Verse 2.1-2

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.1-2:

आख्यातशब्दः सङ्घातो जातिः सङ्घातवर्तिनी ।
एको'नवयवः शब्दः क्रमो बुद्ध्यनुसंहृतिः ॥ १ ॥
पदमाद्यं पृथक् सर्वं पदं साकाङ्क्षमित्यपि ।
वाक्यं प्रति मतिर्भिन्ना बहुधा न्यायवादिनाम् ॥ २ ॥

ākhyātaśabdaḥ saṅghāto jātiḥ saṅghātavartinī |
eko'navayavaḥ śabdaḥ kramo buddhyanusaṃhṛtiḥ || 1 ||
padamādyaṃ pṛthak sarvaṃ padaṃ sākāṅkṣamityapi |
vākyaṃ prati matirbhinnā bahudhā nyāyavādinām || 2 ||

1-2. In regard to the Sentence, opinion is widely divided among thinkers inasmuch as they declare it to be (1) the Verb, (2) the collection of words, (3) the Universal inhering in the collection of words, (4) the One indivisible Word, (5) the Sequence (of the words), (6) the Unification in the mind, (7) the first Word, (8) each Word requiring the others.

Commentary

In the previous chapter, the nature and purpose of the Word were briefly stated. It was stated, in a general way, that the Word is expressive of the meaning. There is difference of opinion as to whether it is the individual Word or the Sentence which is expressive. The purpose of this chapter is to expound in detail the nature of the expressive sentence.

[Read verse 1-2 above]

[These are the eight alternative ways of looking at the Sentence current among thinkers:—The Universal inhering in the collection of words, the One indivisible Word, the Unification in the mind, these three definitions of the Sentence come within the view that the Sentence is indivisible (akhaṇḍa-pakṣa). The Verb, the Sequence of the words, the collection of words, the first Word and each Word requiring the others—these five definitions come under the view that the Sentence has divisions (sakhaṇḍa-pakṣa). That the sentence is the collection of words or that it is their Sequence, these two views are held by those who accept abhihitānvayavāda= the view that the sentence-meaning is the inter-connection of the meanings conveyed by the individual words. That it is the Verb or the first Word or each Word requiring the others, these three views are held by those who follow anvitābhidhāna = the view that the word conveys a meaning already potentially connected with those of the others. These two theories result from interpreting the statement padaprakṛtiḥ sarṃhitā (Ṛk-prātiśākhya II,1.) as a tatpuruṣa or as a bahuvrīhi. That the Verb is the Sentence is explained much later, in verse 326. The eight verses from 41 onwards explain that the collection of individual words constitutes the Sentence. Verses 7-14 and 19-27 explain that the indivisible Sentence is the sphoṭa. Sphoṭa is of two kinds: External and Internal. The former is either the Universal or the Particular. Five verses from 49 onwards expound the view that the Sequence of the words is the Sentence. Verses 47 and 48 elucidate the view that the first Word or each Word requiring the others is the Sentence. The Mīmāṃsaka definition of the Sentence would come under the saṅghāta (collection) view. Definition of the sentence naturally leads to statements on the nature of the sentence-meaning. If the verb constitutes the Sentence, then the sentence-meaning is in the nature of Action. If the collection of words or their Sequence constitutes the Sentence, then its meaning is the interconnection of the meanings of the individual words. If the first Word or each Word requiring the others is the Sentence, then the connected meanings make up the sentence-meaning. According to some, the sentence-meaning is in the nature of purpose (prayojanam [prayojana]). Vidhi, niyoga and bhāvanā, mentioned by others, are not different from Action (Kriyā) and so they are not given separately here. The Buddhist view of the Sentence is very near to Unification in the mind (buddhyanusaṃhṛtiḥ [buddhi-anusaṃhṛti]) and their view of the Sentence-meaning is very near to that accepted in this work, namely, that it is in the nature of Intuition (pratibhā). The Nyāya view of the Sentence and Sentence-meaning would amount to saṃghāta and saṃsarga respectively.]

The author now discusses whether the definition given by the author of the Vārttikas and by the Mīmāṃsakas would agree with the above definitions or whether they have a different scope altogether.