Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 140

CRITIQUE OF NAYAS
129 It is not exercised by the substance, it should not be appropriately expressed by the word. Thus, for instance, the word ghata is derived from the V ghat meaning exertion, effort, activity. So a pitcher which actually carries the water, poised on the head of a woman, should be called ghata. It is also called kuta because of its oblique shape. When bereft of this quality it should not be called by that name. Take for instance another word kumbha which being derived from ku+ Jumbha stands for the jar filled with water. If anybody calls the empty jar by this name he would be guilty of imprecision of speech. This naya is called evambhūta, i.e., which actualises the function meant by it. Thus there are no synonyms. The conclusion deduced by this approach is that each thing has got a distinctive name and each name stands for a distinctive entity and further the connotation of a word is always a function and action minus which the word becomes an empty sound, and its indiscri. minate use by ignorant people should not be cited as witness for obliterating the difference of semantic value of different words. The use of double entendre (śleșa) is a popular rhetorical device with poets. But this indiscriminate identification of words in spite of difference of meanings is only a poetic licence which cannot be justified by a logical evaluation. Mahimabhatta in the Vyaktiviveka and, following him, Jagadisa Tarkalaūkära have flatly and unceremoniously denied the logical possibility of paronomasia and their position is justified by the testimony of this last approach, evambhūta. The first verbalistic approach centres on the identity of denotation; the second emphasizes the identity of connotation with denotation; and the third lays definite stress upon the actual presence of the connotation as the determinant principle of the use of the words. The past and the future actuality of the connotation is dismissed as an irrational over-extension which, if indulged in, will lead to absurd excesses.
A Critique of the Nayas It is affirmed by the Jaina philosopher and also proved by him that entities from the smallest to the highest are possessed of an incalculable number of attributes and the cognitive organ which apprehends such entities in their diverse dimensions and in all their bearings and aspects is entitled to the appellation of a valid organ of knowledge. But one-sided apprehension of it focussing on a particular aspect or attribute is called naya, i.e, a partial assessment. It does not cease to be valid and true if it makes the simple affirmation or negation without
1. yāvantaḥ sabdas tāvantaḥ arthāh, yāvantah arthās tāyantaḥ sabdāh /
sabdabhedena arthabhedaḥ, arthabhedena sabdabhedaḥ //