Proximity Arunaranjan

8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan

1/11


2/11

PROXIMITY OF ANOTHER

WORD

:

A

STUDY OF THE DENOTATION-DELIMITING

FACTOR

(

With

special

reference o

Appayya

DIksita

)

By

Arunaranjan

Mishra

The conceptofdenotativemeaninghas engagedthe Indiangramma

rians,

poeticians

nd

philosophers

n

deep contemplations

ince

a

remote

past.

Several theories

n

the

aspects

of

meaning

have been

forwarded

by

many.

We, however,

oncernourselves t

present

with

the

problem

f

fixing

he

meaning

f the

plurisignatory

ords

.

e.,

the words that have more

than

one

denotative

meaning.

Bhartrhari,

he

poet, grammarian

nd

philosopher

of

the

seventh

century

.

D.,

enumeratesmore than fourteen actors

that

may

fix he

meaning

f a

plurisignatory

ord

-

samyogoviprayoga a shacaryamvirodhit/

art

hah

prakaranamUngarn

abdasyanyasya

annidhih

/

smarthyam

uciti

deah

klo

vyaktih vardayah

iabdrthasy

navacchedeviesa-smrti-hetavah

/

(

Vkyapadya,

/317-18

This

particular

verse has

been the source of

inspiration

for

many

prominent oeticians

n their

inding

way

out of the

problem

f

fixing

he

meaning

f

a

plurisignatory

ord. But

an extensive

tudy

would show that

all of them

olelydepend

on the

above krikand keep themselves atisfied

with a collection of

illustrations

hat

demonstrate

he

operation

of

these

factors.

However,

t is

heartening

o

find that

Appayya DIkita

(

APD

).

the celebrated

oetician

of the

sixteenth

enjury

A.

D.,1

is

more

reflectiven

1

Thename

fAPD.

has

three ecorded

pellings.

he last

verse f

the

Kuvalay

ftnanda,

treatise n

poetics y

APD. reads t as

'

Appa

DIksita

Pan4itar3ja

Jaganntha,

PD.'s

junior

ontemporary,

eads

t s

Appaya

Iksita'

nhis

Rasa

-

gangdhara

nd

s

Appayya

Tksita

in

his

Citra~mimcim$n-Khandana9

book

that efutes

he

positions

n

Citra-mimmsanother

reatise

n

poetics y

APD.

'Prof. . V.Kane,however,ccepts he astone Appayya[videhisHistoryf

Sanskrit oetics

1971

4th

Ed.

,

pp.

317-20].

As

to

the

ate

f

APD.,

Dr.

Anantalal

angopadhyaya,

n

his ook

Contribution

f

Appaya

Dtksita o

Indian

Poetics

1971

,

proves

hat

PD. was

live

during

he

second

alf

f

he

6th

entury

. D.

(

chapt.

.

p.

9

.

In

the

ntroduction

o

this

di-

ted

ook

Vrtti-Vrttika

1977

-

of

APD.,

Dr.

B.

MsAwasthi oes

not

contra.

(

Centinutdn

thenext

age,

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

68

Arnais BORI

,

LXXX

(

1999

the problem nd on the above-saidkrik. In thepresent aper t is pro-

posed

to make

an

analysis

f his

deliberations ver

one

of

the

very mportant

factors,

.

e.,

the

eighth

ne

in the

ist

of

Bhartrhari

the

proximity

f

another

word

sabdasynyasya

annidhih

.

Sometimes

he

proximity

f another

word

helps

n

fixing

he

meaning

of a

plurisignatory

ord.

In

the first

hapter

parichheda

named

Mukhya

vrtti-Jiirnaya

of his

famous

treatiseon

poetics

entitled

Vrtti-Vrttlkam

(

V.

V.

,

APD

is

engaged

n

the

discussion ver the

semantic

phenomenon

and

puts

forth

sentence s

an

example

1

nisadham

paya

bhbhrtam

Here theword nisadha can even be used in the sense ofa region. But on

account

of

the

proximity

f the

word

bhbhrtam

(which

also means

*

mountain

),

it

is limited

o

its

(

less

famous

meaning

particular

moun-

tain.

On

the otber

hand,

the

word

bhbhrt

which can ever be

used in

the

sense

of a

king,

s

limited o the

meaning

of

'mDuntain'

owing

to the

proximity

f

word

nisadha

which

means

a

particular

mountain.

3

Thus,

according

o

APD.,

the

denotation-delimiting

actor

ike

'

the

proximity

f anotherword

is

operative

only

in that

syntactical

ituation

whereboththewords re plurisignatorynd yet theyget a particularmean-

ing

on

account of

their

roximity

owards each

other.

Although

both

the

words

have several

different

eanings,

hey

have a

meaning

which

s common

to

both of

them,

or

at least

makes them

semanticaly

loser. APD's inter-

pretation

s that

only

at this

type

of

situation

Bhartfhari's

proximity

f

another

word

is

to

be

understood,

nd in this

ight

nly,

its

definition

has

been

framed

y him,

which

we

shall

discuss

n

another

ontext.

Criticism

y

the

Pro-Mammata

Poeticians

Evena very asual look, the pro-Mammatapoeticianswould think,

(

Continued

rom .

67

)

diet

this ate

whenie

concludeshat

APD.

con be

placed

etween

520

A.

D.

and

1592A. D.

Nor

Prof.

.

V. Kanewould

tand

far

romhe

bove

atingy

Dr.

Gango-

padhyaya

s

jhe

formerixes

he

ate etween554A. D.

and

1626

A.

D.

{op

cit

).

Thus

or

near

xact ate f

A. P. G..

i.

e.,

between520

A. D. and

1592

A.

D.,

wc

can

ccept

r.

Gangopadhyaya.

8

(a)

Theword

nisadha

ean

mean he

ame

f

people

r

their

ountry

overned

by

Naia,

or the uler

f

he

Nisadhas

i.

e.,

Naia

or

the

name f a

particular

oun-

tain

n the

Nisadna

region

vide anskrit

English

Dictionary

V. S.

Apte,

.

297. b Thewordbhubhrtcanmean kingr mountain.

8

1

nisadham

pasy

bhxlbhrtam

ilyatra

anapada

-

visesa

sadhfiranasya

i

sadha

-

padasya

parvata

vaci bhubhrt

-

pada

-

sanni

h

n

t

parvata

visese

niyamyate

bhubhrt

padasya

ca

raja

-

sfidharanyasya

arvata

visesa

vaoi

-

*

nisadha

-

pada

-

samnidhinU

arvate

Chapt,

ne,

Vrtti

Vrttikam

(VV)

Bd.

B.

M.

Awasthi,

*77,

.

37.



4/11

MiSHRA

Proximity f

Another

word

69

can revealto us that APD's example suffers romthe fault f interdepen-

dence.

To

them,

APD.

should

have

cited

a

sentence,

where

the

word

in

proximity

has

a

fixed

meaning

which

would

effect

delimitation

f

the

meaning

of

a

plurisignatory

ord

nearby.

But

here

both

the words

nisadha

9

and

'

bhubhrt

-

are

plurisignatory

nd

are

dependent

n

each

other

for

getting

heir

meanings

ixed.

To

them,

APD.

seerr,smorevulnerable o such

a

fault

here,

since he

has

already

riticised

he

interdependence

n

Mammata's

example

ramar-

junagatistayoriti bhrgava-krttaviryayoh

-

wherethe semanticopposi-

tion

virodhit,

he fourth actor n the

ist

of

Bhirtfhari

between

Rma

*

and

'

Arjuna

fixes

he

meanings

f boththe

names to Parasurma

and Saha-

srabbu

Krtavirya.

APD.

has

shown,

here,

the fault f

interdependence,

since

the

denotative

ower

of

the word

'

Rama

'

gets

delimited o

the

sense

of

4

Parasurma

on

account

of the

semantic

pposition

n

the form

f

killed-

kilierielationship

etween

Arjuna

(

Sahasrabhu

Krttavrya

and Rma

(

Parasurma

;

and

similarly,

he

denotative

power

of

the word

Arjuna

gets

delimited

o

the sense of

4

Krttavrya

due

to

the

semantic

pposition

in the form of the killed-killer-relationshipetween Krttavrya and

Parasurrma.

Thus the word

Rma

'

depends

on

the

semantic

opposition

of

the

word

Arjuna

and

vice-versa

or the delimitation f

the

denotation

to

a

particular

meaning.5

Therefore,

PD.

suggested

o

replace

Mammata's

exampleby

another

entence hat

could

have the

phrases

ike

4

rma-rvana

yoriva

where

he

word

Rvaa

*

has

a

fixed

meaning

nd the

plurisigna-

tory

word

Rama

'

with

the semantic

opposition

of

the

former,

enotes

Rmacandra,

the son of

the

king

Daaratha.

It

is,

therefore,

ifficulto

overlook

a fault

f

interdependence

n

APD.'s

example

nisadham

paya

bhbhrtam whereboththewords re plurisignatory.

APD.'s

Reply

APD.,

however,

laims

that he

apparent

fault

of

interdependence

n

his

sentenee

s

not

actual,

because

here

(

not

as in

Maramata's

example

*

rmrjunau

in

orderto delimit he

denotative

ower

of one word

(

nisa*

i

Kvy

-

praksa

K. P

)

of

Mammata,

d,&

Tr.

Oriya

by

t.

Niraayana

Mah-

ptra,

987

2nd

mp.,

2nd

Ullsa,

.

64.

5 Yattu rmrjuna padayorvadhya ghtaka bhva virodht bhrgava

krttaviryayor

bhidh

niyamyate

ti udaharanam

tanna

1

rama

1

padasya

bhrgavc

bhidh

niy

mane

sati

tat

virodha-

pratisand

anna

'

arjuna

padasya

karttavirye

bhidh

ttiyatnanams

asmin

a sati

tad

-

virodha

prati

sandhUnen

*

rma'

-

padasya

iti

paraspara

ftsraypatteh

V

op.

it,9

pp.

36-37.



5/11

Io

Amah

BORI,

LXXX

(

1999

dha

9

or

4

bhubhrt), it is notnecessary o ustify ts meaning by the other

(

'

bhubhrt

4

or

nisadha

respectively

in

proximity.

Rather,

here,

there

s

only

the

utterance f

the word

4

bhubhrt

which

has

the

meaning

moun-

tain

close

to the

meaniog

of the

other

word

nisadha

9

in

proximity.6

APD.

puts

forth

nother

eason

too.

He

analyses

the

case

underthe

dictum

f

the

remembrance

f

one

relation

during

the

perception

f the

other

eka-sambandhi'janam

para^sambandhi-smrakam

.

The

perception

of

a

relation

hat

has

a

relation

lready

known,

eads to

the remembrance

of

the

other

relatum.

There

s no

interdependence ere,

for

it is

not that

after

he

perception

f one

relatum ne

has

the remembrance

f the rela-

tion

tself.

This

is

because,

the relation

is

already

known

(

and

its

reme-

mbrance

comes

along

with

the

perception

f

the

first

elatum

and one

relatum

s

not

dependent

pon

the

other o know

the

relation

and

to

have

the

meaning

f

the

other.

Hence there

s

no

fault

of

interdependence.7

Coming

to his

example,

APD.,

holds that

the

word

4

nisadha

*

or

bhbhrt

requires,

n

order

to have its

denotation

ixed,

from

mong many

mearings,

s

4

mountain the

utterance,

n

proximity,

f the word

bhubhrt

or 4nisadha9 ( respectively, whichtoo has the meaning of ' mountain

Since the

word

*

nisadha

9

or

'

bhubhrt

which

has

the

meaning

of

4

moun-

tain

known before does not

depend

on the word

*

bhubhrt

or

nisadha

(

respectively

for ts

meaning

as

4

mountain

o

be

established,

here is

no

scope

for

the

fault

f

nterdependence.8

A

brief

nalysis

of

APD.

'S

reply

would

explain

the

factthat

there

s

a

relationship

etween

bhubhrt

and

4

nisadha

which

an

be called

4

samnr

that

This

*

samnrthat

as a

relation

between

them

is

known

to a

reader lthough hey iffernmeaningn severalotherways, i. e.

*

bhbhrt

can

mean

4

a

king

and

4

niadha

can

mean a

kingdom.

Since the

reader

has

the

prior

knowledge

f the

'

samnrthat

,

neither

of

the

two

words

6

na

ea

awycnysrayah

a hi

atra

samabhivyd.hr

a

-

's

bd

,

a

tadartha

prati-

pud

n

n

adhtdh

niyamanaya

peksate.

kintu

vrthena

rhta

samsarge

arthe

vyutpanno

yah

abdah,

tat

samabhivyahra-mfttram

V.

V

op.

cit

p

37.

7

tath

a

yatha

ambandhi

darsanUt

ambandhyatttara

smrti

sthale

rhta

sambandhasya

ambandhtno

arsana-mo.tr

m

sambandhyantara

smaranya

apeksatena tu tad-darsarinantaramitsambandhasmaranam pi iti na

anyonysrayah

V.

V.

op.

cit.,

p.

37.

tath iha

api

*

nisadha

bhUbhrt

-

pad y

r

abhidhU

niyamanUya

rhtta~

svasvlirth-vyutpattika

bhftbhrnnisadha

'salo

-

sama

-

bhivyUhra

tntam

apeksate

ti

tat

tad

-

ariha

-

pratipudanya

napeksanftt

a

anyonysrayah

V

V',

op.

it.

pp,

37-38.



6/11

Mishra

:

Proximity

f

Another

ord

71

dependon theotherforthemeaning f mountain. This is the reason why

there

s no

interdependence

ccepted

here

by

APD.

However,

for the

me-

mory

f

the

imilar

meaning

i.

e.f

that

of mountain

in

either

of

the

two

words,

the

proximity

f the

other s

required.

On the

other

hand,

there

s no

relation

of

samnrthat9

between

'

Rma

*

and

'

Arjuna

there

eing

the semantic

opposition

between

them

and

there

eing

no

meaning

same

for

both. So

the

case

of

4

rmrjunau

cannot

be a

tool

to

prove

the

f

ult

of

interdependence

n

6

nisadham

paya

bhubhrtam

.

Again,

since

the

similarity

f

meaning

hecksthe

possiblity

of

interdependence

n the

example

nisadham

paiya

bhubhrtam there s no

necessity

f

the

either

f the two

words

to have a fixed

meaning.

But such

is

not

the

case

of

rmrjunau

There

being

no

similarity

f

meaning,

he

either

f

the words

hould

have

a fixed

meaning

to

avoid

interdependence.

But

both

the

words

are

plurisignatory.

Hence

the

fault

of

interdependence

in

the

example.

That

is

why

APD.

suggests

another

example,

to

Mam-

mana,

for

the

the

illustration

f semantic

opposition

'

rma-rvanayor

iva

9

where ne

word

'

rvana

)

has

a

fixed

meaning.

It should notbe thoughthatAPD. has thedegreeof usage in mind

while

denying

he

fault

f

interdependence

n

his

example

nisadham

aya

bhubhrtam

and

while

allowing

he

fault n

Mammata's

example

'

rama

rjunau

In

other

wordsone

may

think

hatthe words nisadha

and

'

bh

bhrt9

re

more

n

usage

for

xpressing

he

meaning

of

*

mountain

and are

less

in

usage

for

expressing

he

meaning

f

a

country

and a

*

king respec-

tively.

So

both

the wordsdon't

depend

on

each other

forthe

ascertainment

of their

meaning

which

s

one

and

the

same

for

both

(

i.

e.

mountain

.

The

proximity

f

one

with he

other

s

ust

for

reaffirming

he famous

meaning.

On the otherhand, such is not thecase withMammata's example (for se-

mantic

pposition

-

rmrjunau

-

where he

degree

of

usage

of

the

two

words,

n

the sense

uf

Parasurma

and

Krttavirya

respectively

s

very

ess.

So the

either

has to

depend

on the

otherfor

the

respective

meaning.

But as

we

have

already studied,

in

the

previous passages,

APD.

doesn't

take

resort

to the

above

reasoning

for

denying

nterdependence

n

his

example.

Even

such

a

reasoning

s

not

acceptable

to

him.

Because

he

clearly

oesnot

accept

the

concept

of the

most

famous

meaning.

To

him,

there s no firstr foremostmeaning fa plurisignatoryord. ( videfn.24 ).

Criticisms

y

the Pro-Vivantha

oeticians

The

poeticians

following

Mammana

nd even

VisvanSthawould

surely

object

to

the above

stand

of

APD.

Their

conviction

s

that

aq

sample



7/11

72

Annals

BORI,

LXXX

(

1999

( sentence for

8

theword in proximity'should have a word havingfixed

meaning

n

orderto

delimit

the

meaning

of

a

plurisignatory

ord

in

the

same

sentence.

Mammata,

for

example,puts

forth

phrase

ike

-

'

devasya

purrtetfQ

here he

word

devah

can

mean

any

god.

But

it is

delimited

to

the

meaning

f

iva

by

the

word

'

pura-arti'10

in its

proximity.

Thust

in the

expression,

he word

v

pur

rati*

which has

a

fixed

meaning,

delimits

the

plurisignatoiy

ord

devah

to the

meaning

of

iva.

Visvantha

Kavi-

raja

also

gives

a

similar

xample

devah

purrih

ni

-

in order

to illustrate

the

same

point. He,

however,

xplains

hathere

purrih

is a

plurisigna-

torywordwhosedenotations delimited o themeaningof iva by another

word

(

'

devah

)

in

proximity

hathas a fixed

meaning

-

deity).

APD.

musthave

combined he

explanations

iven

by

both Mammata

and

Visvantha

o find

hat

when

Mammata

takes

4

devah

9

as a

plurisigna-

tory

word,

Visvantha

ccepts

purrih

to be

so. Thus

in

a

phrase

like

*

devasya

tripurrteh

either

oth

the

words have

to be

of

fixed

meaning

or

of

plurisignification.

he first

ption

does nut serve

the

point

of

discus-

sion

under

he said

krik

of

Bhartfhari.

So

the

second

option

that

boththe

words are

plurisignatory

onfirms

o the thesisof

APD.

that word n

proxi*

mity

f a

plurisignatory

ord is also

plurisignatory

f it

helps

fixing

he

denotation

f

the

atter.

APD.,

however,

does

not

take

the

above

course

to

prove

his

point.

He is interestedn

showing

he

mminent

ontingency

hat

would

arise

f

the

word

n

proximity

is

accepted

to

be

of

fixed

meaning.

He

frames

he defi-

nition f another

word n

proximity

as

4

the

collocation of

a

word

having

a fixed

meaning

fitting

o

the

opinion

of

Visvanta

nd

Mammata and

refutes

t

in

the

following

manner.

Putting

forth

Mammata's

example

' devasya tripurrteh- he terms timpropern the context of 4another

W3fd

n

proximity.

13

6

devasya

puraroter

ti

ambhau K.

P.,

op.

cit.,

.

64.

l

In

the

3rd

dhyiya

f

he

Kama-

Parva

of

the

MahabhUrata

it is

described

that hree

ons f

Traksura

amed

rakiksa,

amalksa

nd

Vidyunml

onitru-

cted or

hemselveshree

ura-

forts

-

golden

ort,

ilver ort

nd

ron ort

espe-

ctively

with

he

elp

f

he demon

Maya.

Siva

destroyed

hese

hree

orts

nd

killed

he

hree

emons.

Thereafter,

e

s calledas

the

destroyed

f

three

orts'

(

tripurri

,

or

the

estroyer

fforts

'

purri

or

purrti

.

11 4devahpurrih iti purrih ivah Shitya Darpana (S. D.) of Visvantha

Kavirja,

d. 5

Tr.

(

Oriya

by

Pt.

Nryana

Mahptra,

987

2nd

mp..

2nd

Pariccheda,.

58.

13

yattu

iyatrtha

sabda

-

smndhikaranam

abdntara

sannidhih,

ena

a

i

devasya tripurrteh

ity

tra deva

sabdasya

Sankare

niyamanam

ta ra

fripurarti

sabdasya niyatrthatvt

ti,

tad

ayuktam

V

V.,

op.

eii.,p.

38*



8/11

Misura

Proximity

f

Another

word

73

APD.'s arguments that fthe word nproximity is acceptedto be

having

fixed

meaning,

hen hemark

Unga

producedby

t shall

determine

the

denotation

f the

plurisignatory

ord,

eaving

he

word

n

proximity

s

a

defunct

actor.

Hence,

just

as the

meaning

f the

word

bhubhrt

is deli-

mited

o

the

meaning

f

a

king

by

the

mark: n the

anger

n

the

sentence,

4

kupito

bhubhrt

,13

so also

the

mark in

the

phrase

tripurrteh

would

delimit

he

denotation f

the word

*

deva*

to the

meaning

of 'akara*in

the

phrase

*

devasyatripurrteh

It

means,

it

is

not

the

word

n

pro-

ximity

but

the

mark

liga

-

the

seventh

actor

for

delimiting

he deno-

tation nthe istofBhartfhari thatwouldfix hemeaning fa plurisignatory

word

n a sentence llustrated

or

word

n

proximity

Or,

in

other

words,

if

the

word

n

proximity

is

accepted

to be

having

fixed

meaning,

hen t

shall

determine he

denotation

f

a

plurisignatory

ord

n

the sentences

hat

are

cited

s

the

examples

f

mark

liga

)

as

a

denotation-delimiting

actor.14

Thus

the

above-said

definition f the

word

n

proximity

would

also

suffer

rom he fault

f

over-application.

So

a word

in

proximity

annot

have a

fixed

meaning

and

any

definition f it

in

this

light

would

prove

fallacious.

Moreover,

the

pro-Mammata

aad

pro-Viivantha

poeticians

may

insist hat

the

llustrations,

or

a

word

n

proximity

and

fora

mark,

have

a

similarity,

.

e.,

both

the

types

f illustrations

ave their

words

n

the

same

locus

or

the

ame

case-ending.

Both Mammata

and

Visvantha

have

put

forth he sentence

-

'

kupito makaradhvajah

-

for

illustrating

he

opera-

tion

by

mark nd

here

both

the

words

are

in the

same

locus

(

i.

e.,

the

nomi-

native

ingular

ase-ending .

Their

examples

for

the

word in

proximity

-

devasya

ripurrteh

and

devah

purrih

respectively

lso

give

the

same

locus forbothwords. Hence the argument f their followersmaybe that

due

to such

an

outward

imilarity,

t seems

that

word

n

proximity

can take

over

the cases of mark

and

suffer rom

he

fallacy

f

over-application.

But

actually

his

hall

not

happen.

Anticipating

uch an

explanation,

APD.

objects

to the

stand

that the

word

n

proximity

should

remain

in the same locus

with

he

plurisigna-

tory

word.

13 Angerkopa cannot etheren n nsentientountainbhubhrt, but an be with

the

entient

ing

bhubhrt

.

So

it

pia:

a

mark

linga

-

the

eventhactorn the

list

f

Bhartrbariin

nferring

he

meaning

f

*

bhubhrt

as

king

Samabhivyhrta

sabdasya

niyatrthatve

at

pratipdita

lihgdin

va

tan

-

niyamant.

nyath ingdi

udharane*

i

abdantara

sannidher

va

niymakatvpatteh

V.

V.,

op*

it

f.

38.

10

[

AnnaisBORI



9/11

74

Amais

BORIf

LXXX

(

1999

Poeticiansotherthan those n the above-said group may show that

in

the

example

of

4

word

n

proximity

there s

the

similarity

f

locus

for

both

the words

s in

devasya

ripurrteh

'

So

all

those

examples

(

inclu-

ding

kupito

makaradhvajah')

can come under

the

purview

of

'

word

in

proximity

But,

on

the

other

hand,

there s

the differencef

loci

between

the

two

words

n

an

example

for mark like

4

hhubhrtah

opah

Tn

other

words,

there hald be

the

similarity

f

case-ending

between

the

'

word

in

proximity

and

the

plurisignatory

ord,

whereas

there

is the difference

f

case-endings

between

a

mark and

a

plurisignatory

ord.

So

4

nisadham

paya bhbhrtam is an illustration f the

word in proximity delimiting

the

meaning

of

a

plurisignatory ord,

since

both

the

words are

in

the

same

(

accusative)

case-ending,

hereas

bhubhrtah

opah

(

not

*

kupito

hbhrt

)

is an

example

of

the

mark

kopah

delimiting

he

meaning

f

*

bhbhrt

%

since,

here

one

word

bhubhrtah)

s

in

genitive

nd

the

other

( kopah

is

in

nominative.15

To

APD.,

such a

demonstration

f differences not

acceptable,

beca-

use

it

cannot

remove he

contingentdendity

etween

the

word

n

proximity'

and the mark in a situation wherethe formers acceptedto have a fixed

meaning.

When

the

word

n

proximity

has

a

fixed

meaning,

ike a

mark,

in

both

the

examples

of

the

former

nd

latter,

it is

the

mark

expressed

n

word that

willdelimit

he

denotation,banishing

ll

actual

difietence

etween

the

both.

So

the

above-cited

ifference ould be

very

much

theoretical.16

APD.

also

shows

the fault

of

non-inclusiveness

n

fabricating

uch

a

difference s

a

part

of

the definition f

'

the

proximty

f another

word

through

new

example

Vylo

dnena

rjate

Here

neither

vyla

*

nor

i

dana has a fixed

meaning.17

Both

have

diffrantoci

(

case

endings

too.

Even then

verybody

an

experience

hattheir

enotations

et

delimited

o

a

wild

elephant'

(

dusta-gaja)

and

'

ichor

juice'

(

madajala

) respetively

when

hey

re

in

proximity

ith

ach

other,

if

suh

examples

re

not

accep-

ted

under he

purview

of the

denition of

*

proximity

f

another

word

15

naca

'

smndhikaranye

abdntara

sannidhih,'

vaiyadhtkaranye

bhft-

bhrtah

opah

-

itydi

rpg

Unga

ik m'

iti

bheda

kathanam

V.

V',

op

cit

pp*

8-38.

18

ubhayatra

abda

-

pratipadita

lihgader

va

niyamakatvena

sya

bheda

katha

nasyaparibhasmtratvat V. V.,op cit.%.39.

17

(

a

)

vylila

can

mean

vicious

lephant,snake,

tiger,

king,

cheat

r

a

rogue

-

vide

.

S.

Apte,

anskrit

EnglishDictionary

p.

540,

(b)

*

dana9

can

mean

granting*,

gifting',

chor

uice

of

an

elephant,

ribery,

cutting

r

dividing,

urification,

rotection

nd

or

posture

vide

V.

S.

Apte,

bid

p.

249,



10/11

MishR

:

Proximity

f

Anotherword

IS

then the body of the definition18roposed by the opponents would be

faulty

f

non-inclusiveness.19

APD.

suggests

is own

definition

hat

crystalises

is

viewon

the

nature

of

the

4

proximity

f

another

word he

was

expressing

althrough.

To

him,

the

*

proximity

f another

word

*

is

the

proximity

f a

word like

*

bhubhrt

or

dna

9

)

having

many

meanings,

one

of

whichhas the

connection simi-

larity

with

one

of

the

meanings

f a

word like

*

nisadha

9

or

*

vyla

9

res-

pectively

that

has

many

meanings.20

The

two

approximated

words

may

have the

same locus

as in

nisadham

paya

bhbhrtam

or

may

not

have

as

in*vylodnenarjate

One

may

object

to the

usage

of the word

proximity

sannidhih

)

and,

without

aying

ny

heed

to

APD's

definition,

may

take

the

phrase

very

literally

o

say

that f

the

proximity

f another word ascertains

denotation,

then

he

case of

conjunction

samyoga

,

the

first

actor n

the

list

of

Bhar-

trhari,

an

also

be included n

it.

Because

in

the

illustration

1

akha

cakradharoharih

21

,

the

word

harih

can

have its

denotation

imited

to

the

meaning

f Lord

Visnu

on account of the

proximity

f the

words

at

-

kha

and

cakra

So there s

no

special

purpose

n

accepting

conjunction

as a factor or scertainingenotation f a plurisigoatoryord.

First

of

all,

such

an

objection

has no

scope

in

the

frame

work

of

APD's

definition,

or

the

obove two words re not

plurisignatory.

o,

techni-

cally,

they

annot

be

the words

n

proximity.

APD., however,

replies

from

a more

elaborate

angle

through

dialogue

withon

objector.

To

him,

in

the

above

sentence,

he words

akha

and

'

cakra

9

have

fixed

meanings.

It

is

through

he

conjunction

f

the

meaning

xpressed

y

them,

that

the

denota-

tion

of

'

hari

gets

ascertained.

Hence,

the

case

of

conjunction

s

quite

different

rom

hat

of

the

*

proximity

f

another

word

Vi

19

The

pponent's

efinition

f

he

proximity

f

another

ord as

discussed

efore,

s

the

collocation

i. e.

having

he ame

ase-ending

of

both

he

words

*

smn-

dhikaranye

abdntara

sannidhih

'

cf. ns.

2

and

15.

30

'

vylilo

dnena

rjate

*

ityatra

vyla

dna

-padayor

ubhayor

pi

aniyatU-

rthatvepi vaiyadhikaranye

i

paraspara

samabhivyharena

usta-gaja

mada-jalayor

abhidh

niyamanasya

arvnubhava

siddhatvena

vasya

-

samgrhyatvt

ad

asa'ngrahena

aksana

kathanasya

atyanta

ayuktatvUt

ca

-

V,

V.,

op,

it.,

P.

39.

20

Sabdasya

anyasya

annidhih nUnrtha

pada

-

ekavacya

samsargi

arthU

ntara

vci

-

pada

-

satnabhivyharah

V.

V,,

op.

city

.

36.

21 This entences anexampleorhowingow onjunctionof hemeaningf hewords

akha

and

cakra

)

delimits

he

plurisignatory

ord

hari

*

tothe

meaning

f

Lord

Visnu.

22

tatra

aitkha cakrfidi

abdandm

niyatrthatay

ravana

mtrd

r

h

-

pratipUdakalvena

at

-

pratipadita

artha

sarhyogdibhir

bhidhU

niya-

mana

-

>afnbhavt*-

cit*,

38.



11/11

76

Annals BORI

,

LXXX

(

1999

The objectormay assert that although conjunctionascertains the

denotation,

he

proximity

f

another

word

is

also

operative

n the

exam-

ple

-

amkha-eakradharo

arih

-

as a

factor

orthe

said

purpose.

APD.

has

no

reasons

to

refute

uch an

opinion,

since

it

does

not

op-

pose

to his stand.

But

one

thing

e

makes

clear

-

meaning

is

always

nter-

nal

and

words are

external.

When the denotation

of

the

word

(

hari

is

ascertained

nernally

hrough

he

conjunction

f

the

meaning

of the

words

-

4

akha

and

*

eakra

why

should one

uphold

the

external

factor

by

aying

hat

the said

meaning

s ascerained

through

the

proximity

f other

words ' akha9and ' cakra ? For, the proximityf words is a distant

relation

vyavahita

ambandha

whereas

he

conjunction

f

meanings

s

an

immediate

relation

(

sannihita-sambandha

.

So

'

the

proximity

f words

9

should

not

play

as

a

factor where

conjunction

f

meaning

delimits the

denotative

ower

of a

word.23

But,

on

the other

hand,

in

the

expressions

ike

'

nlsadham

paiya

bh

bhrtam

both

the

words

'

nisadha

and

'

bhbhrtam

-

being plurisign-

atory,

no

meaning

omes

up

as

the first

meaning.

In

such

cases,

only

the

'

proximityf anotherword although n externalfactor,determines he

meaning

f

the

other

word

and

there

s

no

inconsistency.21

Thus

APD.

has

highly

riginal

ontributions

o the

process

of

delimi-

ting

he

denotation

f

p'urisignatory

ord. With

regard

to

the

*

proximity

of

another

word

as such a

factor,

numerated

by

Bhartrhari,

e

posited

Mammata

and Visvantha

s

the

objectors

o

his

theory

nd to his

new

defi-

nition

of

the

the

proximity

f another

word

In

fact,

no

poetician

has

been

so

reflective

nd

interpretative

n

the

enumerations

f

Bhartfhari

n

this

regard.

This

is

testified

rom

he

fact hat ven the

definition

f

*

the

proxi-

mity fanotherword proposedbytheopponents s also framedby APD.

himself,

who

deduced

t from

the

language

of

Mammata and

Visvantha.

The

convincing rguments

f

APD.

make

us

accept

that

the

proximity

f

another

word

*

is

the external

roximity

as

opposed

to

the

conjunction

f

meaning)

of

a word

having

many

meanings,

ne of

whichhas

the

onnection

(

i#

.,

similarity

with

ne

of

the

meanings

f

another

word

that

has

many

meanings

oo.

abdntara

sannidhir

pi

tatra

asti

iti cet

astu,

tathpi

hari sab adi

-

abhidh

niyamana

samarthe

ad

-

artha

samyogadi

rupa

sannihita

sa

-

mbandlienantarahgeSa'nkhacakrUdaupasthiteatrapi cakatayvyava-

hita

satnbandhena

ahirahga

Sabdntara

sannidhir na udaharanatvatn

arhati

V,

V.,

op.

cit-

p.

38.

ato

yatra

ttisadham

asya

bhUbhrtam

itydau

ubhayasya

ctnrthatay

a

kasyapi

arthasya

prathamamupastitih

tatraiva

bahirangasya

pi tasya

niyamakatvcna

daharatiam

ti

na kakeit

akkarnh

V V.

op

ci#., .

38.

Documents

Proximity Arunaranjan