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 146

the Vyakti by Lakşaņā, since Abhidhā cannot express Gotva (Jäti) - no more as per the dictum "Višeşyam nabhidha gacchet. ...višeşaņe" (Quote-7), so the meaning of an individual bull (Govyakti) is indicated by the word Gauh, as Gotva (Vācyartha) includes Govyakti, it is a proper case of Upādānalaksaņā. Mammața refutes the view by saying that Govyakti is known by Aksepa or inference due to Avinābhāva between Gojāti and Govyakti and not by Lakşaņā. Consequently, the question of Upādānalakşaņā being present in Gauranubandhyaḥ cannot arise. Again there is no Prayojana (or Rūdhi) in such a usage. So it is a case of misapplication of Lakşaņā, though the argument is presented in an intelligent way by quoting the famous maxim (Nyāya) : Visésyam nābhidhā gacchet etc. which means the Visesya cannot be grasped until the Višeşana is grasped. The same idea is expressed in Sabdabuddhikarmanām viramya vyāpārābhāvāt."
Mammata wants to reduce the above argument to absurdity. He, therefore, says that if Laksaņā is resorted to in Gauranubandhyaḥ by Avināhbūtamūla Akşepa, then we will have to assume the same process of indication in Kriyatām to get a Kartā, in Kuru to get a Karma and to get Grham in Praviša, Bhakşaya in Pindim etc. But, as we all know, we get this idea completed by the process of implication known as Arthāpatti or Śrutārthāpatti. Kumārila has said : "Sabdi hi ākankşā sabdenaiva pūryate".
After controverting the view of Mukula regarding the alleged operation in Gauranubandhyah and establishing that it is an instance of implication, Mammata, not Hemachandra, turns to dispose of another view that of the Mimamsaka - which regards Pino devadatto divā etc. as an example of Lakşāņā. This statement, which means 'The fat Devadatta does not eat by day', conveys the sense that he must be eating by night, not by Lakşaņā, but on the strength of implication or verbal presumption. So to urge that 'nightly feeding' is indicated in the above sentence is unwarranted, since it is the province of
121