Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 190

Śabda-vyāpāra-vicāra
165 one another by inseparable relation or "avinābhāva-sambandha.” None of these is singly signified by a word. So, when we consider the import of a word, what we generally understand is an individual belonging to a particular class and possessing a certain physical form peculiar to itself. (Nyā. Sū. II. ii. 58).
The Navya-Nyāya practically maintains the same position. Neither the class or genus alone, nor the individual alone, but the individual conditional or qualified by the genus constitutes the significance of a word—“jātimān padārthah. Śaktir jātyākrtivisista-vyaktau viśrāmyati."-Muktavalī. The class therefore makes the cognition of an individual almost impossible.”—jātimātre hi samketāt vyakter mānam su-duşkaram" (sabdaśakti-prakāśikā]
So, it is more reasonable to restrict the samketa to the individual qualified by genus. The Navya-Nyāya holds that the addition of äkrti in the conception of padārtha is quite immaterial in view of the fact that there is an inseparable relation existing between an individual and its form. All individuals belonging to the same class have a particular configuration of their physical structure. Perhaps this led Patañjali to hold that a class is determined by 'krti' i.e. physical form.-"ākrtigrahanā jātih." M. bh. on Pā. IV. i. 63. Bhartphari's Vākyapadīya :
The discussion that follows is in the light of Dr. Kunjunni Raja's learned observations. The grammarian Bhartrhari discusses this topic in two sections, viz.
jāti-samuddeśa' and 'vyakti-samuddesa.' He discusses in greater details the various issues involved in this problem. He considers and presents in a logical way, all the different views on the topic and arrives at a position which can be regarded more as philosophical than grammatical. First, he takes up the class theory for discussion. A rigid adherence to this view makes us incapable of meeting the situation in which we find that jāti or class is nowhere found directly related to activity i.e. 'kriyā,' as signified by the main constituent of a sentence i.e. the verb. In 'gām ānaya,' kriyā or activity is connected with "kāraka' (case) and not with class i.e. 'gotva.' The jātivādis are divided in their way of dealing with this point. Some of them hold class or jāti as 'upalaksana' i.e. a characteristic mark of the power of signification (śaktyupalaksana). Others hold that jāti itself is signified by the force of implication-kesam cit sāhacaryena jātih sakyupalaksanam"-V. P. III. 3. The former view lays stress on association i.e. 'sāhacarya,' the latter on implication or tātparya,"iha kesām cit jātivādinām ekārtha-samavāyāt saktaiḥ pratipādane jātirūpalaksanam upāya iti matam. anyesām punas tātparyena jātir eva sabdena pratipădyate." - Helārāja, on V. P. III. 3.