________________
2
VERBAL TESTIMONY VALIDITY GOD WORD
As has been noted, Jayanta devotes to the problem of verbal testimony as many as four Ahnikas (Chapters) of his text; and yet he has really very little to say about the essential nature of verbal testimony. Most important things said in this connection' are said in the first few pages of Ahnika III, and there too so much is of secondary importance. So it is necessary to distinguish out as to what Jayanta has primarily to say about the nature of verbal testimony.
(i) Nature of Verbal Testimony
The following is how the Nyayasutra definition of verbal testimony runs :
Verbal testimony (sabda) is the teaching (upadesa) of an authoritative person (apta).
Jayanta begins by considering as to what is meant by upadesa and what by apta. Thus he defines upadesa as abhidhäna (= verbal communication) and then defines adhidhāna as 'apprehension of an object by means of something which is grasped through ears and which denotes this object." This so much roundabout definition of abhidhäna Jayanta adopts because he has in mind the theory of sphota according to which a word is an eternal self-existing verity which is only made manifest at the time when a speaker speaks and a listener listens to him; hence it is emphasized that in conformity to popular usage the word 'word' is to mean something that is grasped through ears and not sphota allegedly not grasped through ears, also that a word as thus understood is what acts as a means for apprehending the object concerned. To this it is added that if abhidhäna is defined merely as 'apprehension of an object (brought about through whatever means)" then this definition will cover even inference which is of the form of apprehension of an object brought about by means of a probans." At the same time it is made clear that a word which is heard all right does not cease to be a word even in case it does not act as a means
