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 428

402
SAHRDAYĀLOKA need be taken as true requirements. The omission by the speaker of a particular nature of the instrument, place, etc., for the action recommended suggests that he is indifferent about it. Thus, “gām ānaya" is a complete sentence eventhough the instrument viz. 'dandena' - 'with a stick' is not mentioned. It is added only if it intended. Thus the scope of 'ākāńksā' depends on the intention of the speaker. In case of an elliptical sentence like, “the door, door”, - i.e. “dvāram dvāram”, this requires some verb such as 'pidhāna' or 'close for syntactic completeness. But in case of, "gām ānaya” it is not so.
For Advaita Vedāntins this "ākānksā' is two-fold viz. utthita-ākāńksā and utthāpya-ākānksā. The former takes place when it is actual or natural, i.e. when there is natural expectancy of one word for the other to complete sense. The other one is seen when there is potential expectancy which could be roused in case it is required. Thus, when one utters, "gām ānaya”, the listener may think of the cow being white, red, black and so forth. The possibility of such potential adjectives of a cow, is limitless. According to this view therefore, the ākānkṣā that exists between words in a sentence, must be mutual and not one sided. For instance "dhavalām gām ānaya", the adjective dhavala' has a direct and natural expectancy for the substantive "gām", whereas the latter i.e. the cow has only a postential expectancy for the adjective 'dhavala' i.e. white.
The Mimāmsakas explain ākāńksā also on the basis of psychological incompleteness of an idea. The Vākyártha-mātřkāvrtti, p. 7 has -
"anvitasyā bhidhānártham uktártha-ghațanāya vā, pratiyogini jijñāsā
yā sā”kānkşeti giyate.” abhidhānā’paryavasānam abhidheyártha-paryavasānam ca jijñāsodayanibandhanam.”
We may add that, if ákānksā is with reference to artha-grahana, then necessarily it has to include the psychological aspect concerning the listener and perhaps even Bhartshari goes astray in his attack on the definition of a sentence as noted above. Actually a group of sentences stringed together are ruled out from the scope of being a single sentence as the ākānksā of the Mimāmsakas does take care of the psychological requirement of a listener.
As to the nature of ākānksā the two schools of Mimāmsā, viz. the Prābhākara and the Bhätta seem to differ. Of course both are concerned with the interpretation