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 393

śabdavrttis the nature of : Abhidhā
367 of the three varieties of abhidhā are ably challanged and refuted by Jagannātha. (pp. 442, onwards)
Dr. Prof. Bhagavatiprasad Pandya (Ahmedabad) who worked on Appayya Dixita for his doctoral thesis (“Appayya Dixita, Kavi ane Alamkārika" (in Gujarati), pub. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, '74), under the supervision of our great alamkāra-guru Prof. R. B. Athavale who has produced in three volumes, - including the first volume comprising of the bio-data of Jagannātha and the critical appreciation of the R.G. in both Marathi and Gujarati, - has tried to defend Appaya's observations on abhidhā against J.'s attack. The substance of the defence is as under. (Ref. pp. 196, ibid) - Jagannātha had pointed out the belmish, called ātmā"śraya or asangati in Appayya's definition. But Appayya's observation can be defended if we explain his definition as below. We have to take the meaning of the term 'sakryā' in Appayya's definition as “sakti of sanketa”. If śakti called abhidhā takes the help of this sanketa-sakti then only a special meaning can be directly apprehended from a special word; and not otherwise. So, if by 'śaktyā' we mean 'sanketa-śaktyä' then the blemish of ātmā”śraya or asangati as pointed out by Jagannātha will have no chance ! Thus, no 'sva-skandhā”rohana' will take place. Of course, there is verbal gimmick in this defence, but then it does not cease to be convincing either.
Dr. Pandya has tried to defend Appayya in one more context also (pp. 199, ibid). He observes that Jagannātha has enumerated a fourth variety of a word such as "yaugika rūdha”, which is not directly mentioned by Appayya. But then the latter, could have accomodated it under either 'rūdha' or yaugika' variety. Jagannātha has given the word 'aśvagandhā' as an illustration. Appayya has also cited a word such as 'niśānta' which means grha or house as its rūdha meaning and which has the sense of 'end of night as its yaugika sense. But he has not called it 'yaugika-rūdha' by name, for here both the meanings are not simultaneously apprehended. Thus, Dr. Pandya argues that eventhough Appayya knows the fourth variety of 'yaugika, rūdha' he did not enumerate it for want of justification. One and the same word, say, 'niśānta' here or 'ašvagandha' there, can be taken either as rūdha or yaugika as the context permits, and because both the meanings are not simultaneously apprehended no fourth variety should be considered. This is how Dr. Pandya justifies Appayya's three-fold scheme. We may not find it that convincing.
Thus we have tried to sketch the full graph of ‘abhidhā'. We have seen how the original concept was inherited from the śāstras such as the Vyākarana, Mimamsā, and Nyāya. We have seen how various disciplines tried to fix 'samketa' at various