Tatparya and its role in verbal understanding :: Concept of Intention Sentence Papers

Tatparya and its role in verbal understanding I examine the concept of intention (tatparya) and its role in the phenomenon of verbal comprehension (sabdabodha) with special reference to Navya Nyaya, followed by some critical and evaluative remarks. An effort has been made to give an account of the apprehension of intention (tatparya) in four types of sentences: a) the ambiguous sentence b) the non-ambiguous sentence c) the vedic sentence and d) the sentence uttered by a parrot. I. The present paper gives an account of the concept of intention (tatparya) and its role in the phenomenon of verbal comprehension (sabdabodha) with special reference to Navya Nyaya, which is followed by some critical and evaluative remarks. In this connection, an effort has been made to give an account of the apprehension of intention (Tatparya) in four types of sentence: (a) ambiguous sentence; (b) non-ambiguous sentence; (c) vedic sentence and (d) sentences uttered by a parrot. II. The Naiyayikas have pointed out the philosophical significance of intention (Tatparya) first in the context of enquiring the seed of implicative meaning (Laksana). To them the non-realisability of intention or tatparya (tatparyanupapatti) is the seed of laksana i.e. implicative meaning. In fact, the implicative meaning of the term, ganga as found in the sentence gangayam ghosah is the bank of the ganga.. The primary meaning of the terms ghosah and ganga are ghosapalli and a particular flow of water (Jalapravaha-visesa) respectively. The milk-man-colony cannot remain in a particular flow of water and hence there is the non-realisability of the relation (anvayanupapatti) between them. This can be removed, if the bank of the ganga is taken as the meaning of the term ganga through laksana. In the same way, the implicative meaning of the term ghosah is also possible. In the former case laksana in the term ganga is accepted, but not in the term ghosah. In another, the reverse case is accep ted. If laksana is accepted in either of the terms, there will not be the non-realisability in respect of relation (anvayanupapatti). If it is argued that the removal of the non-realisability of relation is the result of laksana, the rule that the implicative meaning of the terms ganga and ghosah are to be accepted becomes meaningless. In reply, it can be said that the rule becomes contradicted if it is accepted that the removal of the non-realisability of relation is both the result and seed of laksana. Tatparya and its role in verbal understanding :: Concept of Intention Sentence Papers Tatparya and its role in verbal understanding I examine the concept of intention (tatparya) and its role in the phenomenon of verbal comprehension (sabdabodha) with special reference to Navya Nyaya, followed by some critical and evaluative remarks. An effort has been made to give an account of the apprehension of intention (tatparya) in four types of sentences: a) the ambiguous sentence b) the non-ambiguous sentence c) the vedic sentence and d) the sentence uttered by a parrot. I. The present paper gives an account of the concept of intention (tatparya) and its role in the phenomenon of verbal comprehension (sabdabodha) with special reference to Navya Nyaya, which is followed by some critical and evaluative remarks. In this connection, an effort has been made to give an account of the apprehension of intention (Tatparya) in four types of sentence: (a) ambiguous sentence; (b) non-ambiguous sentence; (c) vedic sentence and (d) sentences uttered by a parrot. II. The Naiyayikas have pointed out the philosophical significance of intention (Tatparya) first in the context of enquiring the seed of implicative meaning (Laksana). To them the non-realisability of intention or tatparya (tatparyanupapatti) is the seed of laksana i.e. implicative meaning. In fact, the implicative meaning of the term, ganga as found in the sentence gangayam ghosah is the bank of the ganga.. The primary meaning of the terms ghosah and ganga are ghosapalli and a particular flow of water (Jalapravaha-visesa) respectively. The milk-man-colony cannot remain in a particular flow of water and hence there is the non-realisability of the relation (anvayanupapatti) between them. This can be removed, if the bank of the ganga is taken as the meaning of the term ganga through laksana. In the same way, the implicative meaning of the term ghosah is also possible. In the former case laksana in the term ganga is accepted, but not in the term ghosah. In another, the reverse case is accep ted. If laksana is accepted in either of the terms, there will not be the non-realisability in respect of relation (anvayanupapatti). If it is argued that the removal of the non-realisability of relation is the result of laksana, the rule that the implicative meaning of the terms ganga and ghosah are to be accepted becomes meaningless. In reply, it can be said that the rule becomes contradicted if it is accepted that the removal of the non-realisability of relation is both the result and seed of laksana.