Bhagavana Mahavira and his Relevance in Modern Times

Author(s): Narendra Bhanavat, Prem Suman Jain, V P Bhatt
Publisher: Akhil Bharat Varshiya Sadhumargi Jain Sangh

Page 47

34
Mahāvīra and His Relevance
The last verbalistic approach, called “Avaṁbhūta', affirms that only the actualized meaning of the word is the real meaning. The word signifies an action and the fact which actually excrcises the action should be regarded as the real meaning. So the word Ghata should mean the jar which actually draws water and not the jar which remain inside in a corner of the room. The latter does not possess the connotation and so cannot be designated by the word. Thus the king is the person who actually exercises sovereignty, the minister is one who actually exercises the function of a counsellor and framer of state policy. So when the king is engaged in domestic affairs or talking to his wife he is not the king proper. The exponent of the preceding approach hits upon the truth that difference of words entails - difference of meaning, but he fails to grasp the real significance of the connotation when he affixes the word to the fact which is bereft of the action connoted by it. The idle jar is as different and distinct from the water-carrying jar as the pen. If however the word could signify a fact devoid of the connotation there is no logic why it would not be labelled upon a different fact having a different connotation. Light, for instance, means an entity which actually illuminates. If it could be affixed to a lamp which has gone out it could with equal logical properiety be affixed to an opaque stone.
Now all these approaches may be employed in the determination of truth and their misemployment is bound to lead to aberrations. The Jaina philosopher with his characteristic catholicity of outlook and tolerance for other views and readiness to accomodate them and assess them at their proper worch has no hesitation to receive them as estimation of reality. This toleration is however subject to the proviso that they must not be allowed to outstrip their proper jurisdiction. The unitive bond in the midst of diverse
is endorsed by the Jaina logician as it is attested by uncontradicted experience. What the Jaina emphasizes is that all these traits are not isolated aspects but integrated in the concerate fact which we experience. The so-called antinomies conjured up by the dictates of abstract logic are only figments of formalism. Pure logic suffers from the defect that is ascribes rigidity to the different aspects and makes them fixed characteristics which come into conflict with their opposites. There is nothing fixed in the world. Everything is impelled to change by the inner dialectic of its constitution.