Jayarasi Criticism of Verbal Testimony

Author(s): Jaydev M Shukla
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_2_Pundit_Bechardas_Doshi_012016.pdf

Page 10

66
J. M. Shukla meaning in the form of the sphota should be understood. It is also said that the sphoța is different from the syllables.
Jayarāsi tried to refute the sphotavādin's point of view as follows: The grammarian says that something meaningful in the form of a word that is sphota can be understood, because, there is no possibility of meaning otherwise than from sphoța. Jayarăsi replies that the validity of the argument about meaning obtained from implication (arthāpatti) has already been refuted.18
Meaning is not something tied down to a word and therefore already known before. We also cannot say that perception will help us in understanding sphota. We have already thrown it away as a valid means of knowledge. Besides, an unchangeable concept like a word in the form of sphoța cannot be conceived as being capable of bringing about right knowledge. Hence, concludes Jayaräsi, there is nothing like a word (either in the form of syllables or sphora). 19
This is Jayarāśi's refutation of the objector's view of sphota. We may say that a couple of arguments offered by Jayarăși is feable, confused, and stated wrongly and at random. One might have expected a very accurate account of the objector's point of view taken from the Vakyapadiya of Bhartshari whom Jayarādi quotes at the end of the work, or the refutation of sphoța from such great minds like Kumārila and Dharmakirti. Was he afraid of Mandana Misra who was ready with a brilliant defence of sphota in his Sphotasiddhi ? Nothing of the kind : Jayarāsi, the indispertable wrangler (oaitāndika), had in mind the Mimāṁsakas, the Buddhists, and the Naiyāyikas as major opponents. Grammar was not his forte, nor grammarians his important adversaries. The reference to sphota is only incidental. Jayarāói's arguments about syllables words, their relation, the expressiveness of the so-called corrupt words and the nature of the pronouncements of an authoritative person are arrows directed against the Mimāṁsaka more prominently than against the grammarian. At the end of the fifth sub-section Jayarāúi takes up the topic regarding the expressiveness of the so-called corrupt words.
There are rules in the form of the sutras regarding the correctness or otherwise of words in the current usage. Words are both correct and corrupt, say the Mimāmsakas and the grammarians. The correct words are determined by rules of grammar. 20
The so-called corrupt words like gāvi, goni, goputtalikā, all meaning a cow, are considered apabhraíša, or corrupt words. This is not correct. Even in the absence of rules testifying their correctness, they should be understood as correct words. What will happen when someone utters a corrupt word ? Does the mouth of the speaker become deformed ? Do such words not convey any meaning ? Do they convey a changed meaning ? Do the meanings of the corrupt words become incapable of bringing about a particular and intended action or does their utterance result in some disaster ? For these alternatives Jayarāsi has taken help of the first section (ahnika) of Patañjali's Mahabhāsya and the introductory discussion in the early part of the Sabara-bhāsya,