Apoha And Pratibha

This document, "Apoha And Pratibha" by Masaaki Hattori, is an academic exploration of the philosophical theories of apoha and pratibha in classical Indian thought, particularly focusing on the works of Dignāga and Bhartṛhari.

The core of the discussion revolves around Dignāga's apoha-theory, which posits that the meaning of a word is not a positive entity but rather is established through the exclusion of other things (anyāpoha or anyāpohena). Hattori explains that Dignāga viewed the function of a word as analogous to an inferential mark (linga) in inference. Just as a linga proves something by excluding what it is not (e.g., inferring fire from smoke by excluding non-fire), a word signifies its object by excluding all other things. For example, the word "tree" signifies "tree" by excluding "non-tree." This "fire in general" or "tree in general" is not a real entity but a conceptual construct created by the mind through this process of exclusion. Dignāga argued against theories that a word directly refers to an individual, a universal, or a relation, firmly establishing that a word signifies an object qualified by the exclusion of other things. This "exclusion of others" (anyāpoha) is seen as similar to the universal (jāti) accepted by realists, but it lacks positive objective reality and is a product of mental construction.

The text then moves to Dignāga's concept of the meaning of a sentence, termed pratibhā. Dignāga, in his Pramāṇasamuccaya, defines the meaning of a sentence as pratibhā, which arises after understanding the meaning of individual words, extracted from the sentence. This concept of pratibhā is presented as being heavily influenced by the grammarian-philosopher Bhartṛhari, particularly from his work Vākyapadīya.

Bhartṛhari describes pratibhā as an intuition or immediate consciousness that arises when the meanings of words in a sentence blend together in the listener's mind. This is not a mere summation of individual word meanings but an instantaneous apprehension. For Bhartṛhari, pratibhā is a crucial aspect of the ultimate reality, śabdabrahman (word-as-Brahman).

Hattori highlights several parallels between Dignāga and Bhartṛhari, including the use of the term apoddhāra (extraction of a word from a sentence) and the idea that words within a sentence are not significant in isolation.

Dignāga further elaborates that a sentence generates an idea (vikalpa) in the mind, often without direct reference to an external object. He notes that even when external objects are absent, repeated exposure to sentences can evoke specific ideas based on past impressions (vāsanā). This phenomenon is also explained through the lens of practice (abhyāsa).

A significant point of contention arises with the realist philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, who criticizes Dignāga's apoha-theory. Kumārila argues that if a sentence can produce pratibhā (a positive idea) even without an external object, then a word should also be able to produce a positive meaning directly, making the concept of apoha unnecessary. He finds it inconsistent for Dignāga to admit the positive nature of sentence meaning (pratibhā) while maintaining that word meaning is solely negative (exclusionary).

In response to such criticism, the Buddhist philosopher Śāntarakṣita offers a modification to Dignāga's apoha-theory. Śāntarakṣita suggests that words do produce a positive image (artha-pratibimba) in the mind, which he equates with pratibhā. This image, he argues, is what a word directly refers to. He reinterprets apoha as this image, which is "apoha" because it is differentiated from the images produced by other words. He explains apoha as a form of negation (paryudāsa), where the word "cow" generates the image of a cow by negating "non-cow."

Śāntarakṣita's reinterpretation aims to bridge the gap between Dignāga's theory and the realist critique. He suggests that both sentences and words produce a positive image (pratibhā or pratibimba) immediately in the listener's mind, and this image is also called apoha due to its distinctiveness.

The text concludes by noting that Śāntarakṣita's modification also addresses Kumārila's objection regarding sentence meaning. Kumārila argued that for a sentence, it's difficult to identify what is excluded. Śāntarakṣita, aligning somewhat with Kumārila's view of sentence meaning as the conjunction of word meanings, posits that the exclusion of "other" agents or objects is understood by implication when the sentence meaning is grasped.

In essence, the document traces the development of the apoha-theory from Dignāga's original formulation, highlighting its impact on the understanding of sentence meaning (pratibhā) and the subsequent debate with realist philosophers, which led to modifications by thinkers like Śāntarakṣita. The central theme is how meaning is constructed through negation and differentiation in classical Indian philosophy of language.