Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| * '''अर्थविज्ञानम् ॥ Science of Comprehension''' : It includes an overall perspective of how a meaning is grasped from sentences and is a combined effort of all the above factors leading to comprehension. | | * '''अर्थविज्ञानम् ॥ Science of Comprehension''' : It includes an overall perspective of how a meaning is grasped from sentences and is a combined effort of all the above factors leading to comprehension. |
| | | |
− | == Shabdabodha == | + | == वाक्यार्थज्ञानम् ॥ Vakyarthajnana == |
− | Shabdabodha (Verbal comprehension) is the outcome of knowledge of the meanings in a sentence. A sentence or statement by itself is not sufficient to give us any knowledge of things; mere utterance of sentence does not suffice. Nor does perception of the words of a sentence lead to any knowledge about objects; mere hearing of sentence does not suffice. Thus we summarize the aspects involved in Shabdabodha | + | वाक्यार्थज्ञानम् (Vakyarthajnana) or शाब्दबोध (Shabdabodha) means verbal comprehension, is the outcome of knowledge of the meanings in a sentence. Shabdabodha is the purpose or result of Shabda Pramana. A sentence or proposition consists chiefly of two parts: a subject (उद्देश्यः) about which is the context and a predicate (विधेय) which is a clause or words that tell something about the subject. |
| + | |
| + | According to the '''Nyaya siddhanta''' the meaning of the subjective part in the nominative case (प्रथमान्तार्थः) is the principal concept (the मुख्यविशेष्यः), to which the meanings of all other words join up directly or indirectly. However, an additional element is conveyed by the sentence as a whole over and above the concepts of the different words. There is the intended relation of the various individual concepts (पदार्थसंसर्ग), which is brought forth not by the significative force of the words, but by the syntactic juxtaposition of the various words. A sentence like चैत्रः पद्भ्यां ग्रामं गच्छति would give rise to a शाब्दबोध like पादकरणक-ग्रामकर्मक-वर्तमानकालीनगमनाभिन्न-कृतिमान् चैत्रः in its simplest form. This is called कर्तृमुख्यविशेष्यबोधः where the action denoted by the verb qualified by all its adjuncts rests on the prinicipal concept, the subject and this the distinctive feature of their Shabdabodha.<ref name=":3">Iyer, S. R. (1979) ''Tarkabhasa of Kesava Misra, Edited with Translation, Notes, and an Introduction in English.'' Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia (Pages 135-140)</ref> |
| + | |
| + | Vaiyakaranas do not accept the Naiyayika view of shabdabodha. They hold that in Shabdabodha the action denoted by the verb is the principal concept and the meanings of all other words including the subject are subordinate to it. This is called आख्यातमुख्यविशेष्यबोधः. The above sentence would according to them, give rise to a judgement like पादकरणक-ग्रामकर्मक-चैत्रकर्तृक- वर्तमानकालिकगमनाभिन्नकृतिः. What is to be noted is the fundamental difference between the Naiyayikas and the other schools; whether the principal concept in a verbal judgement is the subject or the predicate.<ref name=":3" /> |
| + | |
| + | A sentence or statement by itself is not sufficient to give us any knowledge of things; mere utterance of sentence does not suffice. Nor does perception of the words of a sentence lead to any knowledge about objects; mere hearing of sentence does not suffice. Thus we summarize the aspects involved in Shabdabodha |
| # Expression : Presence of Shabda (written or spoken forms or by gestures) | | # Expression : Presence of Shabda (written or spoken forms or by gestures) |
| # Reception : Perception of Shabda (visual or auditory sense-organs) | | # Reception : Perception of Shabda (visual or auditory sense-organs) |
| # Instrument : Knowledge of constituent words/padas (Padajnana) | | # Instrument : Knowledge of constituent words/padas (Padajnana) |
| # Validation : Validity of Shabda (based on trustworthiness of the person giving the statement) | | # Validation : Validity of Shabda (based on trustworthiness of the person giving the statement) |
− | # Recognition : Understanding the meaning of statement (it is a conditional factor) | + | # Recognition: Understanding the meaning of statement (it is a conditional factor) |
| | | |
| === शब्दप्रमाणम् ॥ Shabda Pramana === | | === शब्दप्रमाणम् ॥ Shabda Pramana === |
Line 42: |
Line 48: |
| All [[Pramanas in Astika Darshanas (आस्तिकदर्शन-प्रमाणानि)|pramanas in astika darshanas]] discuss about shabda pramana in one form or other and primarily differ in this point from the nastika darshanas. The nastika darshanas such as Charvakas do not admit the validity of Shabda Pramana itself, some like Buddhist schools admit it as Anumana Pramana. Naiyyayikas considered it as a distinct independent pramana and Vaiseshikas do not admit Shabda as an independent pramana, they classify it under Anumana pramana (inference). | | All [[Pramanas in Astika Darshanas (आस्तिकदर्शन-प्रमाणानि)|pramanas in astika darshanas]] discuss about shabda pramana in one form or other and primarily differ in this point from the nastika darshanas. The nastika darshanas such as Charvakas do not admit the validity of Shabda Pramana itself, some like Buddhist schools admit it as Anumana Pramana. Naiyyayikas considered it as a distinct independent pramana and Vaiseshikas do not admit Shabda as an independent pramana, they classify it under Anumana pramana (inference). |
| | | |
− | Summarizing the above points, the constituents of Shabdapramana are as follows<ref name=":72" /> | + | Summarizing the above points, the constituents of Shabdapramana or steps through which jnana of a particular object is apprehended include <ref name=":72" /> |
| # the word or utterances (articulate letter sounds) having a meaning or signifying power (shakti) | | # the word or utterances (articulate letter sounds) having a meaning or signifying power (shakti) |
− | # the sentences (articulated word sounds) having syntactic expectancy (yogyata), congruity (akanksha) and proximity (sannidhi) | + | # the sentences (articulated words) having syntactic expectancy (yogyata), congruity (akanksha) and proximity (sannidhi) |
| # these words are uttered by a trustworthy person (Mantradrashtas or seers) | | # these words are uttered by a trustworthy person (Mantradrashtas or seers) |
− | # are heard by the sense of hearing or perceived through gestures (as discussed in Nrsimhaprakasika commentary given on Tarkasangrahadipika the verbal cognition arises even in absence of a sentence from the gestures shown by one who observes the vow of silence). | + | # they are heard by the sense of hearing or perceived through gestures (as discussed in Nrsimhaprakasika commentary given on Tarkasangrahadipika the verbal cognition arises even in absence of a sentence from the gestures shown by one who observes the vow of silence). |
− | # comprehended through understanding the relation among the meanings of words or sentence-meaning | + | # they are comprehended through understanding the relation among the meanings of words or sentence-meaning |
− | # gives rise to the knowledge (purport) of objects about which the words are uttered. | + | # this meaning gives rise to the knowledge (purport) of objects about which the words are uttered. |
| | | |
| == शब्दलक्षणम् ॥ Shabda Lakshana - Nyaya Darshana == | | == शब्दलक्षणम् ॥ Shabda Lakshana - Nyaya Darshana == |
Line 55: |
Line 61: |
| In discussion about the connection between the word and the object signified by it, just as in inference there is a certain connection between the mark (smoke) and the thing signified by it (fire) the purvapaksha lays down that shabdapramana and Anumana pramana are not any different. However, the uttarapaksha clarifies the differences therein. <blockquote>आप्तोपदेशसामर्थ्यात्शब्दातर्थसम्प्रत्ययः ।। ५३ ।। {सिद्धान्तसूत्र}</blockquote><blockquote>पूरणप्रदाहपाटनानुपलब्धेः च सम्बन्धाभावः ।। ५४ ।। {सिद्धान्तसूत्र} (Nyay. Sutr. 2.1.53-54)<ref>Gautama's Nyaya Sutras ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A Adhyaya 2 Prathamabhaga])</ref></blockquote>Summary : The connection between the word and object signified by it is not a natural one. While acknowledging that a word indicates a certain object, the object is not necessarily or naturally connected with the word. Hearing, for instance, the, word "cow," we think of the animal signified by it, nevertheless the word and the animal are not connected with each other by nature or necessity. However, in case of inference the sign (smoke) and the thing signified by it (eg. fire) is natural and necessary and the basis for it is obvious to perception. In the case of verbal testimony, we rely on the unseen matter such as, celestial beings, saptadvipas, apsarasas etc signified by a word, because the word has been used by a reliable person. We accept them as realities not because they are known through words but because they are spoken of by persons who are reliable. Hence it is significant to note that Anumana is not based on Aptopadesha and is based on perception whereas in Shabdapramana the special point is to decide whether the sign (word) comes from a reliable person.<ref>Mm. Satisa Chandra Vidyabhusana (1913) ''The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama (English Translation).'' Allahabad: The Panini Office. (Pages 37-39)</ref> | | In discussion about the connection between the word and the object signified by it, just as in inference there is a certain connection between the mark (smoke) and the thing signified by it (fire) the purvapaksha lays down that shabdapramana and Anumana pramana are not any different. However, the uttarapaksha clarifies the differences therein. <blockquote>आप्तोपदेशसामर्थ्यात्शब्दातर्थसम्प्रत्ययः ।। ५३ ।। {सिद्धान्तसूत्र}</blockquote><blockquote>पूरणप्रदाहपाटनानुपलब्धेः च सम्बन्धाभावः ।। ५४ ।। {सिद्धान्तसूत्र} (Nyay. Sutr. 2.1.53-54)<ref>Gautama's Nyaya Sutras ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83_%E0%A5%A8/%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A Adhyaya 2 Prathamabhaga])</ref></blockquote>Summary : The connection between the word and object signified by it is not a natural one. While acknowledging that a word indicates a certain object, the object is not necessarily or naturally connected with the word. Hearing, for instance, the, word "cow," we think of the animal signified by it, nevertheless the word and the animal are not connected with each other by nature or necessity. However, in case of inference the sign (smoke) and the thing signified by it (eg. fire) is natural and necessary and the basis for it is obvious to perception. In the case of verbal testimony, we rely on the unseen matter such as, celestial beings, saptadvipas, apsarasas etc signified by a word, because the word has been used by a reliable person. We accept them as realities not because they are known through words but because they are spoken of by persons who are reliable. Hence it is significant to note that Anumana is not based on Aptopadesha and is based on perception whereas in Shabdapramana the special point is to decide whether the sign (word) comes from a reliable person.<ref>Mm. Satisa Chandra Vidyabhusana (1913) ''The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama (English Translation).'' Allahabad: The Panini Office. (Pages 37-39)</ref> |
| | | |
− | While the Nyayasutra itself does not elaborate on the nature of Shabda , but Vātsyāyana in his commentary on the Nyāyasūtra 2.1.54 explains that a sentence consists of several units in the form of two or more words. Thus shabda or verbal testimony is that which gives rise to the valid cognition of the sentence-meaning. And it is of the nature of a sentence consisting of a group of words. | + | While the Nyayasutra itself does not elaborate on the nature of Shabda, Vātsyāyana in his commentary on the Nyāyasūtra 2.1.54 explains that a sentence consists of several units in the form of two or more words. Thus shabda or verbal testimony is that which gives rise to the valid cognition of the sentence-meaning. And it is of the nature of a sentence consisting of a group of words. |
| | | |
| The Naiyaayikas admit that the articulate alphabetic sounds are the ultimate constituents of a sentence. There arises the auditory perception of each and every articulate alphabetic sound when it is uttered. One construes two or more sounds in the form of a word. From the cognition of the word one arrives at the cognition of its meaning. One then construes two or more words in the form of a sentence and from the cognition of it, one gets at the cognition of the relation of the word-meanings - the relation which is the sentence-meaning. The conclusive view of the Naiyaayikas is that a word is a group of articulate alphabetic sounds and a sentence is a group of words. A group or aggregate is not distinct from the units comprising it. Even when it is said that a word consists of several articulate alphabetic sounds and a sentence consists of several words, it comes to this, that articulate alphabetical sounds manifested in a single cognition constitute a sentence. | | The Naiyaayikas admit that the articulate alphabetic sounds are the ultimate constituents of a sentence. There arises the auditory perception of each and every articulate alphabetic sound when it is uttered. One construes two or more sounds in the form of a word. From the cognition of the word one arrives at the cognition of its meaning. One then construes two or more words in the form of a sentence and from the cognition of it, one gets at the cognition of the relation of the word-meanings - the relation which is the sentence-meaning. The conclusive view of the Naiyaayikas is that a word is a group of articulate alphabetic sounds and a sentence is a group of words. A group or aggregate is not distinct from the units comprising it. Even when it is said that a word consists of several articulate alphabetic sounds and a sentence consists of several words, it comes to this, that articulate alphabetical sounds manifested in a single cognition constitute a sentence. |