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 355

Śabdavrttis, the nature of : Abhidhā
329 tataśca, "vācyād arthántaram bhinnam yadi tallingam asya saḥ, tan nántarīyakatayā nibandho hy asya laksanam." - (72) "abhede bahutā na syād ukter mārgántarágrahāt, tena dhvanivad esā'pi
vakroktir anumā na kim? - (73) Mahimā also rejects suggestivity - vyañjakatva - as word-power, for there is no other power of the word except ‘abhidhā'. : (pp. 146, ibid) - Mahimā observes - "nā'pi śabdasya abhidhā-vyatirekeņa vyañjakatvam vyāpārántaram upapadyate, yena arthántaram pratyāyayed; vyakteh anupapatteh, sambandhántarasya ca asiddheh. Even in the absence of 'vyakti' or 'sambandhántara', if suggestivity is accepted with reference to a word, then no fixed scheme will hold good in that case - "tad abhāve'pi tad abhyupagame tasya artha-niyamo na syād, nibandhana-abhāvāt." (pp. 146, ibid) - Word cannot have any direct relationship with suggested meaning. If word had any natural relationship with suggested sense in form of 'rati' and other emotions, as in case of songs (i.e. music), then one and all could have been able to apprehend the same - "na hi asya, geyasya iva ratyā"dibhir bhāvaih svābhāvika eva sambandhaḥ, sarvasya eva tat-pratīti-prasangāt.” (pp. 146, ibid)
No relation of a word with the suggested sense can be believed to be born of convention as suggestion is 'aupādhika' and 'upādhis' are innumerable and uncertain. One and the same word may suggest different meanings under different contexts. So, to fix a particular suggested sense in case of a fixed word, like convention in case of expressed sense, is impossible.
Mahimā also examines the possibility of prefixes (= upasargas) being suggestive. He is clear that if suggestivity is totally denied in case of a word, the prefixes can never be accepted as suggesting any meaning. Dr. C. Rajendran in a foot-note (no. 58, pp. 72, ibid) notes : "Here the assumption of MB (i.e. Mahima Bhatta) is that Dyotakarva of the grammarians is the same as the vyañjakatva of the Dhvani theorists. There is however, no supporting evidence adduced." It may be noted that on an earlier occasion we have also noted that the 'manifestation of