________________
148
ALBRECHT WEZLER
of yuktyapetasya hānam or dustapaksaparityāgah, as explained by Ganapati Šāstrī in his own commentary on AŚ 1.5.5 and 6.1.5, respectively.
Šāstrī's explanations are not based on the - only - old commentary available on this part of the AS, viz. that written in Malayalam, which does not give any information worth noting;70 Śāstri apparently got his inspiration from AŚ 15.1.69(f.), i.e. the definition of the tantrayukti ūhya,71 and from NS 1.1.40, as regards ūha; the source of his paraphrase of apoha could be Hemacandra's Abhidhānacintāmaņi (2.225)72 where it is explained by asatpaksanirākaranam. That apoha = "negative reasoning”,73 i.e. "the removal, i.e. rejection of an idea by reasoning", is attested only very rarely in older sources, may have to do with the fact that üha developed a broader meaning which practically includes that of apoha, and became thus a synonym/one of the synonyms of tarka, as is shown e.g. by NS 1.1.40 as well as GautDhS 19. (= 2.2.)23: nyāyādhigame tarko 'bhyupāyaḥ.74
Now, Sāstrī's first paraphrase of ūha, viz. śabdasyānuktasya lingenāvagatih, in which linga should be taken to mean “(characteristic) mark, indicative (factor)", is not at all far removed from what I call the ritualistic-technical meaning of this expression, viz. "modification of a mantra"; for this in fact consists basically in the replacement of an undesirable element of a mantra by another element which is not itself used in the mantra, i.e. is anukta. Seen against this background one wonders whether Me.'s, at first sight strange, illustration of the process called üha and apoha, referred to above (p. 11 f.), could perhaps eventually be aimed at intimating that their two terminological meanings, i.e. the ritualistic one and the philosophical one, are closely related to each other: In both cases something is removed or rejected and something else moved in or accepted.
Returning to Me.'s Bhāsya on M. 12.106 I propose for anumānāntareņa yuktyā the translation "by a kinds of anumāna (i.e. something similar to, but not admissible as a member of the category 'anumāna'), i.e. by a process of reasoning/arguing (which paves the way for an anumāna proper]”. And, following Preisendanz, I suppose that Me. defines tarka as "a mental activity/intellectual process capable of positive and negative reasoning (i.e. of finding out something new, not expressly stated in a textual authority, and of rejecting something else as not tenable).”
3.4. The predicate apratarkyam of M. 12.29,76 however, is explained by Me. by simply stating: tad anumānāgocaram (II 463.26).77 This is
