Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 343

Sabdavrttis, the nature of : Abhidhā
317
He further observes (pp. 119, ibid) :
"gangāyām ghosa ity ādau api gangādayórthāḥ svātmani-anupapatti-bādhitaghosā”dy adhi-karana-bhāvāh, tad-upādāna-samarthyāt sambandha-mātraparikalpita-tattvā” ropam tad adhikarana-bhāvopagama-yogyam arthántaram eva tatā"di-rūpam anumāpayanti.
Mahimā further observes that only siinilarity can not be the cause of identification or superimposition. Other relations such as 'samyoga' or conjunction, etc. also can be the cause. So, through 'ganga' etc. the objects such
etc. are inferred, and not through any other vrtti or function of a word, because the fact of being the substratum of the hamlet can not be understood by any other way : (pp. 119, ibid)
"na hi tat sāděśyam eva ekam tattvā”ropa-nibandhanam isyate, kim tarhi ? tatsambandhā”dir api, iti tat-sambandha-mātra-samāropita-tadbhāvas tatā”dir eva ghosā"dy adhikaranabhāvópādāna-anyathā-anupapattyā gangā"dīnām arthānām anumeya eva bhavitum arhati.
Mahimā accepts only one power of the word and that is the power of direct expression viz. abhidhā. He rejects anything else than that and whatever other meaning is comprehended, he holds, is through ‘anumāna' or inference. He firmly believes that the power of a word is exhausted after giving its expressed sense. So, it has no capacity even to know about the existence of the secondary sense, such as the 'tata' or bank, in this case, then what to think of actually touching this secondary sense ? The metaphorical expression is resorted to only to convey the knowledge of the existence of coolness and purity of the Gangā resting in the hamlet, the object of superimposition, and not similarity, as in the first illustration. The cause viz. 'tattvā”ropa' i.e. superimposition is identical in both the cases. Mahimā holds that similarity of the object which is superimposed, or its samyogā"di relations, are manifold. He quotes a famous kārikā here, with a difference in reading from the same quoted by Abhinavagupta in his Locana on Dhv. I. i - with reference to the expression, "bhāktam āhuḥ tam anye."
Mahimā observes : (pp. 119, ibid) : “sabdaḥ punaḥ svārthábhidhāna-mātravyāpāra-paryavasita-sāmarthyo na arthántarasya tatā"der vārtām api veditum utsahate, kim punah samsparsam iti uktam.
prayojanam punaḥ asya evam-vidhasya ukti-vaicitrya-parigrahasya tatā”dau āropa-visaye vastuni āropyamāna-gangā”di-gata-punyatva-sitalatvā”di-dharma