Jaina Philosophy of Language

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 82

(56) : Jaina Philosophy of Language
say that the word comprehends universal first and individual later is not correct, because, this type of order is not seen at empirical level. If we consider universal as adjective (viseṣaṇa) and individual as defined by adjective (višesya) then both are proved identical and comprehended at a time, not separately. 'Bring the cow', hearing this sentence the listener brings the cow, a particular possessed of gotva universal (jātyānvita) and not only gotva universal. By word symbols, we comprehend subject and predicate simultaneously. The Mimāmsakas contention in this regard is invalid when they say that after hearing the word 'cow' the particular combined with the adjectives like black, white etc. is not experienced, hence the denotation of word is not a particular but universal. With the utterance of the word 'cow' one may not comprehend a cow with its black, white colour, but definitely, he has a picture of cow characterised with dewlap etc. in his mind.
Mimämsakas contention that there is a cause effect relation (according to Prabhakara Miśra) and natural relation (according to Kumārila Bhatta) between the universal and particular, and hence from the denotation of word which is universal (jāti), the particular (vyakti) is cognised by its figurative expression. What ever may be the conditions as Prabhakara and Kumārila maintain but at the time of the pronunciation of word, the universal and particular are identical. Therefore, the denotation of word must be particular qualified by universal'.
The very question of universality and particularity of denotation of word is formed by different philosophers on the ground of their metaphysical concepts. Empirically, we always experience the particular qualified by universal. Thus denotation of word is neither absolutely universal nor absolutely particular but particular qualified by universal. This concept is also supported by the western existentialists. According to them, only that language can be considered important, the subject of which is empirical fact. In other words, they consider only those words, objects meaningful, the denotation of which can be verified. In this regard Jainas and to some extent Naiyayika's contention is seems to be appropriate that the denotations of words are the particular facts of experience possessed of universality.
In fact, the whole dispute of universality and particularity of the denotation of word exist only when the universal and particular are