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 497

‘Lakşaņā
471 Sabara insists on this principle at different places in varying expressions. - See
134 - śruti-laksanāvićaye śrutir iyāyasi; SB. pp. 565, 1244, 1262 śrutilaksaņā-visaye ca śrutir nyāyyā; SB. p. 1210, 1222, śrutiśca lakṣaṇāyā garīyasi. SB. p. 1260; śrutiśca laksanāyā gariyasī; SB. p. 1278 - śrutiśca lakṣaṇāyā balīyasī; SB. p. 1556 - śruti-laksaņayoś ca śrutir nyāyyā; SB. p. 2243 - śrutiśca laksaņāto nyāyyā;. Thus lakṣaṇā has some scope against śruti or abhidhā, which is clearly favoured by the Mimāmsaka. Laksaņā is admissible only as a strong weapon against 'ānarthakya dosa'. So, 'śruty asambhava' or “mukhyábhāva” is therefore, laid down as the most important pre-requisite of lakṣaṇā.
But this inapplicapility of 'vācyártha' is not the only basis for laksaņā. There is yet another basis for resorting to laksanā. In a statement such as, for example, ‘vedam adhītya snāyāt', meaning, "one should take a bath after studying the veda", the primary sense is not impossible. But the point is that if one takes a bath on the completion of vedic studies, what purpose can be served by this bath ? Perhaps, it can be said that here, 'snāna' or bath serves an 'adrsta' purpose - an unseen reason. But as far as there is drsta-hetu we should not imagine an adrsta-hetu. Prof. Devasthali notes that, “It is for avoiding this ‘adrstárthatā' that in the text under consideration, we resort to laksaņā and take it to mean, “As soon as one finishes his vedic studies one should relinguish the vows of 'asnāna' and others, but remain with his guru and prosecute the dharma-jijñāsā.” (pp. 80, ibid). - The SB. p. 7, on Mi. Sū. I. i. 1, reads - “na vā idam snānam adrstártham vidhīyate. kimtu laksanaya asnānā”di-niyamasya paryavasānam vedádhyayana-samakālam āhuḥ. vedam adhitya snāyād gurukulān mā samāvartista iti, adrsta-parihārāya eva.” The Mimāmsaka is of the opinion that - "drste sati” i.e. when a 'drsta' reason can be imagined, the assuming of a-drsta, i.e. - 'adrsta kalpanā' makes for a more serious draw-back than laksanā. drste sati adrsta-kalpana' involves an assumption unwarranted by our experience, but laksanā is comparatively a more acceptable thing, it being a matter of everyday experience and sanctioned by daily usage. - SB. pp. 324 has - "laksane ced varam laksaņā kalpitā na yāgābhidhānam. laukiki hi laksanā, hatho’prasiddha-kalpanā. - again, “lakṣaṇā hi adrsta-kalpanāyā jyāyasī. pramānād hi sā bhavati; and also, "laksanā cā'drsta-kalpanāyā jyāyasī." - Then, (pp. 80, ibid) - "Avoidance of conflict or contradiction between the several words of the text itself, or between several texts of scriptures affords yet another basis for resorting to laksaņā, as is seen in the case of text like, 'aditir dyaur aditir antariksam', or, 'rvam eva mātā, tvam eva pita', etc. - See SB. on Mi. Sü. I. 2.39 - “guņād a-vipratiședhaḥ syāt.” Again, laksaņā is welcome in view of the context. For