________________
Vyañjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
739
Since there is no relation of the principal and subordinate between the two sentences having independent verbs ('eat' and 'do not eat' because the first verb gives the positive command and the other negative, these two verbs cannot be principal and subordinate) the sentence asking for taking the poison should be imagined to be subordinate by making it derivative (i.e. instead of 'eat', or 'bhunksva', the word should be taken here as a derivative, 'eating' or 'bhakṣaṇa'. The former sentence is thus made subordinate to the second sentence. The meaning of the two sentences taken together would be that): "Eating in the house of this man is worse than eating poison, therefore, you should never eat in the house of this man." It follows from this that the import is in the meaning of a given (word) only."
Mammata further presents fresh argument in defence of vyañjana when he observes that if, on hearing a word, any meaning obtained were under only denotative function 'sabdaśruter anantaram yāvān arthaḥ avagamyate, tāvati śabdasya abhidhā eva vyāpāraḥ...', then why not joy and despair and the like be taken as directly expressed meanings respectively in cases of such utterances as, “O Brahmaṇa, a son is born to you", or "your unmarried daughter is pregnant?" etc... Why even to admit lakṣaṇā or indication at all-kasmac ca lakṣaṇā? For in cases of indicated meaning also the apprehension could be accomplished by the farreaching function of direct expression "dirgha-dirgha-abhidhā-vyāpāreṇaiva pratīti-siddheḥ." We know that for deciding the exact meaning of an injunction in case a conflict is noticeable between one and another injunction, the Mimāmā has given a six-fold scheme such as śṛti, or Direct declaration, linga i.e. indicative power, vakya or syntactical connection, prakarana or context, sthāna or position and samākhyā or the name, and these have each preceding factor stronger than the immediate next. The Sampradaya-prakāśinī explains it as : tad etat paradaurbalyam katham utpadyatām, paradurbalatve hetur yórtha-viprakarṣaḥ, maheṣuvad dirgha-dirghe tavásminnabhidhāvyāpāre jīvati, tasyaivā'sambhavāt. The idea is that these factors which go to prove the higher and lower authority of various injunctions conflicting with one another would be of no use because even from the lowest placed type the meaning of the highest placed variety will be derived on the strength of digha-dīrgha-tara-vyāpāra theory. Thus, Mammata triumphantly declares - iti anvitábhidhānavāde'pi vidher api siddham vyangyatvam, i.e. even according to the theory of 'connected meaning', also the affirmation (i.e. tatraiva rantum eva gata'si iti) (in the verse, 'the slope of your breasts has its sandal completely washed off, etc.) must be regarded being of the nature of suggested.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org