________________
The Dimensions of a Word: Bhartṛhari's and...: 99 entity which is not able to reveal the whole reality but unfolds only a part of it. It also underlines the importance of an intention of a speaker and a context of a statement.
These framings have been incorporated by Jain philosophers" who have formulated the theory of understanding a meaning - with the special role of an intention (naya") and a context (nikṣepa) -- which became a basis of syād-vāda and sapta-bhangi (seven-angled). According to it here should be as many nayas as there are styles of making statements or ways of speech". In
Umāsväti's Tattvärthadhigama-sūtra naya (the mood of statements) is described as the method by which things are comprehended from particular standpoints: naigama (the non-distinguished or non-analytical), sarigraha (the collective), vyavahara (the practical), rju-sütra (the straight or immediate), Sabda (the verbal or nominal), the method of proper nomenclature consisting of three kinds: samprata ("the suitable"), samabhirudha ("subtle") and evambhuta ("the such like").
The relationship between a word and its meaning (sarjfiäsarjfii-sambandha) is designated by Jaina as vācya-vācaka-niyama (reduction to [a relation] expression-expressed) or ekārthatvaniyama (reduction to an act expressing only one thing or notion)". Every distinctive meaning needs a distinctive word (pratiniyata-väcya-väcaka-bhava) for its medium".
"Bharthari, in his Vakyapadīya, has indicated about the theory of molecular structure of word but his commentators have not thrown any light on the subject as to who was the propounder of this theory? It is clear that the propounder of this theory were Jainas, because only Jainas regard words as physical construct or the modes of matter. It has been taken as granted by the Jainas that the language or word sound is generated through a special type of matter (pudgala). They regard word as one of the different modes of matter"". Further: "It is to remember here that Jainas have established the material concept of the word but that is established in respect of word-sound and not its meaning. If we relate word with the intention of speaker and listener, then definitely that is not-material. Actually the cause of this controversy is the linguistic ambiguity"""
A Controversy
The beginning of grammatical interests in the field of philosophy has its own legendary interpretation. One of the oldest significant linguistic controversy was between Mahavira and his son-in-law Jamali concerning the meaning of the term kriyamana (present. cont., kr, to do, to make, to prepare, to undertake). First of them, emphasizing the past aspect, regarded it as kṛta (past done), the other, concentrated on the future aspect, as akṛta (not done).
"- O Lord! Is it proper to call moving as moved, fructifying as fructified, feeling as felt, separating as separated, cutting as cut, piercing as pierced, feeling as felt, separating as separated, cutting as cut, piercing as pierced, burning as burnt, dying as dead and exhausting as exhausted?--Yes, Gautama it is so! Moving is moved, fructifying is fructified, feeling is felt, separating is separated, cutting is cut, piercing is pierced, burning is burnt, dying is dead and exhausting is exhausted".
Another controversy arose when a nun hanka put a burning coal on the border of Mahavira's daughter Priyadarśana's sări. "-Oh! My sari is burnt. -- According to your own view, Madam,
