Zeugnis in der klassischen Indischen Philosophie (śabda in Kumārila)

Sprachliche Mitteilung in der indischen Epistemologie

Kumārilas Ślokavārttika

elisa.freschi@gmail.com

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Was wissen wir?

Und woher wissen wir es?

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Nullius in Verba (Royal Society, 1660)

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Nullius in Verba (Royal Society, 1660)

Ist es möglich?

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Nullius in Verba (Royal Society, 1660)

Wenn nicht, wie sollten wir dieses Motto verstehen?

Sprachliche Mitteilung

āptavacana, kritisch untersuchte sprachliche Mitteilung

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Warum Kumārila?

Sprachliche Mitteilung

Warum Kumārila?

Weil er sich mit dem Thema beschäftigt, und auch die Ideen der Gegner bespricht

also Kumārila ist eine der Gipfel des indischen Denkens und gleichzeitig ist sein Ślokavārttika eine Zusammenfassung des epistemologischen Denkens seiner Zeit

Zu dieser Übung

Methodik: saṃvāda

Zu dieser Übung

Methodik: saṃvāda

Evaluierung: saṃvāda-immanent

Inhalte

• Epistemologie von śabda

• śabda in der indischen Philosophie, wie im ŚV dargestellt

das wird sich auch je nach Teilnehmern ändern, daher kann ich im Moment die genaue Anzahl der ŚV-Versen, die wir lesen werden, noch nicht bestimmen. Apropos, Vorstellungsrunde

Inhalte

śabda in der indischen Philosophie, wie im ŚV dargestellt:

• Definition (ŚV 1, 3--4)

• śabda ≠ Schlußfolgerung? (ŚV 53--111)

• śabda für Sāṅkhyas (ŚV 15--34) Vaiśeṣikas und Buddhisten (ŚV 35--37), Prābhākaras (38--51), Naiyāyikas (ŚV 52), Bauddhas (53--111)

Folgen von der Identifikation śabda-anumāna: welches anumāna? (Wenn es so wäre, epistemisches Gewicht auf dem Sprecher, geringer Anwendugsbereich von śabda)

MīmāṃsāJaimini (2. Jh. v.Ch.?) Mīmāṃsāsūtra

Śabara (3. Jh. n.Ch.?) Śābarabhāṣya

Kumārila (5. Jh. n. Ch.?) Ślokavārttika

Kumārilas Kommentatoren

Jaimini

MS 1.1.5: autpattikas tu śabdasya arthena sambandhaḥ, tasya jñānam upadeśaḥ, avyatirekaś cārthe ’nupalabdhe, tat pramāṇaṃ bādarāyaṇasya anapekṣatvāt

Śabara

(eigentlich der Vṛttikāra)

langer Exkurs über die Erkenntnismitteln: Sinneswahrnehmung, Schlußfolgerung, śabda, Analogie, Arthāpatti, Abwesenheit.

Śabara

śāstraṃ śabdavijñānād asannikṛṣṭe ’rthe jñānam.

Dieser knapper Satz ist daher Śabaras Definition von Śabda. Damit muß Kumārila anfangen. Wenn Sie schon etwas über Kommentare usw. wissen, was würden Sie erwarten? (Ich: das Kumārila Śabara auf jedem Fall berechtfertigt. Das tut er aber nicht, stattdessen:

Kumārila

“śāstraṃ śabdavijñānād asannikṛṣṭe ’rthe jñānam” iti bhāṣyam. tad ākṣipati: (Kommentar von Pārthasārathi Miśra)

11 Jh, einfachster Kommentar zum ŚV

Kumārila

pratyakṣādiṣu vaktavyaṃ śabdamātrasya lakṣaṇam |

tad atitvaritena iha kiṃ vā śāstrasyābhidhīyate || 1 ||

jetzt, der Text scheint unnötigerweise schwierig, weil es in Vers ist. Versuchen wir jetzt, dasselbe in Prosa zu sagen:

Kumārila

pratyakṣādiṣu śabdamātrasya lakṣaṇam vaktavyaṃ (na tu śāstrasya). tad iha lakṣaṇam, atitvaritena, kiṃ śāstre ’bhidhīyate || 1 ||

Wo stecken die Kritikpunkte?

Kumārila

pratyakṣādiṣu vaktavyaṃ śabdamātrasya lakṣaṇam |

tad atitvaritena iha kiṃ vā śāstre ’bhidhīyate || 1 ||

Also, Sie sehen schon, daß Kumārila kein Friedensgründer war. Er hatte keine Angst vor Konflikten und das macht ihn ab und zu unsympatisch, aber ---philosophisch gesehen--- anspruchsvoll. Er lässt uns, in anderen Worten, nicht in Ruhe.

Kumārila

śabda:

• laukika śabda

• Veda (śāstra)

In den nächsten Versen werden wir sehen, wie Kumārila die beide unterscheidet:

Kumārilalakṣaṇam api śabdamātrasādharaṇatvād ativyāpakam. ity āha —

yac ca uktaṃ “śabdavijñānād arthe jñānam” itīdṛśam |

aviśiṣṭaṃ viśiṣṭasya na tac chāstrasya lakṣaṇam || 3 ||

ŚBhs Zitat (s. oben)

jetzt, der Text scheint unnötigerweise schwierig, weil es in Vers ist. Versuchen wir jetzt, dasselbe in Prosa zu sagen:

Kumārila

lakṣaṇam api śabdamātrasādharaṇatvād ativyāpakam. ity āha —

yac ca uktaṃ “śabdavijñānād arthe jñānam” itīdṛśam |

tad ---aviśiṣṭaṃ--- na śāstrasya ---viśiṣṭasya--- lakṣaṇam (kiṃ tu śabdamātrasya) || 3 ||

ŚBhs Zitat (s. oben)

also, die Definition von Śabara paßt im Allgemein zum śabda. Was fehlt jetzt?

Kumārila

kīdṛśaṃ tarhi śāstralakṣaṇam? tad darśayati —

pravṛttir vā nivṛttir vā nityena kṛtakena vā |

puṃsāṃ yena upadiśyeta tac chāstram abhidhīyate || 4 ||

jetzt, der Text scheint unnötigerweise schwierig, weil es in Vers ist. Versuchen wir jetzt, dasselbe in Prosa zu sagen:

Kumārila

kīdṛśaṃ tarhi śāstralakṣaṇam? tad darśayati —

yena ---nityena, kṛtakena vā--- pravṛttir vā nivṛttir vā upadiśyeta, tat śāstram abhidhīyate || 4 ||

jetzt, der Text scheint unnötigerweise schwierig, weil es in Vers ist. Versuchen wir jetzt, dasselbe in Prosa zu sagen:

Kumārila

nitya

kṛtaka

Kumārila

tatrānumānam evedaṃ bauddhair vaiśeṣikaiḥ śritam |

bhedaḥ sāṅkhyādibhis tv iṣṭo na tūktaṃ bhedakāraṇam || 15 ||

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] tasmād yat sāṅkhyādibhir bhedakāraṇam uktam, tad īdṛśam. paroktābhedahetunirākaraṇam api na taiḥ kṛtam iti darśayati ślokatrayeṇa—

paroktā hetavaś cātra nābhedasya nivāritāḥ |

śabdānumānayor aikyaṃ dhūmād agnyanumānavat || 35 ||

(Lösung)

Kumārila

[Pārthasārathi:] śākyādyuktābhedahetunirākaraṇam api na samyak kṛtam ity āha—

paroktā hetavaś cātra nābhedasya nivāritāḥ |

[Pārthasārathi:] tān eva darśayati sārddhadvayena—

śabdānumānayor aikyaṃ dhūmād […](Lösung)

Kumārila

anvayavyatirekābhyām ekapratyakṣadarśanāt |sambandhapūrvakatvāc ca pratipattir ito yataḥ || 36 ||

einfacher gemacht:

Kumārila

yataḥ pratipattir itaḥ [bhavati] anvayavyatirekābhyām ekapratyakṣadarśanāt sambandhapūrvakatvāc ca || 36 ||

(Lösung)

Kumārila

pratyakṣānyapramāṇatvāt tadadṛṣṭārthabodhanāt |sāmānyaviṣayatvāc ca traikālyaviṣayāśrayāt || 37 || [aikyaṃ syāt]

(weitere Gründe des aikyam)

Uṃvekaśabdānumānayor iti dharmanirdeśaḥ aikyam iti sādhyo dharmaḥ, dhūmād agnyanumānavad iti dṛṣṭāntaḥ, anvayavyatirekābhyām ekapratyakṣadarśanāt sambandhapūrvakatvāc ca-iti hetutrayam. pratipattir ito yataḥ ---iti ca pratyekam anuṣajyate. pratyakṣānyapramāṇatvād ityādi ca-atra-eva sādhye hetucatuṣṭayam.

Erklärung des Syllogismus. Was bedeutet ādi?

Kumārila

[Pārthasārathi:] ekadeśimatena nirācaṣṭe— kaiś cin mīmāṃsakair ukto bhedo 'tra viṣayāntarāt |

Kumārila[Pārthasārathi:] viṣayāt kāraṇam āha—

pūrvābhyāṃ hy aparicchinne śāstram arthe pravartate || 38 ||

[Pārthasārathi:] pratyakṣānumānāgocaratvaṃ hi dharmādharmayoḥ sthitam, tac ca yadagocare pravartate, tat tato bhidyate, pratyakṣād ivānumānam iti.

CHECK MSS bez. tac ca= yac ca?

Kumārila

kaiś cin mīmāṃsakair ukto bhedo 'tra viṣayāntarāt | pūrvābhyāṃ hy aparicchinne śāstram arthe pravartate || 38 ||

einfacher gemacht:

Kumārila

kaiś cin mīmāṃsakair ukto ’tra bhedo: viṣayāntarāt | śāstraṃ hy pūrvābhyāṃ aparicchinne arthe pravartate || 38 ||

(Lösung)

Uṃveka

anye tu mīmāṃsakā eva viṣayāntaratvena śāstrasyānumānāt bhedaṃ varṇayanti —sambandhagrahaṇasāpekṣatvena pratyakṣānumānapratīto ’rtho anumānasya viṣayaḥ. śāstrasya tu pratyakṣānumānābhyām apratītaḥ kāryarūpo ’rtho viṣayaḥ iti. tad etad āha—

Erklärung des Syllogismus. Was bedeutet ādi?

Kumārila[Pārthasārathi:] tad idaṃ svābhiprāye-ṇa tāvat siddhāntavādī dūṣayati—

tatrāpi nāgamatvaṃ syāt puruṣokte, [Pārthasārathi:] śaṅkate— tathāstu cet | [Pārthasārathi:] dūṣayati— pratyayaḥ kiṃnimitto ’rthe, [Pārthasārathi:] paraḥ punar āha—

Kumārila

vaktṛbuddheḥ, [Pārthasārathi:] vākyād vaktṛbuddhir anumīyate tayā cārtha iti. dūṣayati— kuto nv asau || 39 || [Pārthasārathi:] vaktṛbuddhir eva na kutaścit sidhyati, kathaṃ tathārthasiddhir* iti.

*vielleicht tayā arthasiddhir?

Kumārila

tatrāpi nāgamatvaṃ syāt puruṣoktes tathāstu cet | pratyayaḥ kiṃnimitto 'rthe vaktṛbuddheḥ kuto nv asau || 39 ||

worauf basiert die Erkenntnis? Auf der Erkenntnis [der Meinung] der Redners. Und worauf basiert diese [Erkenntnis]?

Kumārila

[S:] tatrāpi puruṣoktes āgamatvaṃ na syāt [PP:] tathāstu cet | [S:] pratyayaḥ kiṃnimitto 'rthe [PP:] vaktṛbuddheḥ [S:] kuto nv asau || 39 ||

worauf basiert die Erkenntnis? Auf der Erkenntnis [der Meinung] der Redners. Und worauf basiert diese [Erkenntnis]?

Kumārila[Uṃveka:] tad etad dūṣayitum āha pūrvapakṣavādī— tatrāpi nāgamatvaṃ syāt puruṣoktes [Uṃveka:] bhavatu śāstrasya viṣayāntarato ’nyapramāṇatvam, pauruṣeyasya tu vākyasya viṣayānyatvābhāvena eva pramāṇāntaratvābhāvād aprāmāṇyaprasaṅga ity abhiprayaḥ.

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] pauruṣeyasyāpy anumāna-tvena prāmāṇyaṃ bhaviṣyatīti naiva pramāṇāntaratve ’pi naḥ kṣatir iti cet, ity āha: [Kumārila:] tathāstu cet

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] viṣayānyatvābhavena pra-māṇāntaratvābhāvād vakṣyamāṇenaiva nyāyenānumānatvābhāvād aprāmāṇyam ity āha — pratyayaḥ kiṃnimitto ’rthe [Uṃveka:] itaro ’numānābhiprāyeṇāha— vaktṛbuddher

Kum.: die Erkenntnis (von śabdapramāṇa als anumāna konstruiert) worauf basiert es?

Kumārila[Uṃveka:] vākyād vaktṛbuddhiḥ pratīyate, tato ’rthatattvāvasāyaḥ ity arthaḥ. evam ukte sati pūrvapakṣavādī svābhiprāyaṃ prakaṭayati kuto nv asau [Uṃveka:] avagatā hi vaktṛbuddhiḥ śabdārthatathātvāvagatau liṅgam na ca tadavagatau kiñcil liṅgāntaram upalabhāmaha ity āha—

prakaṭayati ‘enthüllen’tad in tadavagatau=?wenn śabda kein liṅga ist, dann muß man davon ausgehen, daß die Beziehung śabda-artha schon vorhanden ist, aber dann werden die Gründe, eine Schlußfolgerung zu postulieren, gering. Noch dazu: vaktṛbuddhi wäre ein gutes liṅga, sie ist aber das sādhya!

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

vākya

vaktṛbuddhi

arthāvasāya

(According to Uṃveka)

śabda als Schlussfolg.: Widerlegung

vaktṛbuddhi

arthāvasāya

(According to Uṃveka)

???

śabda als Schlussfolg.: Widerlegung

vaktṛbuddhi

arthāvasāyaśabda, śabdārtha

(modaka, Überflussigkeit). Aber Kumārila hat weitere Gründe:

Kumārila[PSM:] ubhayāsiddhiṃ darśayati— na śabdārthasya sā liṅgaṃ na śabdo ’syāḥ kathañcana |

[PSM:] katham? ity āha— viśeṣo gamyate tābhyāṃ* na caitasyānumeyatā || 40 || *(Gaṅgā Sāgar Ray): śabdena, vaktṛniṣṭhayā buddhyā ceti jñeyam.

tābhyām: Hearausgeber (Gaṅgā Sāgar Ray): śabdena, vaktṛniṣṭhayā buddhyā ceti jñeyam.

śabda als Schlussfolg.: Widerlegung

viśiṣṭavaktṛbuddhi

viśiṣṭārthaviśiṣṭavākya

??? ???

jetzt ist das Problem, dass anumāna nur das Allgemeine erschliessen lässt

Kumārila[PSM:] buddhiviśeṣo ’rthaviśeṣaś ca na-dītīrādivākyoccāraṇe gamyate. na viśe-ṣasyānumānataḥ siddhiḥ. vākyamātreṇa hi buddhimātram anumīyate, tataś ca-arthamātram iti. tenāvaśyam anirūpitā-vastha eva vaktṛjñāne puruṣavākyam āgamarūpeṇaivārthaṃ pratipādayatīty aṅgīkartavyam.

āgamarūpena: nur insofer als es ein (unabhängiges) Erkenntnisinstrument ist

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

vākyamātra

buddhimātra

arthamātra

(laut PSM)

Kumārila

na śabdārthasya sā liṅgaṃ na śabdo ’syāḥ kathañcana | viśeṣo gamyate tābhyāṃ na caitasyānumeyatā || 40 ||

einfacher gemacht:

Kumārila

na sā (=vaktṛbuddhiḥ) śabdārthasya liṅgaṃ na śabdo ’syāḥ (=vaktṛbuddheḥ) [liṅgam] kathañcana | viśeṣo gamyate tābhyāṃ (=vaktṛbuddhiśabdābhyām) na caitasya (=viśeṣasya) anumeyatā || 40 ||

Kumārila[PSM:] tathā hi saty arthaviśeṣapratipā-dakavākyaracanayā tadarthaviṣayā buddhir anumātuṃ śakyā bhavati, itarathā tu vākyamātrān na viśeṣānumānaṃ siddhyatīty āha— tena vaktur abhiprāye pratyakṣādya-nirūpite | puruṣoktir api śrotur āgamatvaṃ prapadyate || 41||

Erst nachher kann man eine Erkenntnis mit diesem Inhalt erschliessen, aufgrund der Anordnung vom Satz, der diese bestimmte Bedeutung vermittelt. Daher: zuerst braucht man ein Śabdapramāṇa, durch das, man den bestimmten Satz versteht. Erst danach kann man aufgrunde dessen eine dementsprechende buddhi erschliessen. Daher, die Schlussfolgerung hängt vom vorigen śabdapramāṇa ab.

Kumārila

tena vaktur abhiprāye pratyakṣādya-nirūpite | puruṣoktir api śrotur āgamatvaṃ prapadyate || 41||

wenn man keine spezifische vaktṛbuddhi erschliessen kann, auch die menschliche sprachliche Mitteilung erlangt den Status von āgama (unabhängigen Erkenntnisinstrument)

śabda as inference

artha

Veda

arthavākya

buddhi

śabda as inference

artha

Veda

arthavākya

buddhi

hier sieht auch laukikavacana als unabhängiges Erkenntnisinstrument aus!

Kumārila

[PSM:] samprati śākyābhiprayeṇa dūṣayati — na cāpy ananumeyatvam āgamārthasya śakyate | liṅgaṃ hi śabda evāsya dhūmo ’gner iva kalpyate || 42 ||

Bis jetzt: gegen die Prābhākaras. Jetzt geht er zu den Buddhisten rüber. śakyate: scil. nirṇetuṃ śakyate

Kumārila

na cāpy ananumeyatvāt pramāṇāntaragamyatā | rūpasyāśravaṇatvena na hy apratyakṣateṣyate || 43 ||

Buddh: der Inhalt von āgama ist bloß nicht ein bestimmtes Typ von anumeya, aber immer noch kein unabhängiges Erkenntnisinstrument

Kumārila

evaṃ sati svayūthyā na kecin nātiprapañcinaḥ* | anumānaviśeṣo ’yam īdṛg dharmasya bodhakaḥ || 44 ||

*v.l. nātiprayatnataḥ

Was hat Jhā übersetzt? “not caring to trouble themselves with the subtleties of argumentation”Sind die die Prābhākaras? Nein, die sind noch extremistischer! Vielleicht die Vaiśeṣikas (āstikas, aber gegen śabdapramāṇa)?

Kumārila

[PSM:] nanv anumānasya bhaviṣyati pratyakṣāgocare dharme pramāṇatvaṃ nirākṛtam, ato ’numānatve vedasyāprāmāṇyaṃ dharme syād ata āha

Vielleicht waren der echte Gefahr die Vaiśeṣikas und Kumārila wollte damit zeigen, wie man enden könnte: Ihr Vaiśeṣikas helft den Bauddhas, indem Ihr die Tür für den Eintritt von anumānatva innerhalb von śabdapramāṇa offen haltet!

Pramāṇas und prameyas (Mīmāṃsā)

Quelle Vedasinnl.

Wahrnehmung, usw.

Bereich dharma (sādhya) Alles Anderes (siddha)

from rational theology to the Veda as key for the existence of God

Kumārila

[PSM:] nanv anumānasya bhaviṣyati pratyaṣāgocare dharme pramāṇatvaṃ nirākṛtam, ato ’numānatve vedasyāprāmāṇyaṃ dharme syād ata āha — bhaviṣyaty artharūpaṃ tu liṅgaṃ dharme nirākṛtam |

Vielleicht waren der echte Gefahr die Vaiśeṣikas und Kumārila wollte damit zeigen, wie man enden könnte: Ihr Vaiśeṣikas helft den Bauddhas, indem Ihr die Tür für den Eintritt von anumānatva innerhalb von śabdapramāṇa offen haltet!

Kumārila

[PSM:] “arthātmakam eva liṅgaṃ dharme na pravarttate, śabdātmakaṃ tu pravarttata eva” iti. dūṣayati — saṃjñānumānatecchā tu na duṣyed āgame ’pi naḥ || 45 ||

PSM enthält den möglichen Einwand der Prābhākara-extremistischer: ein arthātmaka liṅga geht nicht, ein śabdātmaka könnte gehen. Aber dann ist das wie śabdapramāṇa!

Kumārila[PSM:] yadi pramāṇāntarasyaiva paścanmānasāmānyāc chabdasyānumānasaṃjñā kriyate, sāstu nāma iti. lakṣaṇena tv abhinnatvaṃ yadi śabdānumānayoḥ | vedajñānāpramāṇatvaṃ syād atallakṣaṇatvataḥ || 46 ||

wenn es nur um dem Namen geht, kein Problem. Sollte aber die Identität die Definition selbst betreffen, dann teilt der Veda diese Definition nicht und wäre daher kein pramāṇa mehr!

Kumārila

āptavādāvisaṃvādasāmānyān nṛvacassu hi | lakṣaṇenānumānatvāt prāmāṇyaṃ siddhim ṛcchati || 47 ||

In the case of human utterances, there is the factor shared (with valid means of knowledge) that the utterances of a reliable speaker do not deviate [from truth], so that their status of valid cognition could be achieved because they could be an anumāna by definition.

Kumārila

vede tv āptanarābhāvāt sambandhānubhavād ṛte | lakṣaṇaṃ nānumānasyety aprāmāṇyaṃ prasajyate || 48 ||

in the case of the Veda, by contrast, since there is no reliable speaker, [nor] any experience of a relation [between probans and probandum], this is not defined as anumāna. Thus, it would follow (if śabdapramāṇa needed to be anumāna in order to be accepted a pramāṇa) that [the Veda] would not be a valid cognition.

Kumārila

nanv ekadeśasatyatve tasya syād anumānatā | vedatvād agnihotrādau vāyukṣepiṣṭhavākyavat || 49 ||

Nyāya: Given the truth of one part [of the Veda], it could be that prescriptions like the one about the Agnihotra are a reliable anumāna, because it is Veda, like in the case of “Vāyu is the fastest deity” (which can be verified since it is a factual statement).NB opposizione prescriptive-descriptive

Schlussfolgerung (v. 49)

*etad vedavākyam pramāṇam, vedatvāt, vāyukṣepiṣṭhavākyavat

Nyāya: Given the truth of one part [of the Veda], it could be that prescriptions like the one about the Agnihotra are a reliable anumāna, because it is Veda, like in the case of “Vāyu is the fastest deity” (which can be verified since it is a factual statement).NB opposizione prescriptive-descriptive

Kumārila

na, ādityayūpe ’naikāntāt

*etad vedavākyam na pramāṇam, vedatvāt, ādityayupavākyavat

No, because the [logical reason] becomes unstable in the case of “the post is the sun” (where the statement is invalidated by sense perception!). Or: also the Agnihotra would be gauṇa!Jhā reads “nāntaḥ” (there would be no end to the counter-arguments”. Uṃveka: pātaḥ ‘Fall’ (in the many pratyanumānas)

Kumārilana, ādityayūpe ’naikāntāt [PSM:] nanu tad api guṇavṛttyā stutiṃ kurvat pramāṇam eva? ata āha— tadvat vā gauṇatā bhavet | [PSM:] […] atas tāny api pramāṇāntarasiddhiṃ yaṃ kañcid artham ādityayūpavākyavad guṇavādena vadeyur iti.

No, because the [logical reason] becomes unstable in the case of “the post is the sun” (where the statement is invalidated by sense perception!). Or: also the Agnihotra would be gauṇa!Jhā reads “nāntaḥ” (there would be no end to the counter-arguments”. Uṃveka: pātaḥ ‘Fall’ (in the many pratyanumānas)

Kumārilana, ādityayūpe ’naikāntāt tadvat vā gauṇatā bhavet | nātaḥ* pratyanumānānām eva pūrvoktayā diśā || 50 || Uṃveka: […] gauṇe ’rthe vidhyuddeśasya prāmāṇyam. […]

*v.l. nāntaḥ (Jhā); pātaḥ (Uṃveka)

No, because the [logical reason] becomes unstable in the case of “the post is the sun” (where the statement is invalidated by sense perception!). Or: also the Agnihotra would be gauṇa!Jhā reads “nāntaḥ” (there would be no end to the counter-arguments”. Uṃveka: pātaḥ ‘Fall’ (in the many pratyanumānas)

KumārilaUṃveka: tasmāt pramāṇāntaratvenaiva śabdaprāmāṇye sati vedasya prāmāṇyam, nānyathā —ity āha: tasmāl lakṣaṇabhedena yadi śabdapramāṇatā | samā loke ca vede ca siddhā vedapramāṇatā || 51 ||

Kumārila

tena cāptopadeśatvaṃ na syād āgamalakṣaṇam | nāptasya sambhavo vede, loke nāsmāt pramāṇatā || 52 ||

Kumārilapurastād varṇitaṃ hy etat, PSM: tasmād bhāṣyoktam eva lakṣaṇam ity āha: tasmāc chabdena yā matiḥ | tasyāh svataḥ pramāṇatvaṃ, na cet syād doṣadarśanam || 53 || PSM: “śabdavijñānāt” iti ca bhāṣyaṃ ‘na ced doṣadarśanam’ ity upaskṛtya vyākhyeyam.

Kumārila

anumānena caitasya [=śabdapramāṇasya] prāmāṇyaṃ kevalaṃ samam | pade tāvat kṛto yatnaḥ parair ity atra varṇyate || 54 ||

etasya=śābdasya

KumārilaPSM: dvidhā śābdam —padam, vākyaṃ ca. padam abhyadhikābhāvād aprāmāṇam asannikṛṣṭagrahaṇenaiva vyāvarttitam iti na tasya bhedaḥ pratipādanīyaḥ. tathāpi paraiḥ pada evābhedaḥ pratipādita iti vayam api […] pade tāvat kṛto yatnaḥ parair ity atra varṇyate || 54 ||

Wieso reden die Buddhisten usw. über pada eher als über vākya? Einfach zu sagen: Weil das anumāna nur im Fall von pada funktioniert. Sonst sollten wir unendlich viele sambandhas haben (einen pro Satz).

Kumārilaviṣayo ’nyādṛśas tāvad dṛśyate liṅgaśabdayoḥ— | sāmānyaviṣayatvaṃ ca padasya sthāpayiṣyati || 55 || dharmī dharmaviśiṣṭaś ca liṅgīty etac ca sādhitam | na tāvad anumānaṃ hi yāvat tadviṣayaṃ na tat || 56 ||

Pramāṇas und prameyas (Kumārila!)

Quelle Vedasinnl.

Wahrnehmung usw.

Schlussfolgerung Wörter

Bereich dharma (sādhya)

Alles Anderes (siddha)

dharmaviśiṣṭadharmin sāmānya

Kumārila

[PSM:] nanu viśiṣṭaviṣayam api padaṃ dṛṣṭam, tathā loke “ko yāti?” iti pṛṣṭe “aśvaḥ” ity ukte kevalād aśvapadād aśvaviśiṣṭā kriyā gamyate. ata āha— sāmānyād atiriktaṃ tu śābde vākyasya gocaraḥ |

Pramāṇas und prameyas (Kumārila!)

Quelle Schlussfolgerung Wörter Satz

Bereichdharmaviśiṣṭa

dharmin (=viśeṣa)

sāmānya viśeṣa

Kumārila

[PSM:] katham aśrute padāntare vākyatvam? ata āha— sāmarthyād anumeyatvād aśrute ’pi padāntare || 57 ||

Kumārila

[PSM:] katham aśrute padāntare vākyatvam? ata āha— sāmarthyād anumeyatvād aśrute ’pi padāntare || 57 ||

Kumārila

atha śabdo ’rthavattvena pakṣaḥ kasmān na kalpyate || 62 ||

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

pada (sāmānya) vākyārtha (viśiṣṭa)

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

parvato ’gnimān dhūmāt

pakṣa dharma hetu

“gaur dhavati”

*“gauḥ” gauḥ itiviśiṣṭārthagamakaḥ śabdāt

Kumārila

[PSM:] pariharati— pratijñārthaikadeśo hi hetus tatra prasajyate | [PSM:] na hi dharminaḥ śabdād anyo ’sti hetur iti.

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

parvato ’gnimān dhūmāt

pakṣa dharma hetu

“gaur dhavati”

*“gauḥ” gauḥ itiviśiṣṭārthagamakaḥ śabdāt

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

parvato ’gnimān dhūmāt

pakṣa dharma hetu

**śabdo viśiṣṭārthagamakaḥ śabdād

Kumārila

pakṣe dhūmaviśeṣe ca sāmānyaṃ hetur iṣyate || 63 || [PSM:] na tv evam iha sambhavatīty āha—

Kumārilaśabdatvaṃ gamakaṃ nātra, gośabdatvaṃ niṣetsyate | vyaktir eva viśiṣyāto hetuś caikā prasajyate || 64 || [PSM:] gośabdaṃ pakṣīkṛtya tasmin sāsnādimadviśiṣṭe sādhye śabdatvam anaikāntikam.

Kumārila

[PSM:] gośabdatvaṃ ca nānyo ’rtho dharmiṇo ’stīti syād eva pratijñārthaikadeśateti.

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] gośabdavyakteḥ pakṣatve gośabdavyakter eva liṅgatvaṃ syāt gośabdatvaśabdatvayor vā? na tāvat gośabdavyakter eva liṅgatvam, pratijñārthaikadeśavtvenāsiddhatvāt.

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

parvato ’gnimān dhūmāt

pakṣa dharma hetu

**gośabdo viśiṣṭārthagamakaḥ gośabdād

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] nāpi gośabdatvaśabdatvayoḥ asiddhānaikāntikatvābhyām. dhūmaviśeṣe tu dharmitve sāmānyasya liṅgatvam uktam ity abhiprāyaḥ.

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

parvato ’gnimān dhūmāt

pakṣa dharma hetu

**gośabdo viśiṣṭārthagamakaḥ gośabdatvac chabdatvāc ca

Kumārila

[PSM:] śaṅkate— bhaved vyañjakabhedāc cet [PSM:] vyañjakabhedād asty eva gośabdavyaktīnāṃ bhedaḥ […]. pariharati na tv evaṃ pratyayo ’sti naḥ | [PSM:] kena sambandhenārthaḥ śabdam viśinaṣṭīti?

Kumārila

katham cāsya viśiṣṭatvaṃ? na tāvad deśakālataḥ ||65|| [Obj.:] tatpratītiviśiṣṭaś cet, [R.:] paraṃ kim anumīyate |

Not time and space, due to cases such as the word “Yudhiṣṭhira”.if the cognition itself were what determines śabda, then there would not be anything left to infer! What would be the phala, if pratīti is not?

Kumārila

na pratyayanaśaktiś ca viśeṣaṇasyānumīyate ||66|| [PSM:] yadi viśeṣasya pakṣasya śaktiviśiṣṭatānumīyate, tataḥ sāmānyahetuḥ syāt, na tu sā anumātuṃ śakyeti. katham?

Kumārila

viśeṣāṇāṃ na śaktir hi saikadeśe ’gnijātivat | [PSM:] yadi hi […] ekā vyāpikā śaktiḥ pūrvadṛṣṭagośabdaviśeṣānvayinī dṛṣṭā syāt, tataḥ sā adhunātane viśeṣe agnitvam ivānumīyeta, na tu viśeṣāṇāṃ śaktir dṛṣṭeti.

Kumārila

sāmānyasyaiva śaktatvaṃ pakṣo hetus tad eva ca || 67 || [PSM:] agnitvasya deśaviśeṣānvayaḥ pratyakṣaḥ, śaktis tv arthāpattigamyā […] ataḥ sāmānyam eva sapakṣaḥ, pakṣo hetuś ceti katham iva sambhavatīti?

Kumārila

tasmād arthaviśiṣṭasya na śabdasyānumeyatā | [PSM:] tad evaṃ viṣayabhedam uktvā idānīṃ trailakṣaṇya.˛nirākurvan pakṣadharmatvaṃ nirākaroti—

summary of the difference of content (viṣaya).

Kumārila

kathaṃ ca pakṣadharmatvaṃ śabdasyeha nirūpyate? || 68 || [PSM:] śabdo hi liṅgam, tasya ca svayaṃ dharmitvāyogād artho dharmī karttavyaḥ, taddharmatvaṃ ca śabdasya na sambhavatīti. katham?

Kumārila

na kriyākartṛsambandhād ṛte sambandhanaṃ kvacit | [PSM:] kriyākārakasambandhapūrvo ’yam sambandha iti. etad evodāharaṇair darśayati dvayena—

Kumārilarājā bharttā manuṣyasya tena rājñaḥ sa ucyate || 69 || vṛkṣas tiṣṭhati śākhāsu tā vā tatreti tasya tāḥ | deśe ’gnimati dhūmasya kartṛtvaṃ bhavanaṃ prati || 70 || kāryakāraṇabhāvādau kriyā satvatra vidyate |

By contrast, acc. to DhK the inferential relationship can be of causality or of identity (tādātmya))no relationship between word and meaning, since there is no agency)

Kumārila

[PSM:] śabdasyārthena saha na kaścid sambandho ’vagamyate, na cānavagatarūpaṃ sambandhamātram astīti śakyaṃ vaktum ity āha—

Kumārila

na cānavagatākāraḥ sambandho ’stīti gamyate || 71 || na cāsty asati sambandhe ṣaṣṭhītatpuruṣo ’pi vā | tasmān na pakṣadharmo ’yam iti śakyā nirūpaṇā || 72 ||

Kumārila

[PSM:] kecit tu śabdo ’rthaviṣayaḥ ity evaṃ tasya dharmatāṃ manyante, yathā anupalabdhir abhāvaviṣayeti tad upanyasyati—

Kumārila

nivṛtte ’nyatra sambandhe ye ’pi tadviṣayātmanā | vadeyuḥ pakṣadharmatvaṃ śabdasyānupalabdhivat || 73 ||

some would say that the śabda can be the quality of the pakṣa since it has tad=artha as its content, like in the case of absence as an instr of knowledge

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

hetu (dharma) sādhya Rauch Feuer

pakṣa

śabda als Schlussfolgerung

hetu (dharma) sādhya śabda artha

pakṣa

Kumārila

[PSM:] dūṣayati— tair apy etan nirūpyaṃ tu— śabdas tadviṣayaḥ katham | na taddeśādisadbhāvo nābhimukhyādi tasya vā || 74 ||

the problem is abhimukhya. PSM does not comment. Jhā: `proximity’ (strange)

Kumārila[Uṃveka:] arthaviṣayatā hi śabdasya samānadeśatvena vā syāt samānakālatvena vā? na tāvat samānadeśatvam, “mukhe hi śabdam upalabhāmahe, bhūmāv artham” iti vakṣyāmaḥ. nāpi samānakālatvam, yudhiṣṭhirābhāve ’pi yudhiṣṭhiraśabdaprayogasadbhāvāt.

the problem is abhimukhya. PSM does not comment. Jhā: `proximity’ (strange)

Kumārila

[Uṃveka:] nityatvavibhutvābhyām apy ucyamāne sarvasya sarvatra gamakatvaṃ syāt. arthābhimukhyaṃ tu śabdasya dūrotsāritam eva — ity arthaḥ.

dato che śabda non ha limiti di tempo e luogo, ogni parola potrebbe significare tutto!abhimukhya ancora non spiegato. Forse “avere in mente” consapevolmente, il che è impossibile per śabda.has gone far away (dūrotsārita).

Kumārila[PSM:] deśādisambandhābhāve cārthabuddhijananenaiva tajjananaśaktyā vā tadviṣayatā vaktavyā —ity āha—

tasmād utthāpayaty eṣa yato ’rthaviṣayāṃ matim | tatas tadviṣayaḥ śabda iti dharmatvakalpanā || 75 ||

eṣa=śabda tatas=out of that fact (said above)

Kumārila

[PSM:] bhavatv evam iti cet? tatrāha—

tatra vācakatāyāṃ ca siddhāyāṃ pakṣadharmatā | na pratītyaṅgatāṃ gacchen na caivam anumānatā || 76 ||

Such being the case, the fact of being a quality of the pakṣa (of śabda) occurs once it has *already* been established that the word is expressive [of a meaning]

Kumārila

[PSM:] (vācakatā pratipādakatā tacchaktir vā. śaktyadhīne ’pi taddharmatve tataḥ)

prāg eva śaktir aṅgīkartavyā, satyāṃ ca svabhāvataḥ śaktau tata eva tatpratītisiddheḥ kiṃ pakṣadharmatvena?

eṣa=śabda tatas=out of that fact (said above)

Kumārila

gamakatvāc ca dharmatvaṃ dharmatvād gamako yadi | syād anyonyāśrayatvaṃ hi tasmān naiṣāpi kalpanā || 77 ||

Kumārilana cāgṛhītasambandhāḥ svarūpavyatirekataḥ | śabdaṃ jānanti yenātra pakṣadharmamatir bhavet || 78 ||

[PSM:] na hy agṛhītasambandhāḥ puruṣāḥ śabdam arthadharmatayā jānanti, yataḥ pakṣadharmatvaṃ syād iti.

it is not the case that those who do not know the relation (between word and meaning) know a word apart from its own form, so that one could say that it is a hetu.What does svarūpavyatirekataḥ mean? Strange transl by Jhā

Kumārila

[Uṃveka]: itaś ca, anyavavyatireka-vyatiriktarūpaṃ pakṣadharmatvaṃ śabdasya nāsti; yadi syāt agṛhītasamban-dho ’pi śabdasvarūpasya vyatirekam ādhikyam arthadharmatāṃ pratipadyeta. śabdasvarūpamātram eva tu pratipadyate, nārthadharmatvam.

What does svarūpavyatirekataḥ mean? Strange transl by JhāOne would seize the own nature of the word (separated from the meaning because one does not know about it) as something additional, namely as a characteristic of the artha. Instead, one seizes only the nature of the word, not of the meaning (unless one already knows the connection of the two).

Kumārila

[PSM:] na ca svarūpamātreṇa pakṣadhar-matā bhavati, dhūmādiṣv adarśanāt. teṣāṃ hi parvatādisambandhitayaiva taddharmatvam na dhūmamātreṇa.

na ca svarūpamātreṇa dhūmādeḥ pakṣadharmatā |

Moreover, the pakṣa is missing!

Kumārila

na cāpi pūrvasambandham apekṣyaiṣā prasajyate || 79 ||

eṣā=pakṣadharmatā. It cannot depend on a previous relation

Kumārilana cāpi pūrvasambandham apekṣyaiṣā prasajyate || 79 || “dhūmavān ayam” ity evam apūrvasyā-pi jāyate | pakṣadharmamatiḥ

[PSM:] yo ’pi dhūmasyāgniniyamaṃ na vetti so ’pi dhūmasya parvatasambandham avagacchati.

who does not know the hetu-sādhya relation will anyway know the hetu-pakṣa one!

Kumārila

tena bhidyeta uttaralakṣaṇāt || 80 ||

uttara? PSM (and Jhā): sapakṣatva. Out of context (and Uṃveka, who says that this pāda summarises all the above discussion): anumānād (I would have thought).

Kumārila

[PSM:] śabde tu naivam astīty āha—

na tv atra pūrvasambandhād adhikā pakṣadharmatā | na cārthapratyayāt pūrvam ity anaṅgam iyaṃ bhavet || 81 ||

iyam=pakṣadharmatā aṅga=anumānāṅga

Kumārila

na ca dharmī gṛhito ’tra yena taddharmatā bhavet | parvatādir yathā deśaḥ prāg dharmatvāvadhāraṇāt || 82 ||

dharmin=mountain. Missing here!so that something could be its qualitylike instead a place like the mountain even before one seizes its quality of being fiery.

Kumārila

[PSM:] yas ty artho dharmī prameyo ’pi sa eva ity āha—

yaś cātra kathyate dharmī prameyo ’sya sa eva naḥ |

the one you call dharmī is for us [also] what should be known through that.

Kumārila[PMS:] tataḥ kim? ity āha sārdhena—

na cānavadhṛte tasmins taddharmatvāvadhāranam || 83 || prāk sa cet pakṣadharmatvād gṛhītaḥ kiṃ tataḥ param | pakṣadharmādibhir jñātair yena syād anumānatā || 84 ||

sa=dharmin (artha)

Kumārila

anvayo ca na śabdasya prameyeṇa nirūpyate | vyāpāreṇa hi sarveṣām anvitatvaṃ pramīyate || 85 ||

we recognise the connection through some activity (see above kā. 71)

Kumārila

yatra dhūmo ’sti tatrāgner astitvenānvayaḥ sphuṭaḥ | na tv evaṃ yatra śabdo ’sti tatrārtho ’stīti niścayaḥ || 86 ||

Kumārila

na tāvat tatra deśe ’sau tatkāle vāvagamyate | bhaven nityavibhutvāc cet sarvārtheṣu ca tatsamam || 87 ||

see kā. 74 and Uṃveka thereon (if it were so, given the pervasiveness of linguistic expressions, a single one would work for all meanings.

Kumārila

tena sarvatra dṛṣṭatvād vyatirekasya cāgateḥ | sarvaśabdair aśeṣārthapratipattiḥ prasajyate || 88 ||

weil man sie so überall sieht, und weil es keinen vyatireka gibt, es folgt unerwünschterweise, daß durch alle Wörter endlose Bedeutungen verstanden werden (könnten)

Kumārila

athaivaṃ deśakālābhyām asaty anvayadarśane | vācakapratyayaṃ kaścid brūyād arthadhiyānvitam || 89 ||

alternatively, since one does not experience any relation with time and space, one could say that the cognition of the expresser is related to the cognition of the meaning.

Kumārila

naivam apy asti dṛṣṛto hi vināpy arthadhiyā kvacit | vācakapratyayo ’smābhir avyutpannaṃ naraṃ prati || 90 ||

it is not so, since one does see a cognition of the expresser without the cognition of the meaning for someone who does not know language. [thus, the cognition is not necessary]

Kumārila

dvitīyādiprayoge ’tha bhaved anvayakalpanā | śatakṛtvaḥ prayukte ’pi naiva dṛṣṭārthadhīḥ kvacit || 91 ||

otherwise, at the second usage of a word, one should be able to postulate the connection. [instead], even if a word is used hundred times, no cognition of a meaning is experienced

Kumārila

tasmād ananumānatvaṃ śabde pratyakṣavad bhavet | trairūpyarahitatvena tādṛgviṣayavarjanāt || 98 ||

summary

KumārilaPSM: evaṃ padasya prāmāṇyam abhyupetyānanumānatvam uktam. adhunā prāmāṇyam eva nāstīty āha—

sati cāsya pramāṇatve bhedābhedanirūpaṇā yuktā na tu padajñānāt padārtho ’tra pramīyate || 99 ||

summary

Kumārila

padaṃ prayujyamānaṃ hi caturddhārthe prayujyate | pratyakṣe ca parokṣe ca jñāte ’jñāte ’pi vā purā || 100 ||

Kumārila

PSM: eteṣv evāpramāṇatvaṃ darśayati—

tatra yat pūrvavijñāte pratyakṣe ca prayujyate | pramite ca prayuktatvād anuvādo ’dhikād vinā || 101 ||

Kumārila

PSM: adṛṣṭapūrve samprati pratyakṣe jñānānutpattiḥ, atha vā “ayaṃ panasaḥ” iti prayujyamāne vācyavācakalakṣaṇa-sambandhapratītir ity āha—

adṛṣṭapūrve tv ajñānaṃ sambandhapratyayo ’pi vā |

Kumārila

sambandho na ca tasyārthaḥ, yo ’rthaḥ sa tv anyagocaraḥ || 102 ||

parokṣe ’nanubhūte ca nābhidheye matir bhavet | parokṣaś cānubhūtaś ca yas tatra smṛtir iṣyate || 103 ||

Kumārilapadam abhyadhikābhāvāt smārakān na viśiṣyate | padādhikyaṃ bhavet kiñcit, tat padasya na gocaraḥ || 107 || PSM: yathā hi smārakāḥ sambandhidarśa-nādayo ’nadhikaviṣayāḥ, tathaiva padam apy anadhikaviṣayatvatulyatvād apramā-ṇam iti.

Kumārilapramāṇam anumānaṃ vā yady api syān padān mitiḥ | vākyārthasyāgamārthatvād doṣo nāgamavādinām || 108 || PSM: bhavatu padasya prāmāṇyam anu-mānatvaṃ ca, tathāpi vākyārthasyāgama-rūpapramāṇāntaragamyatvāt yuktam ā-gamavādināṃ pramāṇāntarāṅgīkaraṇam.

Kumārila

vākyārthe tu padārthebhyaḥ sambandhānubhavād ṛte | buddhir utpadyate tena bhinnāsāv akṣabuddhivat || 109 ||

Kumārila

PSM: sambandhagrahaṇāpekṣaiva nāsti, tataś ca pratyakṣavad anumānād bheda iti. nanv asiddho hetuḥ, sambandhāpekṣatvāt. ity āha— […] sarveṣāṃ ca paroktānāṃ vākyabuddhāv asiddhatā || 110 ||

KumārilaPSM: anvayavyatirekajatvaṃ sambandhapūrvakatvaṃ sāmānyaviṣayatvaṃ cāsiddham. anyac ca hetucatuṣṭayam upamānādibhir anaikāntikam iti.

Kumārila

PSM: yata evātyantādṛṣṭavākyārthatatsambandham eva puruṣāṇāṃ padārthajñānamātreṇa vākyārthajñānam utpadyate, tata evāgamasyānumānavyatirekād bibhyataḥ śākyāḥ padasyaivābhede cikliṣur ity āha—

PSM: yata evātyantādṛṣṭavākyārthatat-sambandham eva puruṣāṇāṃ padārthajñā-namātreṇa vākyārthajñānam utpadyate, tata evāgamasyānumānavyatirekād bi-bhyataḥ śākyāḥ padasyaivābhede cikliṣur ity āha— vākyeṣv adṛṣṭeṣv api sārthakeṣu padārthavinmātratayā pratītim | dṛṣṭvānumānavyatirekabhītāḥ kliṣṭāḥ padābhedavicāraṇāyām || 111 |||

Kumārila

Buddhist epistemological arguments and replies on śabda as inference (42--56) linguistic arguments about it (57--65)

da man keine spezifische vaktṛbuddhi erschliessen kann, auch die menschliche sprachliche Mitteilung erlangt den Status von āgama (unabhängigen Erkenntnisinstrument)

śabdapariccheda1. Definition 2. Sāṅkhya 3. Āstika Gegner (Mīmāṃsakas, Naiyāyikas) 4. Buddhisten-Vaiśeṣikas (anderer Inhalt, kein trailakṣaṇya) 5. coups de theâtre: Wörter sind kein pramāṇa

da man keine spezifische vaktṛbuddhi erschliessen kann, auch die menschliche sprachliche Mitteilung erlangt den Status von āgama (unabhängigen Erkenntnisinstrument)

Zum Vorbereiten

ŚV (mit Pārthasārathimiśras Kommentar) vv. 1, 3--4

ŚV (mit Pārthasārathimiśras Kommentar) vv. 15, 35--111 (daher bis nächstes Mal: 35--48)

bezüglich 35--111, nähere Infos folgen (sobald ich weiß, wieviele hier Sanskrit können)