Jaina Philosophy of Language

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 38

(12) : Jaina Philosophy of Language and Sūnyavāda (Nihilism) respectively and as such, it was the early form of the contemporary western linguistic-analysis.
In order to make the meaning of vibhajyavāda clearer, we would take a few philosophical and practical questions and try to show as to how does this method of analysis work? Suppose, some one asks whether the body and consciousness are the same or different. A vibhajyavādin will not give a straight answer to this question. He would first like to know what does the bearer of the question mean by 'difference and ‘non-difference' and also that in what context the question of nondifference or difference is being asked? Further, whether by the term 'difference' is meant the factual difference or the conceptual difference? Moreover, whether the difference in question is in the context of empirical or metaphysical level? Because, as the basis of each and every context the meaning of difference will differ and accordingly the answer of the question will also be affected. For example, we can differentiate the body and consciousness at the level of thought but factually we cannot differentiate them. They can be regarded as 'different' in our thinking but on the level of experience they are the one and the same for in our experiential world consciousness as something different from body is nowhere available. Again, in the context of a dead individual, the body can be regarded as independent of consciousness but it is not so in the context of a living individual. Mahāvīra and the latter Jaina masters therefore, maintained that the living and the non-living are 'different' but also are the same. '3 Similarly, in practical life we cannot give any categorical answer to the question, say, whether it is good to sleep, till of course, the meanings of 'sleeping' or 'waking' are not clear. Further, the context and the individual, with reference to whom the query is made is also to be mentioned. Motives behind sleeping or not sleeping are many. One can sleep to overcome tiredness and to revitalise oneself. One can also sleep first because of lethargy. Similarly, there are several conditions involved in sleeping say for sleeping in night, sleeping in day-time, sleeping in the class-room and so on. Further, the persons who sleep, are of many types, viz. the violent, the wicked, the gentle, the moral and the like. Here the question of why, when and whose are related with the meaning of sleeping and awakening. Without analysing them we cannot say in absolute terms whether sleeping is good or bad. It may be good to