Chapter 4 - Rejection of the third view (varṇamālāvāda) on verbal knowledge

After the rejection of the varṇavāda, the third view on śābdabodha, i.e. varṇamālavāda is taken up for discussion. This view is propounded by the Mīmāṃsakas namely Upavarśa^[1] and others. They hold that the garland of letters which are reflected in the mirror of recollection produced by the impressions created by the experiences of letters, the words and their meanings bring about verbal cognition.^[2] In this regard, Vācaspati Miśra explains that the relation between pada and padārtha depends upon the time-honoured usage. Our elders have not used varṇas and padas alone for the inter-communication and exchange of ideas, but have used vākya. It is not the spho a which is already described, but the varṇas.^[3] When it becomes the object of one recollection, it produces the verbal cognition. The recollection of the padārtha (padārthasmṛti) arising from the knowledge of padas in a vākya is an accessory to this varṇamālā in the production of the vākyārthapratīti (knowledge of the sentence meaning).^[4]

In the beginning of the refutation of the varṇamālavāda, Vācaspati Miśra has cited a verse which clearly mentions the main defects of this view.^[5] Among the various defects of this theory, the first one is gaurava.^[6] If varṇamāla is accepted as the cause of the cognition of vākyārtha, then in the sentences–arbhaka! gāmānaya, arbhaka! gāṃ badhāna, śiśo! gāmānaya, śiśo! gāṃ badhāna, bāla! gāmānaya, bāla! gāṃ badhāna, etc.,^[7] each of which possesses at least one different word. One has to accept that each varṇamālā which is a vākya, possesses different śaktis to convey the vākyārtha so that numerous śaktis are to be accepted. But for the padavādin, the śakti is to be accepted over the padas only and the śakti of one word in different sentences is not different; hence there is no anavasthā.

The second defect mentioned by Vācaspati Miśra is viṣayābhāva.^[8] In his work Tattvabindu, he explains this defect as follows: Does the varṇamālā express the vākyārtha with the help of the padārthajñāna or without the help of the padārthajñāna?^[9] If we accept the second alternative, that the varṇamālā express the vākyārtha without the padārthajñāna, since the latter being the saṃsargin (the related object) is to be known before the saṃsarga (relation) is cognised.^[10] It is necessary that padārthas should be first cognised and then only the padārthas related to object before the saṃsarga among them can be cognised. So, the cognition of the padārthas as explained by the padas is indispensable for the cognition of the relation of the padārthas. As the same padārthajñāna is capable of producing vākyārthajñāna, the varṇamālā is said to be superfluous.^[11]

The third defect of this theory, it is difficult to maintain that the varṇamālā in a long sentence becomes the object of one mirror like recollection (anusaṃhārabuddhi).^[12] It is therefore possible to maintain the abhihitānvayavāda of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa that words convey their meanings i.e. padārthas, which in turn produce the cognition of vākyārtha.^[13]

Thus, the varṇamālāvāda regarding the śābdabodha is refuted from the point of view of the abhihitānvayavāda, which Vācaspati Miśra intends to establish in the end. The refutation of the varṇamālāvāda helps to maintain the abhihitānvayavāda that padārthas conveyed by the words get themselves related according to the principles of ākāṅkṣā, yogyatā and sannidhi and give rise to the import of the sentence.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

varṇā eva tu śabdā iti bhagavānupavarṣaḥ / BSSB , 1.3.28

[2]:

pratyekavarṇapadapadārthānubhavabhāvitabhāvanānicayalabdhajanmasmṛtidarpaṇārūḍhā varṇamālā iti anye / Tattvabindu , p. 4

[3]:

vṛddhaprayogādhīnāvadhāraṇo hi śabdārthasambandhaḥ / na ca padamātraṃ vyavahārāṅgaṃ prayuñjate vṛddhāḥ, kintu vākyameva, taccānavayavaṃ nyaṣedhīti / Ibid., pp. 28-29

[4]:

smṛtisamārūḍhā varṇamālā pariśiṣyate / sā ca naimittikaṃ vākyārthabodhamādhatte / pāramārthikastupadatadarthabodho nimittamātreṇāvatiṣṭhate varṇamālaiva vākyārthadhīhetuḥ iti / Ibid., p. 29

[5]:

gauravādviṣayābhāvāttadbuddhereva bhāvataḥ /
vākyārthadhiyamādhatte smṛtisthā nākṣarāvaliḥ // Ibid.

[6]:

gauravāditi prathamahetonirāsaḥ / Ibid.

[7]:

Ibid.

[8]:

viṣayābhāvāditi dvitīyahetoḥ nirāsaḥ / Ibid., p. 30

[9]:

iyamakṣaramālā padārthāvagamapūrvakaṃ vākyārthavijñānaṃ janayet, atatpūrvakaṃ vā/ Ibid.

[10]:

na tāvadatatpūrvakam, saṃsṛjyamānapadārthaviṣayādhīnajñāno hi saṃsargo na saṃsṛjy-amānānpadārthānantareṇa śakyanirūpaṇaḥ / Ibid., pp. 30-31

[11]:

evaṃ satyapekṣaṇīyebhyaḥ padārthajñānebhya eva tatsiddheḥ alamanayā varṇamālayā / Ibid., p. 31

[12]:

api ca tricaturapañcaṣapadavākyavartinī padārthapratyayavyavahitāpi kleśena varṇamālā smaryetāpi, tadabhyadhikapadavati tu vākye sātiduṣkarā / Ibid.

[13]:

padaireva samabhivyāhāravadbhirabhihitāḥ svārthāākāṅkṣā-yogyatā-āsattisadhrīcīnā vākyārthadhīhetava ityācāryāḥ / Ibid., p. 4