________________
misunderstanding also there is understanding , in vagueness also there is clarity, in truth also there is untruth and vice-versa. So there is nothing like absolute, everything is always relative to the other. This is why that Jain perspective of anekānta which accepts this relativity will never assert anything absolutely.
According to the anekānta philosophy when one quality becomes dominant in expression, the rest would be secondary at that time. Samantabhadra in his text rightly says,a significant rule of anekānta is that one will be predominant while all the rest will be secondary. It is on this basis that relativity has developed. In this way, multiple truth can be expressed with the help of syād particle. In this state, no attributes are left privileged. Along with this Derrida says, if a sign is a sign of another sign and if a text is a text of another text, then a context is a context of another context. This implies that even contextual meaning is not fixed and there is no limit to what may be called contextual meaning'? There is endless deferral in contextual meaning. So language,thought,and meaning are now all in an uncomfortable position;they are unstable. This view can be compared with Siddhasena's. perspective (Sanmati Tarka Prakarana, 3.28) pertaining to naya, where he says no word of the jina is independent of naya.The nayas are as many in number as there are ways of putting the sentences.So manymany commentaries were written in Jainism from the very past on a particular agamic text namely, niryukti, tikā, cūrni, bhāsya etc. No ācārya claimed that the interpretation which is written by him is final.There is always scope for further interpretation
'Aptamīmāmsā of Samantabhadra, verse-1.22. ? N. Krishnaswamy, John Varghese and Sunita Mishra. Contemporary Literary Theory: A Student's Companion. Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd, (15 edn., 2001), Reprint 2005. Derek Johnson. A Brief History of Philosophy: From Socrates to Derrida, op.cit., p. 192.
127
