex is a way to avoid taking responsibility for our own lives and actions. It is a way to avoid the discomfort of acknowledging our mistakes and shortcomings.
Whether we approach it through the lens of Jainism, psychology, or numerous other philosophies, the underlying message is the same: we should embrace the complexity of truth. Our fragile ego and our limited perception can distort our understanding of reality. While we are waiting on Kaivalya gyaan (which will help us transcend these limitations as per Jainas), we can try to train our ego to have a slightly more compassionate worldview. It fosters empathy and humility. We become more forgiving of not just others, but also ourselves.
A child who refuses to “accommodate” will not be able to learn anything in the world. Both psychology and philosophy are asking us to let go of our fragile sense of self and cultivate openness to other perspectives which might be different and even contradictory to our own. It is the only way to live as suggested by Socrates: “An unexamined life is not worth living.”
Thanks for reading!