________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
737 In cases like "He offers libation of curd", the offering of the libation being (known as) accomplished elsewhere, the means alone is prescribed here. Sometimes the injunction applies to two things and still in other cases the injunction applies to three things. For example, in cases like, "weave the red garment", it may be the injunction for one or two or three.
Thus whatever is prescribed there alone is the purport (of the word), therefore the purport relates to the given word only, and not to what is merely implied. If it were so, then in cases like "the former runs”, the purport could be related to the sense of the latter also. - "tataśca yad eva vidheyam, tatraiva tātparyam, ity upāttasyaiva śabdasya arthe tātparyam, na tu pratīta-mātre. evam hi 'pūrvo dhāvati' ity ādāv aparā”dy arthépi kvacit tātparyam syāt.' (pp. 166, vịtti, K.P. V, ibid).
Mammața refutes the views of those who want to do away with vyañjanā and invest abhidhā, with a longer and longer efficacy of yielding the padártha, then vākyártha and then the vyangyártha or intended sense also. These opponents take recourse to the Mimāmsā principle viz. "yatparah sabdah sa sabdárthah." - i.e. 'a word-meaning is that for which it is used'. Mammata says that these foolish Mimāmsakas do not understand the meaning of their own discipline. The real purport of this statement is that a word means only that for which it is used and when one thing is already prescribed it is not repeated, if any, comes with the use of a new word, the meaning of which is the newer intention of the speaker for this fresh injunction. At times one, or two or three things can be newly enjoined and for each newly enjoined item, a fresh word, meaning exactly the same thing, is used in a fresh injunction. This is the real purport of the words, "yatparah sabdah sa sabdárthah”. Mammața.explains the position by seeking illustrations from vedic ritual as well as commen practice. He also quotes the maxim, 'bhūta-bhavya-samuccārane bhūtam bhavyāya upadiśyate”, to bring home his point. It is very clear that, compared to · Abhinavagupta, Mammața has dug deeper and presented the whole matter with absolute clarity. (The translation of the original passages is by Prof. R. C. Dwivedi).
Mammata then, perhaps turns his guns towards his immediate predecessors, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, who come up with the advocacy of tātparya-vrtti and rejected vyañjanā. It may be said here that Dhananjaya-Dhanikas' tātparya-seems to be something else than the normal tātparya of the Mimāmsakas. For the Mimāņsakas 'tātparya' was only a vākya-vrtti, yielding a sentence-sense, as against the abhidhā which was only a pada-vítti and yielded only the padártha or individual word-sense. The correlated sentence of all words in a sentence was apprehended by a vākyártha-vịtti called 'tātparya', for the abhihitánvayavādins. But for Bhoja
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org