________________
Jaina Logic
377
genders, etc., but does not accept the difference in their meaning when they have the same tense, the same gender, etc. For example, the synonymous words like rājā, nrpaḥ, bhāpaḥ (all meaning 'king') express the same thing or meaning. On the other hand, samabhirudha-naya maintains that different words have different meaning. That is, for it even the synonymous words having the same tense, the same gender, etc., do not mean the same thing. This standpoint does not recognise any synonymous terms. It asks us to make a subtle distinction in the meanings of words which are supposed to denote the same object. Such distinction is based on the etymological derivations of words concerned.
Thus samabhirūdha-naya attributes, on the basis of etymology, different meanings to the synonymous words like rājā, nrpa, bhupa, etc., (all meaning ‘king'). Its contention is that one who is decorated with royal insignia is rājā, one who protects the people is nrpa, one who maintains the earth-i.e., makes it prosperous-is bhūpa. Thus this view which, on the basis of etymology, posits differentiation within one and the same thing that is denoted by the three synonymous words in question is called samabhirudha-naya. All suppositions which posit a difference of meaning in the case of the different synonymous words are to be placed in this category of samabhirūdha-naya. Each word originally had its own separate meaning. But with the passage of time and through the usage by individuals and groups they became synonymous with other words. As shown above, the samabhirūdha grasps its original (etymological) meaning, overlooking its synonymity.
Evambhūta-naya (The 'Thus-happened' Standpoint) : This standpoint reflects that when a difference in etymology can yield a difference in meaning, then it too should be conceded that a word stands for a thing only in case this thing satisfies the etymology of this word and that only in such a case—not otherwise—this thing has to be denoted by this word.
On this supposition a man is not to be called rājā, if he has only earned the right to be decorated by royal insignia at some time or other, nor is he called nrpa, if he has only been entrusted with the responsibility to protect the people. But to add a further requirement, he is to be called
only in case he is actually carrying the royal sceptre and is shining with glory on that account; similarly, he is to be called nrpa only in ca he is actually protecting the people. All this is to say that it would be proper to call a man rājā or nypa only in case he is actually satisfying the etymology of the word concerned.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
