Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

PROXIMITY OF ANOTHER WORD: A STUDY OF THE DENOTATION-DELIMITING FACTOR (With

special reference to Appayya Dikita)
Author(s): Arunaranjan Mishra
Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 80, No. 1/4 (1999), pp. 6776
Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694577 .
Accessed: 27/03/2013 04:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PROXIMITY OF ANOTHER WORD :

A STUDY OF THE DENOTATION-DELIMITING

FACTOR

( With special referenceto AppayyaDIksita )

By
Arunaranjan Mishra
The conceptof denotativemeaning has engaged the Indian gramma
rians,poeticiansand philosophersin deep contemplationssince a remotepast.
Severaltheorieson the aspectsof meaning have been forwardedby many.
We, however,concernourselvesat presentwith the problemof fixingthe
wordsi. e., the words that have more than
meaningof the plurisignatory
one denotativemeaning. Bhartrhari,the poet,grammarianand philosopher
of the seventhcenturyA. D., enumeratesmore than fourteenfactors that
word mayfixthe meaningof a plurisignatory
samyogoviprayogaca shacaryamvirodhit/
arthah prakaranamUngarnabdasyanyasyasannidhih//
smarthyamauciti deah klo vyaktihsvardayah
iabdrthasynavacchedeviesa-smrti-hetavah
//
( Vkyapadya,2/317-18)
This particularverse has been the source of inspirationfor many
prominentpoeticiansin theirfindinga way out of the problemof fixingthe
word. But an extensivestudywould show that
meaningof a plurisignatory
all of themsolelydependon theabove krik and keep themselvessatisfied
with a collection of illustrationsthat demonstratethe operation of these
factors. However, it is hearteningto find that Appayya DIkita ( APD ).
the celebratedpoeticianof the sixteenthcenjuryA. D.,1 is more reflective
on
1 ThenameofAPD. has threerecorded
spellings.The lastverseof the Kuvalay
a treatise
on poeticsby APD. readsit as ' Appa DIksita' Pan4itar3ja
ftnanda,
APD.'s junior
readsitas ' AppayaDIksita' inhisRasa Jaganntha,
contemporary,
'
DTksita in his Citra~mimcim$n-Khandana9
a book
gangdharaandas Appayya
thatrefutesthepositions
in Citra-mimms
treatise
on poeticsby APD.
, another

'Prof.P. V.Kane, however,

acceptsthe last one- Appayya
[videhisHistoryof
SanskritPoetics, 1971(4thEd.), pp.317-20].
As tothedateofAPD.,Dr. Anantalal
inhisbookContribution
Gangopadhyaya,
of
thatAPD.wasalive duringthe
AppayaDtksitato Indian Poetics( 1971), proves
secondhalfofthe16thcentury
A. D. ( chapt.I. p. 9 ). In theintroduction
tothiseditedbook- Vrtti-Vrttika
( 1977) - ofAPD.,Dr. B. MsAwasthidoes not contra.
on thenextpage,)
( Centinutd

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

68

Arnais BORI , LXXX ( 1999 )

the "problemand on the above-said krik. In the presentpaper it is proposed to make an analysisof his deliberationsover one of the veryimportant
of another
factors,i. e., the eighthone in thelistof Bhartrhari: the proximity
word ( sabdasynyasyasannidhih).
of anotherword helps in fixingthe meaning
Sometimesthe proximity
of a plurisignatory
word. In the firstchapter( parichheda) named ' Mukhya9
vrtti-Jiirnayaof his famous treatiseon poetics entitled Vrtti-Vrttlkam
( V. V. ), APD is engagedin the discussionover the semantic phenomenon
V
and putsfortha sentenceas an example- 1nisadham paya bhbhrtam
'
'
a
But
on
can
even
be
used
in
the
sense
of
word
Here the
nisadha
region.
9
account of the proximityof the word bhbhrtam
(which also means
*mountain9 it is limitedto its less famous)
(
meaninga particularmoun),
'
the
the
otber
word
which can ever be used in
On
bhbhrt
tain.
hand,
the sense of a king, is limitedto themeaning of 'mDuntain' owing to the
'

proximityof word nisadha whichmeans a particularmountain.'3

factor like ' the
Thus, accordingto APD., thedenotation-delimiting
'
proximityof anotherword is operative only in that syntacticalsituation
and yet theyget a particularmeanwhereboth the wordsare plurisignatory
their
account
of
on
towards
each other. Although both the
ing
proximity
wordshave severaldifferent
meanings,theyhave a meaningwhichis common
to both of them,or at least makes them semanticalycloser. APD's inter'
of
pretationis that only at this typeof situation Bhartfhari's proximity
'
anotherword is to be understood,and in thislightonly, its definitionhas
been framedby him, whichwe shall discussin anothercontext.
Criticismby thePro-MammataPoeticians
Even a verycasual look, the pro-Mammata poeticians would think,
( Continued
fromp. 67. )
thatAPD. con be placedbetween1520A. D. and
dietthisdatewhenlie concludes
1592A. D. NorProf.P. V. Kanewouldstandafarfrom
theabovedating
byDr.Gangothedatebetween
fixes
as jheformer
1554A. D. and 1626A. D. {op cit ).
padhyaya
Thusfora nearexactdateof A. P. G.. i. e., between
1520A. D. and 1592 A. D., wc
canacceptDr. Gangopadhyaya.
8 (a) Theword' nisadha* ean meanthenameofa peopleortheircountry
governed
mounbyNaia,ortheruleroftheNisadhas, i. e.,Naia orthenameof a particular
- videSanskrit- English Dictionary
tainin theNisadna region
V. S. Apte,p.
,
' canmeana kingora mountain.
297. ( b ) Theword*bhubhrt
' ilyatra
8 1nisadhampasya bhxlbhrtam
nijanapada - visesa- sadhfiranasya
1 - pada - sannidhanat
sadha padasya parvata vaci bhubhrt
parvata- padasyaca raja - sfidharanyasya
. bhubhrt
viseseniyamyate
parvata- visesavaoi - *nisadha' - pada - samnidhinU
parvate Chapt,One,Vrtti* Vrttikam
1*77,p. 37.
(VV) Bd. B. M. Awasthi,

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MiSHRA: Proximityof Anotherword

69

can revealto us that APD's example suffersfrom the faultof interdependence. To them,APD. should have cited a sentence,where the word in
proximityhas a fixed meaning which would effecta delimitationof the
meaning of a plurisignatoryword nearby. But here both the words nisadha9 and ' bhubhrt' - are
and are dependenton each
plurisignatory
otherforgettingtheirmeaningsfixed.
To them,APD. seerr,smorevulnerableto such a fault here, since he
has alreadycriticisedthe interdependencein Mammata's example- ramar4 - where the semantic opposijunagatis tayor iti bhrgava-krttaviryayoh
tion ( virodhit,the fourthfactorin the listof Bhirtfhari) between Rma *
and ' Arjuna' fixesthe meaningsof boththenames to Parasurmaand Sahasrabbu Krtavirya. APD. has shown, here, the faultof interdependence,
sincethedenotativepowerof the word ' Rama ' getsdelimitedto the sense
of 4Parasurma' on accountof the semanticoppositionin the formof killedkilierielationshipbetween Arjuna ( Sahasrabhu Krttavrya) and Rma
'

( Parasurma) ; and similarly,thedenotativepower of the word Arjuna

'
4
getsdelimitedto the sense of Krttavrya due to the semanticopposition
between Krttavrya and
in the form of the killed-killer-relationship
'
Parasurrma. Thus the word ' Rma depends on thesemantic opposition
'
of the word Arjuna and vice-versafor the delimitationof the denotation
to a particularmeaning.5 Therefore,APD. suggestedto replace Mammata's
4
exampleby anothersentencethatcould have the phraseslike rma-rvana*
'
yoriva' wherethe word Rvaa has a fixedmeaningand the plurisigna
toryword Rama ' with the semantic opposition of the former,denotes
to
Rmacandra, the son of the king Daaratha. It is, therefore,difficult
in
of
nisadham
a
fault
APD.'s
overlook
example
paya
interdependence
- whereboth the wordsare plurisignatory.
bhbhrtam
APD.'s Reply
APD., however,claims thatthe apparent faultof interdependencein
his sentenee is not actual, because here ( not as in Maramata's example
'

*
rmrjunau in orderto delimitthedenotativepowerof one word ( nisa*
i Kvya - praksa ( K. P. ) ofMammata,
Ed,& Tr.( Oriya) bypt.NiraayanaMahptra,1987( 2ndimp.), 2ndUllsa,p. 64.
5 Yattu rmrjuna- padayor vadhya- ghtaka- bhva- virodht bhrgavaabhidhniyamyate
iti udaharanam
, tanna, 1rama1- padasya
krttaviryayor
sati
virodhaabhidh
tat
hanna ' arjuna
amane
niy
pratisand
bhrgavc
tasminca sati tad - virodha- pratiabhidh ttiyatnanams
padasyakarttavirye
- V op. it,9
a *rma' - padasya iti paraspara-ftsraypatteh
sandhUnen
pp.36-37.

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Io

Amah BORI, LXXX ( 1999)

9 it is not
dha 9 or 4bhubhrt
necessaryto justifyits meaning by the other
),
9
' bhubhrt 4or nisadha9
) in proximity. Rather, here, thereis
respectively
(
'
4
only the utteranceof the word bhubhrt whichhas the meaning( mountain) close to the meaniogof theotherword- nisadha9- in proximity.6
APD. putsforthanotherreason too. He analyses the case underthe
dictumof the remembranceof one relation during the perceptionof the
other( eka-sambandhi'janam
apara^sambandhi-smrakam
). The perception
of a relationthathas a relationalready known, leads to the remembrance
of theotherrelatum. There is no interdependencehere, for it is not that
aftertheperceptionof one relatumone has the remembranceof the relation itself. This is because, the relation is already known ( and its remembrance comes along with the perceptionof the firstrelatum) and one
relatumis not dependentupon the otherto know the relation and to have
the meaningof the other. Hence thereis no faultof interdependence.7
4
Coming to his example, APD., holds that the word nisadha* or
'
bhbhrt
requires,in orderto have its denotationfixed,fromamong many
'
4
of the word ' bhubhrt
mearings,as mountain the utterance,in proximity,
'
4
9
'
or nisadha ( respectively
), which too has the meaning of mountain
9
Since the word *nisadha or ' bhubhrt which has the meaning of 4moun' or ' nisadha9
tain' known before does not depend on the word *bhubhrt
4
( respectively
) forits meaning( as mountainto be established,there is no
the
for
faultof interdependence.8
scope
A briefanalysisof APD. 'S replywould explainthe factthatthereis a
9
4
4
9
relationshipbetween bhubhrt and nisadha whichcan be called 4samnr9
*
that' This samnrthat as a relation between them is known to a
9
readeralthoughtheydifferin meaningin severalotherways, i. e. *bhbhrt
'
can mean 4a king and 4niadha9 can mean a kingdom. Since the reader
has the priorknowledgeof the ' samnrthat', neitherof the two words
6 na ea awycnysrayah
na hi atra samabhivyd.hr
ta - 'sabde,na tadartha- prati- niyamanayaapeksate.kintusvrthenagrhta- samsarge
pudanan adhtdh
- V. V, op.
arthe vyutpannoyah abdah, tat samabhivyahra-mfttram
cit, p. 37.
7 tathoa yathasambandhi- darsanUtsambandhyatttara
- smrti- sthalegrhta*
~ smaranya
sambandhtno
am
darsana-mo.tr
sambandhasya
sambandhyantara
- smaranamapi iti na
, na tu tad-darsarinantaram
titsambandha
apeksate
- V. V. op. cit., p. 37.
anyonysrayah
' - padayor abhidhU tath iha api * nisadha- bhUbhrt
niyamanUyagrhtta~
- 'saloda - sama- bhivyUhra
- tntam
'bhftbhrnnisadha
svasvlirth-vyutpattika
apeksateiti tat- tad- ariha - pratipudanyaanapeksanftt
na anyonysrayah
V. V', op. it.ypp,37-38.

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mishra : Proximityof Anotherword

71

dependon the otherforthemeaningof mountain. This is the reason why

thereis no interdependence
accepted here by APD. However, for the meof
similar
the
mory
meaning( i. e.fthat of mountain) in eitherof the two
of theotheris required.
words, the proximity
On the other hand, thereis no relation of samnrthat9 between
' Rma * and '
Arjuna' therebeing the semantic opposition between them
9
and therebeing no meaningsame for both. So the case of 4 rmrjunau
6
cannotbe a tool to prove the fj ult of interdependencein nisadhampaya
bhubhrtam
'. Again, sincethe similarityof meaningchecksthe possiblityof
in the example- nisadhampaiya bhubhrtam there is no
interdependence
necessityof the eitherof thetwo wordsto have a fixedmeaning. But such is
not thecase of rmrjunau' There being no similarityof meaning,the
eitherof the wordsshould have a fixed meaning to avoid interdependence.
But both the wordsare plurisignatory.Hence the fault of interdependence
in the example. That is why APD. suggestsanother example, to Mam'
mana, for the the illustrationof semantic opposition- rma-rvanayor
'
'
9
iva - whereone word ( rvana ) has a fixedmeaning.
It should not be thoughtthatAPD. has the degree of usage in mind
in his example- nisadhampaya
whiledenyingthe faultof interdependence
fault
in
Mammata's example- ' ramabhubhrtam and whileallowingthe
9
'

rjunau' In otherwordsone may thinkthatthe words nisadha and bh'

*
bhrt9are more in usage forexpressingthe meaningof mountain and are
*
less in usage forexpressingthemeaningof a country and a *king respectively. So both the wordsdon't depend on each otherforthe ascertainment
of theirmeaningwhichis one and the same forboth ( i. e. mountain). The
the famous meaning.
of one withthe otheris just for reaffirming
proximity
On theotherhand, such is not the case with Mammata's example (for se9
manticopposition) - rmrjunau - wherethedegreeof usage of the two
words, in the sense uf Parasurmaand Krttaviryarespectivelyis veryless.
So the eitherhas to depend on the otherforthe respectivemeaning.
But as we have already studied, in the previous passages, APD.
in
doesn'ttake resortto the above reasoning for denyinginterdependence
his example. Even such a reasoningis not acceptable to him. Because he
clearlydoesnotaccept the conceptof the most famous meaning. To him,
word. ( vide fn.24 ).
thereis no firstor foremostmeaningof a plurisignatory
Criticismsby the Pro-VivanthaPoeticians
The poeticiansfollowingMammanaand even VisvanSthawould surely
object to the above stand of APD. Their convictionis that aq sample

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

72

Annals BORI, LXXX ( 1999)

8
( sentence) for the word in proximity' should have a word having fixed
meaning in orderto delimitthe meaning of a plurisignatoryword in the
same sentence. Mammata, forexample,puts fortha phraselike - ' devasya
'

purrtetfQwherethe word devah can mean any god. But it is delimited

to themeaningof iva by the word ' pura-arti'10 in its proximity. Thust
in the expression,the word vpurarati* which has a fixed meaning,delimits
theplurisignatoiyword devah' to the meaning of iva. Visvantha Kavi
raja also givesa similarexample- devahpurrihni - in orderto illustrate
the same point. He, however,explainsthathere'purrih ' is a plurisignatoryword whose denotationis delimitedto the meaning of iva by another
word( ' devah9- ) in proximity
thathas a fixedmeaning( - deity).
APD. musthave combinedtheexplanationsgivenby both Mammata
and Visvanthato findthatwhenMammata takes 4devah9 as a plurisigna9

toryword, Visvanthaaccepts purrih to be so. Thus in a phrase like

' eitherboth the words have to be of fixed
*
devasyatripurrteh
meaning
or of plurisignification.The firstoption does nut servethe point of discussion underthe said krik of Bhartfhari.So the second option that boththe
wordsare plurisignatory
confirmsto thethesisof APD. thata word in proxi*
of
a
word is also plurisignatoryif it helps fixingthe
mity
plurisignatory
denotationof the latter.
APD., however,does not take the above course to prove his point.
He is interestedin showingthe imminentcontingencythatwould arise if the
* is
word in proximity
acceptedto be of fixedmeaning. He framesthe defi* as 4the
'
nitionf anotherword in proximity
collocationof a word having
'
a fixedmeaning fittingto the opinion of Visvantaand Mammata and
refutesit in the followingmanner. PuttingforthMammata's example'
'
devasya tripurrteh- he termsit improperin the contextof 4another
' 13
W3fdin proximity.
6 devasyapuraroteriti ambhau- K. P., op.cit.,p. 64.
l In the33rdadhyiyaofthe Kama- Parva of the MahabhUrata
, it is described
thatthree
sonsof Traksura
namedTrakiksa,KamalksaandVidyunml
conitructedforthemselves
three
silverfortandironfortrespepura-s ( forts
) - goldenfort,
- withthehelpofthedemonMaya. Siva destroyed
thesethreefortsand
ctively
killedthethree
he is calledas the 'destroyed
demons.Thereafter,
of threeforts'
offorts
), orthedestroyer
( ' purri' orpurrti).
( tripurri
11 4devahpurrih' iti purrihivah- Shitya Darpana (S. D.) of Visvantha
1987( 2nd imp.). 2nd
Kavirja,Ed. 5 Tr. ( Oriya) by Pt. NryanaMahptra,
Pariccheda,
p. 58.
13 yattuniyatrtha
- sabda - smndhikaranam
Sabdntara- sannidhih,tenaca
1- atra devai devasya tripurrteh
. tatra
ity
sabdasya Sankareniyamanam
'
fripurarti
- V. V.,op.eii.,p. 38*
iti, tad ayuktam
sabdasya niyatrthatvt

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Misura Proximityof Anotherword

73

' is
APD.'s argumentis thatif the ' word in proximity
acceptedto be
havinga fixedmeaning,thenthemark( Unga ) producedbyit shall determine
as a
the denotationof the plurisignatory
word,leavingthe word in proximity
defunctfactor. Hence, just as themeaningof the word bhubhrt' is delimitedto the meaningof a king' by the mark:in the angerin the sentence,
'
4

kupito bhubhrt',13 so also themark in the phrase tripurrteh would

delimitthe denotationof the word *deva* to the meaningof 'akara*in
the phrase- *devasyatripurrteh' It means, it is not the word in proximity but the mark( liga ) - theseventhfactorfor delimitingthedeno- thatwouldfixthemeaningof a plurisignatory
tationin thelistof Bhartfhari
wordin a sentenceillustratedfor wordin proximity
' Or, in otherwords,
' is
ifthe wordin proximity
acceptedto be havinga fixed meaning,thenit
shall determinethedenotationof a plurisignatory
word in the sentencesthat
are citedas theexamplesof mark( liga ) as a denotation-delimiting
factor.14
'

Thus the above-saiddefinitionof the word in proximity would also

suffer
fromthe faultof over-application. So a word in proximitycannot
have a fixed meaning and any definitionof it in this lightwould prove
fallacious.
Moreover, the pro-Mammata aad pro-Viivantha poeticians may
' and fora
insistthatthe illustrations,for a word in proximity
mark, have
a similarity,
i. e., both the typesof illustrationshave theirwordsin the same
locus or thesame case-ending. Both Mammata and Visvantha have put
the operaforththe sentence - ' kupito makaradhvajah' - for illustrating
tion by markand here both the wordsare in the same locus ( i. e., the nominativesingularcase-ending). Their examples for the word in proximity
- devasyatripurrteh' and devahpurrih' respectively
also give the same
the
of
their
Hence
followers
locus forboth words.
argument
may be that
' can take
due to such an outwardsimilarity,
it seemsthat' wordin proximity
over the cases of mark and sufferfromthefallacyof over-application. But
actuallythisshall not happen.
such an explanation,APD. objects to the stand that the
Anticipating
' should remain in the same locus withthe
wordin
proximity
plurisignatoryword.
13 Anger
inan insentient
mountain
( bhubhrt
( kopa) cannotbethere
), butcan be with
thesentient
factorin the
). So itpia:s a mark( linga) - theseventh
king( bhubhrt
' as
- ininferring
listofBhartrbari
themeaning
of *bhubhrt
king'
- sabdasya niyatrthatvetat- pratipdita- lihgdin va
Samabhivyhrta
tan - niyamant.anyath lingdi- udharane*
pi abdantara- sannidhereva
- V. V.,op*cit. f. 38.
niymakatvpatteh
10 [ AnnaisBORI]

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

Amais BORIf LXXX ( 1999 )

Poeticiansotherthanthosein the above-said group may show that

in theexampleof 4word in proximity' there is the similarityof locus for
both the wordsas in devasyatripurrteh
. ' So all those examples ( inclu'

ding kupito makaradhvajah') can come under the purview of word in

of loci between
' But, on the otherhand, thereis the difference
proximity
4
the two wordsin an example for mark like hhubhrtahkopah' Tn other
of case-endingbetween the ' word in
words, thereshald be the similarity
' and the
word, whereas there is the differenceof
proximity
plurisignatory
word. So 4nisadham
case-endingsbetween a mark and a plurisignatory
9
'

paya bhbhrtam is an illustrationof the word in proximity delimiting

the meaningof a plurisignatory
word, since both the words are in the same
'
' bhubhrtah
*
whereas
kopah ( not kupitobhbhrt')
( accusative) case-ending,
is an exampleof the mark( kopah) delimitingthe meaningof *bhbhrt%
since, hereone word( bhubhrtah)is in genitiveand the other ( kopah) is in
nominative.15
To APD., such a demonstration
of difference
is not acceptable, because it cannotremovethecontingentidenditybetween4theword in proximity'
and the mark in a situation where the formeris accepted to have a fixed
'

meaning. When the word in proximityhas a fixedmeaning,like a mark,

in both the examplesof the formerand latter, it is the mark expressed in
word thatwilldelimitthedenotation,banishingall actual difietencebetween
the both. So the above-citeddifference
would be verymuchtheoretical.16
APD. also shows the faultof non-inclusiveness
in fabricatingsuch a
'
differenceas a part of the definition
of the proximtyof another word'
*

througha new example- Vylo dnena rjate ' Here neither vyla nor
i dana ' has a fixed
loci ( case endings) too.
meaning.17 Both have diffrant
Even theneverybodycan experiencethattheirdenotationsget delimitedto a
wild elephant' ( dusta-gaja) and ' ichor juice' ( madajala ) respetively
whentheyare in proximity
witheach other, if suh examplesare not accepted underthe purview of the denition of *proximityof another word
15 naca ' smndhikaranye
*bhftsabdntara- sannidhih,' vaiyadhtkaranye
bhrtahkopah' - itydi- rpg' Ungadikam' iti bheda- kathanam- V. V', op.
cit, pp*38-38.
18 ubhayatra
sabda- pratipadita- lihgaderva niyamakatvena
asya bheda- katha- V. V.,op. cit.%
39.
nasya paribhas- mtratvat
p.
17 ( a ) vylila9 canmeana vicious
a snake,a tiger,a king,
a cheator a rogue
elephant,
- videV. S. Apte,Sanskrit- EnglishDictionary
, p. 540,
(b) *dana9 can mean'granting*,
'gifting',ichorjuice of an elephant,
bribery,
- videV. S. Apte,ibid '
or dividing,
cutting
andor posture
purification,
protection
p. 249,

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MishR : Proximityof Anotherword

IS

then the body of the definition18

proposed by the opponents would be
faultyof non-inclusiveness.19
APD. suggestshis own definition
thatcrystaliseshis viewon the nature
of anotherword' he was expressingalthrough. To him,
of the 4proximity
the *proximity
of anotherword* is the proximityof a word ( like *bhubhrt9
9
'
or dna ) havingmanymeanings,one of whichhas the connection ( simi9
9
*
*
larity) withone of the meaningsof a word ( like nisadha or vyla respectively) thathas many meanings.20 The two approximatedwords may
9 or
have thesame locus as in nisadham paya bhbhrtam
may not have as
*
in vylodnena rjate '
One may object to the usage of the word proximity( sannidhih- )
and, withoutpayingany heed to APD's definition,may take the phrasevery
literallyto say thatif the proximityof another word ascertainsdenotation,
thenthecase of conjunction( samyoga), the firstfactorin the list of Bhar- 1akhatrhari,can also be included in it. Because in the illustration
9

cakradharoharih 21- , the word harih can have its denotationlimited to

the meaningof Lord Visnu on account of the proximityof the words ' atikha ' and cakra ' So thereis no special purposein accepting conjunction
word.
as a factorforascertainingdenotationof a plurisigoatory
First of all, such an objection has no scope in the framework of
APD's definition,forthe obove two wordsare not plurisignatory.
So, technithe
words
be
in
cannot
proximity. APD., however,replies from
cally, they
a moreelaborate angle througha dialogue withon objector. To him, in the
'
above sentence,the wordsakha and ' cakra 9 have fixedmeanings. It is
throughtheconjunctionof themeaningexpressedby them,thatthe denota'
tion of ' hari gets ascertained. Hence, the case of conjunction is quite
of anotherwordVi
fromthatof the*proximity
different
19 Theopponent's
ofthe4proximity
of another
definition
word*as discussed
before,is
thesamecase-ending
the collocation
( i. e. having
) ofboththe words- *smnsabdntara- sannidhih- ' cf.fns.12and15.
dhikaranye
30 ' vylilodnena rjate* ityatra*vyla- dna -padayorubhayorapi aniyatU, vaiyadhikaranye
pi paraspara- samabhivyharenadusta-gajarthatvepi
abhidh
niyamanasyasarvnubhava- siddhatvenaavasya mada-jalayor
samgrhyatvttad asa'ngrahenalaksana- kathanasyaatyanta- ayuktatvUt
ca - V, V.,op,cit.,P. 39.
20 Sabdasya anyasyasannidhih- nUnrtha
- pada - ekavacya- samsargi- arthU
- V. V,,op.cityp. 36.
ntara- vci - pada - satnabhivyharah
21 Thissentence
howconjunction
is an example
forshowing
ofthewords
( ofthemeaning
akha* and cakra' ) delimits
theplurisignatory
word hari* tothemeaning
of
LordVisnu.
22 tatra aitkha- cakrfidi
- abdandmniyatrthatay
ravana- mtrdartha - niyatat - pratipadita- artha- sarhyogdibhir
abhidhU
pratipUdakalvena
mana - >afnbhavt*V.
cit*,p 38.

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

Annals BORI , LXXX ( 1999)

The objector may assert that although conjunction ascertains the

of anotherword' is also operativein the examdenotation,the ' proximity

harih' - as a factorforthe said purpose.

ple - amkha-eakradharo
APD. has no reasonsto refutesuch an opinion, since it does not oppose to his stand. But one thinghe makesclear - meaning is always inter'
(
nal and words are external. When the denotation of the word hari is
ascertainedinernallythroughtheconjunctionof the meaning of the words
- 4akha ' and *eakra why should one uphold the externalfactor by
ayingthatthe said meaning is ascerained throughthe proximityof other
9
'
of words is a distant
words( ' akha and ' cakra ? For, the proximity
relation( vyavahitasambandha) whereasthe conjunctionof meaningsis an
'
immediate relation ( sannihita-sambandha
). So the proximityof words
9 should not
play as a factor where conjunctionof meaning delimits the
denotativepowerof a word.23
'
But, on the otherhand, in the expressionslike nlsadhampaiya bh
9'
'
'
nisadha and bhbhrtam
bhrtam' both the words
being plurisignsuch
the
first
In
as
comes
no
cases, only the
meaning.
up
meaning
atory,
'
external
determinesthe
on
word
another
of
factor,
'
although
proximity
is
there
no
and
word
other
the
of
inconsistency.21
meaning
to the processof delimiThus APD. has highlyoriginalcontributions
word. Withregard to the *proximity
tingthe denotationof p'urisignatory
'
of anotherword as such a factor,enumeratedby Bhartrhari,he posited
Mammata and Visvanthaas the objectorsto his theoryand to his new defiof anotherword' In fact,no poeticianhas been
nitionof the the ' proximity
on the enumerationsof Bhartfhariin this
so reflectiveand interpretative
factthateven the definitionof *the proxifrom
testified
the
is
This
regard.
'
mityof anotherword proposedby the opponentsis also framed by APD.
himself,who deduced it from the language of Mammata and Visvantha.
The convincingargumentsof APD. make us accept that the proximityof
*
anotherword is the externalproximity( as opposed to the conjunctionof
meaning) of a wordhavingmanymeanings,one of whichhas theconnection
) withone of the meaningsof another word that has many
( i#e., similarity
too.
meanings
abdntara- sannidhirapi tatra asti iti cet, astu, tathpi hari- sabdadi abhidh- niyamana- samarthetad - artha- samyogadi- rupa- sannihita- sa- cakrUdauupasthitetatrapivcakatayvyavambandliena
antarahgeISa'nkha
hita- satnbandhenabahirahga- Sabdntara- sannidhir na udaharanatvatn
arhati- V, V., op.cit-, p. 38.
' itydau
na
ato yatra' ttisadhampasya bhUbhrtam
ubhayasyanctnrthatay
, tatraiva bahirangasyaapi tasya
kasyapi arthasya prathamamupastitih
~ V V. op ci#.,
udaharatiamiti na kakeitsakkarnh
p. 38.
niyamakatvcna

This content downloaded from 14.139.69.5 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:57:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions