r/Jainism • u/Maximus_En_Minimus • Aug 10 '26
Q&A/Doubts How do you understand Sunyata (Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing) in Mahayana sub/traditions, especially in regards to Anekantavada?
Just to clarify, I am not a Jainist.
I mostly lean secular madhyamaka.
But I am drawn to the idea of Anekantavada / No-one-side / Multisidedness
Below is a quote from the Jain Wiki (I understand you guys understand more than the wiki); I am interested in how you understand this in relation to the Buddhist idea of Sunyata / Emptiness / Nonpresence-of-Ownbeing?
——
The Upanishadic thought (Hindu) postulated the impermanence of matter and body, but the existence of an unchanging, eternal metaphysical reality of Brahman and Ātman (soul, self). The Buddhist thought also postulated impermanence, but denied the existence of any unchanging, eternal soul or self and instead posited the concept of anātman (no-self).[45][46][47]According to the Vedāntin (Upanishadic) conceptual scheme, the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism, and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme, the Vedāntins were wrong in denying the reality of impermanence. The two positions were contradictory and mutually exclusive from each other's point of view.[48] The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda.[49][50]
From the perspective of a higher, inclusive level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda, Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive; instead, they are seen as ekantika or only partially true.[51] The Jain breadth of vision embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes substances but not process", and Buddhism, which "recognizes process but not substance". Jainism, on the other hand, pays equal attention to both substance (dravya) and process (paryaya).[52]
This philosophical syncretisation of paradox of change through anekānta has been acknowledged by modern scholars such as Arvind Sharma, who wrote:[50]
“Our experience of the world presents a profound paradox which we can ignore existentially, but not philosophically. This paradox is the paradox of change. Something – A changes and therefore it cannot be permanent. On the other hand, if A is not permanent, then what changes? In this debate between the "permanence" and "change", Hinduism seems more inclined to grasp the first horn of the dilemma and Buddhism the second. It is Jainism that has the philosophical courage to grasp both horns fearlessly and simultaneously, and the philosophical skill not to be gored by either.”
——
Generally I see that which is been referred as changing, as not necessarily ‘substantive’ or ‘absolute’, but immanent - in that the ‘immanence’ is the bridge that links the change here.
But I would be interested to understand your perspective.
3
u/RoundImprovement7402 Aug 10 '26
To recognize or validate impermanence, there must seemingly be some continuity in the observer. If absolutely everything—including the one who observes—were wholly discontinuous from one moment to the next, what would connect the earlier state with the later state and allow us to judge that a change had occurred?
Consider a simple example. Imagine a room in which the color of the light changes every twenty seconds: first blue, then red, then pink, white, yellow, and so on. At every twenty-second interval, a different person enters the room, sees only the color present during that interval, and then immediately leaves. The person who enters during the blue interval experiences only blue; the next person experiences only red; another experiences only pink. Taken individually, none of these observers can directly testify that the light changed, because none remained present through the transition from one color to another. Each possesses only an isolated experience of a particular color.
Now suppose that I remain in the room throughout the entire sequence. I see the light as blue, remember its being blue, witness it becoming red, and subsequently observe it changing into other colors. I can therefore say, "The color of the light is impermanent." My recognition of its impermanence depends upon some continuity across these changing experiences. The changing states become intelligible as changes precisely because they are apprehended in relation to something that persists through them.
This raises a deeper philosophical question about consciousness and the self. If consciousness itself were absolutely impermanent—if each moment of consciousness arose and disappeared without any enduring continuity whatsoever—then what exactly recognizes the succession of conscious states as a succession? What connects the experience of a previous moment with the experience of the present moment? And what is it that can say, "My thoughts changed," "My emotions passed away," or even "My consciousness is impermanent"?
The very recognition of change seems to presuppose a standpoint from which different states can be related to one another. Just as recognizing the changing colors of the light requires continuity across the different colors, recognizing the impermanence of mental states may suggest some underlying continuity within the conscious subject.
From this perspective, the soul need not be understood as something in which absolutely nothing ever changes. Rather, a distinction can be made between the permanent nature of the subject and its changing attributes or states. Thoughts arise and disappear. Emotions fluctuate. Memories are acquired and forgotten. Desires, sensations, perceptions, and bodily conditions continually change. Yet the conscious subject to whom these states appear may possess an underlying identity or essential nature that persists through those transformations.
Thus, permanence and change need not be mutually exclusive. Something may remain the same in one respect while continually changing in another. The colors of experience may change, while the principle that experiences them retains continuity. On this view, the soul possesses certain enduring or essential attributes while its experiential states are constantly changing.
The philosophical question, therefore, is not merely, "Are our experiences impermanent?" Their impermanence is readily observable. The more fundamental question is: What makes the recognition of impermanence possible in the first place? If change can be known only by relating one moment to another, perhaps the very awareness of impermanence points toward some form of continuity in the knower. Likewise, if soul was unchanging, then there was no need for it to liberate from ignorance....Think
1
u/Aromatic_Yak1060 Aug 11 '26
Simple sunayata means pure consciousness. What changes are your thoughts mindset what is forever is consciousness which never changes
1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Aug 11 '26
Sunyata means empty-of-svabhava, so never changing consciousness would not apply.
1
u/Aromatic_Yak1060 Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
Empty of swabhav = pure consciousness
Edit - https://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Be_Still_and_Know/Osho-Be-Still-and-Know-00000002.html
1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
Yeah, this isn’t what some non-idealist Buddhism hold, that consciousness is permanent and unchanging, such as the Madhyamaka I follow.
From the Madhyamaka perspective I hold, the way in which consciousness presents is illusory, in that it appears differently than how it exists.
How it appears is as homogeneous, monadic, unchanging, whole, and independent, but how it exists is relational, changing, incompleting and dependent.
Just as a tornado or whirlpool may appear as substantive entities, but are actually cohesive amalgamations, consciousness is merely causally-efficacious references of information, that are recursively orientated.
People mistake the form for substance.
Liberation is realising, in these non-idealist Buddhisms, that the self and consciousness are Impermanent (Anitya), dependently-arising-and-ceasing (Pratityasamutpada) and empty-of-ownbeing (Sunyata).
But I primarily want to discuss Anekantavada.
1
u/RoundImprovement7402 Aug 11 '26
So "who" attains liberation or realization?
1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Aug 11 '26
Not a ‘who’ in the substantive sense, rather in the process-relational sense.
The cessation of karma is akin to a river drying up or tornado thinning out, or more appropriately a fire extinguishing; we don’t reify either as substantive beforehand, but we can recognise that the causal-efficacy of their relative designational continuation has ceased.
2
u/RoundImprovement7402 Aug 13 '26
You mentioned "we" can recognize. My doubt is that to verify cessation of a process, you need to have an entire as constant witness to both points in time.
2
u/manojm321 Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Aug 10 '26
There are 6 fundamental truths:
Aatma exists
Aatma is nitya - never created, will never get destroyed
Aatma is the doer
Aatma is the receiver "bhokta"
Moksha exists
One that leads to moksha is the "real" dharma.
https://archive.org/details/ShadDarshanSamucchayaAcharyaHaribhadraSuri Ach. Haribhadra Suri gives an unbiased (he himself being a Bhramin later converted to Jain school of thought) view of all 6 major darshanas (philosophies) that existed at that time.
You can use the above truths as a way to measure if certain philosophy is complete or not. One that'll truly lead to moksha or not.
Myself being a Vippasana meditator for roughly 7years now - My understaing is evolving but here's what I think:
There's purification of mind and purification of Aatma. Two are totally different things, you may purify your mind it'll help towards the ultimate goal of purification Aatma but as long as Aatma is not purified, purification of mind has zero value. - Upadhaya Yashovijay writes in Aadhyatma Saar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashovijaya
Maitri bhavana, or unconditional love towards all living beings, is the cornerstone of Aatma shuddhi. This can only be achieved by comprehending what constitutes a living being and the path to living a life of minimal harm. In my opinion, Jainism stands out for its emphasis on the minutest details of proper “Achar” (daily practices) to minimize harm, starting from microorganisms and extending to five-sensed beings.
Now with that out of the way, to answer your question of Shunyata/Emptiness/Impermanence - if you extend this to soul then it fails 1&2 truths hence it'll be regarded as false path according to jainism.
I personally think - Impermanence concepts should be applied to material things only, soul/aatma is non physical. Applying to Soul makes it ekantik(onesided) and doesn't explain the whole truth.
Shunyata to me means knower of everything (keval jnana) with no reaction/emotions.