Indian Logic Part 03

Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Page 66

55
PROBLEMS OF UNIVERSALS... can impel one to undertake an action.30 Then it is contended that an injunctive sentence not only conveys information as to what action is to be undertaken, how it is to be undertaken, etc. etc. but it also does the impelling. This contention is equated to saying that a Vedic injunctive sentence conveys information about one type of 'bhāvanā' while it itself undertakes another type of 'bhāvanā', the former to be called arthi 'bhāvanā' (= a causing pertaining to what a word means), the latter sābdi bhāvanā (= a causing pertaining to a word itself).32 Then it is laid down that like all bhāvanā a sābdi bhāvanā too requires three factors in the form of an objective, an instrument, a manner of doing; here the objective invariably is 'impelling a person to undertake the action concerned', the instrument all direct information about this action', the manner of doing all associated descriptive utterance aimed at encouraging a person to undertake this action. Usually, however, the word 'bhāvanā' is used for what is here called arthi bhāvanā, the word 'vidhi' for what is here called sābdi bhāvanā. Thus it is argued that a vidhi gets associated with a bhāvanā even before the root-part of the verb concerned is comprehended, for both this vidhi and this bhāvanā are denoted by the injunctive verbal-suffix carried by this verb.34 The opponent objects : "But then a vidhi should have nothing to do with the objective, instrument and manner-of-doing related to the bhāvanā concerned, for these objective etc. are described not by the injuncive verbal-suffix but by the injunctive sentence as a whole;"35 the Kumārilite answers : "Even if a vidhi gets associated with a bhāvanā as such the former waits till the latter becomes equipped with the necessary factors like objective etc., just as the bridegroom waits till the child-bride becomes adult.”36 Through all this rigmarole the Kumārilite is making the simple point that a bare look at the injunctive verbal-suffix employed in a sentence enables one to feel sure that this sentence is an injunctive sentence but that the meaning of the whole sentence will have to be grasped if one were to learn as to what the injunction concerned is about. In any case, here closes the Kumārilite's account of how bhāvanā constitutes sentential meaning. As can be seen, he is chiefly interested in explaining the nature of a Vedic injunctive sentence, but he should find no difficulty in showing how even an ordinary sentence, injunctive or otherwise, describes a bhāvanā as equipped with the necessary factors like objective etc.37 For, after all, all