Shabda Arth Sambandh Jain Darshaniko Ki Drushti Me

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Shabda Arth Sambandh Jain Darshaniko ki Drushti Me" by Dr. Hemlata Boliya:

The article "The Relationship Between Word and Meaning from the Perspective of Jain Philosophers" by Dr. Hemlata Boliya explores the complex and debated topic of how words relate to their meanings, analyzing various philosophical viewpoints, with a particular focus on the Jain perspective.

The author begins by acknowledging that the relationship between words and meanings is a contentious issue in the philosophical world. Philosophers have grappled with questions of whether any connection exists, and if so, what its nature is.

General Philosophical Positions:

• Denial of Relationship: Some philosophers do not accept any inherent relationship between words and meanings. However, the text argues this stance is impractical, as it would negate our ability to gain knowledge or understanding through language. Haribhadra Suri is quoted, suggesting that without a connection, there would be no consequence for praising or criticizing someone, nor would calling someone result in their response. This practical impossibility leads to the acceptance that a relationship must exist. The debate then shifts to the nature of this relationship.

• Types of Proposed Relationships: Philosophers have proposed various relationships, including:

  • Cause and effect
  • Designator and designated (Vachya-Vachak)
  • Identity (Tadatmya)
  • Originator and originated
  • Conjunction (like a well and berries)
  • Inherence (like threads and cloth)
  • Instrumental cause and effect (Nimitta-Naimittika)
  • Support and supported (Ashraya-Ashrayi)
  • Samayika (conventionally established)

  These are broadly categorized into two main types: impermanent (Anitya) and permanent (Nitya) relationships.

• Impermanent Relationship (Nitya Anitya):

  • Naiyayikas (Logicians): They reject the idea of a permanent or unauthored relationship. According to them, sound (Shabda) is a quality perceived by the ear and exists in space, making it impermanent. Therefore, the relationship between word and meaning is also impermanent. The meaning of a word is understood only when a specific convention (Sanket) is established, which is dependent on human will, further supporting the idea of an impermanent connection.
  • Vaisheshikas: They posit a Samayika (conventional) relationship, which is not fundamentally different from the impermanent relationship described by the Naiyayikas.
  • Sankhya Philosophers: They are less definitive but suggest that since sound is impermanent, the meaning derived from it is also impermanent. The comprehension of meaning arises from the word-meaning relationship (Vachya-Vachak), leading to the common saying, "This word signifies that meaning." A closer examination, the article suggests, reveals that their view also points towards an impermanent relationship, as the connection between two impermanent things is naturally impermanent.

• Permanent Relationship (Nitya):

  • Mimamsa, Vedanta, and Grammarians: These schools advocate for a permanent relationship between word and meaning. They argue against the impermanent view, stating that if a word is impermanent (as the Naiyayikas believe), it would cease to exist after utterance and thus could not convey meaning. Since we experience meaning from spoken words, words themselves must be permanent. They assert an autpattika (primordial/eternal) relationship, meaning words are eternal. The perceived "creation" of a word is actually its "manifestation" or "expression." The relationship is described as that of a name (Sanga) and the named (Sanghi). If meaning is not understood from a word, it's due to a lack of knowledge, not a lack of connection, much like an object in darkness not being seen by unlit eyes. This permanent relationship is also considered apurusheya (unauthored by humans). The word merely expresses the meaning, not creates it, analogous to how light reveals a pre-existing object. Bhartrihari is cited, comparing this to how the soul reveals its true form in knowledge.

• Buddhist Philosophers: Their view is radically different.

  • They claim there is no relationship between word and meaning. Equating them would be like equating a cow and a horse, which is unacceptable. They cite the absence of anvaya (positive concomitance) and vyatireka (negative concomitance) between word and meaning.
  • They reject the idea of one generating the other, arguing that a pot is made from clay, etc., without language, while words are produced by the tongue, palate, etc., through intention, even without an external object. The word is in the speaker's mouth, while the meaning (object) is external, thus precluding any connection.
  • For them, meaning is understood through Apoha (negation or exclusion), not through any inherent word-meaning link. Apoha is of two types: Paryudasa (negation of something else) and Prasajya-pratishedha (negation of a general absence).

Jain Perspective:

• Synthesizing and Non-Dogmatic: Jain philosophy is characterized by its synthesizing approach, rooted in the principle of Anekanta (non-absolutism). It avoids the dogmatic pronouncements of other schools.

• Rejection of Absolutes: Jain philosophers do not definitively assert that the relationship is only permanent or only impermanent. They also reject the Buddhist concept of Apoha for conveying meaning.

• Critique of Other Views:

  • Against Naiyayikas (Generative Relationship): They disagree with the tadutpatti (generative) relationship. They point out that words can exist even when the object they refer to doesn't (e.g., referring to non-existent entities or using a different word for an object).
  • Against Mimamsakas (Identity/Permanent Relationship): They reject tadatmya (identity) or permanent relationships. They argue that if there were identity, there wouldn't be distinctness between word and meaning, which is evident in everyday language. If the word and meaning were identical, speaking a word like "sword" should result in the speaker's mouth being cut, which is not observed. The understanding of meaning through words is Sanketa-siddha (established by convention), not self-evident. If a permanent relationship were only revealed by convention, and convention is human-dependent, it could lead to inconsistencies and invalidate scriptures like the Vedas. Furthermore, the impermanence of objects like pots makes a permanent word-meaning connection problematic for all times.
  • Critique of Apoha: Jain philosophers, along with others like the Naiyayikas and Mimamsakas, reject the concept of Apoha. They argue that meaning derived through negation is not possible, as negation itself requires a positive referent. When one says "cow," it's understood as a cow, not as "non-non-cow." The assertion that one first perceives the absence of something else is not supported by common experience. The listener hears the word "cow" and understands the meaning "cow." The idea of different types of Apoha is also questioned, as it implies multiplicity where it might not exist.

• Jain Explanation of Word-Meaning Conveyance:

  • Natural Aptitude and Convention: Jain philosophers believe that words convey meaning through their natural aptitude (Sahaja Yogyata) and convention (Sanketa). This natural aptitude is a power of inherent potential to signify and be signified, akin to the power of knowledge to know and be known. This inherent capacity is considered the primary cause, making other causal relationships like generative ones less significant.
  • Cause of Difference: The differences observed in words (e.g., true vs. false) are attributed to the difference in their causes, not to an inherent flaw in the word-meaning relationship itself. This is compared to how women can be fertile or infertile due to different causes. Similarly, the truthfulness or falsity of a statement can be analyzed by examining the word itself.
  • Knowledge of Aptitude: The need for someone to inform us about which word signifies which meaning arises only when someone's jnānāvaraṇa karma (knowledge-obscuring karma) is not fully removed. For yogis who have transcended such karmas, this explicit knowledge is not required.
  • Conditional Identity: Mallisena suggests a conditional identity (Kathañcit Tādatmya) between word and meaning, which aligns with the Anekanta principle.
  • Impermanent-Permanent Nature of Words: Since words themselves are considered both permanent and impermanent (nityānityātmaka), the relationship between word and meaning is also naturally both permanent and impermanent.

In essence, the article highlights that Jain philosophy offers a nuanced perspective on the word-meaning relationship, rejecting rigid absolutist views and emphasizing the inherent potential of language, supported by convention, to convey meaning, all within the framework of Anekanta. They do not subscribe to a solely permanent or solely impermanent connection, nor to the Buddhist concept of Apoha, presenting a balanced and experientially grounded explanation.