Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian philosophical landscape is rich with diverse perspectives on language and its relation to reality. Both the Nyaya and Mimamsa schools, prominent within this landscape, grapple with the nature of word-meaning and sentential meaning. However, their approaches diverge significantly. Prābhākara, representing the early Mimamsa, emphasizes the inseparability of word and meaning, while Bhatta, associated with the later Nyaya, posits a more nuanced relationship. Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the evolution of semantic thought in Indian philosophy and its implications for epistemology and metaphysics. This answer will delineate these contrasting viewpoints and offer a critical assessment.
Prābhākara’s View: Inseparability of Word and Meaning
Prābhākara’s Mimamsa school adheres to the principle of *śabdena vācakaṃ* – the word is the meaning. This implies an intrinsic and inseparable connection between a word (śabda) and its denotation (vācaka). He rejects the notion of an independent entity called *sphota* (the eternal, unchanging essence of a word) which is advocated by other schools. For Prābhākara, meaning is not something ‘revealed’ by the word, but is identical with the word itself.
- Vākyasiddhānta (Sentence Doctrine): Prābhākara champions the *vākyasiddhānta*, asserting that the sentence is the primary unit of meaning, and the meaning of the sentence is not derived from the meanings of individual words combined through grammatical rules. The sentence has a unique, indivisible meaning.
- Anvitābhidhānavāda: He proposes *anvitābhidhānavāda*, meaning that words acquire meaning only in the context of the sentence. The relation between words and their meanings is established through the sentence structure.
- Rejection of Sphota: Prābhākara argues against *sphota* because it introduces an unnecessary metaphysical entity. He believes that the word itself directly conveys the meaning.
Bhatta’s View: Sphota and Abhidha
Bhatta, representing the Nyaya school, offers a different perspective. He accepts the concept of *sphota* as the eternal and unchanging essence of a word, which is responsible for conveying meaning. While acknowledging the role of the word (śabda), Bhatta emphasizes the role of *abhidha* – the conventional relation between a word and its meaning.
- Sphota as the Conveyor of Meaning: Bhatta believes that the word, as a temporal phenomenon, is merely an expression of the underlying *sphota*. It is the *sphota* that truly conveys the meaning.
- Abhidha and Conventionality: He highlights the conventional nature of language. The relation between a word and its meaning is not intrinsic but is established by social convention (*abhidha*).
- Vākyasiddhi through Lakṣaṇa: Bhatta explains sentential meaning through *lakṣaṇa* – the indirect indication of meaning. He argues that the meaning of a sentence is derived from the meanings of individual words combined through grammatical rules and logical inference.
Critical Comparison
The core difference lies in their understanding of the word-meaning relation. Prābhākara views it as identity, while Bhatta sees it as a conventional relation mediated by *sphota*.
| Feature | Prābhākara (Mimamsa) | Bhatta (Nyaya) |
|---|---|---|
| Word-Meaning Relation | Identity (śabdena vācakaṃ) | Conventional (abhidha), mediated by Sphota |
| Sphota | Rejected | Accepted as the essence of the word |
| Sentence Meaning | Indivisible, primary unit (Vākyasiddhānta) | Derived from word meanings (Lakṣaṇa) |
| Role of Grammar | Secondary, aids in understanding the sentence | Crucial for deriving sentence meaning |
Prābhākara’s view, while simplifying the semantic process, struggles to explain how different words can refer to the same object. Bhatta’s theory, while more complex, provides a better account of linguistic flexibility and the possibility of multiple meanings. However, the concept of *sphota* itself remains a point of contention and is often criticized for its metaphysical implications.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bhatta’s Nyaya school and Prābhākara’s Mimamsa offer contrasting yet insightful perspectives on the nature of word-meaning and sentential meaning. Prābhākara’s emphasis on the inseparability of word and meaning and the primacy of the sentence provides a holistic view, while Bhatta’s introduction of *sphota* and *abhidha* offers a more nuanced and conventional account. The debate between these schools highlights the complexities inherent in understanding the relationship between language, thought, and reality, and continues to inform contemporary discussions in semantics and philosophy of language.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.