________________
[76]
May be Hemacandra was guided by one criterian. It can be this. In all illustrations of gauni of two varieties, the two objects were different from each other. In laksanā the object is the same but two things connected with the same object are identified e.g. 'ghosa' and 'praväha' - both belong to Gangā. But this is also not applicable in ‘kuntāḥ pravišanti'. So, it seems there is no logic in his approach. He finally observes (pp. 46) "yatra ca vastvantare vastvantaram upacaryate sa gauņaḥ arthaḥ, yatra tu na tathā sa laksya iti vivekah." Thus the classification of laksanā into gauni and suddha as presented
ata seems more natural. Hemacandra's effort to distinguish between two śabda-vịttis such as gauni and laksaņā which for him are independent of each other, appears to be unnatural or acquired. Thus, the only point of difference is that in laksaņā the meaning indicated is 'tattvena laksyamāṇah', i. e. is indicated through identity, while in 'gaunī it is either through identity or through difference also i. e. 'bhedābhedena'. But the thin line demarceting ‘abhedena gauņi' and 'tattvena laksaņā? remains undefined clearly. For Hemachandra himself says, "sesam tu gauna-laksanam anuvartata eva.” At the same time one thing, for sure, is clear that Hemacandra's 'gauni', is not the same as 'gauni' variety of laksana as conceived by Mammața, or even that of Bhoja. Perhaps in recognising gaunī as a separate vstti, Bhoja's influence was responsible.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
