|
In this paper, I have made an attempt to streamline the views of Jnanadeva on 'Man and the word'. My treatment is based on his chief philosophical work
entitled 'Amritanubhava'. This work sets forth clearly the philosophical point of views on 'man and the word'. I am fully conscious of the fact that Jnanadeva is not a technical philosopher who uses rigorous logical
rules and fallacies. He has utilised his earthly logic and used regional language to expound his philosophical views. He is a saint, poet and philosopher. His contribution has not been fully worked out, while
writing this paper, my ideas have been largely shaped on the basis of the study of 'Bharatha Dipika' popularly known as 'Janeshwari' and 'Amritanubhava', 'Amritanubhava' is not based on ancient scriptures like
Vedas, Upanishads and Vedanta sutras. Jnanadeva develops his philosophical views on the basis of his philosophical insight. Before I should dwell upon his philosophical views on 'Man and the word', I will state his
philosophical position in the background of Indian Philosophy.
I understand Jnanadeva as an idealist. Ragnathananda observes, "Like Sri Shankaracharya, he was an advaita vedantin, a non-dualist" (Yardi, M. R., Jnaneshwari, Foreword by Swami Ragnathananda, p. VII).
Jnanadeva refuses to accept the dualism of Sankhya, the subjective idealism and nihilism of Buddha and Ajnanavada or the theory of ignorance supported
by Shankaracharya. He is non-dualist like Shankaracharya but he does not fully subscribe to Shankara's contra on that 'Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya'. Jnanadeva accepts the first dictum, 'Brahma Satyam' but rejects the other part i.e. Jagan Mithya. The development of Jnanadeva's philosophical deliberation will help us to understand his conceptions of 'Man and the word'. I think that Jnanadeva is the exponent of 'Integral Advaitism'. The doctrine of 'Integral Advaitism' does not reject existence of world. It also considers ignorance as partial knowledge or concealed knowledge.
After ascertaining the philosophical position in the setting of Indian thought, I will proceed to deal with Jnanadeva's Philosophy of word. His
Philosophy of language derives its inspiration from classical Indian theory of linguistic analysis. If Philosophy is an attempt to understand man and the world around us and if it is in terms of our language, that
we apprehend the man and the world, then an analysis of how our language works would be almost the first step in studying Philosophy. I will first of all explain Jnanadeva's views on 'words'. Jnanadeva admits that
word is at the realm of ignorance. Language is intimately connected with 'Avidya'. This stand of Jnanadeva is quite different from classical grammarian school of Indian Philosophy. Bhratrihari, the propounder
of 'Vyakaran Darshan' holds that the 'Sabda' is Brahman. His theory of language is known as 'Sphotavada'. The four-fold levels of speech viz, para, pasyanti, madhyama and Vaikharihave
been described and explained in his book entitled 'Vakyapadiam'. The theory of 'Akhanda Vakya' or Sphota has been expounded by Bhratrihari. He has identified 'Sabda' with 'Brahma'. 'Sabda' is the creative principle. The 'para' level of speech is transcendental. Jnanadeva says that these levels of speech operate at the level of ignorance. Even 'para' Sabda is at the level of ignorance. Jnanadeva observes, "Therefore, the four kinds of speech, which are ornaments of four bodies vanish along with Avidya when egoism of the individual self is destroyed" (Bhratrihari, Vakyapadiyam 1.124). The essence of word according to Jnanadeva is 'Avidya' but Bhratrihari thinks that the essence of word is knowledge. The word-essence or 'Sabda-tattva'has
been described by Bharatrihari as 'Sabda-Brahman'. The 'Sabda-Brahman'is described as the consciousness in all living beings. There is no idea says Bhratrihari, which is not embodied in word. "All
knowledge is manifested by word". In classical Indian thought, Philosophy occupies an important place. Philosophizing is just analysing words. The classical Indian philosophy of language is metaphysical in
nature. Bhratrihari propounded the metaphysical theory of language. But the concern with 'man and the word' is starting point of Philosophy in India.
In India, analysis of language has been a significant philosophical activity. The analysis components the relationship between word and meaning,
classification of words, according to semantic contributions, division of word with reference to the division of ontological categories, logical and psychological factors in knowledge, have always engaged the minds
of Indian Rishis. The meaning of sentence and its philosophical analysis and principles of language have been discussed in India over the centuries. The discussion institutes the vast literature which we can very
profitably explore to talk about the classical Indian Philosophy of language, while discussing Jnanadeva's conceptions of man and the word, we are tempted to understand the problems in the background of classical
Indian Philosophy of language, writing in 1969 on "Sanskrit Philosophy of language", F. Staal commented that at times almost excessive pre-occupation with language on the one hand and with Philosophy on
the other, may indeed be regarded as a characteristic of Indian civilization" (F. Staal, Sanskrit Philosophy of Language, 1969, p 463). what Staal has called 'Sanskrit Philosophy of language' is identical with
what B. K. Matilal calls "Indian Philosophy of Language" (Matilal, B.K.; The word and the world, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p. 5).
Since Indian Philosophy of language has largely been written in Sanskrit, Matilal is right to call it "Indian philosophy of language". Prof.
H. M. Jha has called it 'linguistic analysis in Indian philosophy'. Keeping the long Indian tradition, Jnanadeva expressed his views on the word. His views on language is not a technical one but it reflects his
concern about words and its functions. His reflections on word have prominently figured in his 'Amritanubhava' and have tried to work out and develop his philosophy of language in the background of classical Indian
philosophy of language. I have used 'Sabda' and also translated it into 'word' as and when the context requires.
True, language is a complex phenomenon. But its supreme relevance lies in the recognition of the fact that philosophizing is almost impossible without
language. Hence, by analysing language, we can analyse concepts. Our concepts are communicable by means of language. This is not an accidental connection between concept and language. We use language to communicate
thought because we have an implicit understanding of how our language works. Those principles governing the use of language are shared though implicitly by all language users. In fact, word and thought are
indistinguishable. One contemporary Philosopher Michel Dummett believes that the philosophy of language is the basis of the entire structure, we call philosophy. Dummett argues that there is a very general aspect of
our concern with language and the concern is with the fundamental outlines of an account of how language functions. It is in thin sense that the philosophy of language is to be regarded as the foundation of all the
rest in Philosophy. Bhratrihari and the post-Bharatrihari grammarians give importance to metaphysical conception of language. This metaphysical conception of language does not attract the attention of the
post-Fregean contemporary Philosophers of language. The contemporary analytic philosophers are not concerned with the answers given by Bhratrihari since he has expounded metaphysical theory of language. Russell,
Ryle, Wittgenstein, Austin and Strawson are well known contemporary philosophers of language. They are not interested in metaphysical conception of linguistic analysis. Similarly, those western and Indian
philosophers of linguistic analysis hardly take interest in Jnanadeva's analysis of words.
The fundamental contention of Bhratrihari is that 'language is eternal'. But this contention is not tenable to Jnanadeva. He does not subscribe to the
views that 'language is eternal', Bhratrihari's conception of the origin of the word from 'Brahma' is not acceptable to Jnanadeva. He upholds that the word originates from ignorance. Jnanadeva holds that with 'Avidya',
the word dies. Jnanadeva's conception of language is also quite different from Wittgenstein's picture-theory of language, appropriate to which we form pictures of facts. The emphasis laid on this statement implies
that it is of fundamental philosophical importance. The question is what Wittgenstein means by a picture when we call something a picture. We do not always imply that it represents or depicts something - there are
also non-representational pictures. But Wittgenstein, when he speaks of a picture always thinks of it as a picture of something. The picture depicts state-of-affairs, a picture is always a genuine representation
only if it represents a fact. By 'reality' Wittgenstein means ' a real state of affairs'. True, Wittgenstein in his "Logico Philosophicus Fractatus" upholds that language pictures 'reality'. Jnanadeva does
not agree with the contention of Wittgenstein. Language does not picture the reality but they picture something different from reality. He considers reality in two senses, one is the 'Ultimate Reality' and the other
is 'reality' of the world. According to Jnanadeva, reality is the manifestations of the 'Reality'. The 'Reality' is invisible, the realities are visible. The 'Ultimate Reality' is the Reality of all realities. The
reality of the world is changing. The word can neither picture the Reality nor ever-changing realities. Jnanadeva raises a question :"Is it not a mirror that reflects the formless?" (Jnanadeva,
Amritanubhava, Chap. VI, 1). In reply to the question he observes, "It is no wonder that the visible is seen in a mirror, but that which is invisible is seen in this mirror of the word" (Ibid., 2).
Ordinarily, mirror reflects our face which is visible. But Jnanadeva holds that the word mirrors the invisible. Words mirror thought or concepts and not things or reality.
When I talk of Jnanadeva's contribution to the Philosophy of language, I must talk of slightly different approach. In a specific sense, the Philosophy
of language is a part of Indian Philosophical activity from the beginning of the history of Indian Philosophy. One reason was to recognise the scriptures (Vedas) authority in certain areas of our belief system.
Jnanadeva makes a significant departure from Nyaya theory of 'Sabda'. 'Sabda' is not a source of knowledge. Different schools of Indian Philosophy
emphasises 'Sabda' as a valid source of knowledge. Vedanta emphasises the testimony of the Vedas. Shankara regards word as the most important pramana which is philosophically valid. The perception and inference are on empirical level. Vedanta Texts reveal the true and ultimate nature of the Reality while all the other sources of knowledge are useful in our ordinary life. According to Jnanadeva, the "word can't give us knowledge of the Reality". The scriptures were regarded by tradition as embodying certain truths derived from the revealed insights of the sages. The linguistic nature of the scriptures reveals gradually the fact that verbal testimony is an important source of knowledge like perception and inference. This has led to the inquiry about 'Sabda'. How 'Sabda' imparts knowledge ? As a matter of fact, what we call the Philosophy of language in India has in one sense a part of the classical theory of 'Pramana Shastra'. Jnanadeva's basic attitude towards 'Sabda' is quite different from the most of the orthodox Indian schools which consider 'Sabda' as a source of knowledge. Jnanadeva sharply differs from classical Indian view and asserts that 'Sabda' is not a source of valid knowledge. The word is not a praman by destroying that which does not exist. He observes, " This word cannot be a praman by destroying that which does not exist as the darkness cannot determine the nature of the darkness" (Jnanadeva, Amritanubhava, 56). In this context, it may be clarified that ignorance is partial knowledge. Thus ignorance is non-existence, so the word can't destroy that which is non-existence.
According to dominant classical Indian philosophy 'Sabda' as pramana is not subsumed under perception or inference. It is an independent source of
knowledge. For example, my brother tells me that the grandfather was a good hunter. My knowledge derived from his statement unique in the sense that it is not perceptually observed. My brother can't transmit his
perception to me. It is also not derived on the basis of a 'mark' of an evidence. But my brother's words generate knowledge in me. I simply trust that my grand father was a good hunter. I have not seen my
grandfather but I trust the words of my brother who has seen him. In order to introduce the problem of deriving knowledge from linguistic utterances, I will refer to 'Aksapada', the author of the Nyaya-Sutra.
According to him, the word is a pramana. The word is a means of knowledge. He defines the word in the Nyaya-Sutra as follows: 'Sabda or word is what is instructed by a trust worthy person (apta) (Aksapada, Nyaya-Sutra, 117). Here 'Sabda' stands for 'Sabda-parman' i.e. the means of knowledge called 'word'. 'Apta' stands
for a trustworthy or a reliable person. It is important to note that Aksapada did not identify 'Sabda' with scriptures. Vatsyayana's comment here is more interesting. First, he defines the word apta. "An apta is one who is in a possession to instruct or command. He has realised or perceived the 'dharma'and
he is engaged in making a statement with a desire to communicate the objects or facts he has perceived them. Vatsyayana explains perception of facts as having complete knowledge of the facts (apta). The
element of trust is an important constituent when we take a linguistic utterance of a person to be a source of knowledge.
Though Jnanadeva differs from the clerical Indian contention yet he does not undermine the importance of language. Language is the essence of man and
his world. Man is linguistic animal. Language distinguishes man from animal. Languages facilitate transition of man from its natural existence to cultural existence. Language is of two kinds. One is the language of
recognition and the other is language of philosophical thinking. Language alone makes me capable to say, 'I am' and facilitates recognition of what 'I am'. My identity is because I am endowed with language. It alone
checks me to become other than man. If man transcends himself, then he enters into imaginary world. The existent man is always with language. If man transcends his existence, he also transcends language. The
changing human existence can be grasped only in recognition. Man can't grasp his fleeting existence with the help of recognition. Language can depict the past recalled through memory. Language relates man to other
man. The word is means to grasp the other man. It facilitates inter-cultural communication. Jnanadeva says that though language can't fathom the depths of human existence yet it is important factor in human life.
The words can't picture the flecting and changing reality. The function of word is quite limited. It pictures thought and not things. The word doss not
give us true knowledge. It moves in the realm of ignorance. The word mirrors concepts and not things or objects. Conceptual analysis is always inferential activity. Conceptual analysis is means to investigate the
reality. Concepts are not facts, words do not mirror facts but concepts. Conceptual analysis is cut off from the concrete human existence. Concepts are cut off from hard realities. Concepts are imaginary.
Philosophizing is conceptualizing. Conceptualizing is just going away from realities. Thus, Philosophizing cuts off man from the living realities. Philosophizing is just forgetting his own concrete human existence.
Plato calls Philosopher as spectator. Spectator is visionary. Speculation affects the real nature of man. Speculation disfigures the real essence of man. He becomes stranger to himself. Man is born, he lives and at
last he dies. He does not realise his own self. He neither desires to know about himself nor he knows. He looses his own self. He destroys his identify as well as the identify of other human beings.
Language is cultural phenomenon. Jnanadeva rightly observes that nobody can deny the importance of the word. The word gives shape to sound which is
formless, thus, it helps to give form to the formless. The mirror reflects our face or something visible, but the word mirrors the faceless. The mirror reflects something which is real or visible, the mirror
reflects objects. The word does not reflect the objects, it mirrors that which is not there. The word gives shape to our memory, it is related to the past. The memory is always of that which has happened, though the
word creates illusion. Yet man can't deny that the word is a great gift to man. Man's identity is due to words. It connects man with the past which does not exist, it mirrors the past which is not there. It creates
false impression. The 'sky flower' is depicted like real flower through words. The word directs us as what to do or not to do. The word is the torch-bearer of human life. The power of word is immense. It creates
darkness and claims to illumination. The word determines man's destiny. It pretends to show the right path out of ignorance. Jnanadeva is conscious of paradoxical but magical nature of the word. The word creates
ignorance but pretends to shed knowledge. The magical power of the word hypnotises us. The word clues reality. It depicts something as real which is actually unreal. Concepts are not things. The word claims to
depict the thing but actually it depicts concepts. According to Jnanadeva, the word lands us in the cobweb of ignorance. We forget the fact due to magical power of this word. The word combined with ignorance becomes
emblem of unreal things. Ignorance cultivates false values. The reality is degenerated and becomes valueless and unreality becomes valuable. This function is done by the magical power of the word.
The Reality is the truth, the good and the beautiful. The truth, the good and the beautiful is not living but abstract. The word comes and declares
that 'Real' is the true, the good and the beautiful. The word comes and says that 'Real' is the Sat, the Chit and the Ananda. The word comes and declares that this soul is real and the body is unreal. The word has
got the magical power. The word makes it possible for us to believe that man is 'soul' and not body. The self-consciousness is expressed in language. The self-identity is established through words. It relates man to
man. Jnanadeva is very much conscious about the paradoxical nature and function of words. The word depicts conflicting pictures. The word lands us in paradox. The word creates confusions and also dispels it. The
magical power of the word has been realised by Jnanadeva. Philosophical analysis claims to clarify the concepts. But concepts are mirrored in words. P.F. Strawson in his recent book entitled 'Metaphysics and
Analysis' says that concepts are clothed in language. So Philosophical analysis is solely concerned with linguistic analysis.
Jnanadeva also admits the importance of language but he does not consider the word as valid source of knowledge. It is fundamentally wrong to say that
'Sabda' is a source of knowledge. The classical Indian Philosophers like Vyakaran Darshan and Nyaya Darshan consider that the word or 'Sabda' is a source of valid knowledge. According to Jnanadeva, this contention
is rejected. The word can't give us reality. The utmost word can do is to help us to remember the past. It can help us to recognize the dead. It helps us to remember the past. The word never prepares man to know the
reality. It never helps us to fathom the depth of pure human consciousness. The word is not capable to know the real essence of man's existence.
According Jnanadeva, ignorance is non-existent. The ignorance is like a daughter of barren women. The question of dispelling ignorance does not arise
because the non-existent is simply non-existent. To say that ignorance is indefinable, as Vedanta admits, is like saying that unreality can negate itself. The thing which does not exist needs no proof. Ignorance
does not exist. It needs no proof. The question of this end of ignorance does not arise as the ignorance is not real. Jnanadeva says that the ignorance is contrivance of word. This is just a figment and imagination
created by words. The word originates out of ignorance and ignorance is due to words. This position is conflicting and suffers from the fallacy of petio-principle. The ignorance is ground of the origin of the word
and the word becomes ground of the ignorance.
So Jnanadeva points out the contradictory and conflicting nature of word. Thus, it is absurd to talk about the end of ignorance and consider 'Sabda' as
a means of knowledge. The word covers knowledge. The word becomes source of ignorance. To get knowledge is to get rid of the lumber load of words. Word creates cobweb of confusions. Wittgenstein says that the
function of the Philosopher is to dispel the cobweb of words and clarify the concepts. Jnanadeva says that man has to get out of the cage of words. Reality is not clothed in language. The word is the source of
contradiction. Reality is free from contradiction. Philosophizing is conceptualising is wrong notion. Philosophizing is realising. Philosophizing aims at self- realising. Philosopher is to get self consciousness.
Self- realization needs no words. It is pure and simple experience. It is self-luminous. Self-consciousness needs no words. The word limits our consciousness. The word moves in the realm of contradictions. It gives
the fleeting and contradictory picture of the reality. Man is always changing. The word can't depict the true nature of man. The word clues the essence of man. The essence lies in self consciousness. The knowledge,
according to Jnanadeva is 'Atma-Vidya'. The word limits our consciousness and can't give 'Atma-Vidya'.
To say that Philosophical analysis clarifies concepts and paves the path of knowledge is not acceptable to Jnanadeva. To say that word can illumine
with self- awareness is mere babbling. It is like saying that let us dispel the darkness of the night and then only sun will rise. The fact is that when sun will rise, the darkness will be dispelled in natural
course. The contention that analysis of language alone can clarify the concepts and give us knowledge is not tenable to Jnanadeva. Jnanadeva observes, "The Atman who is knowledge, existence and bliss is self-evident. Now how can the word offer him that is already his own" (Jnanadeva, Amritanubhava, 93).
In conclusion, I, would like to say that Jnanadeva makes a significant departure from Bhratrihari's views on "Sabda is Brahman" but Jnanadeva
adheres that Sabda is at the level of ignorance. Bhratrihari says that Sabda is eternal but Jnanadeva contends that the word is not eternal.
Jnanadeva's views on words are not in tune with the classical Indian theories of Sabda Pramana. In classical Indian context, Philosophy of language has been discussed in Pramana
Shastra.
Sabda has been considered as significant source of valid knowledge. Jnanadeva rejects the contention of a Nyaya and Vedanta that Sabda is source of knowledge. He categorically rejects Sabda as a pramana or valid source of knowledge.
I have called Jnanadeva's Philosophy of language as "the mirror theory of word". But this mirror theory of word is to distinct from the
picture theory of Wittgenstein. Ordinarily, mirror reflects the face or visible. But the mirror theory of word as conceived and expounded by Jnanadeva adheres that invisible is mirrored in the word. The mirror
theory of word reflects the faceless of formless. The mirror theory of word' expounded by Jnanadeva, is quite different from the picture theory of language propounded by Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein contends that
language pictures the facts. But the mirror theory holds that the word does not mirror the fact, but concepts. This tantamount to saying that the word does not picture the Reality or realities. The word can't group
the changing facts or human existence. So the 'mirror theory of word' admits that 'Invisible' is mirrored in the word.
Lastly, Jnanadeva holds that language is a cultural phenomenon. It operates in the word. It relates one man to another. According to Jnanadeva, man is
a distinct being because he can use language. The word paves the way for transition from natural existence to cultural existence.
top
|
