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 347

Śabdavșttis, the nature of : Abhidhā
321 the function of a word is limited, and it does not extend further upto any added sense, in absence of any convention. For the added sense, the function, not of word, but of the expressed sense only, should be accepted : "tatasca abhidheyártha-visaya eva asya vyāpāro yuktaḥ, na arthấntara-vișayaḥ, tatra sanketábhāvāt. tad abhāve'pi tatra tat parikalpane sarvaḥ kutaścid abhidheyárthavad arthántaram api pratīyāt. tasmad yatra sanketā”peksā, tatra eva asya vyāpāra iti avagantum yuktam, na arthántare; tatra vaksyamāņa-nayena arthasya eva tadupapatti-samarthanād iti.” (pp. 140, 141, ibid)
We may observe with Dr. Rewaprasad that Mahimā here pushes two arguments in favour of his thinking. First, he holds that a word cannot convey another sense directly, as it does with reference to its conventional sense, and secondly, a word can convey only that sense with reference to which a convention is fixed. Mahimā is of the opinion that the formation of a pot is the
f coming together of the two halves, and not the potter, as the joining of halves immediately preceeds the formation of a pot. Similarly in case of added sense, i.e. 'arthántara' the immediate predecessor is the expressed sense, and not the word itself. So, being an immediate cause the primary sense is the cause of any additional sense, and not the word.
Mahimā also argues that the functions of the arrow and word are not identical. The function of the arrow, in cutting, ripping through and taking the breath away, is its own, i.e. it is an independent power of an arrow. But for the word it is not so. It conveys meaning remaining dependent on the convention. So, the function of the word is not independent but is dependent on something else. Thus a word has a limited capacity to convey only that meaning with reference to which convention is made. It cannot proceed to an added target, like an arrow. It cannot proceed to an added sense of its own. The added sense is collected only by the function of the primary sense, which should be taken here as the cause. So, the added sense has to be accepted as inferred only.
But, we may say that Mahimā's thinking is faulty. The arrow also, when placed in a sheath does not have any capacity even to pierce the softest thing on earth. Only when it is discharged by a mighty shooter, it does the said tricks. So, even the function of an arrow has its capacity, originally borrowed from the shooter's strength. Similary, a word when used by an expert poet attains the added function to convey an added sense also. But, this is not to justify 'dīrgha-dīrghatara-vyāpāra'. Actually, as explained by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, we have to accept