Abhidha

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

Page 78

[69]
Now this can be placed with Mánikyacandra's remark in his sanketa on the K. P. (pp. 15, ibid) :
"vyaktestu arthakriyākāritve api anantya-vyabhicārābhyām na sanketah kartum śakyate iti jātimati vyaktih sabdārtha iti vaiseşikādayah.”
We do not know who has influenced whom as both Hemacandra and Mānikyacandra were almost contemporary. (See Dr. De, Dr. Kane).
On ‘apoha' also H.C.'s remarks are almost identical and then more explanatory with those passed by M. C. - M.C. reads : (pp. 15, ibid)
‘apoha iti - jāti-vyakti-tadyoga-jāti mad buddhyākārāṇām śabdārthatvasya anupapadyamānatvāt gavayādi sabdānām a-go-vyāvsttyādi-rūpaḥ apohaḥ śabdārtha iti bauddhāḥ"
H. C. (pp. 44, ibid) reads :
jāti-vyakti-tadyoga-jātimad-buddhyākārāņām śabdārthatvasya anupapadyamānatvāt gavādi-sabdānām a-go-vyāvịttyādirūpas tad-viśistam vä buddhi-pratibimbakam sarvathā bāhyārtha-sparsa-śunyam anyāpoha-sabdavācyam sabdartha iti."
Clearly H. C. seems to offer better comments. Again M. C. has 'gavayādi śabdānām', and H. C. has 'gavādi sabdānām' which makes better sense. Then the remark - 'tad-viśistam vā....' in H. C. also are further explanatory. Thus, our impression, is that perhaps H. C. had M.C.'s 'samketa' before him, though he may be himself a senior contemporary of M.C.
Ācārya Hemacandra, the author of Kāvyānuśāsana revives a forgotten or better say forsaken tradition of taking 'gaunī' and 'laksana' as independent word-powers, separate and distinct from each other. We had seen earlier how, Bhoja had clubbed 'gauņi' and 'laksaņā as part of abhidhā. We will have to refer once again to Bhoja in brief because Hemacandra seems to come closer to Bhoja in his concepts of 'gaunī' and lakṣaṇā, though of course Bhoja did not give these two any status independent of abhidhā. Bhoja first of all enumerates 12 relations of word and sense./Bhoja (11.223, Josyer Edn.) observes : “tatra abhidhā-vivaksā