Truthfullness and Truth in Jaina Philosophy

Author(s): Peter Flugel
Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan

Page 32

मार्च २०१०
१९७
are linked. See also HYMES (1972: 283) notion of communicative competence: “The specification of ability for use as part of competence allows for the role of non-cognitive factors, such as motivation, as partly determining competence. In speaking of competence, it is especially important not to separate cognitive from affective and volitive factors, so far as the impact of the theory on educational practice is concerned; but also with regard to speech design and explanation.'
33 Arguably, conditions such as anger and pride can also evoke (painfully) true statements.
34 Viy 1.9.1 (95a).
35 Following Haribhadra (PannU 82: ākhyāyikā asambhāvyâbhidhānam) and Malayagiri (Pann?, 258b.9: ākhyāyikā-niḥsrtā yat-kathāsvasambhāvyābhidhānam), akkhāiya <ākhyāyika> is usually understood as a narrative (kathā) of something non-existing or impossible, based on mere 'legend' or hearsay. See RATNACANDRA (1988 I: 59), and GHATAGE (1996 I: 64). This betrays the spirit of realism of Jain philosophy. Though, kathā may also refer to 'talk', discussion or 'disputation’. Potentially negative consequences of knowledge based on mere hearsay are explained in Viy 9.31(430a-438a). Thāņa 7.80 lists seven types of gossip (vi-kahā <vi-kathā»).
36 Uvaghāya / uvagghāya <upaghāta> is explained by Malayagiri (PannŢ 258b.10) through the example cauras tvam (“you are a thief”), understood here as abhyākhyāna—false and groundless accusation. The term upaghāta generally designates an act of violence, but here more specifically an insult. See also Āyāra 2.4.8 for this and similar examples of 'sinful speech'.
Thāņa 6.100 lists six types of unwholesome speech. Thāņa 6.101 lists six types of false accusations, related to the context of enumeration (pathārā <prastāra>) in confession.
38 See for instance NYAYAVIJAYA (1998: 343–5).
39 On combinations of truth and untruth in behaviour (vyavahāra), intent (pariņata), belief (drsti) etc., for instance in succession, theorised in terms of character types, see Thāņa 241 (4.35-44). See CAILLAT (1965/1975: 80) on types of duplicity to be avoided.
40 DSV 7.4–5:
39 D: SHEELANUSANDHAN ANU-50