________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
735 to a meaning concerning particularity, then, without convention, how can it yield the suggested sense ? So, for this nimittavādin also, acceptance of vyañjanā is unavoidable, says Mammața. And to say that "naimittikánusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante” is foolhardy.
Jhalkikar (pp. 225, ibid) observes : "ayam bhāvaḥ. itara-vyavahāradarśanenaiva vyutpannasya losthā”dy anvitánayana-vyavahāram kadā’py adrstavatópi 'lostham ānaya' iti vākyād bodha-sthale losthā”dy anvitánayanā"der višeșasyópasthāpakántarábhāvena śabdādevopasthitir vācyā. tathā ca tatra sanketa-grahe sabdāt tadupasthitih. śabdāc ca tad upasthitau sanketagraha ity anyonyā”śrayah syāt. na ca vyañjanā'pi tādvad durgrahā iti vācyam. abhidhā laksaņā vā jñātaivópayogini iti satyam. dharmi-grāhaka-māna-siddhā vyañjanā tu ajñāta eva bodhikā. na cátiprasangaḥ. vaktrādi-vaiśistyápekṣaṇāt. phalavatrvena tathaiva kalpanād iti dik. tasmāt “naimittikánusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante” ity avicāritábhidhānamiti" iti udyota-sudhāsāgarayoḥ spastam."
Jhalkikar further adds - "ayam atra siddhānta-sāraḥ. vyangyópasthitau sabdasya jñāpakarva-rūpam nimittatvam asmābhir api sammatam. tatra násmākam vivādah paramtu vyañjanāyāḥ asvikāre tanna sambhavati. śabdasyárthanimittatvam vyāpārasāpekşam eva niyatam. yathā vācyártha-laksyárthayor abhidhālakṣaṇe vyāpārau tathā ihā’pi kópi vyāpāróvaśyam angīkāryaḥ. anyathā hi śabdasya nimittatva"niscayena naimittiko vyangyártha ity eva bhavad abhimatópi na siddhyati. yadi tu vyāpāram vinā’pi sabdasya nimittatvam syāt tadā abhidhālaksanépi datta-jalāñjali syātām ity asmābhir ucyate ity abhiprāyam a-buddhvā abhidhānam avicāra-vijpmbhitam eva iti vivaraņe’pi spastam."
We had seen earlier that Abhinavagupta has taken this nimittavādin also along with anvitábhidhāna-vāda and he is not unjustified in it. But Mammața has taken it as a separate group of objectors eventhough broadly falling in the company of the anvitábhidhānavāda as even this objector believes in abhidhā giving a correlated meaning concerning generality only. Same is the case with the dirghatara-vyāpāravādins, who are taken as a separate group by Mammata, though actually forming only a section of the mimāmsakas as suggested by Abhinavagupta. It may be noted that Jhalkikara suggests that this view was postulated by Mimāmsakas such as Lollaţa and the like, who chose to follow the abhihitánvayavāda.
We do not know whether we are justified in associating Lollata's name with this view and also with abhihitánvayavāda. In the Abhinayabhāratī also the views of Lollata are quoted and discussed at a number of places but we have no conclusive evidence to suggest that Lollata, if at all a mīmāmsaka, belonged positively to the
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org