Truthfullness and Truth in Jaina Philosophy

Author(s): Peter Flugel
Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan

Page 17

१८२
31LHITE 40 (2)
contexts of monastic life;69 for instance taking vows (paccakkhāņa), requesting permission (āpucchaņā), ordering (ājñā), confessing (ālocanā), begging forgiveness (kşamāpaņā) etc. Āmantaņi <āmantraņi> speech or language, for instance, is ‘used for attracting somebody's attention, a vocative word or expression (GHATAGE 2003 III.2: 1001), for instance ‘O Devadatta!'70 MĀLVAŅIYĀ (1971: 325) gives the following examples of an address and an order: 'when a person wanting John to come near him says “O! John”, or 'when a person says to another person, “Go ahead”. However, not in all contexts are such expressions neither-true-nor-false. Under certain circumstances, the first example may represent or can be read as an 'indirect' or 'implicit performative speech act clad in form of an address, and it could be argued that, in certain contexts, the second example does not correspond to the prescription in Āyāra 2.4 for mendicants to avoid pragmatic interventions.
The last five terms of the list are of a different nature. The term aṇabhiggahiyā<anabhigrhita> refers to ‘unintelligible or incomprehensible speech' (RATNACANDRA 1988 1: 156), which is either ‘irrelevant' (DELEU (1970: 169) or/ and ‘unacceptable’ (GHATAGE 1996 I: 237), but neither-true-norfalse. Its antonym, abhiggahammi boddhavvā, intelligible instruction, refers to 'clear and intelligible language (RATNACANDRA 1988 IV: 351), which is relevant and ‘acceptable', and neither-true-nor-false.71 Malayagiri's commentary72 explains the difference between irrelevant and relevant speech through the following example: 'to the question “What shall I do now?” the answer “Do as you like” is aṇabhiggahiyā, the answer “Do this, do not that!” is abhiggahiyā (DELEU 1970: 169).
It is not entirely clear why samsaya-karaṇi bhāsā <samsaya-karaņi bhāṣā>, ambiguous language which causes doubt' (RATNACANDRA 1988 IV: 570), is regarded as