Abhidha

Author(s): Tapasvi Nandi, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 15

[6]
individual quality such as whiteness etc., owing to difference with reference to time, place, and context, and thus due to difference in medium, ‘kāraṇabheda'
appear differt when vested in a conch, and the like. The colour looks, as though different. But thereby 'śuklatva' - jāti' is not proved to have existence. For 'jati' is that one 'dharma' which resides in many. But the substratum of the imagined śuklatva jāti, viz. śukla-vyakti is basically one and identical. Same is the case with such words as 'pacati', 'dittha', etc. Thus the 'vyakti' in form of pāka-kriyā is one and the same, and so also the individual: - samjni named 'dittha'. The illusory manifoldness - nānātva seen in different stages of pākakriyā, or in an individual at different years such as of a child, young boy, young man, etc. etc.- - makes, for this wrong perception of jāti in such cases. This is not real. Says Mukula (pp. 10, ibid) - "atra api ekasyā eva pākādikriya-vyakteḥ, ditthādi-śabda-vyakteḥ, ditthādeśca samjñino yathā-kramam abhivyañjakānām pākādīnām tathā dhvanīnām vayo'vasthā-viśeṣāṇām kaumārādīnām ca yo bhedas tad vaśena nānāvidhena rūpeṇa avabhāsamānatvāt sthitam etat sabda-pravṛtti-nimittānām sabdarthaś caturvidhaḥ iti."
After this Mukula turns to the second variety of abhidha, i.e. lākṣaṇika abhidha. This also is two-fold. The AVM 2B reads: "Suddhopacara-miśratvät lakṣaṇā dvividhā matā."
Because of its being either śuddha or upacaramiśra, lakṣaṇā is two-fold. The illustrations are 'gangayam ghosah' and 'gaur vāhīkaḥ' respectively. The śuddha-lakṣaṇā is also divided two-fold, such as upādāna-lakṣaṇā and lakṣaṇa-lakṣanā (AVM 3A). Mukula suggests that when something else is imposed to support one thing. "sva-siddhyarthatayā” kṣepo yatra vastvantarasya tat (AVM 3B). - This is called upādānam; or 'inclusive' variety the other is the opposite of this (AVM IV A) lakṣaṇam tu tad-viparyāsato matam." This is exclusive type. We know that all this has been accepted by Mammata without challanging. But the illustration that Mukula cites for upādānalakṣaṇa viz. "gaur-anuvandhyaḥ" is rejected by Mammata. It is taken as 'arthāpatti' or presumption or inference from circumstances, i.e. implication, for in the illustration cited by Mukula we cannot show either rudhi or prayojana which is the basis of lakṣaṇā. Mammața also feels that sabda