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 437

“Tātparya"
411 determining the meaning of a sentence is ultimately due to the difference in their
VS as to the nature of the knowledge derived from language. For the Naiyāyikas, sabda as a means of knowledge is valid verbal testimony which consists in the statement of a trustworthy person, an āpta-jana. The Nyāyasūtra I. i. 7 reads : "āptopadeśaḥ śabdah.” The agent may be either human or divine. But for the Mimāmsakas and Vedāntins the verbal testimony has self-evident validity i.e. "svatah-prāmānya”, i.e. it is irrespective of the speaker's intention. For the Mimāmsakas, in case of word-meanings also, the significative power is inherent in the words themselves and for the Naiyāyikas it is injected into the words by God's will or by that of the speaker. The Naiyāyikas call this meaning intended by the speaker by the name 'tātparya', but the Mimāmsakas and the Vedāntins use the term 'tātparya' for the meaning conveyed by the capacity of the words themselves. We will go to see later that Anandavardhana while establishing vyañjanā as a vrtti independent of abhidhā or lakṣaṇā, uses the term 'tātparya' to mean the intention of the speaker.
Even for the Naiyāyikas opinions differ regarding the importance of the speaker's intention as a factor in the understanding of the meaning of a given passage. Some are of the opinion that as the intention of the speaker is already covered up by 'ākāńksā', it need not be taken as an independent condition of verbal comprehension. Others hold that the knowledge of the meaning intended by the speaker is essential for verbal comprehension only in cases of equivocal terms and ambiguous expressions. For the former, in a statement such as "ayam eti putro rājñah puruso'pasāryatām" the knowledge of the speaker's intention only can decide whether the word 'rājñah' is to be construed with either 'putrah' or 'purusah', for the satisfaction of its ākānkṣā. But for the latter only equivocal expressions such as, "saindhavam anaya” require the knowledge of the intention of the speaker as 'saindhava' would mean both 'salt as well as 'a type of horse'. The Nyāyakośa p. 327, observes : "kecit tu "saindhavam anaya" ityādau nānártha-sthala eva tātparya-samśayā"deh sambhavena tatratya-śābda-bodha eva tātparya-niscayo hetuh... ity āhuh.” The Siddhāntamuktāvali, p. 316 also passes a similar observation. Nāgesa the grammarian, also accepts the importance of knowing the speaker's meaning in such equivocal expressions : The Laghumañjușa p. 524, has - “nānārtha-pada-sthale padavișayo’pi sa tathā. tad-grāhakam ca prakaraņā”dikam.”
Gangesa and Viśvanātha take knowledge of tātparya as the fourth requisite over and above ākānksā, yogyatā and samnidhi, for verbal comprehension. For the Naiyāyikas, “vaktur icchā tu tātparyam” i.e. tātparya is the meaning intended