Indian Logic Part 03

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

Page 95

84
INDIAN LOGIC
a sentence have to be uttered in close succession, something that goes without saying). So, if the Prabhākarite was now contending that in a properly constituted sentence the word-meanings concerned get associated as a matter of course he was making an absolutely valid point and puncturing the principle of three conditions'; but the difficulty is that he once more endorses this principle while once more assailing it, this time concentrating fire on the concept of ‘ability and this time leaving no doubt about his intention. Thus the Prabhākarite, elucidating his basic contention, argues : “So the conclusion is that the words occurring in a sentence denote thingsassociated-with-one-another; for in no other way can association be made possible here. Certainly, a sentence does not include the word 'association'; and even if it does, the inclusion will be senseless."49 The opponent asks : “But how is association to be got in a sentence like 'A hundred hords etc.' ?'; the Prabhākarite asks in return : “And how is it to be got there on your view ???50 The opponent answers: “On my view there takes place no association here because the needed ability is absent"; the Prabhākarite retorts :: "On my view too the same explanation holds.". The opponent argues: “You uphold the doctrine of denotation of the things-associated', and so on your view denotation itself will be not there in case asociation is not there. On the other hand, I uphold the doctrine of association of the things denoted', and so on my view there can be denotation even in case there is no association.”52 This argument is revealing because it shows, how our philosophers were confusing ‘grammatical ability with physical ability'. Thus the opponent is here virtually arguing that in the case of the sentence in question the words concerned lack the grammatical ability to get associated because the things meant by these words lack the physical capacity to get associated. And then he would submit that since 'ability' is one of the necessary condition of 'association' while association is what a sentence means this sentence lacks a meaning; however, he feels that he is in a better position than the Prabhākarite because the latter knows of no wordmeanings apart from the sentential meaning concerned so that on the latter's view here is a case of word-employment with no meaning coming in picture ! The Prabhākarite's just made plea amounted to saying that according to him too the sentence in question lacks a meaning and that it lacks it precisely for the reason offered by the