________________
642
SAHRDAYĀLOKA To this, the siddhāntin's answer is that the expressed and the suggested senses are to be taken as principal and subordinate. Thus, the definition of a sentence having a single sense will not be vitiated. At times the suggested sense with be principal, at other times the expressed will be principal. When the suggested sense is principal, it is termed 'dhvani', and is termed 'guni-bhāta-vyangya' when the expressed sense predominates. So, the net outcome of this discussion is that even if the word is suggested-sense-oriented i.e. is vyañgya-paraka, and even if it be taken as 'vācya' only following the (false interpretation of the) dictum ‘yatparaḥ śabdaḥ sa śabdārthaḥ', then also, vyangyártha is not rendered out of place by abhidhā-vștti but we will have to postulate vyañjanā-výtti for the same.
Anandavardhana further argues that in instances where the suggested is not intended as principal, the objector will not be able to regard it even as expressed, since the word does not intend it at all. This also adds support to the conclusion that there is some definite scope for suggested sense of words. And where it happens to be intended as principal, why should its existence be gainsaid ? - “yatrā'pi tasya prādhānyam tatra'pi kim iti tasya svarūpam apahnūyate ?" (Vịtti, ibid, pp. 202). Hence suggestiveness is positively different from denotation. Another reason which supports the same conclusion is this - Denotation is based upon words only, while suggestiveness is based not only upon words but also upon senses; since suggestiveness, as already shown, relates to words as well as senses : "evam tāvad vācakatvād anyad eva vyañjakatvam; itaś ca vācakatvad vyañjakatvasya anyatvam, yad vācakatvam sabdaikā”śrayam itarat tu śabdā"śrayam arthā”śrayam ca, śabdárthayor dvayor api vyañjakatvasya pratipāditatvāt.” (Vịtti, pp. 202, ibid).
Anandavardhana now proceeds to establish that vyañjanā and gunavrtti i.e. amukhyā-vrtti are also different from each other from the point of consideration of nature and scope i.e. svarūpa and visaya.
It may be noted that Anandavardhana reserves the word mukhyā for abhidhā, while what normally is termed two-fold lakṣaṇā i.e. suddhā and gauņī by followers of Mammața, is termed 'gunavṛtti' by him. 'Gunavrtti thus is a-mukhyā i.e. notabhidhā' for him and is said to be two-fold i.e. through upacara i.e. guna-sāmya and lakṣaṇā i.e. one which is ordinarily taken as śuddhā by followers of Mammața.
Locana puts it this way - "evam vişayabhedāt svarūpabhedāt kāraṇabhedāc ca vācakatvāt mukhyāt prakāśakatvasya bhedam pratipādya ubhayatvā’viśeșāt tarhi
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org