View
226
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
1/11
8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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*
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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,
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.
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.jsp8/10/2019 Proximity Arunaranjan
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.
Recommended