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 365

Sabdavrttis the nature of : Abhidhā
339
explanation also follows Jhalkikara - pp. 36, who observes : "tacca mahābhāsyaviruddham. mahābhāsye śabdasya eva upādhitvena vyavasthāpanāt.”]
Prof. Gajendragadkar proceeds - "Thirdly, Candidāsa's interpretation of the three words referred to is unsatisfactory. 'antya' cannot mean 'vyakti'. Then, with this sense, the compound should have been 'buddhi-nirgāhyántyam'. Again, ‘antyabuddhi-nirgrāhya' in this sense cannot be exclusive to 'samjñā-vācaka' words. For vyakti' is comprehended at the end from jāti, guna and kriyā-vācaka words as well. The explanation of samhrta-krama, though understandable, is unnatural. The sense given to 'upādhi' by Candidāsa, viz. 'padārthapa-sthity-anukūlatā' is different from what Mammata understands as 'upādhi' in the case of the three other kinds of words. Besides such 'upādhi' is by no means exclusive to samjñā-sabdas. For, it is present in all words.'
Prof. Gajendragadkar here quotes relevant passages from both Pradeepa and Udyota, the summary of which is contained in Jhalkikar's explanation (pp. 36, ibid) who also concludes with the words : "sarveșām eva śabdānām tathātvena asya vailaksanya-anā”patter-laksaņā”patteśca iti pradīpodyotayoḥ spastam.”
Earlier, we observed that Mammața quotes the authority of the Mahābhāsya in his support : "catustayī śabdānām pravsttih." - Here 'pravsttih' means currency or use in the language, i.e. the reason why words are used in the language - (pravsttinimittam) i.e. the conventional meaning. Thus the word becomes current in four ways; which amounts to saying that 'samketa' is four-fold.
Mammata here anticipaters an objection such as that “jāti' as 'prāna-pradadharma' is not comprehensive because there are certain prāņa-prada-dharmas which are not regarded as 'jāti'. For the Vaiśésikas pārimandalya' i.e. the atomic size of a 'paramāņu' or atom is taken as a 'guna' and not "jāti'. This is so because pārimāndalya' and 'vibhutva' are 'parimānas' or dimensions which fall under the category of 'guna'.
The fact is that an atom is an atom due to its pārimandalya', which if removed, the atom will cease to be an atom. 'Vibhutva' also is a prāna-prada-dharma of ākāśa. How can the Vaiśesikas put these under 'guna' ?
Mammața's reply is that both these viz. 'pārimāņdalya' and 'vibhutva' are 'jāti' only. The Vaiśeșikas place them under 'guna' because they subsume 'parimāna' i.e. measure under 'guna'. So, this is only from a technical point of view. Thus the definition of 'jāti’ as prāna-prada-dharma' is not violated. The principle of classification as advocated by the Vaiseșikas and the one held by the grammarians
TLC