The Interfaith Jain Yoga Of Haribhadra, Part 3

10/28/2024

By Cogen Bohanec, MA, PhD

Sometimes observers of the Jain tradition mistakenly think that the Jain philosophy of anekānta-vāda, or “many-sidedness,” amounts to philosophical relativism, where relativism is the belief that all truth claims are of equal value, a position that is generally repudiated by philosophers as a fallacy (i.e. if relativism is true then its opposite is also true, and that is a fallacy of contradiction). But that is far from the truth.

In the previous articles (The Interfaith Jain Yoga Of Haribhadra, parts 1 & 2) I proposed criteria of nonviolent religious communication as requiring: (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. In those articles, I mentioned how Haribhadra’s discussions of Jain yoga follow items #2, “affording the maximum value to the diverse teachings of other traditions, and #4, “epistemological humility.” One might mistakenly hear Haribhadra’s radical acceptance of other religious traditions to be a proposal of relativism. However, we can clearly see with item #5, maintaining one’s non-negotiable, that Haribhadra hardly considers all truth claims to be equally valid. On the contrary, there are many beliefs and practices that he believes are flat out wrong.

Non-negotiables

It is important when discussing interfaith dialogue and shared terms and frameworks, that we don’t mistake Haribhadra’s position for the relativism of the acceptance model, namely, that all truth claims are of equal value. He is quick to underscore his disagreements with other systems and note his belief in their flaws. In terms of item #3 “understanding the ‘other’ by their own self-definition” and item #5 “remaining faithful to Jain non-negotiables,” he notes at length where they disagree with Jain beliefs, and does not compromise the fundamental, non-negotiable elements of the Jain tradition.

Haribhadra’s Non-negotiables & the Fulfillment Model

The Yoga-bindu “makes a case for Jainism to stand forth as a system of religious practice not in need of external confirmation or agreement” with Hindu and Buddhist systems. The text “sets forth a clear fivefold path” that “does not defer to Patañjali” but rather follows the 14 guṇa-sthāna-s of the Tattvārtha-sūtra which are “not known widely outside of Jainism” (Chapple 2003, 125-126).

Moreover, Haribhadra’s work is intended to subsume “all other forms of Yoga under the Jaina umbrella … rather than trying to make his own particular Jain view acceptable to others” (Chapple 2016, “Haribhadra,” 136). As I have mentioned, this subordination of the theoretical models of other traditions to one’s own is characteristic of philosophical pragmatism.

In the context of religious pluralism, Haribhadra does not hesitate to assert that the Jain teachings are “the purified, true system, beneficial to one’s being” (YB 4, Chapple’s translation, 131). These include “the reality of the three key Jain teachings: the reality of the soul, the reality of the karma that afflicts the souls, and the reality of the path of purification leading towards liberation from karma” (Chapple 2016, 131).

In terms of non-negotiables, the important features of Jain dharma that Haribhadra subordinates to Jain thought are (i) the eternality of an individual soul, (ii) ontological pluralism (rather than monism or illusionism), (iii) and non-theism, particular favoring “self-reliance” over the “other reliance” of grace as an exclusive means of salvation (e.g. some Hindu bhakti traditions and Buddhist Pure Land traditions).

Broadly speaking, the main point of disagreement between the Yoga-dṛṣṭi-samuccaya (YDS) and other pan-dharmic traditions from each of their perspectives involves the issue of what exactly liberation looks like. Each tradition’s understanding of liberation will be system-dependent, that is, it will depend on the other commitments of that tradition in terms of metaphysics, theism, etc.

Haribhadra’s discussion reveals that “Jain, Buddhist, and Sāṅkhya advocates of mokṣa cannot be made to adopt a unanimous position as to the nature of mokṣa, and that in its turn is because one’s notion of mokṣa logically follows from one’s metaphysical convictions.” While they may all agree that “the attainment of mokṣa signifies a cessation of the transmigratory cycle…this will be too slender a basis for” any possibility of “unanimity among the various theological orders” (K.K. Dixit 1970, 85).

Haribhadra & Non-Śramaṇa-s

It is not always clear that Haribhadra affords the same degree of respect to non-śramaṇa, non-ascetic, positions that do not seek to eradicate karma. Some of his strongest criticisms are reserved for those who fail to include the eradication of karma in their spiritual praxis. For example, Haribhadra spends several verses of the YDS denouncing those who “are attached (saṇgataḥ) to the pursuit (ārambha) of worthless, [worldly] goals (niṣphala)” (YDS 76-85). Such people are completely mistaken (viparyāsa) regarding what is beneficial and what is not (hita+ahita, YDS 78).

Haribhadra does not hesitate to underscore the flaws in the intelligence of non-śramaṇa-s (e.g. YDS 82, pāpa-dūlyā, jaḍāḥ, etc.). This may not lend itself well to interfaith harmony and may perhaps imply a stronger replacement model regarding Haribhadra’s approach to non-śramaṇa traditions. Perhaps we all have opinions about traditions that might need to simply be replaced (e.g. such as traditions of patriarchy, violence, etc.) and for Haribhadra it seems that non-śramaṇa traditions might be that.

Haribhadra & Vedic Ritual

Related to this, the YDS includes a standard śramaṇa critique of Vedic ritual, based on karma-theory, namely, that rituals are not efficacious apart from the attitudes and internal state of the practitioners of these rituals (115-119). It also critiques the Brāhmaṇical idea that one can enlist ritual specialists to do ritual on one’s behalf, since one alone is responsible for one’s karma (YDS 119). These critiques are a little less vociferous and may not amount to a full replacement model and may instead imply a fulfillment model.

Haribhadra & “Illusionism”

As we have seen by the tradition’s non-negotiables, Jain ontology is unique in that they believe in a “pluralistic universe” with individual entities and multiple “kinds” of things, rather than multiplicity being subsumed by an ontological whole as a singular substance, or substratum.

Jain ontological pluralism is in contrast to the absolute monism of Advaita-vedānta and qualified monism of bhedābheda-vedānta-s that asserts either that individual entities are mere sub-categories of an aggregate whole (brahma-pariṇāma-vāda as per bhedābheda-vedānta-s), or that there are not divisions in reality at all, and that divisions themselves are a function of ignorance (brahma-vivarta-vāda, as per Advaita-vedānta). Haribhadra’s refutation of monism in the YDS is largely directed at Advaita-vedānta.

For example, Advaita-Vedāntins deny the individuality of the soul and they believe upon liberation one simply merges with the Divine (brahman) and all “illusion” of identity is gone. Some Buddhists share this “illusory” understanding of individuality, but not only deny that there is a soul, but that there is any enduring entity at all after liberation, including the existence of a “whole” of reality of which all things are but sub-permutations. Haribhadra critiques these positions of “illusionism” (maya-vāda). He contests the “illusionist” position that suffering, like individuality itself, was merely illusory, and that one therefore is never actually suffering in the first place (YDS 187).

Haribhadra & Theism

Some Vedāntins (Bhakti-vedānta of Vaiṣṇava-s) see liberation as the attainment of an almost heavenly realm, replete with non-worldly, transcendental joys, desires, and even non-worldly sensory stimulation. These are all in direct contrast to the Jain understanding of liberation and the problems inherent in desire and sensory stimulation in general and are thus critiqued by Haribhadra.

He also criticizes “the notion that reliance upon an external deity can advance one on the path of Yoga.” For Chapple, such theism is in counter-distinction to the “self-reliance” of Jain religious practice, as opposed to the other-reliance of grace from a deity, particularly in Hindu traditions, but also present in Pure Land Buddhism. By this, he underscores the “Jain insistence” that “the practice of austerity…is the only method for reducing karma.” With what seems to be a double entendre, he points out that since the deities as “other” (anya) power, are also “other” than the spiritual essence of the soul, being themselves, beings ensnared in karma and material reality, it is unsound to believe that “other” power of grace can ultimately do what austerity alone can do (Chapple 2016, 131).

Haribhadra & Buddhists

Moreover, Haribhadra “repeatedly” refutes “Buddhist no-self teachings” (Chapple 2016, 136). This refers to the Buddhist belief that one does not have a self that endures over time, and therefore one certainly does not have any kind of individual, eternal soul. This point in Buddhist philosophy is in direct contradiction to Jain teachings that center on the eternality of the soul, and Haribhadra is unyielding about affirming the superiority of the Jain view.

Haribhadra simultaneously challenges these Buddhist positions and the notion that one “ceases existence” (abhāvaḥ) upon liberation. The YDS further refutes the ultimacy of non-endurance of any selfhood of the Buddhists (YDS 193-197).

Haribhadra & Tantra

Further, Haribhadra is clear that the transgressive practices of tantra, particularly some forms of goddess worship, run the risk of preventing spiritual advancement since, by violating śramaṇa norms, they accrue even quite negative karma (Chapple 2003, 19).

Haribhadra & Yoga-Sāṃkhya

Most interestingly, the YDS disagrees with the metaphysics of the Yoga Sūtra that posits a metaphysical duality between the plurality of souls, and the singularity of material energy (prakṛti). By the Yoga Sūtra, the material universe is but a transformation of a singular substance of prakṛti that is operating eternally (e.g. YS 4.14).

Haribhadra rejects this idea because if material reality is eternal and singular, then liberation is meaningless since all bondage is one, and all bondage is forever occurring (YDS 198-201). This section (YDS 198 ff.) can also be taken as a refutation of any form of ontological holism beyond the holism of the Yoga Sūtra and include that of a refutation of the multiple forms of Vedāntic holisms.

Conclusion

Haribhadra admits that some of these views may be of some instrumental value in terms of eliminating karma. But he is clear that such views would have to be eventually discarded as one advances in epistemic (“knowing”) capacity and towards the ultimate goal, although they might initially have instrumental model. Moreover, it seems that for Haribhadra some positions, such as non-śramaṇa traditions, seem to be so flawed that they lack even instrumental value and should therefore simply be replaced.

However, rather than a wholesale dismissal of the validity of other yoga traditions, which would be characteristic of religious exclusivism, Haribhadra is explicit that each of these traditions will “lead to deliverance” (Chapple 2016, 136). But while accepting the frameworks and concepts of these traditions, Haribhadra fashions these shared heuristic frameworks and concepts into his own, uniquely Jain, “five-fold” yoga system. This gives Haribhadra’s work an interesting blend of the superlative theoretical models of Jain teachings and the superlative practical aspect characteristic of the pragmatism that allows for significant valuation of one’s interfaith dialogical partner in a way that is conducive with peacebuilding and interfaith goodwill.

References

Chapple, Christopher Key. 2016. “Haribhadra Virahāṅka’s Yoga Bindu.” In Yoga in Jainism, edited by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: Routledge.

———.2003. Reconciling Yogas: Haridhadra’s Collection of Views on Yoga. 2003. New York: State University of New York Press.

Dixit, K.K. 1970. Tr. The Yogabindu of Ācārya Haribhadrasūri. Ahmedabad: Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandir.

Wiley, Kristi L. 2009. The A to Z of Jainism. Lanham: Scarecrow 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: