바르뜨리하리의 자띠사뭇데샤

Abstract

This paper aims to analyse Bhartṛhari’s theory of universal. In order to accomplish the theory of universal, he deals with the meaning of words from the linguistic viewpoints. He also tries to define the concept of universal by introducing various philosophical views. According to Bhartṛhari’s theory of universal, all words, including stems, roots and suffixes, denote universals. The stem or the root denotes the universal of a thing or an action and the suffix denotes the universal of number etc. and the two are correlated. For a word to denote a universal, a limiting factor of the universal is required. A word-universal was stated as the limiting factor which serves as the occasioning ground for the denotation of a universal. A word-universal, being superimposed on a meaning-universal, helps a word denote a universal. However the concept of word-universal goes against the Vaiśeṣika ontology such that a universal has no further universal. Bhartṛhari removes the Vaiśeṣika principle by introducing the viewpoint of the grammarians that all words denote a universal without resorting to the concept of superimposition(adhyāsa). According to the Vaiśeṣikas, all words denote a universal on the basis of the common characteristic of objects. On the other hand, Vijñānavādins believes that the universal is not so much a property of the object but rather of the cognition. Thus, Bhartṛhari considers verbal convention and cognitional aspect an important criterion, based on which universal is defined in terms of word-meaning. The universal which is eternal helps the effect. It prompts the causes of the individual and is manifested in the individual which is produced. From the viewpoint of the Advaita, universal and individual are relative terms. What is real is called the universal and what is unreal is called the individual. The universals expressed by words are the unreal manifestations or divisions of Brahman, the highest kind of universal. All words express directly the universal and indirectly Brahman, the absolute reality. The concept of universal becomes clear when it is compared with that of similarity and collection which look like it but are different from it. They are allied things in terms of diversity and unity. In the cognition of collection, unity figures mixed up with diversity. In the cognition of similarity, first difference figures and then resemblance. In the cognition of universal, only identity figures. The universal is postulated as a separate entity while similarity and collection are not over and above the individuals. According to the Bauddhas, the cognition of universal is an error. All cognitions are different from one another. Due to an eternal ‘impressions remaining in the mind’(vāsanā), however, cognitions appear to be identical and consequently the concept of universal arises in cognition. According to the Saṃsargavādins, cognition never becomes an object and therefore there is no universal in the cognitions.