Abhidha

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

Page 62

[53]
bhakteh ca prayojanam vācyasya arthasya sphuţatvapratipattiḥ, nimittam ca, višeșana-višesya-pratītyor-ās'ubhāvitayā kramānupalaksanāt sahabhāvapratitih."
Mahimā holds that it is only to describe the clarity of the meaning derived from a root modified by a prefix, that the prefix is figuratively stated as suggestive. If it is argued that actually a prefix manifests a particularity i.e. viśesa---already existent in a verb and so they are suggestive and not denotative of a 'višesa' in a verb, than Mahimā's reply is that you cannot cognise the exact form of višesa i. e. particularity manifested by a prefix. The meaning invariably apprehended should be taken only as 'expressed' meaning--if we do not accept this dictum then an adjective applied to a noun will also have to be regarded as 'dyotaka'. If taken to its extreme end, this would take us to believe that words like 'ghata' are also dyotakas as they manifest objects that are in the mind. So also will be the case of words such as ‘nīla' etc. which are taken as višeşanas as a rule. - "sāmānyāni ca garbhīksta-višesāni bhavanti iti teşām tatra sadbhāva-siddhau satyām nīlādi-sabdā api tat-tat-dyotanamātra-vyāparāḥ prādi-vad dyotakā bhavitum arhanti, na abhidhāyakā iti.” (pp. 152, ibid)
Thus, Mahimā emphatically denies the existence of what is termed as vyañjakatva. He thus accepts only ‘abhidhā' as word-power and all sense, other than the expressed is collected, according to him by 'anumāna'. He declares (pp. 157, ibid) : (samgrahaślokas)
"svābhāvikam dhvaner yuktam
vyañjakatvam na dīpavat, dhūmavat kintu krtakam
sambandhāder apeksaņāt.” - (74) “prādīnām dyotakatvam
yat kaiścid abhyupagamyate, tad bhāktam eva, tatra istam na
mukhyam tad asambhavāt." - (75)