Abhidha

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

Page 37

[28]
its meaning. It means there is no inferential relation between a pada and its artha. The 'pada' is without parts so sadhya-sadhana-bhāva cannot exist.
We have to examine this position minutely. We feel that a sort of selfcontradiction can be read in Mahimā's position. At the outset Mahima had declared that : "sarva eva hi śābdo vyavahārah sādhya-sadhana-garbhataya prāyeņa anumānarūpo'bhyupagavtavyaḥ, tasya para-pravịtti-nivịtti - nibandhanatvāt, tayosca sampratyaya - a-sampratyayātmanor anyathākartum aśakyatvät” (pp. 26, 27 ibid). Here Mahimā suggests that the vācyārtha which is collected from a pada having no parts, is directly expressed as the sādhya sādhana-bhāva is not possible in this case. So, there is apparent contradiction. But this contradiction is easily removed when we remember even Anandavardhana's remarks while advocating the cause of vyañjan, even for the Naiyāyikas under Dhv. III 33. Mahimă has also derived inspiration from Dhv. here. The point is that when somebody speaks he wants to convey something. So, a man resorts to śābda-vyavahāra to convey something and to make somebody else do or undo something. So, this verbal practice is resorted to for accomplishing some object. This becomes clear through inference. The inference is simple. It proceeds like this --- "When A speaks, he intends to convey something." That there must be something behind A.'s activity of speaking, is a matter of inference. This becomes clearer when we hear someone shouting in a language not known to us. We infer that he wants to convey to us something for our good or bad. This much is inferred. But what he actually conveys through the words utterred follows directly, through the power of expression, from the word itself. This is what Mahimā wants to suggest. So, there is no contradiction in his statements.
Thus, here, with the acceptance of the 'mukhya' artha, Mahimā accepts, the power of direct expression, i.e. abhidhā'. Mahimā accepts only one word-power i.e. abhidhā. All else is ‘anumiti' for him. In his 'vyakti-vivekavyākhyāna', Ruyyaka puts it thus : (pp. 48, ibid) : "arthópi iti. śabdasya vyāpārāntara-nirākaraḥārtham, artha-dvaividhya-ghatanam. tathā hivrddhavyavahārāt, samketāt vā, śabdesu artha-nirnayah tesām ca yatrārthe vidyamānatvam tasya vācyatvam eva. anyasya tu teşām abhāvād arthasamarthyad avagatih na ca asambaddho'rthas tam artham pratyāyayati.