The Central Philosophy of Jainism and Sri Ramakrishna’s Religious Pluralism

Summary

Dr. Anupam Jash’s essay explores the convergence between the Jain doctrine of many‑sidedness (anekāntavāda) and the religious pluralism preached by the nineteenth‑century mystic Śrī Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. The author begins by noting that although Sri Ramakrishna was not a systematic philosopher, scholars have mined his recorded conversations in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna to discern a coherent philosophy. Critics like Aldous Huxley and Swami Tapasyānanda have urged systematic studies of his ideas. Jash proposes to interpret Sri Ramakrishna’s utterances through the lens of Jain philosophy and, in particular, anekāntavāda—the principle that reality is infinitely complex and can be approached from multiple standpoints. The first part of the essay introduces Jainism as an ancient Indian darśana (viewpoint) and explains that a darśana is both a vision and a philosophical system. Unlike Vedānta, Jain thought has attracted less scholarly attention, yet it has contributed a distinctive doctrine to Indian philosophy: anekāntavāda. Pioneered by Jain philosophers like Haribhadra Sūri and later elaborated by thinkers such as Umāsvati (author of the Tattvārtha Sūtra, first century CE) and Siddhasena Divākara (fifth century), the doctrine of non‑onesidedness asserts that reality has infinite attributes. Conflicting metaphysical propositions are treated as partial views of the same truth; no single viewpoint (naya) captures the whole. The synoptic vision offered by anekāntavāda reconciles unity and plurality, asserting that the one real is not contradicted by its many attributes. Quotations from Siddhasena’s Nyāyāvatāra and Sanmatitarka illustrate this principle by declaring that all standpoints are right in their own spheres, and only when they are treated as mutually exclusive do they become erroneous. Jash highlights how anekāntavāda fosters intellectual humility and religious tolerance. Jain writers argue that the same ultimate truth is described in different terminologies across philosophical schools: the self‑principle is called puruṣa in Vedānta, kṣetrajña in Sāṅkhya, jñāna in Buddhism and bandhana in the Jain system, while ignorance is termed avidyā or bhrānti depending on the tradition. Haribhadra insists that there is no essential difference among religions regarding the ultimate goal, only different paths; he compares them to various bathing ghats of a single lake. This inclusive attitude is echoed in the Vedic maxim “Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti—Truth is one, sages call it by different names”. Swami Vivekananda later popularised similar ideas, likening religions to rivers that all flow into the same sea. The second part of the essay applies the anekāntavāda perspective to Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings. Ramakrishna (1836–1886) practised Hindu, Muslim and Christian disciplines successively and declared from experience that all religions lead to the same universal goal. He used the metaphor of different people drawing water from the same tank and calling it pānī, jal or water, asserting that God is one though worshipped under various names and forms; He is both personal and impersonal, with form and beyond form. Jash argues that Ramakrishna’s rejection of sectarianism and his insistence that doctrinal differences are superficial mirror the Jain doctrine of non‑onesidedness. By integrating Sri Ramakrishna’s pluralistic message with anekāntavāda, the article suggests that both traditions offer a philosophical foundation for religious harmony and tolerance.