Jain Vakya Darshan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jain Vakya Darshan" by Sagarmal Jain:

The book "Jain Vakya Darshan" (Jain Philosophy of the Sentence) by Dr. Sagarmal Jain, published as part of the Sadhviratna Pushpvati Abhinandan Granth, delves into the nature and definition of a sentence (vākya) from a Jain philosophical perspective, contrasting it with various other Indian philosophical viewpoints.

I. The Nature of a Sentence According to Jain Philosophy:

The text begins by establishing that a sentence is a crucial unit of linguistic expression, acknowledging that different philosophers have varying definitions. Jain scholars, as expounded by Prabhachandra in his "Prameyakamalamārtanda," define a sentence as:

"A group of words, mutually dependent for the clarification of their intended meaning, which is independent [in conveying its full meaning]."

This definition highlights two key aspects:

Interdependence of Words (Sāpekṣa/Sākānkṣa): The individual words or parts of a sentence require each other to convey their full meaning. They are dependent on each other.
Independence of the Sentence (Nirapekṣa/Nirākānkṣa): While the constituent words are dependent, the sentence as a whole, once formed, does not require any further external element to convey its complete meaning. It is independent in its self-sufficiency for conveying meaning.

In essence, a sentence is a collection of dependent/contextually related words that form an independent unit of meaning. The core element of a sentence is this transition from the relativity of its parts to the absoluteness of the whole in conveying meaning.

II. Review of Various Philosophical Views on the Nature of a Sentence and their Critique:

The book then meticulously examines and critiques various other philosophical perspectives on the nature of a sentence, as documented by Prabhachandra based on the Vākyapadīya:

The Verb (Ākhyātapada) is the Sentence: Some argue that the verb is the essence of a sentence, carrying the primary meaning. Prabhachandra critiques this by asking if the verb is independent or dependent. If independent, it ceases to be a verb. If dependent, it cannot be the sole sentence. Even when a verb seems to convey meaning alone (e.g., "Eat!"), it implicitly refers to the doer and the object, thus maintaining a degree of dependence. Jainism accepts that the verb is important but not solely sufficient.
The Confluence of Words (Sanghāta) is the Sentence: This view, often associated with Buddhism, states that the mere combination of words forms a sentence. The critique is that a mere collection isn't enough; there's an "extra element" generated by the unique integration of words. Prabhachandra questions whether this confluence is spatial or temporal, both of which are problematic. He also argues that if the confluence is identical to the words, then the words themselves become the sentence, negating the concept of confluence. If it's partly identical and partly different, it aligns with the Jain view of partial difference and identity.
The Universal (Jāti) is the Sentence: This perspective suggests that a common element or universal (jāti) arises from the combination of words, and this universal is the sentence. Words lose their individual existence in the sentence, contributing to a unified meaning. Prabhachandra agrees that if this universal is the independent group of dependent words, it's acceptable. However, if the universal is treated as something distinct from the words, it faces similar issues as the "confluence" view regarding the relationship between the whole and its parts.
The Sentence is an Indivisible Unit (Akhaṇḍa Ekāī): Grammarians view the sentence as a singular, unbroken entity, asserting that words have no existence separate from the sentence. The meaning resides in the unified whole, not in its parts. Jain scholars agree with the concept of the sentence as an independent unit formed by dependent words but emphasize that the crucial role of words cannot be ignored. Just as the whole (amśī) cannot be imagined without its parts (amśa), the meaning cannot be grasped without acknowledging the words. This view is seen as a form of sphoṭavāda (a theory of momentary linguistic revelation), which Jain philosophy finds problematic for not adequately explaining the absence of meaning without words.
Chronological Order (Kramavāda) is the Sentence: A variation of the confluence theory, this view emphasizes the sequential order of words as crucial for meaning. Prabhachandra considers this similar to the confluence theory, with similar criticisms regarding the dependence on time and space. While acknowledging the importance of order, he reiterates that it's within the context of dependent words.
Intended Meaning Grasped by Intellect (Buddhi Grīhīta Tātparya) is the Sentence: Some philosophers believe the sentence is merely a physical expression, with the actual meaning residing in the intellect. The intellect initiates and grasps the sentence. Jain scholars question whether this intellectual aspect is a substantial (dravya) or modal (bhāva) sentence. It cannot be substantial as words are audible and inert, while intellect is conscious. If modal, it's a tautology. Jainism accepts the intellectual aspect of meaning but doesn't see it as the sole basis of the sentence.
The Initial Word (Ādya Pada) is the Sentence: This theory posits that the first word of a sentence conveys the entire meaning. Prabhachandra argues that words are meaningful only in relation to others. If one word could convey the entire meaning, other words would be redundant. While context can make the initial word prominent, it doesn't negate the implicit dependence on other elements. Words are meaningful within specific contexts and are not universally independent semantic units.
Contextually Dependent Words (Sākānkṣa Pada) are the Sentence: This perspective holds that each word, while dependent on others within the sentence, retains its individual existence. This view emphasizes the importance of words within the sentence, but unlike confluence or order theories, it prioritizes the sentence by making words dependent on it. This aligns closely with the Jain view, as Jainism also considers words as dependent within the sentence.

III. The Jain Perspective on Sentences:

Jain philosophy, while defining a sentence as an independent unit of dependent words, places equal emphasis on both words and the sentence. Neither can convey meaning effectively without the other. Words find their meaning within the sentence, and the sentence is constructed from these meaningful words. Their existence and significance are relative.

IV. Theories of Sentence-Meaning Comprehension:

The book then analyzes two prominent theories of how sentence meaning is understood:

Abhihitānvayavāda (Doctrine of Conjoined Meaning): Propounded by Kumaril Bhatta, this theory states that first, individual words are understood (abhidha), and then their mutual relationship (anvaya) is grasped, leading to the comprehension of the sentence's meaning. The meaning is thus derived from the relationships between independently understood words. Jain logician Prabhachandra critiques this by questioning the basis of this connection. If it's external, it's unproven. If it's internal (by intellect), it supports the opposing theory. Prabhachandra argues that meaning is always apprehended in a conjoined form, not in isolated words.
Anvitābhidhānavāda (Doctrine of Meaning of the Conjoined): Propounded by Prabhakara, this theory posits that meaning is directly understood from conjoined words. Words have no independent meaning outside the sentence; their meaning is derived from their relationship within the sentence. Prabhachandra's critique of this theory includes the argument that if words are conjoined, the first word should convey the entire meaning, making subsequent words redundant. He also questions the assumption that only the final word conveys the meaning of the conjoined words. The Jain critique highlights that if words are conjoined, then they must be related to each other in multiple ways, leading to ambiguity unless the speaker's intention is clear.

V. Jain Synthesis and Conclusion:

Jain philosophy seeks a synthesis between these two views. While agreeing with Abhihitānvayavāda that words have an independent existence and meaning, they also concur with Anvitābhidhānavāda that within a sentence, words depend on each other for their full meaning. The comprehension of the sentence's meaning occurs only after hearing the entire sentence, where words are interconnected and not independent.

Jain scholars conclude that a sentence is an independent collection of dependent words. The meaning of the sentence is dependent on the words, and the meaning of the words is dependent on the sentence. They are mutually relative and essential for conveying meaning. This balanced perspective acknowledges the contribution of both individual words and the holistic sentence, avoiding the one-sidedness of the other theories.

The book concludes with a "Flower-Saying" (Pushpa-Sukti) that draws a parallel between a seeker of health avoiding unhealthy food and a layperson or social worker abstaining from personal selfishness and greed.