Intention and suggestion in the Abhidharmakśa: sandhābhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ ārevisited [Book Review]

Journal of Indian Philosophy 13 (4):327-381 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

At Abhidharmakośa VI .3, Vasubandhu analyses the phrase sandhāya ... bha $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ as used in the sūtras. Here bhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ mentions an utterance, to which a figurative sense is ascribed by the gerundive (not noun) sandhāya. The audience is split: some are intended to understand the literal, others the figurative sense. Vasubandhu's analysis works well for sandhābhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ a etc. in the Saddharmapu $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d}$$ arīka and the Guhyasamājatantra. (The Hevajratantra is different and we consider it separately). Poussin's “arrière-pensée”, Edgerton's “real meaning” and “esoteric meaning”, and Wayman's “twilight language” are attractive in some cases but not all. Vasubandhu's analysis combined with Edgerton's “specially intended” (for ābhiprāyika) is much better; compare V. S. Bhattacharya's old paraphrase of this word “intended to imply or suggest something different from what is expressed by the words”. But Bhattacharya's widely accepted translation “intentional” for ābhiprāyika is misleading and misrepresents Vasubandhu, and we suggest ways of improving it in the light of the need for coherent translation, with the help of some considerations from Pā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ ini and from Montague semantics

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,873

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-04

Downloads
67 (#323,214)

6 months
8 (#492,423)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The nature of the mādhyamika trick.C. W. Huntington - 2007 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (2):103-131.
Vasubandhu.Jonathan C. Gold - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Radical Interpretation.Donald Davidson - 1973 - Dialectica 27 (1):313-328.
The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English.Richard Montague - 1973 - In Patrick Suppes, Julius Moravcsik & Jaakko Hintikka, Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht. pp. 221--242.
Universal grammar.Richard Montague - 1970 - Theoria 36 (3):373--398.
English as a Formal Language.Richard Montague - 1970 - In B. Visentini, Linguaggi Nella Societ\'{a} e Nella Tecnica'. Edizioni di Communita. pp. 188-221.
Radical Interpretation.Donald Davidson - 2003 - In John Heil, Philosophy of Mind: A Guide and Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 6 references / Add more references