Book Title: Jaina Philosophy of Language Author(s): Sagarmal Jain Publisher: Parshwanath VidyapithPage 85
________________ Jaina Philosophy of Word : (59) Jainas accept the vacya-vacaka (expressed-expressive) relation between the word and its denotation. Buddhists deny any such relation and maintain that the word does not have any relation with the object of denotation. Jainas object this Buddhist contention and argue that if the word and its object of denotation do not have any relation with each other, then how can after the perception of object the memory of denoting word, and how on hearing the word the memory of the object can be justified. If we deny any relation between them, then we will have to accept that after hearing the word, recollection of its meaning or object would not be possible vice-a-versa. However, our day to day experience defers from it. Practically, we recollect the expressive (vācya) words after seeing the object and after hearing the word, we recollect the object. Buddhists in order to solve this riddle accepted that the word has a relation of tadutpatti (evolved therefrom) with its universal (sämānya) and the universal becomes one and perseverant with the particular. Hence, even in the absence of direct relation of word with its particular object, the cognition of particular object after hearing the word and seeing the particular object, cognition of word is possible. But as per Buddhist philosophy, neither the word is perceptible nor it has relation with its object (svalakṣaṇa) because according to them, the universal is mere a name, it does not have any real existence. Again, they maintain that the perception (pratyakṣa) is indeterminate (Nirvikalpaka) and indeterminate is bereft of the contact with words. Thus, according to Buddhist philosophy, any relation of word with its universal and the object will not be possible. Again, if we deny any relation between word and its denotation as in the case of Buddhists, we will have to deny the power of expression of word also, and in that case the language would be meaningless. Thus, we must accept that the word and its meaning are neither identical nor totally different, but they have expressed-expressive relation. Here the word is expressive and the object is expressed. Transience of the relationship of word and its meaning The Mimāmsakas consider not only the word as eternal but also its relationship with denotation as eternal. This eternity of word and its relation with its denotation creates a new problem. If the relation between word and its denotation were eternal then any change in the meaning of a word would not be possible. But the linguistic study clearly accepts that Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.orgPage Navigation
1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168