Abhidha

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

Page 55

[46]
differs from either the primary function of a word in language, i. e. abhidhā, or the secondary function i. e. gunavștti or laksaņā or a-mukhya-vyāpāra, both from the point of view of nature and scope i. e. “svarūpatah visayatah ca." Suggestivity, as noted above travels beyond the medium of language and is seen in any other art-form such as drama, music, painting and what not, taking the form of abhinaya or acting, or notes i. e. śuddha svara, or colours etc. as the case may be. Thus for Anandavardhana the suggestivity has to be completely distinguished from laksaņā or secondary function of a word.
Not so with Mahimā. He rejects the very basis on which the concept of laksaņā rests. He rejects any other power or function beyond abhidhā or the direct expressive power in case of a word. Mahimā is of the opinion that the fact of ‘krama' or sequence in the functioning of powers called abhidhā, laksaņā and vyañjanā goes against them belonging to the same substratum, i.e. word. As seen earlier, he feels that if more than one power belongs to the same thing, these powers should function simultaneously like heat and light emanating from fire. But we had observed earlier that his analogy is not applicable in case of a word, as there is no hard and fast rule that all powers belonging to the same thing should function simultaneously only. Even in day to day life we see agents using their various powers as and when the situation so demands. A bi soldier enjoys life also to the full and also fights against the enemy as and when required. A man may be gifted with a number of special capacity which he chooses to exhibit or utilize only when the situation so demands But Mahimā is satisfied with his own argument and his own illustration of fire oozing light and heat simultaneously, and therefore concludes that word has only one power-abhidhā—that gives the primary sense alone and whatever added sense follows, - call it laksyārtha, tātparyārtha or vyangyārtha-call it by any name, it follows from the primary sense alone as an inferred sense, and the word has nothing to do with it. The other meaning follows from the primary sense due to the relation of linga-lingibhāva only. Mahimā observes. (pp. 121, ibid): "kiñca upacāravrttau śabdasya ma bhud atiprasanga iti avaśyam. kim api nimittam anusartavyam. anyathā anyatra prasiddha-sambandhaḥ katham asammitam (= sanketa