________________
56
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
What the majority of Jaina epistemologists named simply the verbal viewpoint (sabda-naya), Umäsväti called the accurate (or: present) verbal viewpoint (samprata-sabda-naya) and defined it as 'the cognition of an object through a speech element already well-known on [account of] such [categories like] name etc."" and as 'the comprehension of precisely those [objects, grasped by means of the direct viewpoint, like] pots, that are present, that comprise one of [such categories like] name etc. [and] that are already well-known". Two things in these passages are conspicuous: the further diminishing of the scope (teşv eva) to present (sampratesu) phenomena and the verbal reference. The verbal viewpoint (sabdanaya) was interpreted variously by the subsequent Jaina tradition, but one thing remained common: the verbal point of reference and the role of verbal (or grammatical) means of expression relevant for the interpretation." Applying the verbal viewpoint is tantamount to the recognition of the prevalent linguistic convention and to the overlooking of fine differentiation between meanings of synonymical expressions, etc., that may go back to different derivation, grammatical construction etc.: 'the verbal [viewpoint] intends, as they say, by the force of understanding, one object (denotatum) for all such linguistic units, like Indra, Sakra, Purandara, etc., that are used-in accordance with the usage-to denote [one and
56
53
TBh 1.35 (p. 32.17): nämädişu prasiddha-purvāc chabdad arthe pratyavaḥ sampratah.
TBh 1.35 (p. 34.4-5): teşv eva samprateşu nămádinām anyatama-grähisu prasiddha-purvakesu ghateşu sampratyayaḥ samprataḥ sabdaḥ.
35 Just to mention two Digambara opinions: SSi 1.33 (§ 246, p. 102): linga-samkhyasadhanadi-vyabhicara-nirvrtti-parah sabda-nayah. tatra linga-vyabhicāraḥ: pusvas täraka nakṣatram ili...[The verbal viewpoint] aims at removing discrepancy [in meaning] due to gender, number, case etc. Among these [various factors], the discrepancy [among synonyms] due to gender is e.g.: pusyas (masc., "constellation"). tárakă (fcm., "cluster of stars"), naksutram (n., "asterism"), etc., and PALV 6.74 p. 54.12-13: kala-karaka-lingānāṁ bhedät labdasya kathañcid artha-bheda-kuthanam sabda-nayah the verbal viewpoint speaks somehow of [various] differences between meanings of [one and the same] speech element depending on difference in tense, contributory factors [of an action] (semantic categories) and gender."
The above series of various names of a Vedic god has surprisingly become the standard sequence in Jaina literature. The idea may go back to Patanjali's Vyakaranamaha-bhasya (MBha under sutra 1.3.1, vol. II, p. 117): bahavo hi sabda ekarthä bhavanti, tad yatha -indraḥ śakraḥ puruhitaḥ puramdarah. kantu kosthaḥ kusula iti ekaś ca sabdo bahv-arthaḥ tad yatha--aksüḥ pādāḥ māṣā iti.
57
SOME REMARKS ON THE NAYA METHOD
the same] specific object (donotatum)." As Akalańka put it: 'It primarily overrides any difference [in meaning] due to gender, number, case etc. In other words, the users of the language agree upon a conventionally determined selection of verbal expressions that denote a particular individual.
If one further limits the context of an utterance and draws a distinction among synonyms which is based on their divergent derivation, viz. if one sticks to a viewpoint which, 'denies any equivalence among existing meanings, we have the case of the etymological viewpoint (samabhirudha-naya). Thus, two expressions, for instance, 'contemplation, speculation' (viturka) and 'meditation, reflection" (dhyana), that are [generally] considered synonymous, may refer to different phenomena in some particular contexts". To cite another example (NAV 29), although three epithets in an undiscriminating commonplace usage pertain to one and the same god, nonetheless the name 'Indra' refers in fact to a divine sovereign, the appellation 'Sakra' describes a being possessed of might and the epithet
57NAV 29.19 (p. 450): radhito vavanto dhvanayah kasmimścid arthe pravartante; vathendra-sakra-purandaradayah, teṣām sarveşüm apy ekam artham abhiprati kila pratiti-vasad. See also NAV 29.13 (p. 441): tatha ve rüdhitaḥ sabdānāṁ pravitim väñchanti tan-nivaha-sadhyaḥ sabda iti-'Similarly, the verbal [viewpoint] is established by a collection of such [outlooks that] affirm that the usage of speech elements [complies] with the linguistic convention; and NAV 29.27 (p. 471): tatas ca kvacid anapeksita-vyutpalli-nimittä rudhitaḥ pravartante...And therefore, they are used to denote certain [objects (denotata)] in accordance with the usage [when] the factors [accountable for their] grammatical formation [are] disregarded..."
*RVär 1.33 (p. 98.12): sa ca linga-samkhva-sadhanadi-vyabhicara-nivṛtti-paraḥ.
5 TS 1.35 p. 32.18: satsv arthesy asamkramaḥ samabhirudhah. See also NAV 29.13 (p. 441): ye tu vyutpattito dhvaninám pravṛttim väñchanti nanyatha tad-vära-janyaḥ samabhirudha iti. Further, the etymological [viewpoint] is produced out of the multitude of such [outlooks] that affirm that the usage of a linguistic units [complies] with the grammatical formation, and not otherwise.' and NAV 29.27 (p. 471): kvacil samanya-vyutpatti-sāpekṣaḥ......[they are used to denote] certain [other objects (denotata)] depending on the grammatical formation [hased on] the universal..."
TS 1.35 (p. 34.5-6): teṣām eva sampratānām (arthänüm] adhyavasayasamkramo vitarka-dhyanavat samahhirudhaḥ. Cf. JTBh 2.6: paryaya-bhede bhinnarthän abhimanyate. If there is any difference among synonyms, one means different objects, as well as PALV 6.74 p. 54.14: paryava-bhedat padartha-nänärtha-niripakam samabhirudhaḥ. Due to the difference in synonyms, the etymological viewpoint describes diverse objects [following diverse) meanings of words."
