pramANAdij~nAnaM ca uddeshAditrikAdhInamiti uddeshAdInAM laxaNamuchyate |
As the knowledge of pramANa etc is dependent on the knowledge of uddEshA etc., [we] first deal with the definition of uddEshA etc.
Notes:
Here, the word 'adi' in pramANAdi is suggestive of pramA, pramAtA, prameya etc. The word 'adi' in uddeshAdi is suggestive of laxaNa, parIxa etc.
nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanaM uddeshaH | uddesha iti laxyanirdEshaH | 'nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanamiti laxaNoktiH | evaM uttaratrApi draShTavyaM |
uddeshaH is 'the verbal indication of a subject matter' | [In this definition] the word 'uddeshaH' is 'laxya' - one whose definition is being given. The part 'nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanam' is the definition itself. One should know this [what is laxyanirdesha and what is laxaNokti] in all further definitions.
Notes:
Words are the means of communication. They help us to understand various concepts and objects around us. Before we try to know something about a particular object we should first identify it by a name. Once we know its name, we can learn more about it such as its unique attributes etc. Such verbal indication of a subject matter by its name is called uddesha.
How do we know what is uddesha?
We know what is uddesha by its definition(defining mark). In general, any object is known by its definition. The definition is communicated using the definition statement. Here too, the author teaches the student about uddesha using a definition. The 'nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanaM uddeshaH' is the statement of definiton. For the benefit of those beginners who do not know how to interpret a definition statement, the author clearly specifies the parts of a definition statement.
In a definition statement two things are of interest to us
Each of these is mentioned in the following parts of a defintion statement
In the present defintion statement 'nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanaM uddeshaH', the part uddeshaH is known as the laxya nirdesha and the part nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanaM is the laxaNokti. From this we know that uddesha is the laxya here and nAmamAtreNa vastusaMkIrtanaM is its laxaNa.
daLa kR^itya of uddesha laxaNa
kIrtanaM shabdaH | tAvanmAtrasya laxaNatve gaMgAghoShe ativyAptiH | tadvAraNAya saMkIrtanamiti | tadarthastu varNAtmakashabdatvaM |
[In the said definition,] kIrtanaM means 'sound'. If this were to be the definiton[of uddesha], then ativyApti occurs in gangA ghosha [the roar of the river Ganga]. To ward off the ativyApti, we modify the definition as 'saMkIrtanaM'. The meaning of which is 'varNAtmaka shabda' - alphabetical sound.
Notes:
Here, the author starts a special process called parIxa or examination. This process tests whether the words used in the laxaNa(definition) are necessary and sufficient to correctly identify the said laxya. This is called as daLa kR^itya. A defintion contains one or more daLa's or words. A daLa literally means a leaf. In the present context, it means a word included in the definiton. The kR^itya or pupose of a daLa is tested by removing the daLa from the definition. If an error occurs, then we know that the daLa is necessary. If no error is caused, then the existing daLa's are sufficent to define the laxya and the extra daLa has no purpose. So, it should be removed from the definition.
The errors ativyApti etc are dealt with in the later portions of this text.
The defintion of uddesha consists of the following five words or daLa's
The purpose of each of these five words is being examined here.
First we test by removing all the daLa's except the last one i.e kirtanam.
Let us say kIrtanaM is uddeSha. kIrtanam means sound of some sort. That amounts to saying that every sound is an uddesha. This definition is too wide for the reason that it also satisfies in entities which are not fit to be termed as uddesha. Take for example the 'roar of the river ganga'. This cannot be an uddesha as the roar of the river is a non-alphabetical sound and cannot be written down in any language script. Therefore, in our terminology, we say that there is an error called ativyApti to this definition.
Here it is important to learn about two types of shabda(sounds)
It is important to note that only varNAtmaka shabdas qualify to be called as uddesha.
Therefore to ward off the ativyApti, we need to modify our definition. Here we should ask ourselves a question - the ativyApti error is cleared by introducing which daLa?
Let us add the daLa 'saM' to our definition to ward off the ativyApti error. Thus our new definition now becomes 'samkIrtanaM uddeshaH'.
What is the meaning of the word saM? It literally means 'proper'. Therefore samkIrtanaM means a proper sound, which is meant to be a varNAtmaka shabda in the present case. So, according to our new definition only those sounds which are alphabetical can be called as uddesha. This definition is now narrowed and does not occur in the 'roar of the ganga' as the 'roar of the ganga' is dhvanyAtmaka and not varNAtmaka. Hence there is no ativyApti error.
tAvanmAtrasya laxaNatve vandhyAsuta ityAdi shabde gataM | ato vastviti |
If this much[varNAtmakashabdatvaM] is the definition [of uddesha], then this exists in the the sound 'vandhyA suta'. Therefore we say 'vastu' [vastupratipAdakavarNAtmakashabdatvaM] - One which denotes a real object.
Notes:
By adding the prefix 'saM' we have successfully warded off the previous ativyApti error. But the modified definition still is not error free. According to our refined definition any aplhabetical sound can be termed as an uddesha. If this definiton is accepted there would be an ativyapti in the alphabatical sound 'vandhyA suta'.
Why does the sound 'vandhyA suta' not qualify to be an uddesha?
To understand this, we should first know what the word 'vandhyA suta' means. It means 'The son of a barren women'. It is very obvious that such a person never exists. A barren woman would have no sons, and if a woman has a son, then she is not a barren woman. So, 'the son of a barren woman' is not a reality. The sound denoting such an unreality cannot be an uddesha. Therefore we should modify our defintion to eliminate this case. This can be done by adding the term 'vastu'. So our refined definition would be vastupratipAdakavarNAtmakashabdatvaM - an alphabetic sound denoting a real object is our new definition of uddesha. By this the ativyApti is warded off, as the sound vandhyA suta, though alphabetical, does not denote a real object.
tAvanmAtrasya laxaNatve kAkarave gataM | ato namnEti | gIrvANabhAshayA ityarthaH |
If this much is the definition then this exists in 'kAkarava' or the sound of a crow. Therefore we say 'namnA' [namnA vastupratipAdakavarNAtmakashabdatvaM]. That is to say 'by the words of the Sanskrit Language'.
Notes:
To ward off the previous errors, we have refined our definition of uddesha as 'an alphabetic sound denoting a real object'. But even now, there is an ativyApti error in 'kAkarava' or the sound of a crow. The sound of a crow is alphabetic and also denotes a real object. Thus there is an ativyApti error.
What real object does the sound of a crow denote?
The crow, in its own language, points to some object such as a piece of roti and emits the ka, ka sound. Therefore, the sound of a crow denotes real objects, in the language of the crow. If we accept his definition, the sound of the crow also qualifies as an uddesha which is incorrect. So, to ward off this error, we further refine our defintion by adding the word 'namnA' which literally means 'by a name'. But, in the present context, the author gives the intended meaning which is 'by the words of the Sanskrit Language'. So, an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language can be called as an uddesha. In the case of the sound of the crow, eventhough it is an alphabetic sound denoting a real object, it is definitely not in Sanskrit Language. By this refinement, the sound of the crow does not qualify to be called as an uddesha. Hence there is no ativyApti error.
tathApi gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI ityAdi laxaNavAkye ativyAptiH | tatparihArArthaM mAtreNeti | tasya laxaNatayA aprayuktatve sati ityarthaH | gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI ityAdi laxaNavakyasya tu gIrvANabhAshayA vastusaMkIrtanatvepi laxaNatayA aprayuktatvAbhAvAt.h na ativyAptiH |
Even then, there is an ativyapti in the laxaNa vAkyAs such as 'gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI' | To ward off the ativyApti, we say 'mAtreNa'. It means one which is not intended as a definition. Even though the laxaNa vAkyAs gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI etc, are denoting a real object in Sanskrit Language, they are not laxaNatayA aprayukta - i.e they are intended as definitions. Therefore there is no ativyApti.
Notes:
We have so far defined uddesha as saMskritabhAshayA vastupratipAdakavarNAtmakashabdaH - an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language. But, this definition also is not free from ativyApti error. Consider the sentence 'gaMdhvatI pR^ithivI' - 'One which has smell is earth'. If one carefully observes this sentence, this is a definition statement which gives the definition of pR^ithivI.[ Here pR^ithivI is laxya. gaMdhvatvaM is the laxaNa. Having smell is the laxaNa(defining mark)of pR^ithivI. That is to say, any object which has smell is necessarily pR^ithivI].
Can we call this definition statement as uddesha?
The answer is no. A definition statement gives the definition of an object. An uddesha, on the other hand, is a verbal indication of the subject matter. So, they are two different entities.
If we accept the current definition, a definition statement like 'gaMdhvatI pR^ithivI' also qualifies to be called as an uddesha which is not correct. Therefore, there is an ativyApti error.
To ward off this ativyApti error, we have to further refine our definiton by adding the term mAtreNa. mAtreNa literally means 'only'. So, an uddesha is 'only an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanskrit Language'.
The meaning of the word 'mAtreNa' in the present context
In the present context, the author defines the word 'mAtreNa' as 'not used as a definition of an object'. So, our refined definiton of uddesha is - an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language which is not used as a definition of an object.
The sentence 'gaMdhvatI pR^ithivI' is used for the purpose of defining the object 'pR^ithivI' and is not just an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language. Therefore. there is no ativyApti error.
tathA ca laxaNatayA aprayuktatve sati saMskR^itanAmnA vastupratipAdakashabdaH uddeshaH iti paryavasyati |
Therefore, uddeshaH is an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language which is not used as a definition of an object.
kEchit.h -
Some say -
gaMdhvatI pR^ithivItyAdilaxaNavakye ativyApti vAraNAya mAtreNeti | tasyAsAdhAraNadharmAnuparAgeNetyarthaH |
In the definition of uddesha - the word mAtreNa is used to ward off ativyApti in the definition 'gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI'. Its meaning [meaning of the word mAtreNA in the definition of uddesha] is asAdhAraNadharmanuparAgeNa - i.e not including the unique attribute.
Notes:
Here, the author takes a critical view of other's method of correcting the ativyApti error. Other's say that the word 'mAtreNa' is used to correct the ativyApti error occuring in the definition statement 'gaMdhvatI pR^ithivI'. According to them, the term mAtreNa means 'not including the unique attribute of the defined'. That is an uddesha should not refer to any unique attribute of an object. The words such as 'pot' etc. do not refer to any unique attribute of an object. So, they qualify to be called as an uddesha.
tathA ca gaMdhavatI pR^ithivIthi laxaNavAkye gaMdhavatvarUpAsAdhAraNadharmOparAgENaiva vastusaMkIrtanatvEna tadanuparAgENa vastusaMkIrtanatvAbhAvAt.h na ativyAptiH
Therefore, in the definition 'gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI', as an object is denoted through its unique attribute that is gaMdhavattva and not without the reference of unique attribute, there is no possibility of an avyApti.
Notes:
As the definition statement 'gaMdhavatI pR^ithivI' refers to the unique attribute 'smell', it does not qualify to be called as an uddesha, as according to our new definition, an uddesha should not refer to a unique attribute.
na ca pR^ithivItyAdyuddeshe asambhavaH tasya pR^ithivItvAdirUpa asAdhAraNadharmoparAgeNaiva vastupratipAdikatvat.h iti vAchyam.h | laxatAvachchedakAtirikta asAdhAraNadharma anuparAgeNa vastupratipAdaka sabtatvasya vivaxitatvAt.h |
[If such a definition of uddesha is accepted] One need not doubt an asaMbhava in the uddesha 'pR^ithivI' itself for the reason that there is a reference to the unique attribute i.e 'pR^ithivItva. What we meant by an 'unique attribute' is the one which is different than the laxatAvachchedaka.
Notes:
According to the new definition, one which does not refer to a unique attribute will qualify to be called as an udesha. Consider the word which actually qualifies to be called as an uddesha such as 'pR^ithivI'. If we accept this new definition, the word 'pR^ithivI' does not fit be called as an uddesha for the reason that it refer's to an unique attribute 'pR^ithivItva - earthiness'. Therefore, it results in the asambhava error, i.e this new definition does not satisfy even in a single instance.
For this objection, the other says that an asambhava error is raised without considering the correct interpretaion of his definition. What was intended is that a valid uddesha should not refer to any unique attribute other than those which constitue the laxatAvachchedaka (bare properties) such as pR^ithivItva. So, a word such as 'pR^ithivI' qualifies to be called as an uddesha eventhough it refers to the bare property pR^ithivItva, as long as it does not refer to any unique attribute other than the bare property mentioned above. As the word pR^ithivI does not refer to any unique attribute such as 'gaMdhavatva' it is definetly a valid uddesha. Therefore there is no chance for the asambhava error.
What is laxatAvachchedaka?
A laxatAvachchedaka is a bare property associated with an object for example as pR^ithivItva is the bare property of pR^ithivI. It is called laxatAvachchedaka of pR^ithivI.
tanna | pR^ithivItvavatI pr^ithivIti laxaNavAkye ativyApteH | tasya laxatAvacchedakAtiriktAsAdhAraNadharmAnuparAgeNa vastupratipAdakatvAt.h |
For this our reply is - No. Even then, there will be an ativyApti error in the definition statement 'pR^ithivItvavatI pr^ithivI'. As the definition 'pR^ithivItvavatI pr^ithivI' does not denote an object with reference to the unique attribute which is different from the laxatAvachchedaka.
Notes:
Consider the definition statement 'pR^ithivItvavatI pr^ithivI'. This statement defines pr^ithivI as something which has pR^ithivItva as its attribute. This defintion statement should not qualify to be called as an uddesha. But according to the current definition, this can also be wrongly called as an uddesha, as in this case, all the conditions set in the current definition are met. This statement does not refer to any other unique attribute of pr^ithivI. It only refers to ''pR^ithivItva' which happens to be the laxatAvachchedaka of pr^ithivI. Therefore, the correct definition of uddesha would be "an alphabetic sound denoting a real object in Sanksrit Language which is not used as a definition of an object" as stated by us.
See Also...