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 440

414
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Normally we use language to convey some sense. When words are used in juxtaposition viz. samabhivyāhāra, it is understood that the speaker wants to convey a connected sense. The Tattvabindu p. 131, has - "pratipitsitam khalu etad iti pratipādayisyantah padāni uccārayanti.” Kumārila also has - "visistárthaprayuktā hi samabhivyāhrtir jane” i.e. samabhivyāhști or use of words in juxtaposition is done with a special meaning (in mind). The anvitábhidhāna theory holds that the intention or tātparya makes the primary significative power i.e. abhidhā convey the additional significance of a sentence. According to the abhihitánvaya theory, abhidhā or the power of expression has a limited capacity to yield only the samketita artha of a word. Thus, abhidhā is restricted to wordmeanings alone. These word-meanings convey the additional significance through the power of 'laksaņā' based on the strength of tātparya along with the other three such as ākānkṣā, yogyatā and ásatti or samnidhi. This function of the sentence to convey the sentence-sense on the basis of the speaker's intention is called tātparyavrtti by some ancient Naiyāyikas and is termed 'samsarga-maryādā' by later Naiyāyikas. We come across these terms in the R.G. of Jagannātha also. Anvitábhidhānavāda and Abhihitánvayavāda :
We will now go into a detailed understanding of the two principal ways of
xing among the Mimāmsakas and others who attempt to explain the fact of a correlated sentence-sense. These are termed as the anvitábhidhānavada and the abhihitánvayavāda. For that we will have to begin with the relation of words in a sentence. The basic problem discussed by indian thinkers is that if every word in a sentence has its own specific meaning, how does a sentence, which is only a collection of these words, has a unified meaning ? This problem has relevance with compound word also having units with individual senses. For Vājapyāyana, like the Mimāmsakas, the meaning of a word is “jāti' i.e. a class or a universal, and that of a sentence is the samsarga or mutual relation of the word-meanings. Helārāja (on V.P. III Jāti-samuddeśa) observes - "jātivādino vājapyāyanasya tu mate samsargo vākyárthaḥ, sāmānyānām samśleşamātra-rūpatvāt vākyárthasya.” Kumārila (Tantravārtika, p. 446) says - "samsargo'pi padárthānām anyonyenā’nurañjanam... gotve śuklatva-samsargah, śuklatve vā gotva-samsargah." - Thus, an expression 'śuklā gauh', means the association of cowness and whiteness. As this association is one, words make for a syntactic unity.
For Vyādi the meaning of a word was any particular i.e. dravya of a class. It is a concrete thing and not a quality. Thus Vyādi holds that the function of a word