________________
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
SOME REMARKS ON THE NAYA METHOD
SS
The three remaining viewpoints operate on the speech level and, in addition, analyse the verbal structure of an utterance, the domain for them being external objects that are numeable within a strictly limited range of verbal expression. What is common for the three varieties of the verbal viewpoint is declared (which in itself is not a very revealing observation) by Umasvätito be the denoting according to the meaning. The proper point of reference for the speech-bound viewpoints is therefore the thing as it enters the linguistic practice. Accordingly, all they are about is rather the Austinian how to do things with words, not how to do things with
things.
The last one in the quadruple classification of the object-bound' viewpoints that operate by means of an object' (artha-dvarena (pravita]) is the direct viewpoint (riu sūtra). It is defined as the comprehension by way of the denotative acts concerning the existent and present objects and its province is the present point of time", viz particular things that have already been pointed out by the empirical viewpoint", which are being perceived here and now. Accordingly, the direct viewpoint narrows the point of reference down to the present manifestation of an individual (vartamana-ksana-vivarti-vastu). and puts aside its past and future facels (aritanagata-vakra-parityaga)." At the same time, the direct viewpoint opens upaccording to the other tradition--the fourfold catalogue of mode-expressive viewpoints (parwiyarthika-raya), or conditionally valid attributive predications, which view things according to their transitory properties and modes and neglect their incontrovertible substantial nature and existence as substrata of those properties and modes. From such an angle, in this viewpoint, which 'grasps pure modes with regard to their antithesis (sc. substance)", the substantial and non-momentary character of an entily is entirely ignored and merely its transient aspects (generally the present moment) are taken into account: 'it neglects previously mentioned] objects belonging to the three times and embraces the object belonging to the present lime. Here, it is irrelevant which linguistic expressions we choose to refer to one and the same individual.
45 TS 135 p. 32.15-16: sutart sampratanam arthanam abhidhāna-parijana - sūtrah. " TS 1.35 p. 36.1, verse 4ab:
samprata-vişawa-grāhakan ju-suru-nayan samasato vidvat " TS 1.35 p. 34.3-4.
teyl wavahtev eva satsa sampratesu sampratuvarju-sútruh. * NAV 29.17 (n. 446): fatra rju pragunam akuilam atinagala-vakra-purilugud wartamána-ksana-vivarti-vastuno rúpanie sutrayati nisan kita darśayatiry rusurah. "In this case, the direct viewpoint is explained as follows: [it draws out, i.e. plainly demonstrates directly, ie in a straight manner, for not crookedly, (viz. by evading past and future bends for the real thing the form of the real thing, whose transient occurrence (falls to the present moment.
PALV 6.74 p. 54.11--12: suddha-puryava-grahi pratipakşa-apeksa sju-surah
RVär 1.33 (p. 96.31): purvu tri-kala-visayan atidavya wariamana-kala-visaya adalle. CI. NAV 29.26: tamat tiro-hita-ksana-wurtam alaksita-paramdu-valvity wash sarva-san vavaharika prumanair gocari-krivala ili tal-liras-kara-dvarenddesta krana-kavi-params-pratishapako 'bhipraya rusutra-durnava-sajam asnute, fad upeksavdiva tad-darsiakasya navalved it. -"Therefore, the real thing becomes the
domain (of cognition through all cognitive criteria, that are of importance in practical life, as something whose momentary transient occurrences are ruled out (se neglected) Jund) in which the fact that it is differentiated into infinitesimal atoms is not directly] observable. Thus, the outlook that determines invisible infinitesimal atoms which perish in a moment (sc. are momentary) by means of ruling out (sc. neglecting) this (persistence) receives the denotation of a defective direct viewpoint, because (such an outlook alone) which demonstrates these momentary invisible infinitesimal atoms) only by putting aside this (persistence is the direct viewpoint (proper.' SITBh 1.35 (p. 32.16-17): vatharthabhidhanan sabdam.
The following passage of NAV 29.15 (p. 450) delicates the character of the three verbal viewpoints: lasman na paramarthato 'thah sabdátirikto 'sty, upacaralah punar laukikair aparilocita-paramárthair yavahrivate. asdy apy awpacárikah sabddimako varthah pratikyana-bhangurah wikariavo, varnanah ksana-dhwanitstta-pratileh... - 'Consequently, on the level of the ultimale truth there is no extemal) object in addition to speech clements, whereas, metaphorically. [object] is used practically by common people, who do not reflect upon the ultimate truth. Also this object, cither the metaphorical one or the one having speech clement as its essence, should be held to be momentary (lit perishable at every moment), because phonemes are known to be annihilated after a moment (sc. to be momentary) ...' As a matter of fact, the preceding is incorporated in an account of a fallacious viewpoint (nayabhasa), nevertheless it is quite an accurate description of how the verbal viewpoint operates, with the proviso that the proper viewpoint (
nya) does not deny the existence of an external object, but takes the real thing and the word denoting it to point to cach other: NAV 29: atomi sabdddavo vaderarétardbhimatu-suhdarthépeksawa wabhimatan sabdártha darluvanti, tada nayas, tasyapilara haval - Consequently, when these [viewpoints like the verbal viewpoint), etc., demonstrate an object (denotatum) (denoted by a particular speech element, which is intended by a respective [viewpoint), putting aside (sc. neglecting) (the fact that) hject (denotatum) and respective speech elements are intended by (se point to) cach other, then they are proper) viewpoints, because also this (object(denotatum) exists in (sc, is related to these speech elements]
