More on "sarva"

[kellner at ue.ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950405152952.19981A-100000 at spruce.rs.itd.umich.edu>
mmdesh at umich.edu writes:

>> Gillon's translation of the Sanskrit line leaves out the rhetorical force 
>> of the text.  The translation appears 'bland' in comparison with the 
>> original.  'Yaavaan kaScit pratizedhaH' could perhaps be rendered as 
>> 'Whatsoever negation there is', 'sa sarvaH anupalabdheH': 'all that is 
>> [caused] by non-apprehension'.  Thus, in the original Sanskrit, I do not 
>> see any redundanncy, when we take the rhetorical force into account.  
>> Otherwise, in Sanskrit itself, from a purely propositional point of view, 
>> one could rephrase the sentence without the word sarva.
>> 	Madhav

What you call "rhetorical force" is precisely what I meant with
"content-specific" reasons for the _sarva_ not being redundant here.
To insert a bit of the context of this sentence in the translation,
you could rephrase it as "whatsoever (form of) negation there is
(in proof formulations), this is in its entirety (based on
the logical reason of) non-cognition". In the following
passages Dharmaki at rti enumerates various types of logical
applications which involve negation, and reduces all these
to the basic overall-structure of _anupalabdhi_. Given this
context, the _sarva_ is indeed not redundant - exactly
because of the "rhetorical force" etc. Of course,
from a purely propositional point of view, a lot of
Sanskrit words could be done without in all possible
kinds of texts...

Birgit Kellner
Institute for Indian Philosophy
University of Hiroshima