Review: Criteria for Non-violent Interfaith Dialogue

In a previous article (The Interfaith Jain Yoga Of Haribhadra, Part 1)  I have proposed a set of criteria of nonviolent (ahiṃsā) communication between religious traditions that can further interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding as involving the following practices:  (1) ensuring that dialogue is consensual, (2) affording the maximum value to the diverse teachings of other traditions, (3) understanding the “other” by their own self-definition, (4) readily admitting our own limitations with regards to understanding reality at large (“epistemological humility”), and finally, (5) remaining faithful to, and maintaining our own non-negotiable beliefs. The previous article noted how Haribhadra’s discussions of Jain yoga follow these elements of largely, in terms of item #2, “affording the maximum value to the diverse teachings of other traditions.”

Haribhadra’s Yoga-dṛṣṭi-samuccaya (YDS) & Item #2

Much of Haribhadra’s approach with the Yoga-Drṣṭi-Samuccaya (YDS) amounts to a tacit understanding that yoga itself is a form of interfaith dialogue, and a shared framework of practice. As I mentioned previously, the basis for the shared frameworks and terms of pan-yogic traditions in the case of the YDS is the assertion of the practical over the theoretical, which is why in many ways he so is able to so quickly find parallels with other pan-dharmic, pan-yogic traditions. This primacy of the practical over the theoretical is, of course, consistent with the philosophical pragmatism of the Jain tradition.

Chapple suggests that this interfaith harmony proposed by Haribhadra is partly because he respected that yoga, of any tradition, “emphasized practice than theory,” which allowed him to “develop a language of universality that respected his own commitment to the highest goal of Jainism (ayoga kevala) while at the same time allowed him to affirm similar goals in other traditions” (Chapple 2003, 13). This is characteristic of the pragmatism of the mutuality model. 

Epistemologically speaking (in terms of “the study of knowledge and how it is acquired”), Haribhadra trivializes the differences between traditions because all of these traditions believe that one is “undeluded” once one attains the “fundamental truth of liberation” (nirvāṇa-tattva, YDS 132). The difference is less about the path taken and is more about the differences in levels possessed by disciples of any faith (YDS 134) since the truth is one (ekā’pi) as is the essence of their teachings, despite the differences amongst disciples of these traditions (śrotṛ-vibhedataḥ, YDS 136). This amounts to a subordination of the theoretical aspects in the forms of different paths, and a superordination of the practical which is characteristic of the mutuality model. 

Haribhadra seems unconcerned with religious differences since from one perspective truth is the same for all practitioners, and we all have access to it. He specifically notes that Hindus have equal access to that truth (sadāśivaḥ, paraṃ brahma) as do Buddhists (tathatā, YDS 130). He notes that this is evident since these traditions all agree that this “transcendental truth” (paraṃ tattvaṃ) is “not bound by birth” (janma+adya-yogataḥ), being “transcendental to worldly activity” (niṣkriyaṃ), “without ailments (anāmayam), or any other type of “worldly bondage” (nirābādham) to karma (YDS 131).

He implies that the same fundamental truth is adapted “according to one’s nature” (yathā-bhyavyaṃ) and is “not barren” (avandhyatā) for any of them (YDS 137). There are merely multiple “viewpoints and perspectives” (nāya+āpekṣā) of the same “root truth” (mūla…tattvataḥ) that has been “diversified” (citrā) by the teachings of sages” (ṛṣibhyo deśanā) across time and traditions (YDS 138).

Criteria #4: Epistemological Humility

Further, humility is an important element in interfaith dialogue. If one disagrees, it is helpful if one also emphasizes one’s own epistemological limitations. Haribhadra emphasizes the importance of non-attachment on the spiritual path and infers that this includes also non-attachment to one’s own certitude about one’s own knowledge (YDS 148).

Haribhadra cautions us not to be too arrogantly “bound to our rejections” by contradicting (arvāg) the views (dṛśāṃ) of sages (satām) from other traditions. With all humility he suggests that we should have such caution because our own opinions (abhiprāyam) are undoubtedly clouded by ignorance at least to some degree (ajñātvā, YDS 139), likened to a blind person repudiating the moon (YDS 140). 

Thus, one should not repudiate the statements of even ordinary people (YDS 141), what to speak of sages from other traditions. We should follow the example of such sages, who would never repudiate other sages, irrespective of their tradition (YDS 142). After all, we cannot rely on our own inferential logic, since absolute truth is beyond any logic, and must be experienced directly to be fully understood (YDS 144-145), again coming back to the pragmatism of a mutuality model. 

Thus, the epistemological humility of the YDS lends itself to a sense of religious mutualism, that is, that religious be benefit by respectful interactions with each other.  When such humility amounts to not only a mere admission of one’s own capacities but also the epistemic value of the theoretical, the result is a subordination of the epistemic viability of the theoretical. This is characteristic of Jain pragmatism in general.

References

Chapple, Christopher Key. 2003. Reconciling Yogas: Haridhadra’s Collection of Views on Yoga. 2003. New York: State University of New York Press. 

For additional articles on the key figures and texts of the Jain yoga tradition:

• The Yoga of Haribhadra Yākinīputra's Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya by Christopher Jain Miller, PhD
• The Yoga of Haribhadra Virahāṅka’s Yogabindu by Christopher Jain Miller, PhD
• An Overview of Jain Meditation in the Yoga-śāstra by Cogen Bohanec, MA, PhD
• What is “Jain Yoga”? by Christopher Jain Miller, PhD

Cogen Bohanec, MA, PhD currently holds the position of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit and Jain Studies at Arihanta Institute where he teaches various courses on Jain philosophy and its applications.  He received his doctorate in Historical and Cultural Studies of Religion from the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) in Berkeley, California where his research emphasized comparative dharmic traditions and the philosophy of religion. He teaches several foundational self-paced, online courses based in Jain philosophy, yoga, ecology, languages, and interfaith peace-building, including:

• 2001 | Introduction to Jain Philosophy
• 3001 | Introduction to Jain Yoga
• 1007 | Peacebuilding & Interfaith Dialogue in the Jain Tradition
• 1010 | Toward a Jain Ecotheology
• 2010 | Research Sanskrit: Level 1
• 2012 | University Sanskrit 1 Live