________________
९८
जैन विद्या के आयाम खण्ड ६
yielded by a statement corresponds to the actual external thing or event, it is regarded as valid or true. According to the other view, if a statement is free from internal contradition, it is to be regarded as valid, otherwise invalid. For example, the statement 'He is ason of abarren woman' is invalid or false because it is vitiated by internal contradiction. Jainas maintain that when a statement describes a thing or event as it is, it is a valid statment.
The question arises as to how one can determine a statement to be valid or invalid. In fact, validity or invalidity of astatement depends on validity or invalidity of cognition generated by it in the hearer. In Western philosophy three theories have been formulated in this connection. They are correspondence theory, coherenence theory and utility theory. In India, the Mīmāmsaka maintains that validity of cognition is self-evident while its invalidity is known when it is contradicted by some other strong cognition. The Naiyayika and the Buddhist hold that neither validity nor invalidity of cognition is self-evident. The two are inferred from its capacity or incapacity to produce successful activity. The Jaina logicians maintain that both validity and invalidity of cognitions are self-evident in the case of repeated acquaintance while they are known through subsequent successful activities in the case of first acquaintance. Dr. Jain draws our attention to the fact that for the first time in Jaina literature Prajnapanäsütra extensively discusses the problem of truth or falsity of language or speech. According to it, there are two main types of language, viz. paryāpta (fully developed) and aparyäpta undeveloped). The language the nature or meaning of which could be determined as true or false is called paryäpta. On the other hand, that speech the nature or meaning of which could not be determined as true or false is called aparyäpta. If its meaning is true it is regarded as true speech. If its meaning is false, it is regarded as false speech. In other words, that speech which enables us to know the thing as it is true speech; and that speech which leads us to know the thing as it is not is false speech. Thus paryāptaspeech has two sub-types, viz. true speech (satya-bhäṣa) and false speech depends on various situations and conditions. These situations and conditions being ten, the types of true or valid speech are also ten. Then follows the enumeration and explanation of ten types of true or valid speech.
The aparyāptaspeech is oftwo types, viz. satyamṛṣä(true-as-well-as-false) and asatyamṛṣā(neither-true-norfalse). The former is again of ten types and the latter of twelve types. The speech which contains half-truth or partial truth is satya-mrsåspeech. On the other hand, that speech to which the standard of truth or falsity is not applicable is called asatyamṛṣāspeech. This means the statements of address, order, prayer, wish and the like are neither valid nor invalid, and hence they fall under the head of asatyamṛṣāspeech.
Again, truth or falsity of a statement can be viewed from three different standpoints, viz. grammatical, logical and ethical/spiritual. The statement 'A hundred hords of elephants are seated on a finger-tip' is invalid or false from the standpoint of a science of logic because it is vitiated by the factual internal contradiction. But it is grammatically correct and hence true from the standpoint of the science of grammer. The person who knows in which direction deers have gone, when asked by a hunter, says, "I do not know in which direction deers have gone". The statementhe makes is grammatically true but factually (i.e. from the standpoint of logic) untrue. And from ethical/spiritual standpoint it is true because it averts killing which would have taken place on his speaking factually true statement. To describe a thing as it is or an event as it happened is generally regarded as truth, and factually no doubt it is truth, but from the ethical/spiritual standpoint it may or may not be truth. If the factual truth is beneficial or at least not harmful to others.. it is worthy of being called the truth. But if the factual truth is harmful to others, it is not worthy of being regarded as the truth. This is in harmony with what Jainas have said in connection with valid cognition (pramaņa) and invalid cognition (pramaņa). They say: In the science of logic, only that cognition is called valid-cognition (pramana) whose object is true to the concerned factual situation, while that cognition is called invalid-cognition (pramana) whose object
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
