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 145

Abhidhavṛttimatṛakā. Mukulabhaṭṭa, while discussing the powers of a word, gives "Gauranubandhyaḥ" and "Pino devadatto diva na bhunkte" as instances of Upādānalakṣaṇā, a variety of the Súddha-lakṣaṇā according to Mammata's scheme. Now since Mammata is engaged in explaining this same Upādānalakṣaṇā (called Ajahallakṣaṇā or Ajahatsvartha more appropriately), he thinks it fit to refute Mukula's views and expose his fallacies in giving these two instances. Hemachandra abridges this statement somewhat to suit the context of Lakṣaṇa here. But the sense of the arguments is identical. The who e passage means: "Expressions like" 'A bull should be immolated' and so on should not be cited as examples (of Upādānalakṣaṇā) to argue that since here the sense of generality (the primary sense) is not possible because the immolation enjoined by the Veda cannot apply to a class; hence the individual (bull) is implied by the class-word bull; by virtue of the dictum that an individual is invariably associated with the class; and though it is not mentioned in so many words."
To state it otherwise, what Mammata means is that the expression Gauranubandhyaḥ should not be cited to prove that there is Upādānalakṣaṇa in it because an individual (bu!!) is indicated by the class on account of the incompatibility of the immolation enjoined by the Śruti applying to the whole class of bulls and is not expressed as per the dictum that the expressive power cannot reach the thing qualified owing to the exhaustion of its power in expressing the attribute. For, here, there is no purpose. And if indication of the sense of an individual (bull) is intended as implication due to invariable association (with the class), then you will have to admit indication also in understanding the subject of Kriyatam, the object in Kuru and the words Grham and Bhakṣaya respectively in Pravisa and Pindim. Thus far it is one single view or contention attributed to Mukulabhaṭṭa by Manikyachandra. However, it is also ascribed to Mandanamiśra by Udyota, a commentary on the Kavyaprakāśa. According to this view, the Jati conveys
120