________________
डॉ सागरमल जैन : व्यक्तित्व एवं कृतित्व
९५ status of a sentence. Jaina thinkers have no objection to this view if this internal sentence (bhāva-vākya) is the counterpart of the external one (dravya-vakya).
Some are of the view that the first word uttered by the speaker is to be regarded as a sentence because on hearing it, the hearer comes to know the remaining words also. There are several factors like context, situation, etc. which help the hearer to know the remaining words. Jainas describe this view as absurd. It makes other words-rather their utterance by the speaker-redundant. Of course, on certain occasions even one word acts as a sentence. But that does not mean that on all occasions one word acts as a sentence.
After examining various views about the definition of a sentence Dr. Jain discusses two important theories regarding sentential meaning, formulated by Kumarila and Prabhakara, known as Abhihitanvayavada and Anvitabhidhanavädarespectively. We take up these two theories one by one for consideration.
Kumārila maintains that first words of a sentence yield their respective meanings by their denotative power (abhidhāśakti), then these meanings get associated with one another in accordance with the felt-need, the proximity and the ability. So a sentence means the association of word-meanings. Kumārila's point is that the denoter-denoted relationship obtains between an individual word and its meaning while the meaning of a sentence is got by combining the meanings yielded by the individual words occurring in a sentence. This means that according to Kumarila the instrument of sentential meaning are not the words concerned but the word-meanings concerned. This contention he makes on the following two grounds.
(a) It will be too much of a burden for the words of a sentence to yield the word meanings concerned as also the sentential meaning, particularly when it can easily be supposed that the sentential meaning is yielded not by these words but by these word-meanings themselves.
(b) By the time one hears the last word one had forgotten, longer or shorter ago, the earlier words, so that these words are in no position to yield sentential meaning.
In refutation of Kumärila's theory we make the following points.
(1) If the words of asentence really cease to operate after yielding their respective meanings then sentential meaning cannot but cease to be something verbal. In other words, if the instrument of sentential meaning are not the words concerned but the word-meanings concerned then how can sentential meaning be regarded as verbal?
(2) Words of asentence singly or independently yield their respective meanings but jointly yield the sentential meaning. What is the harm in accepting this? Words mutually expecting one another get together. And a group of such words is a sentence. This sentence which is a group of mutually expectant words yields sentential meaning. So, Kumārila should accept that words of asentence yield their own respective meanings as well as the meaning of this sentence just as fuel etc. jointly undertake the operation called cooking and severally the operations like burning, etc. Kumärila himself has seen the truth in this position and hence at places he himself concedes this point. Kumärila's verse in point is as follows: Väkyärthapratyaye padarthapratipadanam
nantariyakam/pakejvāleva
kāṣthänäm
teşa
Jain Education International
pravmttaur
[Sloka Vakya 343]
According to Prabhakara the mutually expectant and hence associated words denote the associated meanings, that is, sentential meaning. In other words, a sentence denotes sentential meaning. The individual words outside a sentence have no meaning. They have no denotative power of their own because they are never employed single, that is, outside asentence. Only words associated with one another, that is, asentence have denotative power. The individual
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
