________________
Arthāntaranyasa as well as from Vyajastuti and Sabdaśaktim ūladhvani.
The main difference between Paryāyokta (VI. 9) and Anyokti, according to our author, is that in the former the suggested sense is expressed picturesquely but in the latter it is not expressed but implied. Atiśayokti (VI. 10) has been already referred to in connection with the treatment of Rūpaka. It also covers Mammața's Visesa. Hemachandra's Āksepa (VI. 11) consists in abruptly cutting the statement short with a view to conveying something more. It also involves denial which is apparent. The verse cited is from Bhāmaha (11.69).
Virodha (V1.12) is apparent contradiction of things, qualities, activities and proper nouns. So Vyāghāta treated by others is set aside. Virodha covers Vibhāvanā and Višesokti, two separate figures. It includes Asangati, Vişama and Adhika of Mammața.
Hemachandra also considers figures like Sahokti (VI. 13), Samāsokti (VI. 14), Jāti (VI. 15), Vyājastuti (VI. 16), śleşa (VI. 17), Vyātireka (VI. 18), Arthāntaranyāsa, Apahnuti, Parivștti, 177 Anumāna178 as also Smộti, Bhranti, Vişama, Sama, Samuccaya, Parisaskhyā, Kāraṇamālā and Sankara (VI. 31). When we critically look at these figures we find that Hemachandra's treatment of Sahokti, Samāsokti, Jāti or Svabhāvokti, Vyajastuti, Vyatireka, etc. follows the path beaten by Mammața. Hemachandra conforms to the guidelines provided by Mammața, though, now and then, he adopts expressions and instances from Rudrata and others. In fact, the influence of Rudrata, Mammața and others is quite evident in this chapter.
Hemachandra's main aim seems to be to comprehend minor figures under the major varieties sanctioned by earlier authorities, He thus tries to squeeze the figures Ekāvali, Nidarśanā and Viseșa under Atiśayokti. Prof. R. B. Athavale criticises Hemachandra's tendency to include other figures under some of the well known figures by hook or by crook ! (K.A.S. Vol. dl. p. 209).
399
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
