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 324

Bharthari's paradox
297
5 asyāyam, vacako vācya iti şaşthya pratiyate,
yogah sabdārthayos tattvam ity ato vyapadisyate. nābhidhāpain svadharmeņa sambandhasyāsti vācakam. In the jatisomuddeśa the properties on the basis of which names are given to objects are identified with universals (jāti): VP III. 1.6-8; in the drav yasmuddeśa with limiting features (upādhi); Helārāja on VP III.2.2, p. 108. 1-9; in the gunasamuddeśa with qualities (guņa): Helārāja on VP III.5.1,p. 192-203. The lack of a uniform vocabulary is not surprising in the context of Bharthari's commitment to a metaphysically neutral semantic theory (sarva pārşadasāmânyam śāstram). There is evidence in support of our view that for Bharthari proper names do not name their subjects directly. For instance Helārāja on VP III 1.2, p. 9.6-7 says: “It will be established that even (proper) names like Dittha express universals (sam jñāšabdanām api Ditthadisabdanām jätivacitium samarthayisyate)”, a remark which is elaborated on by him in VP III. 5.1, p 193. 17-20; see also VP II. 366 and the discussion of the proper name Kharaṇāsa' (long-nosed) in VP II. 364-365. Our evidence for the demonstrative is indirect and is drawn from Bhartrhari's analysis of negative sentences. The sentence "This is not a Brahmin' is not meaningful if the reference is to a clod of earth. It becomes meaningful only if the reference it to someone who bears a resemblance to a Brahmin, to someone who for instance has tawny hajr (pingalakesin): see VP III 14.263, 281, 301. This would seem to suggest that the demonstrative refers to its object through a property which is determined by the adjoining predicate expression. The property would therefore not be fixed (dhruvam) but would be context dependent. The demonstrative would signify its object in the same way in wbich a crow signifies the house on which it sits : VP III. 2.3.
praptim tu samavāyākhyām vācyadharmātivartinim
prayoktā pratipată vā.na sabdair anugacchati. 9 iti avācya eva bhāvato'yam; Helāraja on VP III. 3. 19. p. 137. 1-2. 10 tatra.... vācakam pratyāyakam, abhidhānam şaşțhivyatiriktam nāsti.
Helaraja on VP II. 3.4. p. 123. 10-11. 11 Iyer, 1971 p. 80 (lyer's translation) 12 Since Sanskrit does not have a copula the sanskrit counterparts for
a and d have the grammatical structure : demonstrative + jmplicit verb + noun phrase. The four names involved would be : a. ayam
c. asya vācakah b. ayam
d. asya våcyaḥ SP-38