Book Title: Indian Logic Part 03 Author(s): Nagin J Shah Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti GranthmalaPage 63
________________ 52 INDIAN LOGIC one should be answered. Thus the fourth view begins by pointing out that no sentence is complete without a verb; to this is added that since a verb stands for something to be brought about and the remaining words for something already brought about while it is commonsense that what is something already brought about is but instrumental in bringing about what is to be brought about the conclusion is natural that all the words occurring in a sentence are subordinate to the verb occurring there. But against all this, the fifth view reported by Jayanta - a view which he is himself going to adopt as least unsatisfactory - objects as follows : "The verb occurring in a sentence stands for an action, but this action itself is aimed at some result so that the word standing for this result cannot be subordinate to this verb; nor can it be said that as occurring in a sentence the word standing for the result is really subordinate to the verb, for it is altogether inconceivable how the result to be brought about by an action is instrumental in bringing about this action itself. For example, in the case of the injunction "One desirous of heaven ought to perform a yajña' heaven can in no sense be instrumental in bringing about the performance of a yajña." Certainly, one performing a yajña does not take hold of heaven as one takes hold of an ordinary implement-of-yajña; and it will be far-fetched to suggest that heaven is instrumental in the performance of a yajña because the idea of heaven held before mind is thus instrumental.”'12 However, following a similar logic the sixth view reported by Jayanta criticises the fifth view as follows : "If the result to be brought about by an action cannot be instrumental in bringing about this action itself then the person to be benefitted by this result cannot be instrumental in bringing about this result itself, so that in a sentence the chief word ought to be not the verb standing for the action concerned, nor the result to be brought about by this action, but the person to be benefitted by this result."13 Taking advantage of the turn thus taken by the controversy the fourth view submits : “But then a person himself is actually instrumental in bringing about the action denoted by the verb occurring in a sentence, so that the chief word in a sentence ought to be nothing save the verb concerned.”!4 Really, all this is but reductio ad absurdum of the idea that some one word occurring in a sentence ought to be the chief word and the meaning of this word the meaning of this sentence. But it is in this background that thePage Navigation
1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226