MAPhilosophy21

For M.
A;Semester-2
Indian Linguistic Trends (phil.cc-9)
By Dr. Vijeta Singh
Assistant Professor
University Department of Philosophy(P.U)
Theories of Anvitabhidhanavada and

Abhihitanvayavada
Indian epistemology unambiguously concedes to the fact that in the absence
of the four factors viz, Pramata or the knower, Prameya or the knowable
object, Pramana or the means of valid knowledge and Pramiti or valid
knowledge of the object, any type of knowledge is a universal impossibility.
Valid knowledge, in Indian epistemology, is called prama and the source of the
same is called pramana. However Indian philosophers hold divergent views
regarding the number of pramanas. Prabhakar Mimamsakas have accepted
five pramanas, which are pratyaksa, anumana, upamana ,sabda and arthapatti
and Bhatta Mimamsakas have accepted six pramanas including anupalabdhi
with the above-mentioned five pramanas.
Mimamsakas say that sabda is a very important pramana. Sabda means verbal
authority. “An intelligible sentence yields knowledge except when it is known
to be the statement of an unreliable person (anapta-vakya). This is known as
verbal testimony or simply testimony (sabda) or authority.”
Majority of the schools of Indian Philosophy unanimously accepts that a

sentence involves synthesis of concepts. But they are clueless about the
process which enables the synthesis of these concepts. Are the words
synthesised from before or does the synthetic construction take place
later?
The first view , i. e. , it is the synthesised concepts (before) that give rise
to the expression is known as Anvitabhidhanavada . The second view that
1
the general concepts used in a sentence are subsequently synthesised
(after or later) together is known as Abhihitanvayavada .
The above two views are advocated by the two rival schools of the
Mimamsa , viz. the Guru School and the Bhatta School respectively. The
first theory (Anvitabhidhanavada) has been formulated by Prabhakara in
his Brhati Tika. The second theory (Abhihitanvayavada) is propounded by
Kumarila Bhatta in his Slokavartika .
The Main Points of Distinction Between the Two Theories:

According to Kumarila Bhatta and his followers , all words convey their
own meanings separately .That is to say , each word first presents only a
general concept as indicated by the denotative power (sakti) of the word.
For example , the word Cow denotes only a Cow – in – general ( go-
samanya) as unrelated to another word. The different words become
related together by a synthetic construction ( samsarga maryada) . The
synthesis takes place in accordance with rules of Akanksha (expectancy) ,
Asatti (juxtaposition) yogayata (compatibility) and Tatparya ( intention of the
speaker) . Thus the meaning of the sentence arises from a synthesis of
the words . This view ,i. e. , that which is expressed ( abhihita) is
construed by mutual synthesis of words ( parasparika anvaya ) is known
as Abhihitanvayavada .
Prabhakara and his followers , on the other hand , maintain that the
words expressed are already related together and they collectively
generate the meaning in an automatic way . This view is known as
Anvitabhidhanavada .
According to this theory , it is not the case that words are said first and
that synthesis made later on . As a matter of fact , there is no such thing
as an unrelated word . An isolated word ( divorced from all relation ) is a
mere abstraction . For example , take the word ‘cow’ . We first know the
meaning of the word cow only by its practical usage , i. e. “ Bring the
cow” and a cow is brought , “ Take away the cow “ and the cow is taken
away . It is by means of observation of such behaviour of bringing and
taking that someone becomes acquainted with the meanings of such
2
words as ‘ bring’ ‘ take away ‘ ‘ cow ‘ etc. A word, e. g. ‘cow’ is never
used in isolation . From the very beginning , the meaning of the word is
understood as related to some other thing . Hence there is no need of
postulating an additional synthesis or construction over and above the
related meanings.
The distinction between the two views has been made clear by Partha
Sarthi Mishra in his Nyaya Ratna Mala in this way, “ While you
(Anvitabhidhana-vadins ) say that a word denotes a qualified ( vishista)
meaning, we ( Abhihitanvaya-vadins ) say that a word denotes only a
simple unqualified ( svarupa- matra ) meaning .
According to the former , the meaning of a sentence is nothing but the

related meaning . According to the latter, a sentence is nothing but a
construction of the meaning of words.
According to the Anvitabhidhanavada a word does not denote a bare

concept , but also possesses a relational aspect which is inherently
present in the very meaning of a word . For example , the word ‘cow’
must always be related to some other words e. g. ‘ the cow is white’
‘the cow is grazing’ , ‘bring the cow’ , ‘feed the cow’ , etc . Thus the
‘cow’ always stands is some relation to other concepts .
The above view of the Anvitabhidhnavada is criticised by the
Abhihitanvayavadins , who accuse the former of making an
unnecessary assumption , i. e. of postulating a double denotative capacity
in words , i. e. the meaning aspect and the relational aspect .
The former retort by saying that if they assume two capacities their
opponents assume three.
Anvitabhidhanvadins hold that the words of a sentence present
meanings ( as indicated by their grammatical and syntactical features such
as number , gendar , case-ending , tense , juxtaposition etc. ) and they ( the
words ) are sufficient to carry the load of the meaning like the bearers
of a palanquin .
They do not postulate any intermediary between the co- related words
and the meaning of the sentence . The meaning of a sentence , according
3
to them , is nothing but the meanings of the words mutually related . No
further operation is necessary to get the Vakyartha . The meaning of a
sentence is only the mutually related meanings of words . Hence no
separate power need to be hypothesised to exist in synthetic activity .
The Abhihitanvayavadins on the other hand maintain that the
primary denotative power of words is to reveal only a general content
and not the relational aspect . The meanings when strewn together like a
garland of flowers give rise to a verbal cognition. The constituent
words of a sentence present only their isolated meanings, which are
combined according to syntactical rules ( i. e. juxtaposition etc. ) and the
meanings are then brought under a synthetic or constructive process
which gives the intended meaning .
Thus according to Abhihitanvayavadins , the words or terms
in a sentence are not the immediate instruments of verbal cognition .
They are only the mediate cause. The immediate cause of verbal
cognition is the knowledge of the meanings of words .
Partha Sarathi Mishra in his ‘ Nyaya Ratna Mala ‘ gives the gist
of Abhihitanvayavada by saying that it is not the words or sentences
themselves that generate verbal cognition ; it is the construed
meanings of words put together that give the meaning of a sentence .
The meaning of a sentence is thus regarded as dependent on the
meaning of words . But a question arises here . When a child
understsnds the meaning of a sentence e.g. “ bring a glass of water “
by means of repeated observations of such acts as bringing and
taking away of particular things , the meaning of the sentence is
understood as a whole without the knowledge of the meaning of
constituents . How can it be said then that there can be no verbal
cognition without previous knowledge of the meanings of words ?
The reply is that though , one may be able at times to understand

or guess the meaning of a particular sentence taken as a whole by
observation of particular behaviour in life , he cannot know the
4
meanings of innumerable sentences unless he is acquainted with the
meanings of the words used therein .
The meaning of a sentence can be apprehended only by a
knowledge of the meaning of words . In the absence of such
knowledge there can be no verbal cognition . That is why one does
not understand the meaning of sentences in an unknown language.
Thus the controversy between Anvitabhidhanavada and
Abihitanvayavada seems to be more a matter of emphasis than of
fundamental difference . The one puts stress on the function of words,
the other puts stress on the synthesis of meanings. But there is no
watertight compartment between words and meanings . They are only
two different sides of the same coin .
As Dr. D. M. Duttta puts it in his ‘ Six Ways of Knowing ‘, the central
issue of the controversy is whether construction ( anvaya ) precedes
expression ( abhidhana ) or follows it . He offers a novel suggestion in
this connection . While the one (Anvitabhidhanavada ) is speaker -
oriented ( true from the speaker’s point of view ), the other
( Abhihitanvayavada ) is hearer- oriented ( true from the standpoint of
the hearer ) . Thus the two approaches though apparently
contradictory and incompatible may be reconciled and synthesised
together .
THANK YOU

MAPhilosophy21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAPhilosophy21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAPhilosophy21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For M.

Theories of Anvitabhidhanavada and

Majority of the schools of Indian Philosophy unanimously accepts that a

The Main Points of Distinction Between the Two Theories:

According to the former , the meaning of a sentence is nothing but the

According to the Anvitabhidhanavada a word does not denote a bare

The reply is that though , one may be able at times to understand

You might also like