________________
342
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The Naiyāyika view of “jātiviśista-vyakti' is explained in Pradīpa as : (pp. 36, edn. ibid) : "naiyāyikā”dayas tu - na vyaktimātram sakyam, na vā jāti-mātram. ādya ānantyād vyabhicārāc ca. antye vyakti-pratīty-abhāva-prasangāt. na ca āksepād vyakti-pratītiḥ. tasmād visista eva samketaḥ. na ca ānantyād aśakyatā vyabhicāro vā. go-tvā”di-sāmānya-laksanayā sarva-vyaktīnām upasthitau sarvatra sanketa-graha-saukaryāt' - iti ātişthante."
saugatās tu - "vyaktau ānantyā"didoşād bhāvasya ca deśakālánugamábhāvāt tad anugatāyām atad-vyāvșttau samketah.'
Māņikyacandra in his Samketa (pp. 15, Edn. Poona, 1921 A.D. - Anandaśrama - SKT. - granthāvalih) - puts it as : "jāter artha-kriyā-kāritva-abhāyād viphalaḥ samketah. vyaktes tu artha-kriya-kāritve api anantya-vyabhiçārābhyām na samketaḥ kartum sakyate iti jati-matī vyaktih sabdārtha iti vaisesika"dayah - apoha iti - jati vyakti-tadyoga-jātimad-buddhyākārāņām sabdárthatvasya anupapadyamānatvāt gavayā”di-śabdānām a-go-vyāvrttyā"di-rūpo"pohah sabdártha iti bauddhāh.”
Jhalkikara (pp. 38, ibid) explains the Baudha view as :. "go-sabdaíravanāt sarvāsām go-vyaktīnām upasthita-itarasmāt aśvā"dito vyāvrtti-darśanāt ca a-tadvyāvstti-rūpaḥ apohaḥ vācya iti bauddha-matam. - “atad-vyāvșttih apohaḥ padártha iti kşanabhanga-vādinah. tanmate sthirasya sāmānyasya abhāvāt apoha-mātrena anugata-vyavahāraḥ iti tatraiva saktiḥ - iti cakravarti-bhattacārya-krta-vistārikāyām api spastam. - jāter adrstatvena vicāra-asahatvāt vyakteś ca ksanikatvād ubhayatrā’pi sanketasya kartum aśakyatvāt gavā"di-śabdānām a-gavā”divyāvsttirūpaḥ apohaḥ arthaḥ, iti vaināśikamatam iti anyatrā'pi vyākhyātam.”
So, with reference to samketa-grahaņa, or convention of words, we have seen four views viz. jāryā"divāda of the grammarians, the jātivāda of the Mimāmsakas, the jāti-viśistavāda of the ancient Naiyāyikas, and the apohavāda of the Buddhists, of which the first held by the grammarians is favoured by Mammața and his followers belonging to the Kashmir school. We have seen above that this was accepted even by Kuntaka, Bhoja, Mahimā and the rest also, though their concept of abhidhā' was not congruent with the Kashmir school of thought. A fifth view of vyakti-vāda or kevala-vyaktivāda is also not accepted by Mammaţa though it is indirectly referred. This view is held by Navya-Naiyāyikas. These modern Naiyāyikas rely only on 'vyavahāra' for determining sanketa, and vyavahāra or day-to-day activity is concerned with individual alone. Kaiyata's pradīpa (N.S. Edn. pp. 17) puts this view as : "vyaktivādinas tu āhuh. śabdasya vyaktih eva vācyā. jātes tu upalakṣaṇabhāvena āśrayaņāt ānantyä"didosa-anavakāśaḥ.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
