________________
Naya, Nayābhāsa and Nikṣepa
157
Buddhism according to them exemplifies the fallacious viewpoint called rjusūtrābhāsa.
Śabdanaya emphasises the role of words in determining the nature of reality. Vyakaraṇa school overemphasizes this role and gives the word the status of Brahman. Jainas call this absolutist approach to word as Sabdanayābhāsa (Pseudosyntactical view-point).
If we consider sabdanaya as a broad category, then samabhiruḍhanaya and evambhūtanaya can be taken to be the special cases of Sabdanaya. Hence fallacies of these nayas can be treated as special cases of Śabdanayābhāsa. Samabhiruḍhanaya stands for emphasis on etymological meanings of words. Hence overemphasis on etymological meaning of words would amount to Samabhirūḍhābhāsa (Pseudo-etymological view). So if someone insists that a person can be named as 'Indra' only if he is prosperous, as 'Śakra' only if he is powerful and as 'Purandara' only if he is destroyer of the cities then the claimant is committing the fallacy called Samabhiruḍhābhāsa. Evambhutanaya emphasises application of a word to a thing only at the time when the object performs the function indicated by the word. Now overemphasis on functionalist meaning of a word would be a case of evabhūtābhāsa (Pseudo-functional view). For example if one insists that someone can be called a teacher only at the time when he or she is teaching, and that he or she ceases to be a teacher when he/she comes out of the class, then one is committing the fallacy called evabhūtābhāsa.
Pradeep Gokhale (1989) has accepted the application of nayābhāsa in western Phhilosophical field also. He says "The
