Signs and Differentiation: jaL and paaNi in Gujarati

 

J. A. H. Khatri

 

 

0. Introduction

 

As humans, we are constantly surrounded by various symbols and meanings; they may be linguistic, cultural, or scientific. However, surviving without (re)cognising the things and communication happening around us is almost impossible. This paper is a humble attempt to understand this process of making sense of the word through the semiotic system of language. Many modern philosophers and linguists have tried to understand language through the tool of semiotics. Here, we will attempt the same from an ancient philosopher-grammarian’s perspective – Bhartṛhari – who opines that the ordinary object is never given to us in its purity or nakedness; the human mind always captures the object in some specific form of representation. The function of verbalisation is to make this guise or representation explicit (Perception 394). He proposes his theory of cognition, where the cognitive-episode is translated as an awareness-episode that is supported by two natural energies, prakāś1 and vimarś. As we will see in detail later in the paper, these energies enable sign-users to make sense of the world around them and make themselves conscious of various abstract and concrete objects.

            The present paper will try to understand the idea of awareness-episodes, the natural energies of prakāś and vimarś, and how they interact with human perception through the examples of Gujarati linguistic signs jaL and paaNi2, both meaning "water." Here, jaL is a marked sign which is not colloquially used. The paper attempts to investigate how Gujarati sign-users differentiate and make sense of the two signs. To provide contextual meaning to the sign jaL, the majority of the compound words that consist of ‘jaL’ are presented here. Section one below will provide very brief and basic information on Bhartṛhari and his contribution to the study of language and cognition. The second section discusses the concept of the linguistic sign and how language and speech are conceptualised in the traditions that follow Bhartṛhari and Kashmiri Śaivism; the subsection there primarily discusses Bhartṛhari’s idea of sign and the relationship between form and meaning. The third section describes the Gujarati linguistic signs of paaNi and jaL. The subsection there attempts to apply Bhartṛhari’s concepts to the Gujarati data and to provide an understanding of the process of cognition. The last section provides conclusions and a general discussion.

 

1. The Philosopher Grammarian: Bhartṛhari

 

The Indian grammatical, as well as philosophical traditions are vast and varied. For a good introduction to contemporary philosophical ideas and scholars, Dalvi (645–660) can be checked. Similarly, Cardona (Indian Linguistics 25–60) presents an excellent review of the Sanskrit grammatical tradition, primarily concentrating on Pāṇini and his successors. Both these topics are not our primary concern in this paper. We would concentrate on the fifth-century philosopher-grammarian Bhartṛhari and his holistic ideas on language, cognition, and meaning (Cardona). Baldeva Upadhyay (Pāṇinian Studies 247–8) claims Bhartṛhari’s origin in Kashmir, primarily based on his influence on Kashmiri grammarians. His main contribution to linguistic and philosophical thought comes from his work “Vākyapadīya,” in which he introduces the now-famous theory of Sphoṭa. The work explicitly elaborates the theme of sabda-brahman, “grammar being studied in order to attain unity with the god that is speech” (Indian Linguistics 49).

Bhartṛhari espouses a strong epistemological viewpoint: there is no knowledge without speech; “all knowledge is as though pierced through with speech (anuviddham iva jñānam) and appears only through speech (sarvaṃ śabdena bhāsate)” (Indian Linguistics 47). The basic characteristic of his view of languages is “the essential unity of higher units, utterances (vākyāni) and their meanings (arthāḥ) (Ibid 49). He also adds that there are three levels of speech:

 

“the scattered sound that people perceive in everyday life (vaikharī vāk); the 'middle speech' (madhyamā vāk) or interior speech, that is not actually uttered but is in speakers' and hearers' minds a potential utterance; and 'seeing speech' (paśyantī vāk), which lacks any sequentiality.” (Ibid 49).

 

Interestingly, the first two types of speech described by Bhartṛhari are very close to what Saussure identified as la parole and la langue, respectively (Saussure 9–13).

Bhartṛhari has maintained that there is no difference between vāk3 and artha (Word and the World 123). He has maintained a holistic view, which is also the basis of his sphoṭa theory. The first verse of chapter 3 of part III of Vākyapadīya says: “From the utterance of words, the speaker’s idea, the external object and the form of the word itself are understood. There stands (therefore) a relation between them (utterance of the word and the other three)” (as quoted and translated in Word and the World 129). One of the significant aspects of his theory, as Matilal (Indian Philosophical Analysis 12) observes, “Language and construction, verbalisation and conceptualisation, are actually indistinguishable from each other.”

 

2. The Linguistic Sign

 

Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Pierce are two major foundational sources that define the concept of sign. Language is a semiotic system par excellence. The word, a combination of sound-image and the concept associated with it, is the sign that constitutes the semiotic system of language. The word is a linguistic sign which is arbitrary as well as psychological; both sound-image and concept exist in the minds of the users, and the relationship between the two is non-natural. Concentrating on linguistic signs, Saussure defines a sign as being composed of the signifier and the signified (Saussure 66). The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, which is the first principle of language for him (Ibid. 67). Hence it is founded upon the law of tradition (Ibid. 74). The relationship between signifier and signified is conventional: we believe that the word means something in the collective agreement. In terms of conventionality, Peirce also defined the linguistic sign. Peirce talks about three modes of signification: iconic, indexical, and symbolic. Linguistic signs are put into the category of symbolic mode. Symbols are not limited to words, although "all words, sentences, books and other conventional signs are symbols" (Peirce, 2.292, quoted in Chandler 46). The most important part, as expressed by Saussure (127), is that we do not normally express ourselves in a single linguistic sign, but rather we express ourselves through groups of linguistic signs. The French and American traditions led by Saussure and Peirce, respectively, emphasise the interrelations of internal parts of a sign. The arbitrariness and conventionality of linguistic signs are the main aspects of making sense of the sign and the sign-system. The Indian tradition, specifically Bhartṛhari, is more concerned with identifying and differenting the word as a linguistic sign from its linguistic and non-linguistic environment.

            Referring to Śaivism, Padoux (1990) defines Vāc as "word" and says that "the word was very early regarded as a symbol of the Godhead, or more exactly as revealing the divine presence within the cosmos" (x). He adds that the word "creates, maintains, and upholds the universe" (x). ‘Vāc’, meaning "to speak, to say," is translated as "word" by Padoux, and he adds, "the least inappropriate of all" translations (xii). This interpretation also entails that it is a ‘strictly verbal or aural—unwritten—character’ (xii). Here, Vāc is "the word heard by ṛṣis, the seers—poets of the Vedic hymns" (xiv). This specific quality of the Vāc explains the idea of linguistic purity as well as the sanctity associated with certain forms of language.

            In Tantrism and non-dualistic Śaivism, prakāśa and vimarśa have a special place where they are equated with Śiva and Śakti, respectively. They stand for “pure light-consciousness” and “active consciousness." (Ibid. 77) Though Padoux claims that “vimarśa is difficult to translate” (77), it is variously translated as “self-awareness,” “consciousness,” or “active consciousness.” At the level of language, Śiva is equated to vowels and Śakti to consonants. Thus, each word is a Śiva-Śakti, two different entities yet inseparable. If we try to separate vowels from consonants, we do not get Vāc. It will just be noise, meaningless. By this analogy, the prakāśa and the vimarśa are also inseparable. The objects of a system are brought into appearance or perception by the prakāśa, i.e., Śiva, while, according to Abhinavagupta, vimarśa is the essence or soul of prakāśa. (Ibid. 175). The totality of the phonemes, i.e., significant sounds of a language, is defined as Śiva-Śakti. Thus, each manifestation of the word is Śiva-Śakti, in a way, making the user conscious of reality. Later, prakāśa is compared with the Sun and a male, and vimarśa is compared with the Moon and a female (Ibid. 158), emphasising the importance of vowels in the expression of a word. The way the moon cannot shine without the reflection of sunlight, the consonants cannot be produced without the vowels accompanying them. Thus, prakāśa and vimarśa are operational at the level of perception as well as the production as different manifestations of Śiva and Śakti.

            Kashmir Śaivism, especially Utpala and Abhinavagupta, is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari (Word and the World 121). Interestingly, the Śaivik conception of prakāśa and vimarśa is inspired by Bhartṛhari. Bhartṛhari is one of the few philosophers whose work cannot be categorised into any specific school. His theory of cognition and language can be best referred to as "holistic" (Perception xiii). In his theory of awareness, each awareness-episode has two natural powers: prakāśa and vimarśa. Prakāśa is the power to reveal or illuminate, and vimarśa is the power to discriminate or differentiate. The second power, “equivalent to 'languageing’ or differentiation through verbalisability, is never found without the first” (Word and the World 128 and 134). The power of articulating the grasped object in language – vāg-rūpatā – is intertwined with the revelatory or illuminative power of consciousness. The awareness-episode cannot be revealed without verbal discrimination. Here, prakāśa (illumination) means removing darkness, but simply removing the darkness is not enough to reveal the object, unless one can distinguish the outline of the object from its immediate surroundings or environment (Ibid. 136). According to most Indian philosophers, the Buddhists, the Naiyāyikas, and the Mīmāṃsakas, Nirvikalpaka is the sensory awareness where no concept, and hence no language or word (śabda) can appear (Ibid. 135). Bhartṛhari and, following him, Utpala and Abhinavagupta maintained an opposite view. They maintained that awareness is only interpenetrated with vāg-rūpatā even in nirvikalpaka, because without it, “an awareness cannot be aware of an object, and illumination will not illuminate” (Ibid. 136, italics in original). Thus, both the natural powers of awareness-episodes, prakāśa and vimarśa, will not be operative without the “languageing” or vāg-rūpatā. Matilal (Ibid. 128) also adds that “The second power which is equivalent to ‘languageing’ or differentiation through verbalisability, is never found without the first.” So, the identification and illumination are first, and the differentiation is later.

 

2.1 Sign, Meaning, and Language

 

A perspective on Śabda coming from Bhartṛhari is discussed by Matilal (cf. Word and the World). Here, śabda is normally translated as "language," but at times, depending on the contextual needs, it may be translated as "utterance," "sentence," or "word." Here, Nyāyasūtra defines it as "śabda or Word is what is instructed by a trustworthy person (āpta)." (quoted in Word and the World 6). Interestingly, Akṣapāda did not identify the concept of śabda with scriptures. Here, śabda stands for the means of knowledge called ‘word’, while āpta stands for a trustworthy or reliable person. Vātsyāyana defines āpta as "any person who is an expert and knowledgeable about certain facts (āpti) would qualify as an āpta irrespective of caste or creed or sex" (Ibid. 6). There is only one similarity between the Saivism discussed above and Bhartṛhari and post-Bhartṛhari grammarians: all of them talk about "words" or "language" that is spoken. We listen to that person because his or her identity is revealed in front of us, and we tend to take those words seriously because they are evidence – pramāṇa – for us.

            Matilal devotes a chapter (Word and the World 18–30) to the connection between the word and its meaning. Here, he elaborately compares the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school and the Mīmāṃsā school. The primary focus of the discussion here was whether the word and meaning are connected conventionally or are eternal. Jaimini and Śabara stated their view in terms of autpattika, meaning “not created by human convention” (Ibid 27), and considered it siddha, i.e., the relation between words and their meaning is given to us and not created by us. Some Naiyāyikas, on the other hand, believe in the theory of the origin of language from God; it is believed that in the beginning, God created the convention and taught men how to use the language. Matilal concludes with a balanced view that both the Conventionalist and the Eternal viewpoints have some grain of truth. Thus something like the sphoṭa theory – the word and its meaning are indistinguishable – becomes more important and relevant.

            For Bhartṛhari’s holistic view, the distinction between signifier (vāk) and signified (artha) is fictional; for him, there is no distinction; they are identical (Word and the World 122–23). In another chapter, Matilal (Ibid. 156–166) specifically talks about the concept of "sign" in the Indian theory of argumentation. Here, the sign is called linga and the signified is lignin. The most important characteristic of the sign discussed here is that it ‘should be non-deviating’ (160), which means the linga must not be present where lignin is absent. In modern terms, the signifier should always be associated with its signified; then, and only then, do they together form a sign. Another interesting aspect Matilal (Ibid 160) raises here is that the argumentation theory here talks about the 'sign-signified' relationship and not the Saussurian 'signifier-signified' relationship.

            The Sanskrit tradition also has many different perspectives on the concept of a word and its meaning. Describing the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified is insufficient here. Kātyāyana states that in order to derive the meaning from the word, we depend on guṇa (the quality), but it remains ambiguous whether he refers to a simple attribute of the object associated with the word or whether it is universal, i.e., jāti (Ibid. 31). So, when I say "water", the derivation of the meaning can be based on its quality of being liquid. However, in Gujarati, we differentiate jaL and paaNi. Both refer to ‘water’; both are liquid; both can be used for drinking or washing. Then how are they different? Nyāyasūtra states that a word conveys three ‘meanings’: the thing or the individual (vyakti), the ‘form’ of the thing (ākṛti), and the universal (jāti) (Ibid. 32). Considering this, jaL and paaNi have only one difference, and that is vyakti. Patañjali (Ibid. 33), while discussing the word for ‘cow’, observes that “it is neither the universal cowhood, nor the individual cow, nor its qualities, nor its actions.” He argues that the utterance of the word facilitates the cognition of everything related to the object and meaning at once. Nāgeśa, accepting this argument of Patañjali, says that by the utterance of a word, a number of objects are comprehended, but more importantly, the word “must not be conflated with other items in the cognition” (Ibid. 33). Bhartṛhari proposes another view in which he says that "at the level of sphoṭa, a linguistic unit and the meaning or the ‘thought’ it supposedly conveys are one and undifferentiated with words or language." Hence, words and the concepts they convey cannot very well be separated in this view" (Ibid. 37). The Theory of apoha by Diṅnāga, just like Saussure, says that the meaning is conveyed through the differences (Ibid. 38); 'water’ is ‘water’ because it is not ‘milk’ or ‘petrol’, and so on.

 

3. The Signs of jaL and paaNi

 

For both these words, their origin can be found in Sanskrit4. The word ‘jaL’ originates from the Sanskrit root “jal,” from which the noun “jalam” is derived, which literally means “water” (Gode and Karve 729–30). While the word ‘paaNi’ originates from the Sanskrit root “paaniya,” a general term for “drinkable.” The modern Gujarati word for ‘water,’ paaNi, is derived from ‘paaniyam’ (Ibid 1008). In Sanskrit, jal had an alveolar lateral approximant [l], which becomes a retroflex lateral approximant – [ɭ] – in Gujarati. The Sanskrit word paaniyam undergoes a similar change, with the alveolar nasal sound [n] changing to the retroflex nasal sound [ɳ]. Semantically, the word jal more-or-less retains its original meaning, but the word paaniyam in modern Gujarati usage has a more specific meaning, ‘water.’ In the root, it was referred to as a ‘drink’, while modern Gujarati usage uses the sign for any ‘water’, even if it is not fit for drinking purposes.

The Gujarati language offers multiple signs as a representamen of the object "water." The paper will investigate two of the most prominent ones, jaL and paaNi. The second sign, paaNi, is normally used in day-to-day communication and is primarily seen as the Gujarati word for "water." A statement like, "paaNi pio," (‘Have some water’) is perfectly normal in Gujarati. But, we cannot simply replace the sign "paaNi" with "jaL" and say, "jaL pio." It is unacceptable and incomprehensible for most of the users. The only change we make here is the replacement of one sign with the other, which literally means the same, yet the utterance does not give us the same interpretation. Similarly, the contexts in which "jaL" is used will not accept "paaNi."

 

1a.       jaL-maarge                 pravaas khedyo.

1b.       *paaNi-maarge           pravaas khedyo.

            water-way through      traveled                      

            (He) Travelled across the sea.

 

The only difference between (1a) and (1b) is that the sign “jaL” is replaced by the sign “paaNi”. The interactant will comprehend the sentence (1b), but it is not acceptable for them; it is not ungrammatical but odd.

            In this section, we will concentrate on some compound words that include the sign "jaL." The compound words are selected so that the sign gets a context for interpretation. All these compound words can be categorised into different domains of usage, namely, academic, archaic, and religious. Interestingly, the domains do not accept the other sign for "water," and almost all these compound words have their roots in Sanskrit. Let me begin with the list of compound words from the academic domain. By “academic domain,” the idea conveyed is that the word is either technical in nature, i.e., used for teaching, learning, or research purposes, or primarily used to emphasise a certain level of purity. The way H2O is used to imply the purity of the substance, the word jaL is used here to imply such a purity. The words listed here in all three categories are taken from Sarth JodaNi Kosh; they are all part of the entry of “jaL.”

 

jaLopchaar

Hydropathy

jaLghadi

water-watch

jaLchar

something that lives in water

jaLchargruh

 

aquarium

jaLaj

belonging to water

jaLjanit

produced by water

jaLjantu

insects of water

jaLaavaraN

Hydrosphere

jaLtarang

music through water

jaLtulaa

water based weighing scale

jaLdabaaN

pressure of water

jaLbhedan

Hydrolysis

Table 1: Compound words with jaL from the academic domain.

 

In all these compounds, the first part is the sign "jaL" and the second part is from the academic domain. The sign "paaNi," though a synonym, cannot be attached to any of the words of the given compounds. In fact, the sign "paaNi" is not accepted and used in the Gujarati academic domain for technical purposes. At the same time, the words like ‘jaLtarang’, ‘jaLdabaaN’ or ‘jaLjantu’ cannot be used with “paaNi” instead of “jaL” because a certain level of purity of water is expected in these concepts as well. It may be used only for explanation and simplification purposes; otherwise, the sign is not part of the academic register here. Considering this aspect, the signified for the signifier of the sound-image "jaL" is not simply "water" but something close to an “academically purified version of water,” something like “H2O.” Another important aspect here is that the academic domain specifically uses the Sanskrit root for the word "water," which is also very close to the usage of "hydrogen" or "hydra" in English and other languages. This classical root not only comes with pedantic connotations but also brings in the notion of purity. The 'Mythic' association of classical languages with purity is carried through by the words we use in these domains.

            Second, I would like to list a few archaic words. These words are not subject to change in terms of the modern usage of language, so they have survived because of the absence of modern equivalents for them.

 

jaLkamaL

Lotus

jaLaj

Belonging to water

jaLbambaakaar

full of water

jaLtaadan

useless attempts

jaLdaagam

Monsoon

jaLghar

cloud or sea, the house of water

jaLnilikaa

green vegetation on water

jaLpati

Sea

jaLshikar

sprinkle of water

jaLsut

Lotus

Table 2: Compound words with jaL, which are archaic.

 

Although all these words are listed in the “Saarth” spelling dictionary, they are rarely used by Gujarati speakers and writers. These words are not very productive in the speech and writing of the users. Being a Gujarati native speaker and having studied in Gujarati medium schools, it is a matter of surprise that except for jaLbambaakaar and jaLkamaL, no other word has been heard in the actual sentence by the present researcher.

            The religious domain is the third field where words with “jaL” are mostly found. The accompanying compound words are also Sanskrit-based “tatsama” words. The colloquial Gujarati words are not found in these compound words.

 

jaLkamaL

Lotus

jaLgariyo

One who brings water for the worship of Lord Krishna (Thaakor ji)

jaLdaah

To cremate in water

jaLdikshaa

baptism using water

jaLpaatra

Vessel for water in rituals

jaLyaatraa

a festival in which Lord Krishna is taken on water-tour

jaLsamaadhi

Voluntarily drown oneself in water

jaLsut

Lotus

jaLaanjali

Ritual offering of water to deceased relatives

annajaL

food and water, ritualistic offering

Table 3: Compound words with jaL from the religious domain.

 

The most important significance of this set of compounds is that the word "jaL" automatically refers to pious water. Interestingly, wherever the concept of water is associated with any ritual, it automatically gains the connotation of "piousness." Here, the users normally go with the assumption that since it is part of a pious ritual, everything involved is also pious. As a result, all the participants in the ritual are also expected to be immaculate and holy. The idea of a ritualistic bath is also associated here.

            Based on these three tables, we can safely assume that the linguistic sign jaL is expressed in specific domains with some specific words. Syntagmatically, the sign chooses its adjacent sign and forms an appropriate complex-sign in Gujarati usage. The synonymous sign, paaNi, does not fit in this syntagmatic order, meaning that the signs jaL and paaNi are in paradigmatic order. Both the signs have the same object, ‘water’. But, both signify something different; the interpretants for them are different. Both the signs refer to the same transparent liquid that is used for drinking, washing, and cooking purposes and which is scientifically identified as H2O. What makes the user identify this significant difference? What allows them to perceive jaL and paaNi differently?

            If we consider the sign of paaNi, the chain of sounds is a signifier and the concept that we understand, "a liquid that is used for drinking and washing purposes," is the signified. For a user, this combination gives the sign ‘paaNi’. The sign ‘jaL’ has a different chain of sounds, which is the signifier. It also contains the concept, "a liquid that is used for drinking and washing purposes" as part of the signified, but this signified contains a little more sense of ‘piousness’, ‘concerned with important people in terms of religion or status’, ‘connected with the objective study or description’, and so on, with respect to the kinds of interlocutors, domains, and topics at hand. The signified of jaL is not as fixed as that of paaNi.

 

3.1 Prakāśa and Vimarśa

 

Prakāśa and vimarśa are two powers that enable an individual to make sense of every awareness-episode. Prakāśa, meaning illumination, means a flood of light that makes an object or a sign identifiable in its environment; it is the removal of darkness so that we, as a user of language, will become aware of an object. Navya-Nyāya theorists connected the theory of apprehension of truth with the theory of the apprehension of cognition itself, prakāśa (Logic, Language and Reality 204–5, and Word and the World 136). While Vimarśa, simply defined as differentiation, allows an individual to identify and differentiate an object from its immediate environment, hence, illumination or removal of darkness is not enough as that identification may not be able to differentiate the object from its surroundings, and hence Vimarśa is needed. They are inseparable in this process of verbalising or languageing. The term for ‘water’ in Gujarati, “paaNi,” is a sign that allows the users to identify what paaNi is, the basic characteristics that help define it, such as liquid, transparent, drinkable, used for cooking and washing, rivers are the main sources, and so on. The sound chain, p-a-a-N-i, works as an illumination that makes us aware of the object and its existence, but its signifying traits make us aware of how this object’s existence differs from other closely adjacent objects. It is a liquid, which distinguishes it from other non-liquid objects. It is transparent, which differentiates it from other non-transparent liquid objects, such as “milk.” Thus, each differentiating trait becomes the Vimarśa power, allowing the individual user to make complete sense of the sign.

            Can we apply this understanding to the sign jaL? It is also a term for ‘water’ in Gujarati, which allows the users to identify what jaL is, and the basic characteristics that help define it, such as; liquid, transparent, drinkable, used for cooking and washing, rivers are the main sources, and so on. The sound chain, j-a-L, works as an illumination that makes us aware of the object and its existence, but its signifying traits make us aware of how this object’s existence is different from other closely adjacent objects. But how does the differentiation of jaL and paaNi become possible? Both of them bear almost similar characteristics. The difference we can identify is that the sign jaL is used for some very specific purposes. To put it very simply, non-ordinary paaNi is jaL. The water in some very specific domains like education, religion, deference, or respect, and at times, sarcasm, turns into jaL.

 

2a.       paaNi pio.

Water drink

“Drink water.”

2b.       jaL       grahaN            karo

            Water accept

            “Please, accept this water.”

 

Sentences 2a and 2b essentially talk about offering someone water to drink. But, when we use the sign jaL, it automatically connotes the notion of respect or deference. This additional connotation to the meaning of jaL also introduces another verb that is considered more appropriate with the noun jaL. Thus, the entire syntagmatic chain changes with the paradigmatic choice of the sign jaL. The paradigmatic choice is motivated by the domain or the interlocutor. For example, sentence 2b will be appropriate in a religious context or when the speaker is talking to someone of higher social status. Considering the idea of awareness-episode where ‘languageing’ clearly states that the natural power of vimarśa is not possible without the power of prakāśa (Word and the World 128), to put it differently, illumination precedes the differentiation. In our case, the sign-user must become aware of a new form of the object, jaL. Here, as a user, we are aware that the object we are now identifying is slightly different from the already defined object – paaNi; it has added significance of pious-ness, poetic-ness, or purity. Once this awareness comes, there will be a need for a new sign to distinguish it from the already existing sign inventory. That is, as a sign-user, we need a linguistic-sign that differentiates the newly identified object from a new sign. Bhartṛhari’s followers, Utpala and Abhinava, bring in the idea of manaskāra. As Matilal writes (Ibid. 138–9), “the kind of determination by word that is needed in the epistemologically first perception can arise from what is called manaskāra, i.e., mental attention.” It is equated with “cittābhoga” – the expansion of mind, which incorporates the new concept associated with a different signification of the object. The mental attention to the difference of the object under question, jaL, allows the user to look for another sign to designate it; the ‘expansion of mind’ here refers to the need for conceptual expansion to incorporate this special need of the signification. As a matter of fact, Abhinava defines manaskāra as “a readiness for the distinguishing act,” a readiness for the vimarśa (Ibid. 139).

The power of Vimarśa is not just about distinguishing the sign from the environment and adjacent signs but also about the functional and social viability of the given sign. The sign jaL may have different connotations in different domains. There is no fixed meaning that can be added to the meaning of paaNi, and we get the meaning of jaL. For example, let us check the following compounds from the above tables:

 

Table 1:           jaLghadi (water clock, clepsydra, reading the time through the controlled mechanism of water)

Table 2:           jaLkamaL (Lotus)

Table 3:           jaLaanjali (Ritual offering of water to deceased relatives)

 

In the first example, jaL connotes the running mechanism of the machine. Here, being liquid is enough. At best, the purity of water for scientific and research purposes can be implied in this academic usage of the sign jaL. In the second example, the sign connotes the flower that grows in water. Here, the body of water is signified by the word jaL. It does not add anything to the meaning of the word kamaL, as the lotus grows in water. Hence, jaLkamaL is largely used for poetic purposes. In the third example, the sign comes from the religious domain and clearly connotes its ritualistic significance. Here, the notions of piousness, holiness, and religious importance are added to the meaning of “water.” It cannot be ordinary water or an ordinary act of using water as an offering. The water may have come from some specified river, and/or it may have been ritualised with the help of religious chanting. How do we, as the users of language, distinguish this extra significance associated with water, specifically in the religious domain? This is where manaskāra comes into action and allows the user to differentiate the specialised usage from the ordinary one.

            The signs paaNi and jaL signify the same Object, but at the level of the Interpretant, we have two different signs signifying two different perceptions of the Object. Observing Bhartṛhari’s idea of sabda-brahman, the power of prakāśa allows the meaning-maker to perceive the Object – water; the power of vimarśa allows the meaning-maker to distinguish it from other similar Objects. But distinguishing paaNi from jaL is the most crucial. The real distinction is associated with the actual usage and procedure involved in the use of water. Both paaNi and jaL are used for washing, for example, but when a ritualistic wash is involved, the ‘water’ attains special status in terms of chanting of mantras or water being fetched from a “holy” source. When 'water' is offered to an important person, it gains a higher status; the offering is usually of jaL. Distinguishing the domain of usage or receiver of the message will define the selection of an appropriate sign. The choice is made on the basis of the pragmatic understanding of the situation, topic, and interlocutor. Bhartṛhari brings in the concept of anumānena vācakaḥ (signifying through inference) (Pāṇinian Studies 47). The interlocutors have the main sign in their awareness, but when a vernacular term is used, it does not signify the object directly; he argues that the interlocutor infers the standard term’s meaning through the vernacular sign. Here, Bhartṛhari provides examples of standard Sanskrit terms for “cow” and various vernacular terms. He advocates that the language user infers the standard Sanskrit meaning and connects it with the vernacular sign used by the interlocutor. Our case is a little different. Both paaNi and jaL are used in standard Gujarati, so when jaL is used, the interlocutor infers the signification of paaNi. Just that, the extra sense of purity or ritual aspect is missing. Again, the interlocutor’s manaskāra becomes important; while deriving the meaning through inference, the interlocutor’s mental attention allows him or her to come to the contextually and pragmatically correct interpretation.

            The situation is something similar to what modern Peircean semiotics refers to as two types of objects: “the dynamical object” and “the immediate object” (Andreichuk 233). The first is the real object of reference; let us say ‘water’ in our case. The second is the object as the sign presents it, i.e., refers to ‘water’, or the ‘pious form of water’, or the ‘purest or idealised form of water’. The difference appears to be at the level of the interpretant, which is pragmatically determined. But, with the interpretant, we also have a new representamen; the object remains the same. It appears as if paaNi for Gujarati speakers is a common noun, like “male,” and jaL is a proper noun, like “Peter” or “Bimal.” Both “Peter” and “Bimal” are “males,” but they have their own distinct identities in the given social group. “jaL” with the same analogy is essentially “paaNi,” but in the religious context, it bears the identity of being pious and ritualistic, while in the academic context it is “purest.” The language-users are aware of this distinction and, at times, put the signs of one domain into another domain to give sarcastic connotations. For example, they may say, “jaL grahaN karo” (Translation: “Drink water.”) to their friends or children to give the idea of false superiority to them and make them realise that their tantrums are misplaced.

 

4. Conclusions

 

Here, the discourse on the sacred and the ritualistic enters. In almost all Indian traditions, the sacred and ritualistic are clearly defined. The majority of natural objects and artefacts are categorised as sacred. It is almost a tautology for an Indian if we talk about "Sacred" nature, as various aspects of nature are already worshipped and part of major rituals in major religious sects of India. Nature is essentially sacred. Gadgil and Vartak (1994) talk about identifying "sacred groves" in the forest areas of Maharashtra. Their discussion also enlists the other such "sacred groves" in various parts of India and the world. What could have been the significance of the "sacred grove" in the larger forest area? It is already forest, and the majority of vegetation, greenery, and animals are safe there. The sacred grove, as discussed by Gadgil and Vartak, is a sanctified area, and everything within its limits is under the protection of the reigning deity. Any removal, even of shrubs, climbers, or dead wood, is taboo. Here, the primary motivation for identifying the sacred grove should be to differentiate the specific products of the forest from the rest. Analogically, the distinction between paaNi and jaL is also an attempt to sanctify certain forms of “water” and define its specialised usage in the religious and ritualistic domain.

            To conclude, let us understand the entire awareness-episode in brief. Every new situation comes with a few new signs; let us take the Gujarati sign ‘jaL’ as an example. In an academic conversation, the interlocutor encounters this new sign. Both the natural energies of prakāś and vimarś come into action here. The prakāś allows the user to perceive the new object and identify it; the vimarś allows the user to distinguish the object from its environment and other adjacent similar objects. Here, two other processes become helpful, first proposed by Bhartṛhari, anumānena vācakaḥ, making sense through inference – the sign user infers the meaning of the new sign through his or her existing understanding of the other synonymous and, in many cases, un-marked sign, ‘paaNi’ in this case. The second process, proposed by his followers, manāskara, or mental attention, occurs when the user pays attention to the environment in which the sign is used and how it is different from the un-marked usage. The relationship between marked usage and specific context of usage, i.e., academic domain, allows the user to comprehend and perceive the signification – a ‘pure form of water.’

            It is quite enticing to simply translate the notions of prakāśa and vimarśa into Saussurian syntagmatic and paradigmatic choices. Both these concepts are applicable to a single sign to make sense of it. Prakāśa allows us to identify a sign in the given discourse, while vimarśa allows us to distinguish the sign from the adjacent signs. So, both powers should be operative to make a complete and correct sense of the given linguistic sign. In the case of paaNi, it is quite easy for a Gujarati user to identify what ‘paaNi’ is, but another sense of this object, which is always employed in the specialised sense, jaL, poses a challenge for us. Though the object is the same, the domain differs, and hence it is important for the sign-user to identify and distinguish the correct sign for the given domain. Part of the requirement is the recategorisation of the object as something special: pious in the religious and ritualistic domains, while technical or pure in the academic domain. A similar understanding of meaning and cognition can be extended to other synonymous linguistic signs used in specific domains or styles.

 

Notes

 

1 For all the Sanskrit terms, I have followed the transliteration style followed in the source texts.

2 For jaL and paaNi – the Gujarati terms – I have used simple transliteration in which “L” stands for lateral retroflex sound, and “N” stands for retroflex nasal sound.

3 Matilal has transliterated this word with “k,” while Padoux transliterates the same word with “c.” Hence, we have a vāk/vāc variation for the same Sanskrit Sign.

4 I am indebted to Prof. Nilotpala Gandhi and Dr. Hemant Dave for this discussion.

 

           

Works Cited:

 

Andreichuk, Nadiia. “The Power of Temporality from a Semiotic Perspective: Translational Semiosis.” Translation and Power. Eds. Lucyna Harmon and Dorota Osuchowska. Berlin: Peter Lang. 2020. 231–239. Print.

Cardona, Goerge. “Indian Linguistics.” History of Linguistics: Volume I: The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics. Ed. Giulio Lepschy. London and New York: Routledge. 1994. 25–60. Print.

---. Recent Research in Pāṇinian Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1999. Print.

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. 2007. Print.

Dalvi, Rohit. “Indian Philosophy.” The Edinburgh Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Ed. Constantin V. Boundas. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2007. 445–460. Print.

Gadgil, Madhav, and V.D. Vartak. “The Sacred Uses of Nature.” Social Ecology. Ed. Ramachandra Guha. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994. 82–89. Print.

Gode, P.K., and C.G. Karve. Revised and Enlarged Edition of Prin. V.S. Apte’s the Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Volume II. Prasad Prakashan. 1958. Print.

Matilal, Bimal Krishna. Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1986. Print.

---. Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. 1990. Print.

---. The Word and the World: India’s Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. Print.

---. Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. Ed. Jonardon Ganeri. Oxford University Press. 2005. Print.

Padoux, André. Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras. Trans. J. Gontier. State University of New York Press. 1990. Print.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris. Duckworth. 1983. Print.

Saarth Gujarati Jodanikosh. 8th ed. Gujarat Vidhyapith. 2008. Print.

 

J. A. H. Khatri

Assistant Professor

Navrachana University, Vadodara

javedkhatri4@gmail.com

 

J. A. H. Khatri © 2022