Abhidha

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

Page 56

[47]
virahita) eva arthāntaram pratyāyayet ? yat ca tannimittam tad eva asmābhir iha lingam iti ākhyātam. yuktam caetat. śabdasya tatra vyāpārābhāvāt. vyāpārābhāvasca sambandhābhāvāt. lingăt ca linginah pratītir anumānam eva; na guna-víttau arthāntara-pratītiḥ śābdi iti tasyāḥ vācakāśrayatvam asiddham eva." Mahimā (pp. 122) further observes in samgraha verses : “yah satattva-samāropah
tat-sambandha-nibandhanah, mukhyārtha-bādhe so'pyārtham
sambandham anumāpayet.” (46) and, “tat-sāmya-tat-sambandhau hi
tattvāropaika-kāraṇam, gunavịtter dvirūpāyāḥ
tat-pratītir ato'numā.” (47) i. e. 'tat-sāmya' and 'tat-sambandha' -- these two are the causes of 'tattvāropa' i. e. superimposition of one object over the other. So, in two types of gunavịtti (or laksanā) the apprehension of the cause --- i. e. prayojana — is through inference only.
Thus, Mahimā accepts two types of gunavrtti : (i) based on 'tat-sāmya', as in 'gaurvāhikah' and (ii) based on 'tat-sambandha' as in 'mañcāḥ krośanti'.
He further observes that abandoning of mukhya-výtti is not possible in case of a word. So, only a meaning superimposed on a (primary) meaning causes inference of similarity.
“mukhya-vítti-parityāgah
na śabdasya upapadyate, vihito'rthāntare hyarthaḥ
sva-sāmyam anumāpayet.” (48) Thus, when the function of a word is not established with reference to another sense, how can we hold śabda as 'skhalad-gati' with reference to a