________________
396
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
There is a remark to be made. It is my conviction that the model proffered in this paper accurately describes the structure of the doctrine of viewpoints (naya-väda) as it is represented in some Jaina treatises. However, I do not claim that the model is either the ultimate interpretation (though I hope it to be a useful approximation) or the model that is valid for all instantiations of the naya-väda we come across in Jaina literature. The naya theory came into existence in a gradual historical process, and therefore we may encounter various models with various authors. That is why we should be careful not to impose certain structures that hold valid in some cases onto all interpretations of the nayas. However, what is probably common to them all is, I believe, the general idea of a context-dependent analysis of utterances via a range of points of reference by narrowing down the context through successive stages. It was certainly an ingenious contribution to the philosophy of language and epistemology in general, with its interpretative force being directly proportional to the extent it was misunderstood by rival philosophical schools. With their pragmatic approach of context-dependent analyses of actual utterances, the Jainas seem to have anticipated the ideas to be found much later in CRESSWELL (1973), KAPLAN (1978), MONTAGUE (1970), SCOTT (1970) or STALNAKER (1970).
1. NOTES
The main ideas found in this paper appeared for the first time in a succinct form in Polish in BALCEROWICZ (1994). The present paper was delivered at the 5th Bimal Matilal Conference on Indian Philosophy, 27th January 2001, King's College,
London.
Since there is some controversy about the common authorship of the sutra and the bhasya, I treat TS. (by Umäsvämin?) and TBh. (by Umäsväti?) separately not to predetermine the issue.
Not to be confused with the author (Siddhasena Mahämati?) of the Nyayavatära, who flourished after Dharmakirti, see: BALCEROWICZ (1999), BALCEROWICZ (2000) and BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/a).
3 TBh.1.35: yatha va pratyaksanuminöpamändpta-vacanaiḥ pramäṇair eko 'rthaḥ pramiyate sva-visaya-niyamán na ca tá vipratipattayo bhavanti tadvan naya-vādā iti. In passing, this is precisely the scope for the method of sapta-bhang
3 Cf. STP.1.21:
tamha savve vi naya miechd-dinhl sapakkha-padibaddhol
annonna-nissid una havati sammatta-sabbhäväll
6
This gave rise to such paradoxical contentions that ultimately truth is made up of all false statements, cf. STP.3.69:
baddam miccha-damisama-samaha-maiyussa amaya-sarassal jina-vayanassa bhagavan samvigga-suhihigammassall
To dispense with the soundness of discursive thinking altogether, characteristic for the negative approach of Nagarjuna. would be the third conceivable approach. Probably they were not the innovation of the Jainas, but were rather common
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
intellectual property shared by various groups of early Indian thinkers, including the Ajivikas; cf. Sam.(1).147 (p. 86.9-10): icceydim satta parikammām sasamaiydim satta äjiviydim ccha caukkaṇaiydim satta terasiydim; and Sam V.(1).147 (fol. 130), p. 87.9-12 Sam V.(2).147 (fol. 120): ta eva cajivikās trairäsikä bhanitäh, kasmād? ucyate yasmat te sarvam try-atmakam icchanti yatha: jīvo 'jivo jīvājīvaḥ, loko "loko lokálokaḥ, sad asat sad-asad ity evam-adi naya-cintäyäm api te tri-vidham nayam icchanti, tad yatha: dravyarthikaḥ paryayarthika ubhayarthikaḥ; ato bhanitam: "satta terasiya' tti sapta parikarmäni trairasika-pakhandikäs trividhaya naya-cintaya cintayantity arthaḥ. Cf. also BASHAM (1951: 174-181) and JAYATILLEKE (1963: 151-161, §§212-230).
See Uttar 28.24:
davvāṇa savva-bhāvā savva pamāṇehi jassa uvaladdhāl
savvähi naya-vihihim vitthara-rai tri nävavvoll,
Cf. also TS.1.6: pramana-nayair tad-adhigamah; and JTBh.2 § 1: pramanaparicchinnasyananta-dharmatmakasya vastuna eka-desa-grähiņas tad-itaram sapratiksepino 'dhyavasaya-viseṣā nayah.
10 Cf. NAV.29.12: samkhyaya punar ananta iti, ananta-dharmatvad vastunas, tad-ekadharma-paryavasitabhiprāyāṇāṁ ca nayatvāt, tathāpi cirantanācāryaiḥ sarva-sangrahisaptabhipraya-parikalpana-dvärena sapta nayah pratipaditäh, and SVM.28.56-60 (p. 161.11-15): nayāś cânantāḥ, ananta-dharmatvad vastunas tad-eka-dharmaparyavastitānāṁ vaktur abhiprayāṇāṁ ca navatvāt tatha ca vṛddhāḥ jävaivā vayaṇavaha tavaiya ceva homti naya-vayal [STP.3.47ab] iti.
397
Cf. NAV.29.13: tad evam na kaścid vikalpo 'sti vastu-gocaro yo 'tra naya-saptake nantar-yatiti sarvabhipraya-sangrahakd ete iti sthitam. 12 Cf. e.g., STP.1.3 and STP.1.4-5:
davvatthiya-naya-payaḍī suddha samgaha-paruvaṇāvisaöl padirive puna vayana-ttha-nicchao tassa vavaharoll
mila-nimenam pajjava-nayassa ujjusuya-vayana-vicchedol tassa tu saddätä säha-pasähä sukuma-bhevall
See also PALV.6.74, p. 54.7-9. tatra mala-nayau dvau dravyarthika-paryavarthikabhedat. tatra dravyarthikas tredhä naigama-sangraha-vyavahāra-bhedät, paryayarthikal caturdha rju-sutra-sabda-samabhirudhaivam-bhuta-bhedät. It is entirely absent e.g. from Anuoga or Thanamga. TS. and TBh., NA. or NAV.
13 E.g. NAV.29. The model is followed also in TS. in view of the explicit mention (TS.1.34) of the group naigama-sangraha-vyavahāra-rju-sūtra to which is appended the uniform sabda subcategory, that is subsequently subdivided in the aphorism of TS.1.35. Also TBh. seems to share the model not only because of the absolute absence of dravyårthika-naya and parydyarthika-naya, but also because, in the introductory part (TBh.1.35, p. 32.13-17: nigamesu ye abhihitaḥ śabdās... evam-bhūta iti.). the viewpoints (5)-(7) are singled out by a special preliminary description of their common feature under the head sabda (yatharthabhidhanam sabdam), and because, in the four recapitulatory verses on p. 35. 4-36.2 (esp. in verse 4cd, p. 36.2: vidyād yathartha-sabdam višesita-padam tu sabda-nayam), the stress in laid on the sabda category differently.
E.g. Anuöga 606 (satta mula-navā pannattä tai jahd - negame sangahe vavahare ujjusuë sadde samabhiridhe evambhite) Thonamga 552
15 E.g. by MATILAL (1981: 41-46). The passages mentioned in the present paper
are discussed at length in BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/b).
1 TBh. 1.35 (p. 32.13-18): nigamesu ye abhihitaḥ sabdas teṣam arthaḥ sabdarthaparijñānam ca desa-samagra-grahi naigamaḥ, arthünām sarvaka-desa-sangrahanani sangrahah, laukika-sama upacara-pravo vistṛtartho vyavahāraḥ, satām sampratānām arthānām abhidhana-parijñānam rju-sūtraḥ, vatharthabhidhanam Sabdam. nämäisu
14
