Studies in Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001580
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 352
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Epistemology, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 312

Bhartrhari's paradox
285
Since the text supporting B2 makes no reference to proper. ties as the basis of naming, the indirect argument advanced against Bl would not apply here in the same form,
We are well aware that some new indirect argument might he advanced against B2, once more on the basis of a conflict between principles and practice For Bhartshari does use the word samaväya throughout to name that which B2 declares to be unnameable. And so, the new indirect argument might run, had Bhartphari been committed to B2 in full strength, and not merely to some weaker proposition, he would have been committed to a principle which was inconsistent with his own linguistic practice.
We are now in a position to recognize the ground of these indirect arguments in the very phenomenon of Bhartr. hari's paradox. According to that paradox, any statement of any instance of the upnameability thesis is bound to use some name or expression to identify that which it declares to be unnameable. So any statement of any such principle seems bound to conflict with linguistic practice at some point. The very inevitability of such a conflict to some extent weakens these indirect arguments and justifies a demand for textual evidence of a more direct kind. One cannot rule out the possibility that Bhartrhari really did hold some instance of the unnameability thesis and thereby really was committed to a linguistic theory which he himself couldn't reconcile with his own linguistic practice. That would after all be poetic justice for the author of our paradox.
Some remarks of Helārāja suggest yet another reading of Bhartphari's position on the unnameability thesis. The commentary to the fourth verse of SS in effect treats the genitive locution as if it were an exception to the rule :1.
... There, apart from the genitive locution, there is no signifying, i.e. elucidating, expression for it...and Subramania Iyer's translation of Bhartshari's verse incorporates this reading :11
There is no verbal element (besides the genitive suffix ) wbich denotes this relation in its essential propery.