Kavyanushasana Critical Study

SR No.: 001713
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 558
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Kavya
File Size: 10 MB

Page 135

(c) the Prayojana may be assumed to be to suggest stupidity of the bull, as like Gotya, Jādyādi is its nature. Thus in the second stage, Jādyādi are indicated by Gauḥ, as its own qualities. (d) Now, in the third stage, the above qualities (indicated) become the Pravșttinimitta or cause of the expression of Vähika through Gauh. This last stage refers to Sadrśyātādrūpya due to Sāmānādhikaranya of Gauḥ and Vahika. Thus Jādyādi become the basis of expressing Vähika. Thus we have Abhidhā, Lakşaņā and once again Lakşaņā functioning to make Gauh convey the sense of Vähika in Vähikah gauḥ. The first view suffers from several defects of violation of rules of logic and tradition. It makes Abhidhā function twice and makes Lakşaņā (Gogatajāṇyādi) cause an expression - a contradiction in terms, it makes Gauh express Vähika (absurd, since no Sanketa is possible) and so forth. It is clear that Gogataguņas cannot activate Gauḥ to express Vähika. The argument involves cumbrousness and inconsistencies.
(2) The second view maintains that (a) the word Gauh yields Gotva by Abhidhā; (b) then indicates Jādyamāndyādi of Vahika due to Guņābhedasambandha; and (c) by implication or inference or invariable association expresses Vähika. Here, Abhidha Stage is the same as in view one. But in the second stage, Gauh, unlike in view one, indicates Vähika's Gunas. Therefore, Vähikaguņas are indicated by Gauh. And Vähika is not expressed but inferred from Vāhikaguņas which represent the Lakşyartha of Gauh in the Laksaņā stage; since Guņas imply a Gunin i.e. Vähika (by Akşepa). Here we have Abhidha and then Laksana and Anumāna, to cap it all. Lakşaņā is inefficient both in view one and view two. No purpose can be served by these 'involved', yet 'faulty' procedures.
(3) The third view hits the nail on the head when it finally and correctly determines the nature of Lakşaņā involved in the instance Gaurvahikah. Here Gauh expresses Gotva which is inappropriate to Vähika (Mukhyarthabādha). So we resort to Lakşaņā to get the indication af Vahikah (Parathah). As both
110