Changes

# aasatti (आसत्तिः । proximity)  

# aasatti (आसत्तिः । proximity)  

# tatparya (तात्पर्यम् । import)<ref name=":7">Chatterjee. Satischandra, (1950 Second Edition) ''The Nyaya Theory of Knowledge, A Critical Study of Some Problems of Login and Metaphysics''. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. (Pages 336 - 357)</ref>

# tatparya (तात्पर्यम् । import)<ref name=":7">Chatterjee. Satischandra, (1950 Second Edition) ''The Nyaya Theory of Knowledge, A Critical Study of Some Problems of Login and Metaphysics''. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. (Pages 336 - 357)</ref>

==वाक्यलक्षणम्  ॥ Vakya Lakshana==

==वाक्यलक्षणम्  ॥ Vakya Lakshana==

Various darshanas have given their perspectives of what is the nature of a sentence.  

In the history of Bharatiya Darshanas, the study of language has never been the monopoly of vaiyakaranas even though Vyakarana has been the foundation of use and refinement of language. Almost all schools of thought have developed their own siddhantas of language to defend their own metaphysics and attack others. Various darshanas have given their perspectives of what the nature of a sentence is.  

===Samkhya Darshana===

===Samkhya Darshana===

Sabara in his commentary on Jaimini Sutra says and affirms the view that such a group of words are each one dependent upon the other word for its meaning. Each word having syntactic expectancy with the other word constitutes an important aspect of a sentence.<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं चेद्धिभागे स्यात्।।46।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46)<ref name=":2">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 1])</ref></blockquote><blockquote>अतुल्यत्वात्तु वाक्योयोर्गुणं तस्य प्रतीयेत।।26।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 2])</ref></blockquote>Again in his commentary on the above sutras Shabara mentions<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति। एतस्माच्चेत् कारणादेकवाक्यता भवति तस्मादेकार्थः पदसमूहो वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46) <ref name=":2" /></blockquote><blockquote>यावन्ति पदान्येकं प्रयोजनमभिनिवर्त्तयन्ति, तावन्त्येकं वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>Summary: Shabara states that the words which will serve a unitary purpose constitute one sentence. He states that the group of words conveying a single meaning is the sentence. From this it is clear that according to Sabara a sentence is a group of words.<ref name=":0">Dr. N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya. (2005) ''[https://archive.org/details/ShabdaBodhamimansaAnInquiryIntoIndianTheoriesOfVerbalCognitionN.S.RamanujaTatacharya/page/n39 Shabdabodhamimamsa. An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition. Volume 1: The Sentence and its Significance.]'' New Delhi : Rastriya Sanskrit Samsthan</ref>

Sabara in his commentary on Jaimini Sutra says and affirms the view that such a group of words are each one dependent upon the other word for its meaning. Each word having syntactic expectancy with the other word constitutes an important aspect of a sentence.<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं चेद्धिभागे स्यात्।।46।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46)<ref name=":2">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 1])</ref></blockquote><blockquote>अतुल्यत्वात्तु वाक्योयोर्गुणं तस्य प्रतीयेत।।26।। (Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3">Shabara Bhashya ([https://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D/%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4% Adhyaya 2 Pada 2])</ref></blockquote>Again in his commentary on the above sutras Shabara mentions<blockquote>अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति। एतस्माच्चेत् कारणादेकवाक्यता भवति तस्मादेकार्थः पदसमूहो वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.1.46) <ref name=":2" /></blockquote><blockquote>यावन्ति पदान्येकं प्रयोजनमभिनिवर्त्तयन्ति, तावन्त्येकं वाक्यम्। (Bhas. Jaim. Sutr. 2.2.26)<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>Summary: Shabara states that the words which will serve a unitary purpose constitute one sentence. He states that the group of words conveying a single meaning is the sentence. From this it is clear that according to Sabara a sentence is a group of words.<ref name=":0">Dr. N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya. (2005) ''[https://archive.org/details/ShabdaBodhamimansaAnInquiryIntoIndianTheoriesOfVerbalCognitionN.S.RamanujaTatacharya/page/n39 Shabdabodhamimamsa. An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition. Volume 1: The Sentence and its Significance.]'' New Delhi : Rastriya Sanskrit Samsthan</ref>

Kumārila too subscribes to the above view. Sālikānātha in his Prakaranapañcikā declares that according to Prabhakara a sentence is the group of words. And the sentence-meaning is the collection of word-meanings. The Mīmāmsakas do not admit a word as distinct from letters (varna-s or articulate letter- sounds) and also a sentence as distinct from words. Extensive arguments are supplicated by Shabara explaining the manner in which the letters attain the state of a word and a sentence.

Kumārila too subscribes to the above view. Sālikānātha in his Prakaranapañcikā declares that according to Prabhakara a sentence is the group of words. And the sentence-meaning is the collection of word-meanings. The Mīmāmsakas do not admit a word as distinct from letters (varna-s or articulate letter-sounds) and also a sentence as distinct from words. Extensive arguments are supplicated by Shabara explaining the manner in which the letters attain the state of a word and a sentence.

===Vedanta Darshana===

===Vedanta Darshana===

====Advaitavedanta====

====Advaitavedanta====

The Dvaitin-s too subscribe to the view that letters constitute a word and the words constitute a sentence. Vyāsatīrtha in his Tarkatāndava states that Jayatīrtha in his Pramānapaddhati has defined a word as letters having a termination of inflectional ending of a case or of the person of a tense or mood at their end, and a sentence as words having syntactic expectancy, congruity and proximity.

The Dvaitin-s too subscribe to the view that letters constitute a word and the words constitute a sentence. Vyāsatīrtha in his Tarkatāndava states that Jayatīrtha in his Pramānapaddhati has defined a word as letters having a termination of inflectional ending of a case or of the person of a tense or mood at their end, and a sentence as words having syntactic expectancy, congruity and proximity.

===Vyakarana Shastra===

===Vyakarana Shastra===

The final conclusion of the Grammarians is that an utterable linguistic unit which is indivisible is the sentence. Bharthari in his Vākyapadīya has set forth eight views regarding the nature of a sentence; and, they are as follows:<ref name=":0" />

The final conclusion of the Grammarians is that an utterable linguistic unit which is indivisible is the sentence. Punyarāja in his commentary on the Vākyapadīya states that according to Bhartrhari the Grammarians view a sentence to be of the nature of sphota; it is an indivisible unit; the sentence-meaning is pratibhā and the relation between a sentence and its meaning is the superimposed identity (adhyāsa).

 

There are various view regarding the nature of a sentence as a divisible or an indivisible unit. Bharthari in his Vākyapadīya has set forth eight views regarding the nature of a sentence; and, they are as follows:<ref name=":0" />

#'''A word having a verbal suffix at its end is a sentence:''' This does not mean that only the single word with a verbal suffix is a sentence, because that would contradict the common experience of viewing a sentence as the group of words terminating in either sup or tin, as for instance, "Steer the cow with a stick, O! Devadatta". What is meant here is that sometimes even the word having a verbal suffix at its end suffices as a sentence. There are certain cases where there arises the verbal cognition from the mere use of a verb. For example the use of the word "shut" (pidhehi). Here, even without the noun expressive of the notion of a case (kāraka), there arises the cognition of the sentence-meaning, viz, shut the door.

#'''A word having a verbal suffix at its end is a sentence:''' This does not mean that only the single word with a verbal suffix is a sentence, because that would contradict the common experience of viewing a sentence as the group of words terminating in either sup or tin, as for instance, "Steer the cow with a stick, O! Devadatta". What is meant here is that sometimes even the word having a verbal suffix at its end suffices as a sentence. There are certain cases where there arises the verbal cognition from the mere use of a verb. For example the use of the word "shut" (pidhehi). Here, even without the noun expressive of the notion of a case (kāraka), there arises the cognition of the sentence-meaning, viz, shut the door.

#'''A group of words is a sentence:''' According to this view the mere word "shut" is not a sentence. But there is the importation of the word 'door' and it is the group of these two words that must be viewed as a sentence. And just as a verb by itself does not constitute a sentence, even so a mere word having a case-ending such as 'door is not a sentence, as the activity of shutting is not invariably known by the utterance of the word 'door'.:

#'''A group of words is a sentence:''' According to this view the mere word "shut" is not a sentence. But there is the importation of the word 'door' and it is the group of these two words that must be viewed as a sentence. And just as a verb by itself does not constitute a sentence, even so a mere word having a case-ending such as 'door is not a sentence, as the activity of shutting is not invariably known by the utterance of the word 'door'.:

#'''The universal, present in words is a sentence:''' According to this view there is a universal or generic feature in a group of words; and it is a sentence significative of the sentence meaning

#'''The universal, present in words is a sentence:''' According to this view there is a universal or generic feature in a group of words; and it is a sentence significative of the sentence meaning

#'''An indivisible word is a sentences:''' According to this view a sentence is one unit devoid of parts. And letters or words have no real existence therein.

#'''An indivisible word is a sentence:''' According to this view a sentence is one unit devoid of parts. And letters or words have no real existence therein.

#'''The order of words is a sentence:''' The words in succession constitute a sentence (vākyasphota). According to this view, the latter is divisible and is generated by the group of words.

#'''The order of words is a sentence:''' The words in succession constitute a sentence (vākyasphota). According to this view, the latter is divisible and is generated by the group of words.

#'''The imaginary aggregate of words in the intellect is a sentence:''' Division of words is only a conceptual construction in our intellect according to this view. The real sentence is undivided and does not have words in it. The sentence as structured exists only in our minds.

#'''The imaginary aggregate of words in the intellect is a sentence:''' Division of words is only a conceptual construction in our intellect according to this view. The real sentence is undivided and does not have words in it. The sentence as structured exists only in our minds.

Of the eight definitions of sentence, those described under the heads 3, 4 and 6 treat a sentence as a indivisible unit; and those described under the heads 1, 5, 2, 7, 8, as a divisible one.

Of the eight definitions of sentence, those described under the heads 3, 4 and 6 treat a sentence as a indivisible unit; and those described under the heads 1, 5, 2, 7, 8, as a divisible one.

Punyarāja in his commentary on the Vākyapadīya states that according to Bhartrhari the Grammarians view a sentence to be of the nature of sphota; it is an indivisible unit; the sentence-meaning is pratibhā and the relation between a sentence and its meaning is the superimposed identity (adhyāsa).

== Cognition of Sentence-Meaning ==

== References ==

== References ==