New Dimensions in Jaina Logic

Author(s): Mahaprajna Acharya, Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Today and Tommorrow Printers and Publishers

Page 68

60
New Dimensions in Jaina Logic
to word because the absence of variation would obliterate the morphological distinction of the words. Consequently the two words should be admitted as one single verbal symbol. It is, therefore, asserted by this etymological viewpoint that the use of different words should be governed by the difference in the meaning sought to be expressed by them.
The problem of the relation between word and meaning ideas and things) is worthy of consideration in this connection. Word and meaning are quite distinct entities. Their causal efficiences are distinct. The conditions of their productions are different.
A word and its meaning stand in the relation of significant and significate. The significant is the word, sign or symbol while the significate is the thing or the idea meant by the significant. There cannot be the relation of identity between the significant and the significate and, therefore, how can diversity of the significate follow from the diversity of the significant?
The solution of the problem can be sought in the light of the words like cognition-cognitum and the luminous objects like the sun, the lamp etc. (1) There is no relation of identity between a cognition and its cognitum although the former is the determinant of the latter. Now, if the knower-known relationship can be admitted between the cognition and the cognitum in spite of their (epistemological) difference, what is the difficulty in accepting the denotatum-denotative relationship between a word and the thing (meant by the word), in spite of their (ontological) difference. (2) It is common sense that the luminous objects like the sun, the lamp etc. illumine a pot and other things, though they are physically different from one another. But, if there can exist illumined-illuminator relationship between a pot and a lamp in spite of their (ontological) difference, then what is the reason that the denotatum-denotative relationship cannot obtain between them?
Therefore, as there exists the denotative-denotatum relationship between a word and the thing, it is self-evident that there should be a difference of meaning denoted, consequent upon the difference of the denotative word.
This difference of meaning resulting from the difference of word can be illustrated by the following propositions:
(a) He is mortal, (b) He is a man.