Talk:Anekantavada/Archive 1

Peer Review Comments
For convenience, I am copying the comments on peer review here from this talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anekantavada/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review the remaining five articles on Jainism - I see The Rambling Man has already reviewed one. If I may make a suggestion, it might be better to pick one or two articles as models and work on them and apply the lessons to all of the other articles too. Also asking for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV may get some more feedback. Anyway, I found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:
 * While the current lead is well written and a good introduction to the topic, it does not summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Gandhi is a section, but it not in the lead. See WP:LEAD
 * ✅ Mentioned Gandhi and adhgajanyāyah, maxim of Blind Men and Elephant in the Lead.


 * Perhaps the current lead could be made into an overview section right after the lead
 * References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE
 * ✅ Corrected Punctuation and Citation.


 * The article needs more references - any attribution should be sourced, so According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason.  needs a ref (which Jains or where do they say this?) See WP:V
 * ✅ Added references wherever I felt that it could be challenged and construed as POV. But a third opinion on this will help.


 * References themselves need to follow consistent format - for example page numbers are given for some book references, but not all.
 * ✅ Ensured Consistency and added page number in most of the cases. In one or two cases, I will need to re-borrow the books and search for the references agan. But this objection has been more or less taken care of.


 * Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers, or start a header with The, so "Role of Anekāntavāda in ensuring survival of Jainism" would just be "Role in ensuring survival of Jainism" or "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" would just be "Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" (and is it "Jain" as an adjective or "Jaina"?
 * ✅ Also used Jain consistently instead of Jaina. As some author followed old IAST spelling of Jaina, I used it when referencing them.


 * Try to avoid jaron where possible or explain it - the article does a fairly good job explaining non-Englsih terms, but there are some philosophical / religious terms that could use a breif explanatory phrase or sentence. Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication... what is conditioned predication? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
 * ✅ This particular case "Conditioned Predication" is taken care of. Any such additional case, then please point out.


 * Avoid POV language, for example "outstanding" in Ācārya Haribhadra who was an outstanding proponent of anekānta,... See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK
 * ✅ This particular case is taken care of. Any such additional case, then please point out.


 * While there is certainly a role for quoting scripture, the article needs to rely more on outside points of view (which strikes me as a very Anekāntavāda thing to say, if I have understood the article). So, for example, in the section on Gandhi, I would quote Gandhi, but also find a biographer who discussed the influence of Anekāntavāda on Gandhi.
 * ✅ This was very helpful as it improved the section considerably.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I note that Nayavāda is listed as one of "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity", but is not in the box on Jainism - there seems to be a discrepancy here.
 * ✅ Added to box. This was a good suggestion.

Could also use a copyedit, especially for punctuation.
 * ✅ Tried to opy edit, I dunno if I was successful. Maybe you can help.

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Look
Second look While the article has been improved further, it is not yet ready for FAC in my opinion, and at least needs a copyedit - ask at WP:LOCE or the copyeditor volunteers at WP:PRV. Here are some points to consider - these are examples and not an exhaustive list. I hope this helps and agree it has improved, just not enough to get through FAC yet. Hope this helps too, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, a fair number of references still have a space between the puctuation and the ref itself. I fixed these in one section as an example.
 * The references are still inconsistent - for example Current ref 1 is "Dundas (2002)p.231" (no space before or after "p."), ref 3 is "Grimes, John (1996) p.34" (space before "p." but not after), and ref 17 is "Dasgupta S.N. (1932) p. 2" (spaces before and after "p.").
 * There is still a use of "Anekantavada" in two section headers: "Anekāntavāda in Jain scriptures and teachings" (could be just "In Jain scriptures and teachings") and "Andhgajanyāyah : anekāntavāda in parables" (which could be perhaps "In parables: Andhgajanyāyah")
 * Some direct quotations are still uncited - Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka :"All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres... and Ācārya Vidyanandi provides analogy of ocean to explain the nature of truth in Tattvarthaslokavatika- 116 : "The water from Ocean contained in a pot... both need references, for example.
 * I write geography articles mostly and am not an expert on religion or philosophy or articles on them, but I would imagine at FAC people who are more knowledgable on Jainism / Religion / Philosophy would weigh in. I would try to find them before hand and ask them to look at the article with a critical eye. Are the references reliable? Is there enough third-party information or does it depend too much on sources from within Jainism? These are questions I can ask, but sadly not answer.

Peer review
Just doing some copy-edit work on the lead atm. I should check the source claiming ahimsa is Ghandi's policy. I thought this was a very long standing principle, in Hinduism and especially Buddhism. I will be delighted to discover this is Jainism instead. Though perhaps all three religions agreed on the principle and the name for a long time.

I spelled out the meaning of the an prefix in Sanskrit, but didn't mention the sandhi in ekānta. Again I should probably check the source, just to make sure these things are covered there, or add another source to cover them.

I've just got home after a long day and will need to get back to this tomorrow. Thank you for this well-written, accurate and informative article. I am enjoying reading it already. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alastair. I hope to put up this article as a featured article some day. Your help is really appreciated.--Anish (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A note on Ahimsa for Alastair
Ahimsa is essentially a philosophical concept followed by all Indian religions, but it is probably of a Jain origin. Western world identifies it with Mahatma Gandhi not surprisingly. But Gandhi himself was influenced by Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Rajchandra, a Jain scholar who was his spiritual guru. So I guess Hinduism and Jainism had an equal impact on Gandhi’s philosophy.

The Vedas are replete with animal sacrifices and meat eating. It is only after the age of Mahavira and Buddha, that Ahimsa was accepted in Hinduism or Vedic religion. Even in Buddhism vegetarianism is not compulsory. Buddhist monks are obliged to accept whatever food that a householder may give as long as the no animal or bird or fish is specifically killed in order to feed the monk. In fact, Buddha is said to have died after eating rotten pork. Only in Jainism, the doctrine of Ahimsa enjoys an unchallenged supremacy from the beginning.

The Hindu scholar and, Lokmanya Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism and thus leading to the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has described Jainism as the originator of Ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai:10 Dec, 1904:
 * "In ancient times, innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as the Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to Jainism."

Swami Vivekananda also credited Jainsim as influencing force behind the Indian culture:
 * "What could have saved Indian society from the ponderous burden of omnifarious ritualistic ceremonialism, with its animal and other sacrifices, which all but crushed the very life of it, except the Jain revolution which took its strong stand exclusively on chaste morals and philosophical truths?..--Anish (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These are excellent sources Anish! Danyavat! I'm sorry, I got distracted today. I will spend some time as your helper tomorrow. Since I have now learned you are good at finding sources, I will ask for more! ;) Sorry to ask you to do so much work, but it will make this good article even better! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask me any sources on Jainism in particular and Indian religions in general. I own more than two dozen books on Jainism by western and Indian scholars and my friend owns a book shop of Indological books. So no Problem !!! I really appreciate your help. Please do ask me for more sources which you think that will make this article pass FA test.--Anish (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead...
...is far too long. PiCo (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, as always friend PiCo. I will see what I can do to help with moving material from the lead to other sections, maybe some new ones.


 * I'm thrilled to discover we have a contributor providing so much information for us on Jainism. I hope a few of us will rally around and give the text a make-over. I might even try to stay with this article and assist it to FA. There is so much I don't know about Jainism, and here's an opportunity to learn. If only there were more than 24 hours in a day! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that lead is a bit long....but I dont want to compromise on the peer review comments provided by User:Ruhrfisch. But please do carry out changes taht you feel are necessary. Thanks for the comments.--Anish (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Ruhrfisches comments make sense and are similar, but helpfully suggest exactly how we can improve. I will either make any big edits to the lead all at once, so you can change them back easily (unless you agree they do help make your work look better); or I will make the changes at a temporary page so you can agree to them first. In my mind, you Anish, are the boss. This is your work, anything I do is simply help more people feel it is even better than it already is. Content is king. You know the facts (the sources). I can only work with style on this subject. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Post Scriptum @ User:Ruhrfisch Gibt es wirklich, daß Fische noch im Rhein leben? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, although I have worked on this article, I have my limitations and cannot find obvious flaws in it. So I need help and I dont believe in reverting any good faith edits. Please edit this article mercilessly if you think it will improve. That's all I want..to have atleast one featued article on Jainism. I did some homework on lead section of Anekantavada (313 words long) to put things in perspective. The length of the lead section of following featured artilces was as :
 * Flag of Germany - Words 266
 * Israel – Words 406
 * Glynn Lunney- Words 187

There seems to be no fixed norms for length of lead section. Ofcourse these length of lead sections is as on 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) and is likely to change with new edits.--Anish (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good research! :) I've had people complain that leads I've written are too short. In other cases, I've had people change leads down to two sentences. I agree there's no clear standard on this. However, I think a view common to Ruhrfisch, PiCo and myself is that we need to think through the logic of the lead. When logic is not clear, sometimes people call things long. Even when things are long, if the logic is clear, people rarely comment on length.


 * As I slowly understand the article myself, I'll understand the logic, and then understand how to summarise the logic in the lead. I hope that will make everyone happy. I suspect it will. In any case, information should not be removed from the article, just presented in the best possible order -- there is probably more than one excellent way of doing things. ... and, of course, everyone has different perspectives! :D Alastair Haines (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jain articles
I am trying to think logically about Jain articles too.

Do you know other Jain Wikipedians?

Some of these articles are very informative for me. Perhaps there is a plan for all the Jain articles somewhere? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Namokar Mantra
 * Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, Aparigraha, and Brahmacharya
 * Svetambara, Digambara

You can also go through the following articles that I have either started or substantially contributed. I think they are also ready for peer review.
 * Ahimsa in Jainism
 * Karma in Jainism
 * Jain Philosophy
 * Jainism and non-creationism

Would appreciate your time on these articles also. There are very few Jain wikipedians and non-jain wikipedians who are interested in Jainism. (can't blame them, sometimes it becomes too technical).--Anish (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK, it is our job to say the technical things in non-technical language, and let people know the source so they can check if they want to. I think I will stay involved with the Jain group until I am not needed any more. I love learning and Jain ideas seem very interesting, very influential but, as you say, under-represented at Wiki, and maybe in other places too.


 * Swetamber is normal for Jain people? That is, wearing white is normal, or just for holy people? Monks and nuns? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

White is worn by Svetambara monks/nuns. Digambara monks are more orthodox and do not wear clothes but nuns wear white clothes. The lay persons dress normally and cannot be distinguished as Jains by outward appearance.--Anish (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article structure
Currently, the article has the following sections: I'm trying to think of a systematic way to order the ideas. Writing goes in a line >>>--->> but ideas go in trees. We need to turn a tree into a line. One line could be a time line: Jain scriptures > Jain doctrines > Role in survival > Gandhi > Intellectual ahimsa. But I am not sure that is actually the historical order. We could make a logical sequence: Jain doctrines > Intellectual ahimsa > Jain scriptures > Blind men and elephant. But I am not sure if that is the right flow of ideas.
 * 1) Three Jain doctrines of relativity
 * 2) Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality
 * 3) In Jain scriptures and teachings
 * 4) Andhgajanyāyah : Parables of Blind Men and an Elephant
 * 5) Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance
 * 6) Influence on Mahatma Gandhi
 * 7) Criticisms
 * 8) Role in ensuring survival of Jainism

Can you help me Anish? How do you see the sections connecting with one another? Are they all just perspectives on the one thing? :D Or are some perspectives closer to one another than others. Which section is the "head" of the article? Which the "ears", "trunk" and "tail"? :D Alastair Haines (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making me think! I tried some research by checking the structure of some featured articles on religious and philosophical concepts and could not achieve anything as there are no such featured article. So I think a logical sequence would be better rather than a timeline as, Anekantavada is a concept rather than an event or a person. I have though of a new order. Suppose we follow this logical sequence:
 * Origins>> Overview>> Scriptures>> Tolerance>> Influence on Gandhi>> Criticisms
 * So we can add a new section : Origins and Etymology. We can “borrow” some sentences from lead section for Etymology and this will reduce the lead section also. I will start some research on Origins.


 * Now, does this structure look logical?

--Anish (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Origins and Etymology
 * 2) Philosophical overview
 * 3) Jain doctrines of relativity
 * 4) Syādvāda
 * 5) Nayavāda
 * 6) Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality
 * 7) Andhgajanyāyah : Parables of Blind Men and an Elephant
 * 8) In Jain scriptures and teachings
 * 9) Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance
 * 10) Influence on Mahatma Gandhi
 * 11) Criticisms
 * 12) Role in ensuring survival of Jainism
 * Shabash Anish! Looks excellent to me. :) Origins and Etymology really helps me feel, as a reader, that I'd be starting with the basics and working forwards. If the research gets slow. Let me know, perhaps I can find a book in one of the big libraries in Sydney (I visit these quite often). But, something tells me you will have more information available to you than I could ever find in Sydney. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't think these articles are ideal, but sin and salvation are logical despite being big, because they are concepts found in several religions. For a less common religious term, in an article I largely rewrote myself see supersessionism. I'm not totally happy with that article yet, but it does show some of my style, though my style is not ideal in everyone's eyes either. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now checkout the new structure and changes I have made. You may like it as it is a bit similar to supersessionism. --Anish (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might have a better structure than supercessionism. ;) What do you think about the idea of moving Role in Survival of Jainism upwards in the article to conclude the historical section? This doctrine has featured in Jain history like this and, overall, this has been significant in the relevance of Jainism.
 * Seems to be a good idea and it gels with History.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think intellectual ahimsa and Gandhi could be one section, they are closely related. In other words, change the Gandhi heading to a sub-heading. I think that would give a structure like: Lead-Philosophical idea-History-Ahimsa-Criticism. I think the story of the elephant and the blind men could also be included somewhere in the Philosophical idea section (at beginning or end of that section). It is very helpful to make the idea clear, so maybe the beginning would be good.
 * Seems to be logical. Let us try it and see how it looks.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I'm suggesting moving two sections upwards (Survival and Elephant) and making the connection between Ahimsa and Gandhi closer (just by changing the heading level). I would be very happy with that overall structure myself, but you're more an expert than me.
 * Maybe in Jain doctrine I may have some knowledge but I need independent opinion of neutral persons like you to improve this article. My bias would prevent me in improving this article.;)--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The next thing to look at is probably what we put into italics. Any word that is not in an English dictionary should either be in italics or translated. We should try to have as little untranslated Sanskrit as possible, because English readers just can't even guess at Sanskrit. However, we do need several Sanskrit words, because they are so exact and because English readers will like to learn some new words (just not too many).
 * You are right, let the article not look too technical. Its helping that you ahve a good grasp of sanskrit words.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the structure ideas above? What would you say are the 20 most important Sanskrit words in the article? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes as suggested by you. But I have few queries -
 * Should we italicise even anekantavada everywhere it occurs ? Same with syadvada ? What about names of Acaryas ? Should they be in italics? How about Mahavira? Should his name be in itialics?
 * inter wiki linking - Mahavira appears 7 to eight times in the article. Should it be linked always? Or only first time it appears or maybe first time it appears in a section? Whats the policy or convention?

Secondly, Can you copy edit? Also whereever you feel that citation is required can you tag it with ? It would be a great help.--Anish (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Third look
Looking three times also seems to me to be very much in the spirit of Anekantavada ;-). This is really much improved - kudos to all involved. Here are some final thoughts with an eye to FAC, this seems no problem for GA now:
 * Lead is five paragraphs which may cause problems at FAC - could the first and second paragraph be combined?
 * ✅ now it looks more compact.


 * Any chance of wikilinking some of the philosophy terms in According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not a phenomenalism but a realistic correspondence view.[9] - I am not a philosopher and if it just said According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not an A but a B.[9] it would mean about as much to me - with links I could at least be more confused ;-)
 * ✅ Was a good idea as usual.


 * FAC tends to jump on blanket extraordinary claims like the one italicized here: "These Jain philosophical concepts made the most important contributions to ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the areas of skepticism and relativity.[9]" Perhaps attribute it "According to McEvilley, these Jain philosophical concepts made ..."
 * ✅ I thnk POV was a problem here...I removed the word most


 * Missing word? Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that [the?] epithet Syād be attached to every expression.[13]
 * ✅ "The" is always a problem with me.


 * Missing words? Each of these seven propositions examines the complex and multifaceted [nature of?] reality from a relative point of view of time, space, substance and mode.[15]
 * ✅ makes more grammatic sense.


 * Need a ref for To ignore the complexity of the objects is to commit the fallacy of dogmatism.
 * Pending ✅ ref already existing in other statement!


 * Missing word? The Vedānta school represented by advaitins postulated [the?] absolute unchanging reality of Brahma and atman and claimed that change was mere illusion.[19]


 * Refs should be in numerical order (also need an "s"): so The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising position with anekāntavāda.[21][22][6] should be The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising position[s] with anekāntavāda.[6][21][22]
 * ✅ both ...more logical.


 * While most people have heard of Buddha, sadly Mahavira may require a phrase of explanation - see WP:PCR
 * ✅ true....taken care of!!


 * Needs a ref: Thousands of questions were asked and Māhavīra’s responses suggested a complex and multifaceted reality with each answer qualified from a viewpoint. According to Jainism, even a Tīrthaṇkara, who possesses and perceives infinite knowledge, cannot express reality completely because of the limitations of language, which is of human creation.
 * Pending ✅ Forgotten to add...thanks for pointing out


 * "century" with a lower case c (9th century) (13th century)


 * Typo in quote? should be "a partial" in "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of an partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect...
 * ✅...silly typo corrected..thanks


 * Missing word? Kundakunda also used nayas to discuss the essence of [the?] soul in Samayasāra. Essence of soul sounds like he is refering to soul music ;-)
 * ✅ hahaha.....changed the "perspective" :)


 * Does medieval have a different definition in Jainism / India than in Europe? The centuries quoted seem a bit early for medieval for my thinking (but I could be wrong)
 * ✅ this is an important point.....changed the heading as suggested by the author.


 * Needs a ref: After Yasovijayaji, there was a period of stagnation, as there were no new contributions to the development of Jain philosophy.


 * When someone is not wikilinked, provide a phrase as to why they are an authority, so According to [historian? philospher?}Christopher Key Chapple, ...


 * Provide rough dates in Role in ensuring the survival of Jainism section for context
 * Needs a ref: On the other hand, the many-pointed approach was claimed by the Jains to be immune from criticism since it did not present itself as a philosophical or dogmatic view.
 * Pending ✅


 * Perhaps explain why Gandhi's mother was a source of Anekantavada?
 * Pending

I am sure FAC will find things I never thought of - good luck, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, great reviewing, Ruhrfisch! Nevertheless, perhaps this article needs a fourth look, just for copy-editing. For example, I noticed that when the blanket claim "most" was removed, the word "the" remained, leaving "made the important contributions" instead of "made important contributions". This could be interpreted as meaning "the only important contributions"! We need to make sure that the reviews didn't reduce the flow of the article. -- Qmwne 235  16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Qmwne, it was my fault….I know it needs some copy-editing…I tend to miss out on such small but important things.--Anish (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the whole writing and reviewing process as a whole contributed. When I went through my review, I went back a second time and found some gramatical errors that I had made. One or two of the examples Ruhrfisch pointed out of missing words were probably my fault.-- Qmwne 235  00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also some statements, such as "According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not a phenomenalism but a realistic correspondence view.", that should be more fully explained. Right now, its placement in an odd spot and a lack of explanation as to its importance and relation to the rest of the paragraph and article make it seem like it was just a jumble of words paraphrased from a book. While I trust that it wasn't, please have mercy on the philosophically challenged. While I appreciate the linking, there are some sentences that should probably have a paragraph of their own to explain them. -- Qmwne 235  16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you…but when you are dealing with an article on philosophy, you cant avoid such technical terms…that is why they are wikilinked!! We have used words like – Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics, Dialectic, Polemic, Doxography, Predication …and many more. Imagine if we are to give definition and explanation of these terms, then the entire focus on Anekantavada will be lost. The article will become more complex and unreadable. Ofcourse these are my views..please fell free to make any changes that you feel will improve the article.--Anish (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that defining complex terms should dilute the actual content, but the particular sentence I pointed out appears to be in an odd location in that it seems to have little relevance to the statements around it, although it is relevant to the article as a whole. Perhaps it would be better to either move it (although it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else) or explain its connection to the surrounding paragraph. This would help maintain the organization of the article.-- Qmwne 235  00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are Right. We may consider removing it if it does not add any value to the article.--Anish (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does contribute in that it establishes that Jainism believes that sense-data (to use Russell's term) accurately respresent the object that cause them to be perceived. Although the context may need to be more fully established, I support keeping it in the article but moving it to another section or paragraph. However, it doesn't make a great difference, and since you've already removed it, I suppose it would be best to keep it that way. The paragraph flows much more nicely now. -- Qmwne 235  23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited.

 * Copyedited by ukexpat (talk), a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: I fixed some reference punctuation, and made spelling and some minor textual changes for flow. I am not qualified to judge appropriateness of references and citations.


 * Thanks...please do visit regularly to copy edit till this article received FA status.--Anish (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible missing words in quotations? - "With the differentiation removed, all things have dual nature.
 * Then, if somebody is implored to eat curd, then why does [he?] not eat camel?


 * The person who criticises without understanding the prima facie view is acting like a jester and not a critic. The Buddha was born a deer and [a? the?] deer was born as Buddha; but Buddha is adorable and deer is only a food. Similarly, due to [the?] strength of an entity, with its differences and similarities specified, nobody would eat camel if implored to eat curd."


 * I'm not sure if there really are missing words in all of these cases, but I'm pretty sure there are in at least a couple. -- Qmwne 235  01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked the references and there were actually missing words in two cases. I have made the changes. Thanks for pointing out.--Anish (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Moral relativism?
The only real concern I have with this article is the suggestion at the end of the introduction that anekantavada implies "cultural and moral relativism", which seems to say that it shows that truth is a construction based on one's point of view, that no relative truth is better than another, and that there is no such thing as a truth that is applicable to all. This statement is unsourced. Now, I admit that I'm biased, since that is not my personal view. Still, it seems to me that a more accurate representation of anekantavada would be that although there may be a correct answer, our limitations may prevent us from knowing it. On a website for a Jainism convention at California State University - Pomona, I found a couple research abstracts supporting this view, although I admit I'm not familiar with the authors or their reputation in the field.(Scroll down to Anne Vallely and Gabriel Figueroa) These were published next to papers by scholars such as Jaini and Dundas. I also found an article by Nagin J. Shah called "Jaina Theory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Anekāntavāda)" in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London that supports the idea that anekantavada is not the same as moral relativism, although is also quite extreme is suggesting that the implication of relativism is caused by a mistranslation. While I'm sure there have been many scholars arguing the opposite, there are at least some who believe that anekantavada does not imply relativism, so it may not be best to conclusively state that they are very similar. I think the great value in anekantavada is that it provides a path in between rigid absolutism and relativism. Also, I would like to see the Buddhist criticism and Jain rebuttal at the end of the "Criticism" section clarified a little bit. It's rather hard to follow as it is. -- Qmwne 235  02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this concern only applies to the first sentence and a part of the last paragraph of the introduction. The references to Jain doctrines of relativity later in the article are, in my opinion, fine as they are, because they do not imply the same assertion. For the syadvada section, when listing the seven conditioned predications, "it" (as in "in some ways it is) should be clarified. -- Qmwne 235  02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Qmwne, your comments on moral relativism have hit the bulls eye as usual. You are right, Anekantavada is not the same as moral relativism….I don’t know how I missed it in this article. This sentence was a part of the previous version of the article before I changed it drastically and was probably missed by me. This needs to be changed.--Anish (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll proceed to remove that one sentence. If you don't think it should be completely removed, you can add it in again and make whatever changes you see fit. Also, I think there are some missing words in the quotations in the "Criticism" section. See the "Copyedited." section on this talk page. The last part of the "Criticism" section also needs to be clarified a little. Thanks! -- Qmwne 235  16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip in here to agree with both of you. It would appear that Indian philosophy and Western philosophy have both discussed this issue, in different language, with different concerns, and with different outcomes, but also with significant overlap. To a Western audience, "strong" relativism ("nothing is absolute") has been considered an irrational position since at least Plato. However, although "strong" scepticism ("nothing can be known") is also considered irrational, for similar reasons, "realism" (or "some scepticism about the unobserved") is considered the very essence of rational thought. A popular, informal phrasing of this is "confidence in proportion to evidence". The blind men are irrational to conclude an absolute about the whole elephant, because their evidence is incomplete. However, many observations and much evidence can lead to a significant, if not absolute, level of confidence regarding the whole. Indeed, parts of Einstein's theories still do not have evidence to confirm them, but so much evidence has already been found, it is believed we will eventually find evidence for the rest. So, we consider it rational to believe the theories with great, but not total, confidence.

Undoubtedly, just as "strong" relativism and scepticism continue to be argued by minorities in the West, so too in India, Anekantavada is probably quoted in support of similar views. However, as the sources above show, there is certainly scholarship of Indian philosophy that has a more complete and fair picture of what this doctrine actually represents in human thought. It is a pretty universally accepted corrective to the human tendency to jump to the conclusion that everything is known, simply because one has observed a part of the whole. As such, Anekantavada (at its heart) is an ancient and distinctively Indian articulation of an idea that has been expressed independently in many cultures—because it is true! :)

So, I repeat my wholehearted support for these wise edits. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alistair, you have summed it up nicely. But, moral relativism aspect has already done some damage……Just check out this link in last weeks economic times - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorials/The_untold_truth_of_ages/articleshow/3146628.cms


 * The author has literally lifted some paragraphs from this article itself and applied his false understanding to it. Can’t blame him though, it seems to be misunderstanding. Qmwne very rightly pointed out this concern. I agree that some lines should be put up to the effect that Anakentavada is not moral relativism, before more mischief is done.--Anish (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! The link doesn't work for me. I tried to register, but I needed an ID number. You are a subscriber yourself?
 * Perhaps the journalist is watching the page and has withdrawn the online version of the article.
 * I don't think you should feel personally responsible. Many of us have been working on this article and any of us could have addressed this issue. It takes time for a Wiki to get everything right. I, for one, am cautious about raising concerns when I don't have sources to back my opinion. That is why Qmwne's contribution is so helpful, he (or she) has also provided sources, so the article rests on something more reliable than simply the opinions of editors, who may be many, but may have few sources between them.
 * The article is still a good article. It is important to remember it is not featured yet, and even when that happens, there can still be plenty of ways to improve things.
 * Additionally, since anekantevada is indeed commonly associated with relativism, it's not all wrong to make the association; it's just that it is somewhat unfair to say this without presenting what is probably a more accurate description, as per the sources provided by Qmwne.
 * If you could confirm an exact issue of the India Times and an author, perhaps from a library copy of the paper, we should add a box at the top of this page, noting that the article has been cited in the press. This is important for the future of the article at Wiki, and should ultimately help with FAC discussion. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You dont need to be a subscriber. The link is opening for me. If you cant open that link then check this link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3146628,prtpage-1.cms What the author has writtn is not flattering. If this is also a problem then check it here User:Anishshah19/Moral_Relativism--Anish (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Danyavat Anish, I have it now — Mukul Sharma, 'The untold truth of ages', The Economic Times 20 June, 2008. Yes, this is an article against moral relativism, not against Anekantavada. The two are not the same, although that oversimplification would be attractive to many. Just as Acharya Siddhasena Divakara implied, though, truth is not "that which was agreed by the majority". What the majority may say of Anekantavada is not necessarily the truth about Anekantavada. We have done well to correct this. Shabash Anish. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair. I made some edits in "Contemporary role and influence" section about pluralism and that it avoids moral relativism. I have used the sources provided by Qmwne. This article is becoming a good example of how collaborative efforts can lift the quality of article substantially. Thanks to everyone.--Anish (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is becoming a good example of how an intelligent, educated but humble, patient and diligent editor can provide a very informative article, while also being an outstanding personal example of the merits of his own religious tradition. It is quite simply a joy to see you at work Anish, I salute you! I can't find the right barnstar for you yet. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC copyedit work
I've added some details of my own towards being even more precise. I'm going through references ensuring:
 * page ranges are introduced by " pp. " (spaces before and after);
 * page numbers in ranges are separated by an n-dash "–" (longer than hyphen, shorter than m-dash); and
 * When the last page in a range is abbreviated, that this is not shorter than two digits (1066–67 not 1066–7).
 * Thanks, I will now remember these guidelines and use them for (future) references.--Anish (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've worked over the bibliography for the same issues. I've added information regarding Monier Williams (M-W for short). I'm not sure about E.B., someone else will need to deal with that. I've expressed some short quotes as text rather than blocks.
 * Even I am not sure of full form of EB. But I feel that it is authors preprogative to use initials. But do check the link here. However Encyc of Jainism is a scholarly work and has contributions from reputed scholars and writers. So this should not be a problem. --Anish (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I've simplified repeat references. Where a reference is named, the name alone can be repeated in subsequent tags. This spares cluttering the source text for the article, making editing easier. It also means only the first reference needs to be modified should a typo or other error exist in it.

I imagine I'll get back to this eventually—if no one else fills in the gaps I've left—but please, anyone, plunge in and fill the gaps. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to fill up gaps here.--Anish (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I realised Wiki doesn't have an article on Mallisena, which is really disappointing. I'm sure this will be remedied soon. (Hint, hint ;)
 * Source: Motilal Ladha, Sri Vijayamahodayasuri Granthamala 1. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done some work on references. I am starting on quotation blocks. I will try to address all the concerns of Rhurfich with next 2-3 days. And hey Alastair.......I am taking the hint soon. :)--Anish (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit
Am I wrong here? An is the standard prefix of negation. Eka is just the number one. Anta is a form of the verb "to be". Vada is commonly used as a suffix refering to philosophical or theological schools of thought, like "-ism" in English, only vada actually implies knowledge, where "-ism" is just an ending. The English words "video" and "wit" are believed to be related to vada, where sight is related to knowledge (like with the gaja) and cleverness and humour also.
 * an-eka-anta-vāda
 * not-one-be(ing)-know(ing)
 * non-one-ness-ism ~ pluralism ~ non-exclusivity

I think we could express this more clearly. It would also clarify why monotheism would be called eka-anta-vāda. The word can be used appropriately in many different places. In fact, it's not just a word, it's a compound, it's flexible, at least in Sanskrit.

Does that sound fair? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As usual you are right and it makes more sense. Why dont you expand your idea more on the article?--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PS If the lead is felt to be too long, I would recommend moving the history and etymology out to their own sections. If it is still felt to be too long, I'd then move the final paragraph out to the Survival of Jainism and Gandhi sections. The parable of the gaja is so clear and helpful I think it should go before the extension to the general philosophical statement of objects and their attributes. However, these could be reversed depending on a consensus of editors opinions. Personally, I'm comfortable with the length of the lead.


 * I think lead is quite OK and should not be reduced.--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS I'll keep visiting for a little time each day, and work through copy-editing the whole article again. I like the overall structure at the moment. Even if I am not working on the article, I am always watching. I agree it is already a good article, and look forward to hearing input from FAC reviews. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it looks to me as though the romanized version of Mahavira's name is incorrect throughout the article. It should have only the second "a" long, and a long "i". As is, the article has the first "a" long and the second one short. Can someone who knows how check this and correct if need be?--JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.168.151 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Any guide to pronunciation would be appreciated. VermillionBird (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality
I have some issues with this section. Perhaps someone can address my concerns.


 * "The Vedānta school represented by advaitins postulated the absolute unchanging reality of Brahman and atman and claimed that change was mere illusion."


 * Advaita was started by Shankara who lived over a millenium after the time in question. Also the term "brahman" does not occur in any of the Upanishads that had been written at this time.


 * "The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence and absolute truths, affirming change as the only reality."


 * That is not true, nirvana is proclaimed to be permanent and and absolute truth.


 * "The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda ... they are seen as ekantika or only partially true."


 * Perhaps this could be explained, although as I have noted the description of the Buddhist view is really a caricature.

And about "permanence" in Buddhism, "things" are said to be impermanent. These "things" do not exist independently of the rest of reality and are given designations only; no phenomenon is stated to be ultimately existent (the question does not apply to nirvana). Thus Buddhists are happy to discuss anything but not to state that it has "own-nature," i.e. descriptions of it can only be provisional. Mitsube (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mitsube these edits have been referenced, but still as all the philosophies need to be portrayed properly, let me try to address your concerns:
 * Sankara was one of the greatest proponent as well as first systematic compiler of Advaita philosophy. But by no means he was the first, Advaita philosophy existed in Upanishads and see the List of teachers of Advaita Vedanta; most of them like Yajnavalkya are from the Upanishadic period. Sanakar polarised the philosophical debates and the scholarly discourses and debates between the rival philisophies peaked during the times of Sankara; hence the sentence. When we are discussing Anekantavada, we are not merely discussing Anekantavada during Mahaviras time, but also how its finer nuances evolved during the period.
 * The word Brahman, not only existed during the Upanashidic times, but also occurs in Rgveda. See the article Brahman.
 * True, Nirvana, Moksa are absolute truths from Jain view point also. But as noted in the article, Anekantavada applies in case of limited human knowledge. Not in case of omniscient God. The article nowhere states Buddhist concept of Nirvana is relative or temporary. The Buddhist view (Or the view of the school that existed in India during those period) of impermanance of Soul is well known.
 * I hope this addresses your concerns. If not, maybe you can suggest some changes keeping the essence of article in mind and that this article discusses a Jain doctrine and hence we should not off-track on other philosophies. --Anish (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Advaita Vedanta is a post-Buddhist development. This is common knowledge. Every scholar says that advaita was strongly influenced by Buddhism. Buddhist authors even accused Shankara of plagiarism (I can give you a quote if you wish). Now the problem is that you have started the section with "The age of Māhavīra and Buddha was an age of intense intellectual debates, especially on the nature of reality and self. The Vedānta school represented by advaitins postulated the absolute unchanging reality of Brahman and atman and claimed that change was mere illusion." But as I have noted, during this age there was no advaita school. So the sentence is wrong. The question is now to what extent non-dual ideas existed in Brahmin circles at the time of Buddha/Mahavira. It is by no means clear-cut that Yajnavalkya was an advaitin. The Upanishads can be interpreted in many ways, including dualistically as is done by monotheistic Hindu schools. The advaitic "brahman" concept is, in the uncited wikipedia articles you have linked to, anachronistically identified with different uses of the word that occur in the Vedas.  As is quite common in articles on Hinduism on wikipedia, post-Buddhist/Jain developments in Hinduism are anachronistically stated to be pre-Buddhist/Jain, and you and I know that that is highly problematic. In fact Karel Werner states about the brahman concept (and it seems I was wrong about the word not appearing until after the Buddha, the website I was looking at is apparently as unreliable as wikipedia can be): "That unity, which was understood to be the source and the directing agency of everything that is, was called by Yajnyavalkya, at a certain stage, 'the imperishable' (akshara, BU 3,8,8-11), but eventually it obtained the name brahman which became universally accepted." So the current understanding of it is post Yajnyavalkya, and hence post-Vedic. The Vedic conception of brahman was a different thing. These issues could be fixed by changing the sentence so as to not be time-specific.
 * My real concern here is that the section seems to be an attempt to promote Jainism over Advaita and Buddhism. This is accomplished by anachronistically identifying Shankara's ideas as those current among Brahmins at the time, and mischaracterizing Buddhist ideas. In fact all Buddhist schools have the two-truths doctrine by which impermanent things are stated to be real for the purposes of discourse and unenlightened life, but it is proven that from an ultimate, objective perspective, identifications of the mind do not correspond with independently existing things. This has become in this article "Buddhists believe in only change, but if there's no substance, what changes? This is illogical, but Jainism is logical." It doesn't seem that Arvind Sharma has any training in Buddhist philosophy to be making this argument. I have never heard this "Buddhists assert that only change is real" idea before reading this article.
 * About the soul, all Buddhists agree that there is no unchanging personal essence. Mitsube (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent changes Mitsube. If it has reduced the POV of the article, I am all for it. However I would like to put on record, there is no disrespect meant either for Buddhist view nor for Vedanta view. It may look slightly POV’ish as this article is about a Jain doctrine. An article of Buddhism would be discussing the concept from Buddhist point of view – you can't help it or else it would become incoherent. That is why I have also put up the criticisms section and refutations, if any to remove any minor POV aspects that would have remained. Let me give you a small example that I have always noticed, as to why philosophical articles may look POVish – The Buddhist articles describe Buddhism as a middle way – an improvement over extreme Jain asceticism which is always over-emphasized (even in most scholarly books) But what is forgotten is that Jainism itself has a middle way – the path of layman with minor vows. Out of 4 million or so Jain adherents, only 4000 are aecetics. During the history, the ascetics have never crossed more than 1% of the Lay population, the 99% who follow the middle way. But the emphasis is always on the extreme asceticism. As you have said earlier, this is a caricature of Jainism made by most people discussing Jainism and Buddhism. But it cant be helped. --Anish (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Corroborating Evidence in Modern Science
Math speaks of 3 dimension in Space, and physics adds the 4th of Time. A divine being is One that can see from 'above' these dimensions. So why don't we match Anekantavada to this 'dimensions' concept, elaborating that the early Jain philosophers said the same things in much simpler (non-mathematical?) terms, that one who can see from higher (physically or philosophically), has a more complete / holistic view. So one who is above the four dimensions will see the whole elephant, while those who are part of these 4 can see only the parts. If anyone can collaborate on this, let me know, I can help expand on this. wildT (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This all quite interesting. Refer to the lead section which says: According to the Jains, only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge. THis omniscient beings are the knower and not the doers, similar to the concept of Universal Observer. Please carry on the discussion.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Question of understanding.
Would Jains maintain, that the principle "Every truth is relative" is itself (as it is itself a "truth") relative? --goiken 11:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Slight POV
On a holistic basis, I'm impressed by the accuracy of this article. However, there are some instances in short sections that seem to be biased. For example, I was a bit disturbed to see a description of Buddhism as "nihilistic". I removed the description, but I am still concerned about the section it was in, "Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality". I suppose it would be best to check the entire article for things that may be construed as POV. I'm very sure the problem as a whole can be fixed easily, just not by me, because I know I am biased towards Jainism. -- Qmwne 235  22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right as usual! I agree that nihilism may not be the right word. But as you can see that many authors consider its philosophy as nihilism as can be seen here It may be due to misunderstanding as Buddhism does not believe in soul. But it seems that you have taken care of it.--Anish (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This artical ought to be re-written to have a more neutral point of view. Perhaps a Jain writing about a principle in Jainism is too biased.  Won't someone please contact Derrida? Or God, perhaps? 128.111.95.65 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Would someone please be able to add information on the correct pronunciation of Anekantavada? Thanks in advance. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the IPA transcription would be [ɐneːkɑːnt̪ɐʋɑːd̪ɐ]. --Rahul (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Subjunctive and translation of syadvada
The subjunctive still appears often enough in most dialects of English ("If only I were going too,...", "At the point that he be king,...") that it can be used to illustrate the optative, so that we're not bound by clunky and rather inadequate constructions like "Maybe" or "From a perspective". I'll make a few changes in the main text, but then I want to ask about the translations of the saptibhaṅgī, since I don't know any Indic languages, but I want to reform them into subjunctive constructions. How about:


 * 1) That it were (true, real, apparent, etc.).
 * 2) That it were not.
 * 3) That it were yet also were not.
 * 4) That it were, and that it be indescribable.
 * 5) That it were not, and that it be indescribable.
 * 6) That it were, it were not, yet it be indescribable.
 * 7) That it be indescribable.

Please let me know what you think, particularly multilingual editors and those from other major English dialects. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Failed verifications, lulu.com style SPS and other issues
This article was reviewed in 2008 and promoted in August that year. The article has added in some bulk since then, and needs a thorough cite verification check. While some source verifications check out fine, quite a few do not. The source quality also needs a check, as WP:SPS such as lulu.com and others are non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anekantavada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210001152/http://secure.pdcnet.org/ipq to http://secure.pdcnet.org/ipq
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131615390800/http://www.pluralism.org/index.php to http://www.pluralism.org/index.php/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Content copied to Doxography
Content copied to Doxography from mediaeval development sub-section of history and development page of Anekantavada see Anekantavada page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)