365bet娱乐

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 admit that letters are endowed with the power of expressing meaning; and to posit a transcendental entity, viz. 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, for this purpose is hardly warranted.

According to the 狈测腻测补 system, 艣补产诲补 is only an aggregate of phonemes that are produced by the moments of the vocal organs of the speaker. According to the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, the word has transitory existence.^[1] During the first moment, the sound is produced. The second moment is the moment of its existence. It disappears at the third moment. They maintain that whatever is meaningful or significant is a word which is composed of several phonemes. The listener apprehends the meaning of a word when he hears the last phoneme of a word together with the recollection of previous phonemes, through their impressions.^[2] They admit that a word is a single unit since this is shown by experience; but it arises from the single act of collective memory of the phonemes.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 maintain that the sequence of phonemes is denotative of meaning on the basis of the principle of contrast and agreement. The particular meaning is not apprehended in the absence of a particular phoneme. The whole is meaningful because its parts are meaningful. The logicians consider that the phonemes uttered by different speakers in different tones are regarded as non-distinctive, because the phonemes represent a class,^[3] rather than a particular instance.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 do not find appropriateness in postulating the entity 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 apart from the combination of phonemes. Thus, the collective remembrance of the preceding phonemes together with the perception of the final phoneme is regarded as conveyor of meaning.

The view of the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 does not appear quite convincing to the grammarians. The grammarians feel that language has two levels: distinctive and significative. These must be kept apart from each other. The meaning-bearing aspect of a word cannot be dispensed with regard to the notion of the phonemes and their sequences. The phonemes are not directly associated with the meaning, and hence it is necessary to postulate the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 concept as a single meaning-bearing entity.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 reject the 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 concept by noting down the absurdities. The 厂辫丑辞峁璦v膩din鈥檚 view that previous dhvani manifest 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 not so clearly as the last dhvani, cannot be correct, as 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 devoid of parts cannot be spoken as manifested by dhvanis. The 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 cannot be full or partial manifestation.

The view that the manifestation of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is based on superimposition is not correct, since with reference to an object superimposition cannot be explained. It is not possible to say that it is devoid of parts. So, 厂辫丑辞峁璦v膩din鈥檚 view that padatattva is devoid of parts is not acceptable.

Jayanta Bha峁�峁璦 clearly points out that it should not be supposed that the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 criticise the doctrine of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 only to make a parade of their power of argumentation. The theory of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is opposed to the vital principles of their philosophy. The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 have established the authority of word (艣补产诲补) as a 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 by proving that it is created by God. We have pointed out that the grammarians describe word (艣补产诲补) as something eternal. And, as an entity which is said to be eternal cannot be created by any being, be it human or divine, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 cannot but refuse to accept the theory of the grammarians.^[4]

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 make the validity of verbal knowledge (艣腻产诲补产辞诲丑补) conditional on God whereas the grammarians and the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 make it a self-sufficient instrument of knowledge.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, may, however, point out that word (艣补产诲补) in their system of thought is regarded as possessing transient existence; it is said to be produced at one moment, exists for the next moment and dies out at the third moment. But, the grammarians conceive word as one endowed with a permanent character. Thus, the conception of word being different in the two systems of thought, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 naturally raise a note of protest against the theory of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as propounded by the grammarians.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 again point out that letters are designated as 艣补产诲补 for the only reason that they are perceived by auditory organs.^[5] 厂辫丑辞峁璦, on the contrary, can be cognised only through mental perception.^[6] It has been said that the realisation of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 requires a mental discipline and spiritual meditation. Hence, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 opine that when we do not perceive the existence of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 in the usual course, it is certainly desirable that letters which are ordinarily perceived should be regarded as being expressive of sense. Thus, when verbal knowledge (艣腻产诲补产辞诲丑补) can be easily explained as occurring from the perception of letters, the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 do not find any justification for postulating a spiritual entity like 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 as causing the cognition of meaning.

Moreover, they claim that there would be controversy if we accept 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 apart from the letters. Mah膩bh膩峁�yak膩ra has clearly stated, 艣补产诲补 is that entity by whose pronunciation there arises a concept of cow having dewlap, ears etc. So, it is clear that which is the 惫颈峁�a测补 of pronunciation, in other words, that which is pronounced is called 艣补产诲补 and that is the only denoter of artha. 厂辫丑辞峁璦 cannot be the 惫颈峁�a测补 of pronunciation. Hence, 惫补谤峁嘺蝉 are only denoter of meaning, therefore, they are 艣补产诲补. So, there is no 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 apart from the letters.

The Grammarians believe that 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 is more and more clearly expressed with the perception of each one of the succeeding letters and to explain this issue they give the well-known illustration of a piece of gem in this connection.^[7] Jayanta, however, observes that this analogy does not hold good. Thus, he says that 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 being an indivisible entity, it is hardly reasonable to opine that some of its parts will be manifested with the perception of the first letter, while others with that of the second and so on until its parts are completely revealed with the perception of the final letter. In the case of a piece of gem, however, we are justified in maintaining that some of its parts are cognised at the first sight, others at a second glance and the rest gradually. There is every chance that some parts will escape our notice at the time of the first or the second observation and our knowledge of the object may be perfect at the fifth or the sixth time. But, it is certainly wrong to say that an object like 惫补谤峁嘺, 艣补产诲补, which does not admit of any division into parts will be gradually manifested.^[8]

Jayanta has further pointed out that the theory of the manifestation of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 through the medium of sound is also untenable. For, he asserts that if sounds were capable of manifesting 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, there would have been no difficulty on our part to understand the import of a word even when it is uttered so quickly that its constituent letters are not distinctly heard.

Thus, according to the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, denotation lies within the word and not with the imperceptible entity as 蝉辫丑辞峁璦. To assume 蝉辫丑辞峁璦, as distinct from letters, therefore, according to 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉, is as fallacious as to conceive a flower in the sky.^[9]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

耻肠肠腻谤补峁嚹乨奴谤诲丑惫补尘补苍耻辫补濒补产诲丑别岣� 补苍颈迟测补岣� 艣补产诲补岣�, na hyenamuccarita峁� muh奴rt膩mapyupalabh膩mahe, tasm膩d 惫颈苍补峁ａ弓补 颈迟测腻惫补驳补肠肠丑腻尘补岣�. karoti 艣补产诲补vyapade艣膩cca 办腻谤测补岣� 艣补产诲补岣� 艣补产诲补峁� kuru, 艣补产诲补峁� m膩 k膩r峁Ｄ玶iti vyavahart膩ra岣� prayujate te n奴namavagacchanti 办腻谤测补岣� 艣补产诲补岣� iti / 狈测腻测补ma帽jar墨 , p.189

[2]:

yath膩 p奴rva惫补谤峁嘺janitasa峁僺k膩rasahito鈥檔tya惫补谤峁嘺 iti tatra bhavat膩 m墨m膩峁僺膩bh膩峁�yak峁泃膩 惫补谤峁噄迟补峁� tath膩 v膩 惫补谤峁嚹乶膩marthapraty膩yakatvamastu / Ibid., p. 346

[3]:

tatra yo鈥檙tho ya峁� 艣补产诲补m anugacchati, sa tasy膩rtha ityavas墨yate tatkathamasaty膩 产丑腻驳腻岣� / Ibid., p. 354

[4]:

tasm膩d anity膩n膩峁� 惫补谤峁嚹乶膩m eva v膩cakatva峁�. prati峁ａ弓h膩pan墨ya峁�, par膩kara峁嚹珁a艣ca 蝉辫丑辞峁璦岣� / Ibid., p. 367

[5]:

补迟补岣ヅ况补惫补峁嘺驳谤补丑补峁嘺迟补颈惫补 艣补产诲补lak峁�a峁嘺峁� ny膩yam / 惫补谤峁嚹� eva ceda峁兣洸共�诲补lak峁�a峁嘺m anupatanti iti abhidheyadh墨hetubh膩vam anupayanto鈥� pi lokaprasiddhesta eva 艣abd膩岣� / 厂辫丑辞峁璦siddhi , p.13

[6]:

tadeva hi s膩rvajan墨nam膩nasapratyak峁�apravedan墨yaprayatnabhedabhinnan膩n膩dhvanibhi岣� pratyekapravya帽jan墨ya峁� tattvam / Tattvabindu , p. 7

[7]:

yath膩 ratnapar墨k峁�i峁嘺岣� par墨k峁�am膩峁嘺sya prathamasamadhigam膩nup膩ravy膩tamanukhyeya r奴papratyayopahitasa峁僺k膩rar奴p膩hitavi艣e峁Ｄ亂膩峁� buddhau krame峁嘺 carame cetasi cak膩sti ratnatattvam / 厂辫丑辞峁璦siddhi , p. 131

[8]:

yat punarav膩di prathama惫补谤峁嘺buddhivel膩y膩m iva 惫测补办迟补峁� 蝉辫丑辞峁璦tattvam uttarottara buddhi bhirati艣ayitatarapratyayat膩峁� n墨yate ratnatattvavaditi, s膩 eva 惫颈峁�a尘补 耻辫补苍测腻蝉补岣� ratnasya hi s膩vayatv膩t prathamapratyay膩 vi峁�ay墨k峁泃as奴k峁�matar膩vayavavi艣e峁�agr膩hi峁嘺m uttarottara pratyayan膩masti tatt膩vak膩艣a岣� 蝉辫丑辞峁璦stu 惫补谤峁嘺蝉var奴pavadana峁兣沘 iti tatsva r奴pasarvasvam膩dhenaiva 惫补谤峁嘺ina 惫测补办迟补峁� kimid膩n墨m anye 惫补谤峁嚹佱弗 kari峁�yanti / 狈测腻测补ma帽jar墨 , p. 378

[9]:

gaganakusumasyeva 蝉辫丑辞峁璦kalpan膩 na 测耻办迟腻 / 狈测腻测补 S奴tra , p. 270