________________
734
SAHRDAYĀLOKA mātre. evañ ca, nimittasya niyata-nimittatvam yāvan na niścitam, tāvān naimittikasya pratītir eva katham iti “naimittikā'nusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante" iti a-vicāritā'bhidhānam." -
"It is also said that "causes are ascertained on the bases of their effects." (To this we reply) that to be a cause is either to be a generative (kāraka) or to be an indicator (jñāpaka). The word on account of its being illuminator, cannot be of the
generative. And how can it be an indicator of the unknown ? Knownness comes from the denotative convention only, which pertains to the correlated only. Therefore, so long as a cause is not determined to be precisely a cause, how can the cognition of the effect (i.e. meaning) arise from it (i.e. the word) ? Hence the view that, "the causes are ascertained on the basis of the effect, (i.e. meaning)", is a thoughtless statement."
The Sampradāya-prakāśins observes : (pp. 164, ibid) : “uktena prakāreņa vyangyártha-pratītau, nimittatvena abhyupagatasya śabdasya nimittatvam eva yāvan niyatatayā na niścitam, tāvad, “naimittikánusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante" ity etad a-vicăritábhidhānam.
The idea is as follows : This view holds that what the supporters of vyañjanā call vyangyártha is also derived through the instrumentality of words alone. Beyond 'sabda' there is no other 'nimitta' i.e. cause for the vyangyártha. Hence 'word' is the only 'cause'. To this, Mammața says that 'nimitta' or 'cause can be two-fold only, i.e. it can be either a 'kāraka' nimitta i.e. a generative cause or a 'jñāpaka' nimitta, i.e. indicative cause. Now a word cannot be a generative cause but it can only be an indicator i.e. 'jñāpaka'. But its being an indicator i.e. 'ñāpaka' i.e. its 'jñāpakatva' depends on its being known. It should be known that such and such a word carries convention with reference to such and such a meaning. Thus the bodhya-bodhaka-bhāva between a suggested meaning and a word would rest only if the particular word's convention with reference to a particular suggested sense is known to and accepted by all, through its power of expression or abhidhā. But it is known that abhidhā in case of a word gives only a particular conventional sense only which does not go to cover the suggested sense. So, even the jnapakatvarūpa-nimittatva of a word with reference to a given suggested sense will not be possible here for according to the nimittavādin the abhidhā gives only a sāmānyarūpa artha, i.e. meaning pertaining to generality alone, and that too in a correlated form only. So, the point is that a word, which the objector holds as a ‘nimitta' for vyangyártha has no fixed (niścayena) (i.e. conventional) relation with the same, i.e. the vyangyártha, thus the apprehension of the latter in form of 'naimittiki pratīti' will not follow at all! When for the objector the abhidhā is powerless even to travel
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org