Anekanta Problem Of Meaning - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text "Anekānta and Problem of Meaning" by S. M. Shaha:

The article "Anekānta and Problem of Meaning" by Prof. S. M. Shaha posits that the Jain doctrine of Anekānta (non-absolutism, manifoldness of reality) is fundamental to understanding the complexities of meaning in language. Anekānta suggests that reality, its knowledge, and its verbal expression are all infinitely multifaceted. This principle allows for the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory descriptions of reality and serves as a valuable framework for studying the semantic, logical, and epistemological challenges of defining "meaning."

The author begins by outlining the Indian philosophical tradition's engagement with the problem of meaning, identifying four main types of meaning:

Primary Meaning (Mukhya): The literal, lexical meaning of a word or sentence.
Secondary/Metaphorical Meaning (Gauna/Bhakta): Meaning conveyed through metaphor or figurative language.
Suggested Meaning (Vyanjana/Dhvani): Meaning that is implied or hinted at, highly dependent on context.
Purposive/Sentence Meaning (Tātparya): The overall intention or purport of a sentence, aiming for a unified, purposeful understanding.

Shaha argues that the suggested and purposive meanings are inherently anekāntic because they are indeterminate and relative, varying greatly with context. Even the distinction between primary and secondary meanings involves an anekāntic element in choosing between them.

Suggested Meaning is the most indeterminate, relying heavily on contextual factors like time, place, occasion, the speaker's intonation and gestures, and the listener's intellectual capacity and mood. It encompasses socio-cultural and emotive meanings. While grammarians and logicians prefer precision in primary meanings, the indeterminate and infinite potential of suggested meaning makes it more capable of conveying nuanced truths, especially philosophical ones. Citing Bergson, Shaha suggests language can act as a "dialectical ladder" to guide listeners to incommunicable insights, which suggestion facilitates.

Purposive/Sentence Meaning (Tātparya) is also anekāntic. The author highlights the differing theories on how sentence meaning arises (e.g., Abhihitānvaya vs. Anvitābhidhāna) and emphasizes that scholars who consider tātparya a distinct function of words acknowledge that it's driven by the speaker's intention or the general purport. This intention is tied to various psychological contexts, meaning the same sign (word/sentence) can have different meanings in different cases. While the speaker's intention is subjective, contextual factors help determine the intended meaning. Thus, the dependence on context in interpreting sentence meaning is inherently anekāntic. Even Mimāṁsakas, who identify objective criteria (six lingas) for determining purport, still rely on contextual factors, demonstrating the anekāntic nature of tātparyavṛtti.

The article then delves into the anekāntic aspects of primary and secondary meanings within Indian philosophical traditions:

Mimāṁsā: This school divides Vedic texts into Vidhi (injunctions, to be interpreted literally/primarily) and Arthavāda (explanatory passages, to be interpreted liberally/secondarily). The principle of action guides interpretation, and contextual factors and purport are crucial. Mimāṁsakas also employ word division and re-composition to derive special meanings from common words based on context and purpose, illustrating the indeterminate nature of meaning. Their canons of interpretation are valuable for understanding texts with exact import.
Advaita-Vedānta: Badarāyaṇa's philosophy is described as having an anekāntic basis, characterized by flexible use of primary and secondary meanings to reconcile contradictory views. He uses terms like mukhya (primary) and bhākta/gauna (secondary) to denote these meanings. Sankara extensively uses primary and secondary meanings, employing numerous terms for secondary meanings. His interpretations highlight how the choice between primary and secondary meaning, influenced by context and author's intention, reveals the indeterminate nature of meaning. The Advaita Vedanta school, following Sankara, further developed the concept of purport and meaning in interpreting Upanishadic Mahāvākyas (great sayings), leading to diverse interpretations that underscore the anekāntic nature of meaning.
Jainism: Jain logicians and philosophers have thoroughly explored knowledge and meaning through concepts like Nayavāda, Syādvāda (Saptabhangi), and Nikṣepa. The concepts of Śabdanaya and Arthanaya reflect their linguistic views applied to epistemology. The article focuses on Kundakunda's treatment of primary and secondary meaning in his work Samayasāra.
- Kundakunda's Treatment: Kundakunda distinguishes between the empirical (impure, accidental) self and the transcendental (pure) self. Statements about the empirical self may yield figurative or secondary meanings, where non-self qualities are attributed to the self due to superimposed impurities. For instance, praising the holy body of an Arhat might be seen as praising the Arhat himself from an empirical standpoint, but from a transcendental view, the body's qualities are separate from the perfect soul. Similarly, the statement "the way is looted" when someone is robbed on it exemplifies secondary meaning. Kundakunda's distinction between empirical/practical and transcendental/real standpoints directly correlates with the use of secondary and primary meanings, respectively, and is a corollary of the doctrine of anekānta.

Conclusion: The author concludes that words and sentences possess multivalence, multilevels, and multi-dimensions of meaning. Just as reality is manifold, indeterminate, and relative, so too are knowledge and verbal expression. The fixing of meaning for practical purposes is a conscious choice based on context, intention, and purport. Ultimately, meaning, like reality itself, is considered inexhaustible.