Abhidha

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

Page 40

[31]
tvopagamāt.” (pp. 53, ibid). And, "adhyātmikārtha-visayam adhyātmam" - (pp. 53 ibid) : “The adhyātma-pramāṇa has spirituality as its subject.” This means that it is self-apprehended.
This sādhya-sādhana-bhāva is two-fold (i) śābda i. e. that which is expressly stated, and (ii) 'ārtha' or that which is implicit. Again both the sādhya and sādhana may be expressed either by means of words or by sentence : sa hi dvividhaḥ śābdaś ca ārthaśca, iti. so'pi ca sădhya-sādhanayoh pratyekam padārtha-vākyārtha-rūpatvāt...... yathāyogyam anyonya-sankaryāt bahuvidha iti, tasya din-matram idam upadarśyate.” (pp. 54, ibid) - i.e. words that convey the sādhya-sādhana-bhāva could be jāti-vācaka, gunavācaka, etc. The meaning of the word again can be an attribute - i.e. dharma, or a substratum, i. e. dharmin. Dharma again can be samānādhikarana, or vaiyadhikarana as when both sādhya and sadhana reside either in the same substratum or not. The sādhya-sadhana-bhāva expressed by a sentence differs on the basis of kārakas used.
One thing that emerges very clearly from this is that Mahimā accepts only abhidhā, and that too in the normal accepted sense of the term as a word-power that yields the conventional meaning which is called primary or mukhya. All else is collected by inference, i. e. all other meaning is ‘anumeya' for Mahimā. So, he refutes other sabdavrttis such as gunavịtti, laksaņā, tātparya and vyañjanā.
The trend of incorporating other śabda-vịttis such as laksaņā and vyañjana in abhidhā was traced by us in Mukula, a near successor of Anandavardhana. Kuntaka also without rejecting positively any other śabda-vịtti advocated the case of his vicitrā-abhidhā which as observed by us is not the same as ‘abhidhā that gives the primary meaning, but it is only a 'poetic expression' in general. Bhoja also as we will go to see, does not name vyañjanā and incorporates gauni and laksanā under his threefold abhidhā, the mukhyā being the first variety equivalent to our normal ‘abhidhā’. Mahimā does not subsume other sabda-vịttis under abhidhā but he totally rejects them as sabda-víttis as such and advocates the case of only abhidhā that gives the primary sense, as sabda-vịtti, one and only.