________________
Sabda-vyāpāra-vicāra
131 1000-1100 A. D.) wrote kāśikā on śloka-vārttika. Pārtha-sārathi Miśra (A. D. 10501120 A. D.) contributed Nyāya-ratnākara, Tantra-ratna, śāstra-dīpikā and Nyāyaratna-mālā, and Bhavanātha Bhatta gave Nyāya-Viveka (A. D. 1050-1150 A. D.). We have Bhavadeva Bhatta's (A. D. 1100) Ajitā or Tantra-tīkā-nibandhana and Bhatta Someśvara's (A. D. 1200) Nyāyasudhā. Murārimiśra's (A. D. 1150-1220 A. D.) Tripādī-nīti-nayana, Nandīśvara's (A. D. 1200-1300 A. D.) Prabhākara-vijaya, and Cidānanda-Pandita's (A. D. 1200-1300 A. D.) Nīti-tattva-samgraha also are noteworthy. Thus literature both on Mīmāmsā, and Nyāya disciplines swelled and the tradition was kept alive even upto 17th or 18th Cent. A. D. when we have such works as Gāgābhatta's or Viśveśvara Bhatta's (A. D. 1630-1730) Bhātta-cintāmani, Kolūra-Nārāyana Šāstri's (A. D. 1630-1700 A. D.) Mīmāmsā-sarvasva and Vidhiviveka and Pārtha-Sārathi Miśra's Nyāya-ratna-māla-Tika.
We have seen that in ancient india, there were ācāryas who insisted on the 'anityatva' or unreality of words, i.e. for them the nature of words was unreal. Yaska, we know, quotes one Audumbarāyana's view to this effect such as - indriyanityam vacanam audumbarāyanah (Nirukta I. i.). This means that it is the statement as a whole which is regularly present in the perceptive faculty of the hearer-, and that the 'catustva' or the four-fold classification of words in to noun, verb, upasarga and nipāta does not stand. He is of the opinion that-"vyāptimattvāt tu śabdasya, anīyastvāc ca śabdena samjñākaranam vyavahāràrtham loke" (Nirukta, I, i.)-i.e. words are used for naming in daily parlance, because of their universal applicability and convenience in their case due to simplicity. Bhartěhari while referring to this view in the Vākyapadīya (II. 345-349) observes that Vārtāksa also accepted this and held that it is only the sentence that remains present for all time in the mind of the hearer.
The akhanda-paksa of Bhartrihari accepts sentence as the fundamental linguistic fact and it is taken as Gestalt, in which parts are not deemed as relevant. The view of Audumbarāyana as seen quoted in Nirukta stands at the root of this line of thinking. Among the protegonists of those who accept reality of words, i.e. those who are sabda-nityatva-vādins, two thought-currents such as abhihitănvaya-vāda and anvitàbhidhāna-vāda held by some naiyāyikas and mīmāmsakas of the Bhātta and Prābhākara school respectively are noted. We will consider these at a later stage.
Dr. Raja suggests that in the akhanda-paksa advanced by Bharthari the fundamental linguistic unit is a sentence, which is taken as a Gestalt whose parts are irrelevant. This thought-current was perhaps inspired by the view of
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
