Indian philosophical thought is known by the Sanskrit term darsana, which means a vision of truth.

This "vision
of truth" refers to the direct realization of the true nature of that which is absolutely true, also called Tattva-
darsana. Indian thinkers developed philosophical systems as a result of their efforts to visualize this ultimate
truth. Indian philosophy encompasses the philosophical speculations of all thinkers in India, from ancient to
modern times, with philosophical thought beginning in the Vedic age.
Fundamental Questions The core questions addressed by Indian philosophy relate to human life and its destiny, such as:
• What is the real nature of man?
• What is the real nature of the world man lives in?
• What is the ultimate destiny of man's life?
Ultimate Aims of Human Life (Purushartha) According to Indian philosophy, there are four ultimate aims of human
life:
1. Dharma (merit)
2. Artha (money)
3. Kama (desire)
4. Moksa (liberation)
Moksa, also known as Nirvana or Kaivalya, is considered the final goal of human life, with the other three serving as
means to achieve this ultimate teleology.
Schools of Indian Philosophy Different lines of thought developed, leading to the formation of distinct philosophical
schools. Nine principal schools flourished in ancient India, categorized based on their acceptance of the Vedas:
• Orthodox (astika) systems: Six schools that believe in the authority of the Vedas. These are:
• Nyaya
• Vaisesika
• Samkhya
• Yoga
• Mimamsa
• Vedanta These six are also known as Vedic systems.
• Heterodox (nastika) systems: Three schools that do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. These are:
• Carvaka
• Jaina
• Buddha These three are also known as non-Vedic systems of Indian philosophy.
Meaning of Astika & Nastika in Indian Philosophy While generally "astika" means believing in God and "nastika"
means not believing in God, these terms have different meanings when referring to Indian philosophical systems. In the
context of Indian philosophy:
• Astika means a system that accepts the authority of the Vedas as infallible. For example, Samkhya and
Mimamsa systems are considered orthodox (astika) even though they do not believe in God as the creator,
because they accept the authority of the Vedas.
• Nastika means a system that does not believe in the authority of the Vedas.
Among the orthodox systems:
• Vedanta and Mimamsa are called vedanugata (loyal to the Vedas) because they offer philosophical
explanations of Vedic doctrines and ideas. Mimamsa primarily deals with the ritualistic aspects of the Vedas (also
known as Purva Mimamsa), while Vedanta focuses on attaining knowledge of Reality (also known as Uttara
Mimamsa).
• Nyaya, Vaisesika, Samkhya, and Yoga are called Veda swatantra (independent of the Vedas), as they present
their philosophical positions with independent arguments that are compatible with Vedic ideas.
Among the heterodox systems:
• Carvaka is the sole advocate of materialism.
• Jaina and Buddha systems reject Vedic authority but advocate speculative philosophy of a higher order,
developing their own moral philosophies and preaching non-violence.

Common Characteristics of Indian Philosophy Despite developing independently along diverse

lines, schools of Indian philosophy share several general features:
 1. Practical Necessity: Indian philosophy developed as a practical necessity, addressing ultimate questions of
human life to help people solve problems better. Indian philosophers recognized the close relationship between
philosophy and life.
2. Initial Pessimism: Most systems begin with a note of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, stemming
from disturbance at human pain, suffering, and evil. However, this pessimism is only initial; Indian philosophy
generally concludes with an optimistic note, showing ways to overcome suffering and achieve freedom from
misery. For example, Buddha philosophy starts with despair but ends with hope for overcoming suffering
through effort.
3. Belief in Moral Order: Almost all systems (with the exception of Carvaka) believe in an eternal, inviolable
universal moral order (rta) that governs and sustains the universe.
4. Ignorance: Root Cause of All Sufferings: Ignorance of the true nature of things leads to attachment to worldly
objects, desires, and passions, creating a state of bondage. Freedom from this state is achieved through right
knowledge.
5. Liberation: Ultimate Goal: All systems except Carvaka consider liberation or freedom from bondage to be
the ultimate goal of human life, signifying the complete cessation of suffering. Different systems propose various
paths, such as paths of knowledge (jnana), devotion (bhakti), and action (karma).
6. Spiritualism: Indian philosophy is generally spiritual, emphasizing that spirit or soul is superior to body or
matter, and that life should be led to realize spiritual values. Carvaka is an exception, advocating materialism.
Buddha philosophy, while not recognizing a permanent self, still highlights spirituality for a disciplined moral
life.
7. Epistemological Issues: All nine systems extensively discuss epistemological issues, including sources of valid
knowledge (pramana), types of valid knowledge (prama), and types of invalid knowledge (aprama). They
establish their epistemological standpoints to support their metaphysical doctrines, giving equal emphasis to
both.
8. Addressing Misconceptions (Pessimistic/Dogmatic):
• Pessimistic: The view that Indian philosophy is pessimistic is a misunderstanding. While it explores the
"dark aspect" of life and human miseries to find their root cause, it ultimately provides remedies and
concludes with optimism. No system ends with hopelessness.
• Dogmatic: The misconception that Indian philosophy is dogmatic (accepting views without
examination) arises from its acceptance of authority as a source of valid knowledge. However, this
authority is accepted only after thorough prior examination. Indian philosophers, including the Carvaka,
engage in elaborate discussions on sources of knowledge and demonstrate a critical approach, as seen in
the Carvaka's rejection of inference and authority. Epistemological and logical problems are discussed
across all systems.

CARVAKA
The Carvaka philosophical system, named after its founder, was likely established around 600 BCE in India, with its
tenets outlined in the Brhaspati Sutra. However, this original text has not survived. Consequently, much of what is
known about Carvaka philosophy comes from criticisms and polemics written against it by other schools, similar to
how information about certain Greek philosophies is preserved.
Another similarity to Greek philosophies is that Carvaka is a rationalistic and skeptical philosophy, which challenges
the common Western belief that Indian philosophy is solely religious and mystical. This philosophy emerged during a
period when religious dogmas regarding reality, the world's structure, and the afterlife were being increasingly
scrutinized in India and other regions. Specifically, the Carvaka school's core tenets included:
• Materialism, embodying Lokayata (naturalism), where all phenomena are described by the properties of the
four elements.
• Rejection of the Vedas (nastika).
• Atheism.
• Skepticism, which notably included the rejection of inferential logic, or induction.
The Carvaka system is primarily a philosophy of life, rather than a theory of Ultimate Reality. It focuses on humanity's
innate desire for pleasure (Hedonism) and is distinctive for challenging all traditional Indian values. Carvaka
philosophical concepts are generally divided into three main areas: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. In these
three domains, Carvaka philosophy presents a marked contrast to all other Indian philosophical systems.

Theory of Knowledge: Epistemology

Carvaka philosophy asserts that perception is the only pramana (dependable source of knowledge). Consequently, they
subscribe to a metaphysical doctrine stating that matter is the sole reality, and only that which can be perceived is
real. To uphold perception as the exclusive pramana, Carvaka thinkers reject all other sources of knowledge such as
inference, comparison (upamana), and verbal testimony (shabda), which are accepted by other philosophical schools.
Their primary criticism is directed at inference.
According to Carvaka, inference is an "uncertain leap in the dark," moving from the known (the hetu) to the unknown
(the sadhya). Inference relies on an invariable concomitance (vyapti) between the hetu and sadhya (for example,
"Whenever there is smoke, there is fire," where smoke is hetu and fire is sadhya). While vyapti is considered the logical
foundation of inference, Carvaka rejects it as baseless, arguing that vyapti can never be reliably established.
Carvaka's reasons for rejecting inference include:
• Establishing Vyapti Requires Universal Perception: Carvaka argues that vyapti can only be established if one
perceives all cases of hetu and sadhya (e.g., all instances of smoke and fire). This is impossible, as one cannot
perceive all current instances, let alone those from the past or future, thus preventing vyapti from being
established.
• Critique of the Major Premise: Regarding the classical inference "Wherever there is smoke, there is fire; This
mountain has smoke; Therefore, there is fire on the mountain", Carvaka questions:
• How can the major premise be formulated without observing every single instance of smoke?
• If every instance has been observed, then the present case (the mountain) must also have been seen,
rendering the inference unnecessary as the fire would already be perceived.
• Thus, Carvakas conclude that inference is either impossible or superfluous, and it cannot yield truth.
• Infinite Regression: Basing an inference on another inference leads to a fallacy of infinite regress (petitio
principii), as the validity of each subsequent inference would also need proof.
• Reliance on Verbal Testimony: Vyapti cannot be based on the verbal testimony (shabda) of reliable persons
because the validity of shabda itself relies on inference.
• Rejection of Universal Perception (Samanya Lakshana): The argument that one can perceive universal class
essences (e.g., "smokiness" in "fireness") through extraordinary perception (samanya lakshana alaukika
pratyaksha pramana) to establish vyapti is also rejected by Carvaka. They contend that no such samanya
lakshana exists, and what appears consistently in perceived cases might not hold true for unperceived ones.
• Uniformity of Experience: Carvaka also dismisses the idea that vyapti can be based on the uniformity of
experience. They argue that this uniformity is explained by the inherent nature of things, which itself may
change in the future; furthermore, accepting this uniformity is itself an act of inference.
• Rejection of Causal Relation: Carvaka rejects the causal relation as a basis for invariable connection, stating
that if the relationship between two phenomena is not proven to be unconditional, it provides an uncertain
ground for inference. They contend that causal laws are not inherently true; any apparent success in applying
them is purely accidental. For Carvaka, every event is a matter of chance, and everything comes into existence
and passes away according to its own nature, which is not necessarily a universal or unchanging law and can
even change.
• Inference as Guesswork: While inferences sometimes prove true and lead to successful outcomes, they can also
lead to errors. Since truth is not an unfailing characteristic of all inferences, but rather an accident or
contingency, inference cannot be accepted as a valid source of knowledge. Because vyapti (the logical ground of
inference) can never be established, Carvakas conclude that inference is merely guesswork.
Rejection of Other Pramanas:
• Comparison (Upamana): Carvaka does not consider it necessary to reject upamana separately, as they view it as
merely another form of inference, thus denying it independent status as a pramana. Therefore, the rejection of
inference automatically includes the rejection of upamana.
• Verbal Testimony (Shabda): Carvakas strongly criticize verbal testimony, especially regarding unperceived
objects, because knowledge derived from it is as uncertain as inference. They argue that the assertion
"Whatever trustworthy persons (apta-purushas) said was right, so whatever they will say will also be right" is
merely an inference. Verbal knowledge is considered to be based on the established meanings of words, which
themselves are inferred. The reliability of the speaker is also a matter of inference, making verbal testimony an
unreliable source.
• Critique of Vedas: Carvakas launch their strongest critique against the authority of the Vedas. They argue that
the Vedas are unreliable due to their self-contradictory nature (e.g., prohibiting injury in one place while
prescribing animal sacrifice in another). They question how one can believe that animal sacrifices bring merit.
Furthermore, Carvakas assert that the Vedas were created by "cunning and evil priests" for their own self-
interest, to deceive common people and earn a living.
• Conclusion on Pramanas: Based on these arguments, Carvaka concludes that neither inference nor verbal
testimony can be proven reliable. Therefore, perception must be regarded as the only valid source of
knowledge. They accept the reality of only what can be perceived by the senses and deny the reality of anything
unperceivable. The Carvaka theory of knowledge is characterized as a thoroughgoing positivism, rather than
skepticism or agnosticism.
Critical Comments on Carvaka's Epistemology
Several criticisms are leveled against the Carvaka epistemological position:
• Self-Contradiction in Argumentation: If Carvaka supports their own views by reason, they inadvertently use
inference themselves.
• Fallibility of Perception: Even perception can be misleading and does not always provide true knowledge
(e.g., perceiving the earth as flat and static). Therefore, to be consistent, Carvaka should also reject perception as
a pramana.
• Inferring Non-Existence: When Carvaka denies the existence of non-perceptible objects like God or the soul,
they go beyond perception by inferring the non-existence of these objects from the mere fact of their non-
perception.
• Extrapolation to Future Perceptions: Carvaka's position also involves extrapolating from past valid
perceptions to infer something about future unperceived cases of perception.
• Inference in Discussion and Thought: When Carvaka argues with critics, they infer the critics' thoughts from
their expressions. To reject the validity of inference is to reject thinking and discussion itself, as all thoughts,
doctrines, affirmations, and denials rely on inference. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be
perceived and thus can only be inferred.

Carvaka's Metaphysics
Carvaka's metaphysical doctrine logically follows from their epistemology (theory of knowledge). If perception is the
sole reliable source of knowledge, then it can be rationally asserted that material objects are the only entities whose
existence is perceived and thus whose reality can be affirmed. Consequently, concepts like God, soul, heaven,
rebirth, and adrsta (unseen merit/demerit) are not accepted, as they are all beyond perception. This forms the basis of
Carvaka's materialism.
Key aspects of Carvaka's metaphysics include:
• Four Perceptible Elements: The world is composed of four perceptible elements: earth, water, fire, and air.
Carvaka rejects ether (akasa) because its existence cannot be perceived and would have to be inferred.
• No Belief in God: Carvaka metaphysics does not accept the existence of God as the creator, sustainer, or
destroyer of the world. Since anything unperceivable is not accepted as existing, God, being unperceivable, is
considered merely an imagination (an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being). They assert that belief in God
as a creator is unnecessary, as the entire universe is formed from the four basic elements, and living beings
emerge from and return to them. The world does not have a definite teleological goal created by God.
• Naturalism (Svabhāva-vāda): The world comes into existence through the spontaneous combination of
material elements, governed by their inherent nature and laws. This view is known as naturalism (svabhāva-
vāda). It is also termed mechanistic (yadṛcchāvāda) because it denies any conscious purpose behind the world's
creation, explaining it as a mere mechanical combination of elements.
• Rejection of Universal Causation: Carvaka philosophy does not accept the law of causation or its
universality. While the law of causation posits a necessary, invariable, and concomitant relationship between
cause and effect, Carvaka argues that such a relation is not necessary or unconditional. They believe the law of
causation fails to explain the world's diversity and that not every effect necessarily has a cause.
• Inherent Nature as Ultimate Cause: According to Carvaka metaphysics, the inherent nature or power
(svabhava) of things is the ultimate cause of the universe and its diversity. They maintain that from a definite
cause, many effects may arise, as future incidents cannot be perceived. The things of the universe originate from
the inherent power of the four basic elements, which Carvakas call "Bhutachatustaya" (Earth (Khiti), Water
(Apa), Fire (Teja), and Air (Marut)). They prioritize Naturalism (Svabhava or Yadṛccha) over causality to
explain diversity, stating that all events occur on their own according to their inherent nature, which has no cause
but is its own cause. For example, the hotness of fire, coolness of water, and sharpness of thorns occur simply
"according to their nature" without an external agent or cause.
• Denial of Soul (Atman): Being materialists, Carvakas do not believe in the existence of an invisible,
unchangeable, or immortal soul. They hold that the soul is a product of matter, a quality of the body, and does
not exist separately outside it. They assert that no soul is perceived; only a conscious body is observed.
• Dehatmavada or Bhutachaitanyavada: According to Carvaka, the so-called soul is simply the conscious living
body, a doctrine known as Dehatmavada or Bhutachaitanyavada. They argue that a non-material soul is never
perceived, and direct evidence, such as the statement "I am fat," demonstrates the identity of the self with the
body; if the "I" were distinct from the body, such a statement would be meaningless.
• Consciousness as Byproduct: Carvaka acknowledges that consciousness is not perceived in the individual four
elements but explains that it arises when material things combine in a particular ratio and quantity. They offer
analogies such as molasses fermenting to produce intoxication, or betel leaf and supari producing a reddish tinge
when chewed. Thus, consciousness is considered a byproduct of matter, an epiphenomenon secreted by matter,
just as the liver secretes bile. It is the result of an emergent and dialectical evolution, where a specific
 combination of elements produces consciousness even if the individual elements do not possess it separately.
Actions attributed to the soul are, in reality, actions of the body.
• No Afterlife: The death of the body signifies the death of the individual, thereby eliminating any possibility of
proving soul immortality. Consequently, all questions concerning previous lives, afterlives, rebirth, adrsta,
heaven, hell, and similar concepts become meaningless.

Types of Carvakas
The source distinguishes between two types of Carvaka followers:
• Dhurta (Cunning) Carvakas: They consider the conscious body to be the soul. The soul exists and perishes
with the body, and consciousness is experienced only within the body, having no separate existence outside it.
• Susikshit (Educated) Carvakas: These maintain that the soul, possessing eternal knowledge, perishes with
the body and does not migrate between bodies.
Furthermore, the source outlines various identifications of the soul among Carvaka followers:
• Some are Dehatmavadin, identifying the body and soul.
• Others are Indriyatmavadin, considering the senses to be the soul.
• Some are Pranavadin, viewing the soul as nothing but the vital principle (Prana).
• Still others are Atmamanovadin, for whom there is no difference between mind and soul.
Overall, Carvaka philosophy asserts that upon the destruction of the body, nothing remains. Hence, there is no eternal,
immortal soul existing independently of the body. The Carvaka view of the soul is consistently referred to as
Dehatmavada or Bhutachaitanyavada.

Arguments for Dehatmavada or Bhutachaitanyavada

Carvaka presents several arguments to support the view that the soul is identical with the conscious body:
• Bodily Nourishment: When the body is nourished by food and drink, consciousness or intelligence is also
nourished and the body becomes healthy; therefore, consciousness is a bodily phenomenon.
• Physical Basis of Intelligence: Human mental development and capabilities are observed to grow in accordance
with the bodily nervous system. Carvakas cite the example of sheep: the more developed and complex human
cerebral nervous system correlates with more developed human intelligence, indicating that intelligence is a
product of bodily mechanism.
• Bodily Disorder Affects Consciousness: When the body becomes disordered or unwell, mental power or
consciousness decreases, demonstrating that consciousness is caused by the body.
• Aging and Intellectual Decline: As a person ages and their body becomes frail, their intellectual capacity
correspondingly weakens, suggesting that the body is the reservoir of consciousness.
• "I" Indicates Body: Daily activities and conduct also indicate that consciousness is nothing but the body. When
the word "I" is uttered, it refers to the body and also the soul; thus, the body is the soul or consciousness.

Critical Comments on Carvaka's Soul Theory

Despite Carvaka's strong critique of the soul's existence apart from the body, their Dehatmavada theory of the soul has
been criticized by philosophers from various Indian schools:
• Self-Consciousness vs. Living Body: If consciousness implies self-consciousness (as in humans), it cannot be
identified solely with the living body, since animals possess living bodies but lack rational consciousness.
Carvaka counters that a specific combination of elements, unique to the human body, produces consciousness,
thus always associating living body and consciousness.
• Separability of Consciousness: If consciousness were an essential property of the human body, it should be
inseparable from it. However, in conditions like fits or epilepsy, the living body is observed without
consciousness. Conversely, in dreams, consciousness is present without the living body, and upon waking, one
disowns the dream body but acknowledges the dream consciousness.
• Correlation vs. Causation: The mere fact that consciousness is not experienced without a living body does not
prove it is a product of matter. For instance, sight is impossible without light, yet light is not the cause of sight.
• Lack of Perceptible Qualities: If consciousness were a property of the body, it should be perceived like other
material properties (e.g., seen, smelt, heard, or tasted), but it is not.
• Private Nature of Consciousness: If consciousness were a property of matter, it should not be private. Yet,
consciousness is intimately private and cannot be shared by others.
• Recollection and Changeability: Functions like recollection cannot be accounted for by a changeable body;
only an eternal and unchangeable soul can explain such actions.
 • Subject-Object Distinction: The subject (soul) cannot be identified with the object (body). The body is the
object, and the soul is the subject, indicating the soul's separate existence from the body, and consciousness is a
quality of the soul.

Carvaka Ethics
Carvaka's ethics aligns directly with their metaphysical theory, addressing the highest goal and proper conduct for human
life.
• Rejection of Heaven and Hell: Carvaka considers heaven and hell to be myths and "inventions of priests,"
thus not valid goals of life.
• Rejection of Liberation: They reject liberation (moksha) as the highest goal of human life. If liberation is
defined as the soul's freedom from physical bondage, it is deemed absurd, as Carvaka denies the existence of a
soul. Furthermore, they view liberation as freedom from all pains as an impossible ideal, given that existence in
the body inherently involves both pleasure and pain.
• Hedonism: Carvaka states that human existence is confined to the body and to this life. Therefore, the highest
goal of human life is to attain the maximum amount of pleasure in this life, making pleasure the ultimate
ideal. This is why Carvaka ethics is termed hedonism, the theory that pleasure is the supreme goal. The source
notes that not all materialists were egoistic hedonists; some were "cultured hedonists". Carvaka rejects dharma
(righteousness) and moksha (liberation), accepting only artha (wealth) and kama (desire) as valid means to
life's ends.
• Rejection of Karma and Rebirth: Unlike all other schools of Indian philosophy, Carvaka rejects the doctrines
of Karma and Rebirth. The law of Karma, which relates actions to their fruits (e.g., good actions lead to good
outcomes, bad actions to bad outcomes), is based on the law of causation. However, since Carvaka philosophy
does not accept the law of causation, it consequently rejects the law of Karma itself.
• No Necessary Relation Between Action and Fruit: According to Carvaka, there is no necessary relation
between an action and its fruit; the doctrine of Karma is considered an imagination. Happiness, sorrow,
pleasure, pain, rewards, and punishments are not seen as results of one's actions. Instead, these experiences
depend on the environment and surrounding conditions under which actions are performed. For Carvaka,
everything in this world is accidental.
• No Rebirth or Afterlife: Since Carvaka philosophy rejects the law of Karma, it naturally does not accept the
doctrine of rebirth. They contend that a person cannot be reborn after death because there is no soul separate
from the material body; upon the body's destruction, nothing remains. Therefore, concepts of life after death,
rebirth, and soul immortality are regarded as false ideas or mere imagination.

.
Jainism is an ancient Indian philosophical system, whose origins can be traced to prehistoric times. While Mahavira
(also known as Vardhamana), the 24th and last Tirthankara, is often regarded as the real founder, Jaina teachings existed
even before him, suggesting he gave a new outlook to an existing system. Jainism is considered one of the three
heterodox (nastika) systems of Indian philosophy because it does not believe in the authority of the Vedas. However, it
advocates a speculative philosophy of a higher order and preaches religious truths of non-violence.

Epistemology: Theory of Knowledge

The Jainas admit three sources of valid knowledge (pramanas):
1. Perception: Direct or immediate cognition not derived through other cognitions.
2. Inference: Produces valid knowledge when it adheres to logical rules of correctness.
3. Testimony: Produces valid knowledge when it is a report from a reliable authority.
Jaina philosophy distinguishes between two kinds of knowledge:
• Pramana: Knowledge of a thing as it is, providing complete knowledge.
• Naya: Knowledge of a thing in its relation, representing a specific standpoint of thought about a thing, providing
partial knowledge. It is not possible for ordinary people to obtain complete knowledge of a thing.
This understanding leads to the core Jaina doctrines of the relativity of knowledge:

Naya (Standpoint)
Naya signifies that truth is relative to our different standpoints of thought about a thing. There are seven nayas, with
the first four being "Artha Naya" (relating to objects or meanings) and the last three being "Sabda Naya" (relating to
words). A fallacy, called naya bhasa, occurs when a Naya is mistaken as an absolute or final statement about a thing.

Anekantavada (Many-sidedness of Reality)

Jaina metaphysics is characterized as relativistic pluralism, known as Anekantavada. It asserts that reality
(dravya/substance) possesses innumerable qualities and an infinite number of characteristics. Ordinary people can
only comprehend some of these qualities. Thus, no single statement or standpoint can claim to be absolute truth; all truths
are relative, and every standpoint is partially true. The doctrine emphasizes the "manyness of reality".

Syadvada (Theory of Relativity of Knowledge)

Syadvada is the epistemological and logical counterpart of Anekantavada. It holds that all human judgments are
necessarily relative, conditional, and limited because we can only know some aspects of an object's infinite
characteristics. Therefore, the word "syat" (meaning "relatively speaking" or "viewed from a particular point of view")
must precede all judgments to indicate their limitations and the possibility of alternative viewpoints. Both absolute
affirmation and absolute negation are considered wrong. The Jaina system illustrates this with the analogy of blind
persons touching an elephant.
To achieve valid judgment (pramana), every naya (partial truth) must be qualified by "syat". This leads to the
Saptabhanginaya, or the seven forms of judgment, which describe reality from different conditional perspectives:
1. Syat Asti: Relatively, a thing is real. (e.g., "relatively the jug is in the room").
2. Syat Nasti: Relatively, a thing is unreal. (e.g., "somehow the jar is not outside the room").
3. Syat Asti Nasti: Relatively, a thing is real and unreal (from different points of view). (e.g., "relatively the jar is
and also is not red").
4. Syat Avaktavyam: Relatively, a thing is indescribable (when incompatible characters are simultaneously
predicated). (e.g., the "real color" of a jar when it's black raw and red baked).
5. Syat Asti Avaktavyam: Relatively, a thing is real and indescribable.
6. Syat Nasti Avaktavyam: Relatively, a thing is unreal and indescribable.
7. Syat Asti Nasti Avaktavyam: Relatively, a thing is real, unreal, and indescribable. No other forms of judgment
are possible, as combining others simultaneously would result in the "indescribable" form.
Syadvada is not skepticism or agnosticism, but a recognition of the conditional and relative character of judgments. It
logically supports the doctrine of the plurality of truth or reality. The justification for Syadvada comes from the Jaina
belief that human knowledge is necessarily relative, conditional, and finite due to beginningless ignorance, which leads to
passions (kasaya) that attract karmic particles (karma pudgala) and hinder complete knowledge.
Critical Comments on Syadvada:
• It has been rejected as self-contradictory, but Jainas argue that contradictory attributes like existence and non-
existence are not made from the same point of view.
 • It is sometimes criticized as a theory of probability, but Jainas clarify it as a theory of relativity of knowledge.
• While other schools of philosophy also acknowledge the relative character of empirical knowledge, Jainism is
criticized for bluntly rejecting the distinction between relative and absolute, and for having a strong bias against
absolutism, forgetting that relativity cannot be sustained without the absolute. If all truth is partial, Syadvada
itself becomes partially true and false.
• Jainas are criticized for forgetting their bias against absolutism when they absolutely assert that their teachings
alone represent the whole truth, and for calling Kevala Jnana (omniscience) pure, full, complete, and intuitive
knowledge, which is an admission of absolutism.
• The seven forms of judgment in Saptabhanginaya are seen as scattered and lacking synthesis, which critics argue
is impossible without an absolute that gives meaning to relative terms. The last three judgments are also
considered superfluous combinations of the first four.
• Critics point out that Jainas themselves include the "indescribable" in the fourth step of Saptabhanginaya, despite
criticizing its conception as self-contradictory. Despite these criticisms, the underlying principle of Syadvada
makes Jaina philosophy catholic and tolerant, as many philosophical and religious disputes arise from mistaking
partial truth for the whole truth.

Metaphysics
Jaina metaphysics posits that reality consists of substance (dravya), which possesses both permanent, essential,
unchanging attributes (gunas) (e.g., consciousness) and accidental, non-essential, changing modes (paryaya) (e.g.,
desire, pain, pleasure). A substance is permanent from the perspective of its essence but momentary from the perspective
of its modes, implying that both change and permanence are real. This distinguishes Jainism from Buddhism, which
asserts everything is momentary (Kshanikavada), and from Vedanta, which declares change is unreal and reality is
absolutely unchanging; Jainism establishes a "theological mean" between these views, acknowledging that both change
and permanence are real. Reality, for Jainas, consists of three factors: permanence, origination, and decay.
The entire universe is classified into two everlasting, uncreated, eternal, and co-existing categories:
1. Jiva (Conscious Substance):
• Consciousness is the essence of the soul.
• Jivas are innumerable, individual souls.
• They are qualitatively alike but quantitatively different, similar to Leibniz's monads. The universe is
literally filled with them.
• Jivas are inherently perfect, possessing infinite faith, infinite bliss, infinite knowledge, and infinite
power (anantachatustaya), but these qualities are obscured in bound souls by karmic particles.
• Jiva is the real knower and agent.
• Although formless, it takes the form of the body it occupies, being co-extensive with it.
• Jivas are divided into liberated (mukta) and bound (baddha), with bound souls further categorized into
mobile (trasa) and immobile (sthārvara).
• Proofs for the existence of Jiva include direct realization (e.g., "I feel that I am happy") and indirect
inference (e.g., body movement, sensory coordination).
2. Ajiva (Non-conscious Substance): Ajiva is subdivided into five types:
• Pudgala (Matter): Liable to integration and disintegration. Smallest parts are atoms, which combine to
form compounds (sanghat or skandha). Matter possesses four qualities: color, taste, smell, and touch.
Sound is considered an accidental modification, not a quality of matter. All atoms are qualitatively alike
and become differentiated by developing these qualities. In its subtle form, matter constitutes karma,
which infiltrates into souls and binds them to samsara.
• Space (Akasa): Provides room for extended substances. It is infinite, eternal, and imperceptible, inferred
as a condition of extension. Divided into Lokakash (space containing the world where souls and other
substances live) and Alokakash (empty space beyond the world).
• Time (Kala): Infinite, eternal, and imperceptible. It is inferred from characteristics that make possible
continuity, modification, and activity (new and old). Distinguished between Real Time (makes
continuity or duration possible, infinite, one, indivisible) and Empirical Time (divided into moments,
hours, etc., makes other changes possible).
• Dharma (Medium of Motion): A condition that favors the movement of objects, though it does not
generate motion itself (analogy: water to fish).
• Adharma (Medium of Rest): A condition that favors the rest of objects, though it does not arrest
movement (analogy: tree shadow to a traveler).

Bondage (Bandhan)
Bondage in Jainism is the union of the soul (jiva) with matter (karma pudgala). It arises from beginningless
ignorance.
 • Ignorance leads to passions (known as kasaya, meaning "sticky substance") such as anger, greed, pride, and
delusion.
• These passions attract karma pudgala (subtle karmic particles) towards the soul.
• The actual flow of these particles towards the soul is called asrava. Asrava can be categorized as Bhav asrava
(changes in disposition before karma enters) or Dravya asrava (changes after karma enters). This is illustrated by
the analogy of oil massage (bhav asrava) making the body sticky and dust particles (karma pudgal) sticking to it
(dravya asrava). Activities of body (kaya yoga), speech (vag yoga), and mind (mano yoga) also contribute to
asrava.
• When these karmic particles infiltrate and bind the soul, it is called bandhan. This union explains why life and
consciousness are found throughout the body.

Liberation (Moksha/Kaivalya)
Liberation, also known as Moksha or Kaivalya, signifies the separation of matter from the soul. It is the ultimate goal
of human life, representing the complete cessation of suffering.
The path to liberation involves the practice of Triratna (Three Jewels):
1. Right Faith (Samyak Darshana): Faith in the teachings of the Tirthankaras, who are omniscient.
2. Right Knowledge (Samyak Jnana): Produced by right faith, it is the true understanding that destroys karmas.
3. Right Conduct (Samyak Charitra): Perfects knowledge and helps eliminate karmas. These three are
inseparably bound, with the perfection of one leading to the perfection of the others.
The process of liberation involves two stages:
• Samvar: The stoppage of the influx of fresh karmas into the soul, achieved through the practice of the Three
Jewels.
• Nirjara: The wearing away or exhaustion of karmas that have already accumulated in the soul.
Once the last particle of karma is exhausted, the soul-matter partnership dissolves. The soul then shines in its intrinsic
nature, regaining its infinite faith, knowledge, bliss, and power. This state is called Kevala Jnana (omniscience),
where the soul is liberated from samsara and dwells in eternal knowledge and bliss at the top of the world (siddhasila).
Kevala Jnana is an intrinsic quality of all souls, obscured by karmic particles, and can be attained by shedding these off
through 14 stages of spiritual development (gunasthana).
• The first four gunasthanas relate to rationality in perception.
• Stages 5 to 14 relate to conduct, with higher stages requiring major vows (Mahavratas) of a Jaina ascetic.
Jain karma theory identifies eight main types of karma (Prakriti), categorized as:
• Harming Karmas (Ghatiya karmas): These directly affect the soul's powers by impeding its perception,
knowledge, and energy, and also by causing delusion. These include:
• Knowledge-obscuring karma (jnanavariya karma)
• Perception-obscuring karma (Darsanavaraiya karma)
• Deluding karma (Mohaniya karma) – which is the most difficult to overcome, and its eradication ensures
liberation within a few lifetimes.
• Obstructing karma (Antariya karma) – which creates obstructions to giving donations, obtaining gains,
and enjoying things.
• Total destruction of Ghatiya karmas leads to Kevala Jnana.
• Non-harming Karmas (Aghatiya karmas): These affect the body housing the soul. These include:
• Lifespan-determining karma (Ayu karma) – which determines the subsequent states of existence and
lifespan after death.
• Body-determining karma (Nama karma) – which determines the type of body occupied by the soul.
• Status-determining karma (Gotra karma) – which gives high or low status in society.
• Feeling-production karma (Vedaniya karma) – which causes the soul's uninterrupted happiness to be
interrupted, resulting in agitation.
• Exhaustion of Aghatiya karmas leads to Kaivalya.
Jainism emphasizes that liberation is primarily an ethical teaching, with its aim being the perfection of the soul by
removing karma pudgala and regaining its intrinsic nature.