Seven Classes of Nayas
Jaina philosophers have given broad classifications of
different aspects (Nayas) through which we can perceive a thing. They are
: 1) Naigama Naya (Generic and Specific view or teleological view), 2)
Sangraha Naya (class-view), 3) Vyavahara Naya (Empirical view), 4)
Rjusutra Naya (Momentary view), 5) Sabda Naya (Verbalistic view), 6)
Samabhirudha Naya (Etymological view) and 7) Evambhuta Naya (Specialised
view). There are hundreds of sub-classifications of these seven Nayas but
without touching them we shall presently discuss the bare outlines of
these seven Nayas. But before doing so, it may be noted that first three
Nayas are with reference to the identification of the main substance
called �Dravya' and hence are known as �Dravyarthika Nayas' while the rest
four refer to the standpoints which identify the modes of the main
substance and hence are known as �Paryayarthika Nayas'. We take up first
�Dravyarthika Nayas'.
(i) Naigama Naya : Etymological meaning of the
word �Naigam' is the �end product' or �result'. Tattvartha-sara' gives an
illustration of a person who carries water, rice and fuel and who, when
asked what he was doing, says he is cooking. This reply is given in view
of the result which he intends to achieve though at the exact time when
the question is put to him he is not actually cooking. His reply is not
correct from the point of view of Naigama Naya, though technically it is
not exactly correct, because he is not actually cooking at the time when
he replies. The general purpose, for which we work controls the total
series of our activities. If some one passes his judgement on basis of
that general purpose, he asserts Naigama Naya, i.e., the teleological
view-point.
Another sense in which this Naya is used is
generic-cum-specific. A thing has both generic and specific qualities but
when we comprehend that thing without making distinction between these two
is called as Naigama view point. Shri S. N. Dausgupta explains this as
under :
"This looking at things from loose commonsense view in
which we do not consider them from the point of view of their most general
characteristic as �being' or as any of their specific characteristics, but
simply as they appear at the first sight, is technically called Naigama
standpoint. This empirical view probably proceeds on the assumption that a
thing possesses the most general as well as the most special qualities,
and hence we may lay stress on any one of these at any time and ignore the
other ones. This is the point of view from which, according to the Jainas,
the Nyaya and Vaisesika schools interpret experience."
According to Jaina view the approach of emphasizing
only general or special qualities of reality and not both is fallacious as
it fails to give a comprehensive idea of a thing. The fallacy is called as
�Naigamabhasa'.
(2) Sangraha Naya : We get this Naya (view point) when
we put main emphasis on some general class characteristics of a particular
thing ignoring altogether the specific characteristics of that class. Such
a view is only partially correct but does not give the idea of the whole,
for it ignores the specific characteristics of that thing. Jainas cite
Vedanta as suffering from this fallacy, when it extracts only one class
characteristic saying that every thing is �Sat' or existence and
whatsoever saying is �Sat' is Brahman and rest is Maya, i.e., �Asat'.
Particulars of Reality, according to Jainas are as real as its main
substance and sole emphasis on any one of them leads to a fallacious
approach which is called Sangrahabhasa.
(3) Vyavahara Naya : If we look a thing from
this standpoint, we try to judge it from its specific properties ignoring
the generic qualities which are mainly responsible for giving birth to the
specific qualities. This amounts to the assertion of empirical at the cost
of universal and gives importance to practical experience in life. It is
the materialistic view as entertained by Carvakas. The fallacy is called
Vyavaharabhasa.
(4) Rjusutra Naya : It is still narrower than Vyavahara
in its outlook, because it not only emphasizes all the specific qualities
but only those specific qualities which appear in a thing at a particular
moment, ignoring their existent specific qualities of the past and future.
The approach of the Buddhists is of this type. To ignore the specific
qualities of past and future and to emphasize on only continuing
characterstics of Reality is the fallacy involved here.
(5) Sabda Naya : The Verbalistic approach is
called as Sabda naya. It accepts that all synonyms connote the same
object. Their meaning is changed only when we use them in different
gender, case a context. All languages have synonyms suggesting the same
thing. For instance the same person is indicated by the synonyms, yet they
do indicate different qualities of the same person, because the word
�Indira' connotes the �prosperity of the person, the word �Sakra' connotes
the powerful personality and the word �Purandara' connotes the destroyer
of fortresses. But if these words are used to establish complete identity
between them, the distinct qualities which are indicated by them are
obliterated and this results in the fallacy called �Sabdanayabhasa'.
(6) Samabhirudha Naya : It is different from
Sabda Naya, because it concentrates on the etymological distinction
between the synonyms. If carried to the fallacious extent this standpoint
may destroy the original identity pointed by synonyms.
(7) Evambhuta Naya : This Naya recognises only
that word which indicates the actual action presently attributed to the
individual. For instance Indra can be described as �Purandara' only when
he is acting as the destroyer of fortresses. In other words, among synonym
words only that word should be selected which has a co-relation with the
action referred to.
Partial truth of Individual Naya : As already
noted the purpose of pointing out to this detailed classification of nayas
is to show how differently the same object can be viewed by different
individuals. However, these different aspects are only partially true and
since they are only partially true, they are not capable of being wholly
true. They, however, cannot be rejected as wholly untrue also. These
different aspects can be illustrated by the reactions of some blind
persons who were asked to go to an elephant and give its description after
touching and feeling it. One who touched its legs described it as like a
pillar, one who touched the tail, described it like a rope and so on. Each
one was right from his own standpoint because he could experience only a
particular limb of the elephant and not the whole elephant. Each one of
them was however, wrong because his description did not conform to the
reality which the elephant possessed. This reality could be comprehended
only by one who could see the whole.
The Jainas, therefore, hold that the Carvakas,
Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Vedantins, Sankhyas and Buddhists apprehend reality
partially neglecting other aspects of its and consider their own
view-points as absolutely true and thus commit different types of
fallacies pointed above.
Utility of Naya Theory
The utility of the theory of Nayas lies in its
analytical approach and the consequential approach of a rational
unification of the manifold revealed by this analysis. The task of this
rational unification is done by the theory of Syadvada. As. Pt. Dalasukha
Malavania, an esteemed Jaina Scholar puts it, "Acarya Siddhasena has said
that there are as many view points (Nayas) as there are statements.
Enlarging this pronouncement of the Acarya, Jinabhadra makes it clear that
all philosophies taken collectively constitute Jainism. Contradiction
seems to be existing in the mutually exclusive statements so long as they
are not harmonized and integrated with each other."
The analysis of Naya shows that every judgement is
relative to that particular aspect from which it is seen or known. This is
also called Sapeksavada which means relativity of our particular knowledge
or judgement to a particular standpoint. Since human judgements are always
from particular standpoints, they are all relative and hence not
absolutely true or absolutely false. Their outright acceptance as a sole
truth or rejection as totally false would not be correct. This led the
Jaina seers to their famous doctrine of �Syadvada', which means the
doctrine of relativity.
