________________
"Vyañjanā
653 music that are not denotative, or in gestures and so forth, which are not even words/sounds. No one can deny the same, i.e. no one can deny the existence of suggestiveness which is a matter of common experience : "alaukike hy arthe tārkikāņām vimatayo nikhilāḥ pravartante, na tu laukike. na hi nīla-madhurā”diş vaśesa-lokendriya-gocare bādhārahite tattve parasparam vipratipannā dịśyante. na hi bādhārahitam nīlam nīlam iti bruvan apareņa pratișidhyate naitannīlam pītam etaditi. tathaiva vyañjakatvam vācakānām śabdānām a-vācakānām ca gitadhvanīnām a-sabda-rūpāņām ca cestā"dīnām yat-sarvesām anubhava-siddham eva tat kena apahnūyate ?" (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 216, ibid).
Anandavardhana says that only somebody who would choose to be a butt of ridicule, would dare challange vyañjakatva.
To this the logicians have the following to say. The objection runs as follows : It is true to say that in all the cases quoted above, one does experience the element of implicit sense. There is no doubt about it. But in fact this suggestiveness is none other than implication and this implication is the same as the state of inferential probans - The apprehension of the suggested idea is thus not different but identical with the inferential knowledge of the probandum. Thus if we put it in other words, the relation of suggester-suggested is none other than the relation of probansprobandum. There is also another reason to support this. The Siddhāntin had himself explained just now that words possess suggestiveness directed to the speaker's intention, and it is our conviction that the speaker's intention is only inferable. - "atha brūyāt, - asti atisandhānávasaraḥ, vyañjakatvam śabdānām gamakatvam, tac ca lingatvam ataś ca vyangya-pratītir lingi-pratītir eva iti lingalingi-bhāva eva, teşām vyangyavyañjakabhāvo náparaḥ kaścit. ataś ca etad avaśyam eva boddhavyam yasmād vaktrabhiprāyápekṣayā vyañjakatvam idānīm eva tvayā pratipāditam vaktr abhiprāyaś ca anumeya-rūpa eva.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 216, ibid). - Locana reads - "vyañjakatvam nápahnūyate, tat tu atiriktam na bhavati, api tu linga-lingi-bhāva eváyam-idānīm eva jaiminīyamatopaksepe.”
It is clear that in this mahā-pūrva-paksa Mahimā's view is foreshadowed. It is surprising that though Mahimā had read the Dhvanyāloka so carefully he refused to accept the arguments as laid down by Anandavardhana in this portion, where he successfully silences the logicians.
Anandavardhana observes that even if the alleged view is true there is nothing to lose for him, for his sole intention was to establish the fact that suggestiveness is a verbal power, over and above two other powers such as denotation and
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org