The Meaning of Nouns: Semantic Theory in Classical and Medieval India

306 Pages·1992·16.569 MB·English

by  Madhav M. Deshpande (auth.)

The Meaning of Nouns
Studies of Classical India
VOLUME 13
Editor:
t
Bimal K. Matilal
Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions & Ethics, Oxford University, U.K.
Editorial Board:
R. P. Goldman, Daniel H. H. Ingalls and A. K. Ramanujan
The aim of this series is ta publish fundamental studies concern ing classical
Indian civilization. It will conclude editions of texts, translations, special
ized studies, and scholarly works of more general interest related ta various
fields of classical Indian culture such as phiIosophy, grammar, literature,
religion, art, and history.
In this context, the term 'Classical India', covers a vast area both historically
and geographically, and embraces various religions and philosophical
traditions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, and many languages
from Vedic and Epic Sanskrit to Pali, Prakrit, and Apabhramsa. We believe
that in a profoundly traditional society like India, the study of classical
culture is always relevant and important.
Classical India presents an interesting record of deep human experience,
thoughts, beliefs, and myths, which have been a source of inspiration for
count1ess generations. We are persuaded of its lasting value and relevance ta
modern man.
By using extensive and for the most part unexplored material with scientific
rigor and modem methodology, the authors and editors of this series hope to
stimulate and promote interest and research in a field that needs 10 be placed
in its proper perspective.
The titles published in this series are listed at the end ofthis volume.
The Meaning of N ouns
Semantic Theory in
Classical and Medieval India
Niimiirtha-nirlJaya
of
Kau1J4abhaţţa
translated and annotated
by
Madhav M. Deshpande
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures,
The Vniversity of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, V.S.A.
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
KauQQabhaţţa.
[Nimirtha-nlrQaya. Engllshl
The meanlng of nouns : semantIc theory In classical and medieval
=
India Nimirtha-nirQaya of Kau!)Qabhaţţa I translated and annotated
by Madhav M. Desahpande.
p. cm. -- (Studies of classical India; v. '3)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-94-010-5221-4 ISBN 978-94-011-2751-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-2751-6
1. Sanskrlt language--Noun. 2. Sanskrit language--Semantics.
1. Deshpande. Madhav. II. Title. III. Ser ies.'
PK721.K3813 1992
491 .. 25--dc20 92-17009
ISBN 978-94-010-5221-4
Printed on acid-free paper
Ali Rights Reserved
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1992
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 1992
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
Dedicated
with
respect and affection
to
Professor George Cardona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approximate Chronology of Indian Philosophers viii
Preface ix
Introduction
A. Artha "Meaning" 1
B. Logical Basis of Semantic Analysis 6
C. What is a Naman "Noun, Nominal Stem"? 10
D. Ontology of Possible Nominal Meanings 15
Ji'lt; / Akrti "Generic Property / Configuration" 17
Sattva / Dravya / Vyakti "Individual Object" 29
Liliga "Gender" 34
Sa'!lkhya "Number" 43
Kliraka "Means to Bring about an Action" 46
E. Functional Apparatus of a Semantic Theory 53
Vrtti / Sakti "Signification Function of Words" 53
Pravrtti-nimitta / Sakyatavacchedaka 56
Saktatavacchedaka 60
Sabda-bodha "Verbal Cognition" 61
Lak,va1)a "Secondary Signification Function" 66
F. Sabda itself as Artha: Use versus Mention 70
G. BhattojI DIksita and KauI)~bhatta 73
H. KauI)qabhana's Namartha-nir1)aya 75
I. Conclusion 78
Some Features of Philosophical Discourse 80
NAMARTHA-NIRlYAYA with Translation and Annotation
Section One 85
Section Two 88
Section Three 109
Section Four 134
Section Five 153
Section Six 188
Section Seven 192
Bibliography 257
Index 266
APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGY OF
INDIAN PHILOSOPHERS
Century Grammar Mimlhpsa Nyaya-Vaise~ika Other
5th B.c. PiiI)ini
Yaska
4th B.C. VYiiQi
Viijapyiiyana
3rd B.c. Kiityiiyana
2ndB.C. Patafijali Jaimini KlU)ada
2nd A.D. Gautama
4th A.D. Sabara Viitsyiiyana
5th A.D. Bhartrhari Prasastapada Dirinaga(B)
6th A.D. Uddyotakara
7th A.D. Viimana Kumiirila DharmakJrti (B)
Jayiiditya Prabhakara
MlU)"anarnisra
8th A.D. 5antarak$ita (B)
KamalasUa (B)
10th A.D. Heliiriija Piirthasiirathi Jayantabhalta
PuQyaraja Viicaspati Sn:dhara
11th A.D. Somesvara Udayana Mamrnata (P)
Bhavadeva
12th A.D. Kaiyata
13th A.D. Gangesa
14th A.D. Visvaniitha-
15th A.D. Raghuniitha Kaviraja (P)
16th A.D. BhatlOjI- Mathuriiniitha
DIk~ita
17th A.D. Haridikllita Gagiibhalta Visvaniitha- Dharmarajii-
KaUl)qabhalta KhlU)qadeva Tarkapaiicanana dhvanndra (V)
JagadIsa
Gadadhara
Annambhalta
Padmaniibhamisra
RiijaciiQiimlU)imakhin
18th A.D. Niigesabhalta
****
B == Buddhism, P == Poetics, V == Vedanta
viii
PREFACE
This book presents a fully revised version of my Ph. D. dissertation which was
originally written and completed in Philadelphia in April 1972, and was submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the University of Pennsylvania. I
came to Philadelphia as a graduate student in the Department of Oriental Studies of the
University of Pennsylvania in September 1968. My earlier academic training was done at
Pune in India. lowe my original interest in Sanskrit grammatical tradition to Pt. Vaman
Shastri Bhagwat. I studied Sanskrit grammar with him at the Tilak Maharashtra
Vidyapeeth, Pune, from the early years of my highschool till I finished my master's degree
in Sanskrit at the University of Poona in 1968. Other teachers with whom I studied
Sanskrit grammar in my early years include Pt. N.N. Bhide and the late Pt. Narayan Shastri
Dikshit. Professor S.D. Joshi of the University of Poona provided the most valuable
analytical insights into Sanskrit grammar. I studied with him as part of my coursework for
the master's degree in Sanskrit at the University of Poona. I also studied with Professor
R.N. Dandekar, Professor G.B. Palsule, and Professor M.A. Mehendale at the University
ofPoona.
Mostly as a result of efforts and encouragement from Professor S.D. Joshi, I came to
the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Here, my two primary teachers were Professor
Ludo Rocher and Professor George Cardona. Besides these, I also studied with Professor
Henry Hoenigswald, Professor Paul Thieme, and the late Professor Bimal Krishna Matilal.
lowe a great debt to Professor Ludo Rocher who was the chairman of Oriental Studies at
Penn, for assisting me in every possible way and for directing me to achieve a synthesis of
my eastern training in Sanskrit with the western analytical methods. Most of all I am
indebted to Professor George Cardona. With him I learned not just how to read texts in
Sanskrit grammar, but essentially how to argue the pros and cons of a complicated
argument. It was a most rewarding experience to discuss and argue with Professor
Cardona many finer points of Sanskrit grammatical theory and come away with new
insights. He read every single line of my original dissertation in its many versions, and
made detailed suggestions for improvements.
It has been twenty years since this dissertation was originally written. After 1972, I
moved into somewhat different academic areas of Sanskrit linguistics. It was during 1989
that Professor Bimal Krishna Matilal suggested that I should revise my dissertation and
publish it in the series Studies ojClassicai India of which he was the editor. I accepted his
suggestion and have thoroughly rewritten the original dissertation. It has been
bibliographically updated, and I have taken due notice of the many important contributions
which have appeared during the last twenty years. I am deeply saddened that Professor
Matilal is no longer alive to see this book in print.
ix
x PREFACE
I am deeply grateful to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the University of
Pennsylvania for providing a four year fellowship which allowed me to complete the
original dissertation in a relatively short period. I am equally indebted to my many friends
in Philadelphia who helped me in various ways. Last but not least, I would like to thank
my wife, Shubhangi, for standing by me and encouraging me all the way.
The person most instrumental in making sure that I write a decent dissertation was after
all Professor George Cardona. While I am still responsible for problems and errors in my
analysis, the positive merit of the original work is due in large measure to Professor
Cardona's watchful eye. Therefore, with great respect and affection, I dedicate this book to
him.
Madhav M. Deshpande
April 10, 1992
Ann Arbor, Michigan
INTRODUCTION
A. ARTHA "MEANING"
A.I. This book aims at explicating an important Sanskrit text, i.e. Kaul)Q.a-
bhana's Niimiirtha-nin;aya. The term niimiirtha in this title has two components, i.e.
niiman "name, noun, nominal" and artha "meaning." In attempting to comprehend theories
developed by Sanskrit grammarians concerning semantics of the various linguistic units, it
is absolutely important to understand the terminology of the Sanskrit grammarians in
particular, and philosophers in general. While I will use the term "meaning" to render the
Sanskrit term artha. I must clarify the intended meaning of the term "meaning," and to
dissociate this term from some of its uses in the Western philosophical literature which are
not relevant in the context of the use of the term artha in Sanskrit texts.
A.2. It is not the purpose of this book to go into a full scale comparative study of
Indian and Western theories of meaning. Therefore, I shall make reference to Western
discussions relating to the notion of meaning only marginally. In the Western literature on
the notion of meaning, the term "meaning" is used variously for the notions of sense,
reference, denotation, connotation, designatum, intension, and so on. Philosophers agree
neither on their terminology, nor on their methods or their analyses. At the outset of our
discussion, consider briefly the range of the use of the term "meaning."1 Wittgenstein
separates the signified object from meaning which he explains in terms of the use of words.
Quine differentiates the theory of meaning from the theory of reference. Camap speaks in
terms of intension and extension. Frege distinguishes Bedeutung "reference" from Sinn
"sense." John Stuart Mill advocated the distinction between the notions of denotation and
connotation of words. All of these various terms have been frequently used in the modem
expositions of Sanskrit texts dealing with the notion of meaning to render the Sanskrit term
artha. However, each of these terms carries a specific significance, and no one of them
adequately conveys the idea of artha.
A.3. The Sanskrit term artha conveys a broad range of meanings conveyed by
the term "meaning," though the range of "meaning" in Western literature is not necessarily
identical with that of the Sanskrit term artha. For instance, while Wittgenstein almost
identifies meaning with the use of the word, the Sanskrit term artha does not seem to
convey such a notion. Sometimes. in the Western literature, meaning of a word is regarded
to be the relation of that word with the signified object. The Sanskrit term artha does not
seem to stand for such a relation. What does then the Sanskrit term artha stand for? The
1F or brief surveys of Western theories of meaning, see: Specht (1963: 114), and Staal (1966:305). Also see:
Jerzy Pele (1971: 195ff).