________________
702
SAHRDAYĀLOKA in the absence of the knowledge of the non-contextual sense, forbid the new-comer from taking the other sense with reference to water ? Thus, the apprehension of the non-contextual sense cannot be negated. Thus, the knowledge of the context and the like, cannot be taken as an obstructive factor (i.e. pratibandhaka), with regard to the non-contextual sense.
Having thus refuted the first view, Jagannātha takes up the refutation of the second view. According to this view, with the help of the knowledge of context and the like, the import of the speaker is ascertained as being in respect of the contextual sense. Through this cause in the form of the import-ascertainment, the apprehension of correlation of the expressed sense, takes place with regard to the contextual sense alone, and the apprehension of the non-contextual sense which follows, is through suggestive power (i.e. vyañjanā). Now, the point is whether vyañjanā or suggestive power is accepted at all places where the non-contextual sense is to be gathered in case of a word having a multiple sense, or at some places only. The first alternative is not acceptable, for if at all places the apprehension of the non-contextual sense is ascertained through suggestive power, it will be futile to accept import-ascertainment to be responsible for the apprehension of the correlation of the expressed sense in the case of a word having a multiple sense. It cannot be taken as a cause only in the apprehension of the expressed sense, and not with reference to the apprehension through vyañjanā or suggestive power. For, if once the apprehension of the non-contextual sense is accepted, then what harm is there if we accept it as caused through abhidhā or the power of expression ? So, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, if the non-contextual sense is intended at all places, then, whether it is collected through the power of expression (abhidhā) or through the power of suggestion (vyañjanā), makes no difference : "atātparyártha-bodhasya sārvatrikatve tasya śakti-jātāyām api bādhakábhāvāt.” (pp. 334, ibid, R.G. II).
The objector's view may be put as follows : In the case of a word having a multiple sense, after the meaning is presented the verbal apprehension is done with reference to the contextual sense alone and not the non-contextual sense, the import-ascertainment being done with reference to the same i.e. the contextual sense. This is supported by normal experience. To abide by this observation, only import-ascertainment is to be taken as the cause in respect of the apprehension through expression (abhidhā) in case of a word having multiple sense. Or else, verbal apprehension with reference to the non-contextual sense also will tend to follow along with that of the contextual sense, from the very beginning. Once the
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org