Tattvabindu of Vachaspati Mishra (study)
by Kishor Deka | 2024 | 49,069 words
This page relates 鈥榗oncept of Sannidhi or Asatti (contiguity)鈥� of the English study of the Tattvabindu by Vachaspati Mishra (study)鈥攁 significant text in the Mimamsa philosophy which addresses the concept of verbal knowledge (shabdabodha) and identifies the efficient cause behind it, examining five traditional perspectives. These are Sphota-Vada, Varna-Vada, Varnamala-Vada, and Anvitabhidhana-Vada and Abhihitanvaya-Vada, with the Tattvabindu primarily endorsing the Abhihitanvayavada view.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Part 2.3 - The concept of Sannidhi or 膧satti (contiguity)
[Full title: The causes of verbal knowledge in 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 (3) Sannidhi]
The third factor for understanding the sentence-meaning is sannidhi or 腻蝉补迟迟颈 (contiguity). It is generally explained as the condition that the words in a sentence should be contiguous in time.[1] This contiguity or proximity is the uninterrupted utterance or unbroken apprehension of words when they are in juxtaposition. Words uttered at long intervals cannot produce the knowledge of any interrelation among them, even if there be 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� and 测辞驳测补迟腻. If the words are separated by the intervention of irrelevant words, then also the connection of the meaning cannot be understood.
碍耻尘腻谤颈濒补 叠丑补峁弓补 distinguishes[2] between sannidhi and mere immediate sequence of utterance (补苍补苍迟补谤补艣谤耻迟颈). He explains sannidhi as the continuous moving about of the words or their meaning in the mind.[3] 艢膩likan膩tha also explains it in the same way.[4] According to the 叠丑腻峁弓补 school of 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻, the lack of sannidhi is of two kinds: not being uttered together and not being signified by words.[5] No syntactic relation is possible in the case of the words 鈥榖ring 鈥� the cow鈥� uttered at different times. And a sentence such as 鈥榯ie up the cow鈥� cannot have syntactic affinity with the word 鈥�horse鈥�, even though the horse is seen in front as requiring to be tied up.[6] Thus they hold that syntactic relation is possible only for what have been comprehended through words.[7] On the other hand, the 笔谤腻产丑腻办补谤补 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 believes[8] that sannidhi is the only proximity of cognition of the sense and not necessarily of words actually uttered and it is caused by the words only is not the auxiliary cause in respect of the sentence-meaning. 艢膩likan膩tha, in his 痴腻办测腻谤迟丑补尘腻迟峁沰腻 states that sannidhi is the transformation of the intellect from a meaning subsequent to the hearing of a meaning to another meaning with the help of expectancy and compatibility.[9] But this transformation of the intellect is not based on words only.
Again, according to the 笔谤腻产丑腻办补谤补 school, sannidhi does not mean simultaneous mental comprehension of the words; as in the case of 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� it works step by step in the order of sequence in which they are cognized.[10] The mutual connection of the meanings of words is comprehended step by step along with the knowledge of 腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ�, 测辞驳测补迟腻 and sannidhi. In the sentence 鈥楤ring the cow, which is white, with a stick鈥� (驳腻尘 腻苍补测补 艣耻办濒腻峁� 诲补峁囜笉别苍补), first the word 鈥榗ow鈥� is known as related to the verb 鈥榖ring鈥�; then this connected sense is related to the meaning of the next word 鈥榳hite鈥� and later with that of the next. This is on the basis of the 补苍惫颈迟腻产丑颈诲丑腻苍补 theory. Some of the 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 also seem to favour this view.[11]
The Navya-狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 defines 腻蝉补迟迟颈 or sannidhi as an immediate recollection of the meanings of words through their expressive power or 濒补办峁峁嚹�;[12] even if the words are separated, as it sometimes happens in a verse, there is 腻蝉补迟迟颈, if the meanings of the words are recollected without any interruption. This 腻蝉补迟迟颈 itself is the cause of verbal comprehension, not the knowledge of 腻蝉补迟迟颈 as the early 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 believed.[13] This recollection is explained as collective cognition. The perception of each word leaves its impression on the mind, and when the last word is uttered, its last letter acts as a stimulus, and a collective recollection follows. It is a single cognition arising out of the contact of the senses with a collection of objects.[14]
It may be mentioned here that the 笔谤腻产丑腻办补谤补 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 understand sannidhi as the immediate association of the idea of the meaning of a related word. They do not favour the definition of sannidhi as the proximity of word. There lies difference between the 叠丑补峁弓补s and the 笔谤腻产丑腻办补谤补s in respect of their conception of sannidhi, while the 叠丑补峁弓补s understand sannidhi as the contiguity of a word or the idea of the words, the 笔谤腻产丑腻办补谤补s accept it only as the contiguity of the idea of the meaning of a word.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
(a) pad膩n膩m avilambenocc膩ra峁嘺峁� 蝉补苍苍颈诲丑颈岣� / 罢补谤办补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 , p. 30
(b) avyavadh 膩nena padajanyapad膩rthopasthiti岣� 腻蝉补迟迟颈岣� / 罢补苍迟谤补蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补-谤补迟苍腻惫补濒墨 , p. 65
[2]:
腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ� 蝉补苍苍颈诲丑腻苍补峁� ca 测辞驳测补迟腻 ceti ca trayam /
蝉补尘产补苍诲丑补办腻谤补峁嘺迟惫别苍补 办岣穚迟补峁� n膩nantara艣ruti岣� // 罢补苍迟谤补惫腻谤迟迟颈办补 , p. 455
[3]:
Ibid.
[5]:
[6]:
鈥榞膩峁� badh膩na鈥� ity atra bandhan膩pek峁sya d峁浥泍am膩nasy膩艣vasya 艣abd膩bodhitatv膩d ev膩nanvaya岣� / Ibid., p. 100
[8]:
蝉补苍苍颈诲丑颈岣ヅ沘bdajanmaiva vyutpattau nopalak峁峁嘺m /
adhy膩h峁泃en膩py arthena loke sa峁僢andhadar艣an膩t // 痴腻办测腻谤迟丑补尘腻迟峁沰腻-惫峁泃迟颈 , p. 9
[9]:
atha 蝉补苍苍颈诲丑颈岣� ka岣�? yasy膩rthasya 艣rava峁嘺m腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ伈獯遣挡獠钩倌錬hy膩marth膩ntare buddhivipari惫峁泃迟颈岣� / Ibid., p. 389
[10]:
腻办腻峁卥峁Ｄ乿ac ca sannidh膩v api sannidh膩pakakrame峁嘺iva kramo veditavya岣� / Ibid., p. 9
[11]: