________________
It is a linguistic representation of Anekantavad. What Anekantavad is in the sphere of thought, Syadvad is in the domain of speech and communication. In fact, we project far less than what we see. In comparison to our perception, our language is incompetent. It is unable to delineate the personality of a thing in its totality. It is expressed half-baked and in an unrealistic manner. The word Sthuna (pillar) is evolved from the root “Stha" (to stand). That which stands is a pillar. Much earlier, the etymologist Yask argued that if that which stands is called a pillar, then it should be called
darshaya' (as it is sunk in a pit) as well as Sajjani (as it supports the bamboo poles).
The English word Horse, has evolved from the Latin word Curro, which means, to run. An expert linguist of the modern age, Michel Breal comments that we are forced to tell a lie even though the horse may be resting, is lying wounded or dead. Bringing out the incompetence of language, Patañjali cites the example of the word 'Dadhi' (curd). It has many categories - Mandak (less coagulated), Uttarak (with a crust), Nilinak (non-coagulated) et cetera. By simply uttering the word Dadhi, do we bring out its definite and complete nature? To accept this limitation and incompetence of the language is to reach Syadvad.
Syat word is NOT used in the sense of PERHAPS. If it means this, then there is no definiteness in stating the nature of REALITY. The Sanskrit word syat, after going through the process of phonetic development, has become ‘siya' in Pali and Prakrit languages. In these languages, it is seen being used in definite context of classification and facets. It hints at the plurality of a thing. While characterizing a thing, the usage of the word syat indicates that a thing has definitely other characteristics. Those characteristics are not being stated here because words are unable to specify them. The word syat only indicates that, while conveying, much more remains untold. REALITY (thing) has many dimensions, many characteristics, but they are not all perceived immediately, due to the peculiar focus of our vision. And if they are not perceived, how could they be expressed? But this does
12
