Vakyapadiya (study of the concept of Sentence)
by Sarath P. Nath | 2018 | 36,088 words
This page relates 鈥楻equisites (b): Yogyata (Congruity)鈥� of the study on Vakyapadiya by Bhartrhari and his treatment of the Concept of Sentence in Language. Bhartrhari was a great grammarian and philosopher who explored the depth and breadth of Sanskrit grammar. These pages analyse the concepts and discussions on sentence and sentence-meaning presented in the Vakyapadiya, against the different systems of knowledge prevalent in ancient India (such as Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vyakarana).
6. Requisites (b): 驰辞驳测补迟腻 (Congruity)
[Full title: 6. Requisites for Understanding the Sentence-Meaning, (b): 驰辞驳测补迟腻 (Congruity)]
驰辞驳测补迟腻 is defined as the logical compatibility of the words in a sentence for the mutual association:
"arth膩b膩dho 测辞驳测补迟腻",
鈥�(罢补谤办补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, 1971, p.154).
The sense or non sense of a sentence depends upon this concept. S膩likan膩tha gives a vivid explanation on the nature of 测辞驳测补迟腻 in his 痴腻办测腻谤迟丑补尘腻迟峁沰腻惫峁泃迟颈. He states that the capability of words in a sentence for mutual association and this competence is to be known from experience (Quoted by Raja, 1963, p.164).
Almost all the philosophers explain this by illustrating the sentence:
'agnin膩 si帽cati'
(He drenches with fire).
When one says 'he drenches with water', there is 测辞驳测补迟腻 or the consistency of the meaning, since drenching is normally done with a liquid substance like water. Thus, the sense of drenching and that of water have no incompatibility. But in the sentence 'he drenches with fire', the idea of drenching is not compatible with that of fire. Thus we cannot say there is 测辞驳测补迟腻.
There are combinations which are inconceivable and conceivable in the world. 'A circular square' is a combination that cannot be conceived in any way. The ideas like 'the rabbit's horn' or 'the son of an infertile woman' can be conceived anyway, but are against the experience. The latter example may be incompatible with reality, but it does not prevent the verbal comprehension. 叠丑补谤迟峁沨补谤颈 and 碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 are in favour of this view (V. 笔腻峁噄苍颈, 1.155; 艢濒辞办补惫腻谤迟颈办补, 46). Sometimes the lack of 测辞驳测补迟腻 points to the metaphorical meaning of a word in the sentence. According to some scholars the apparent incompatibility of the expressed sense is an essential condition for 濒补办峁峁嚹� (Raja, 1963, p.166).