________________
436
SAHRDAYĀLOKA proper meaning of tātparya. But Bhoja brings under it Anandavardhana's dhvani, as Dhanika and other earlier critics of Anandavardana urged. The abhidhiyamāna is not called exactly tātparya. A special sakti like that is not called forth by Bhoja for the primary import of a sentence, as by the Mimāmsakas. The primary sense of a sentence he says, is got by akānksā, sannidhi, yogyatā etc., when the words themselves deliver the meaning of each through abhidhā, laksanā, or gaunī, śakti. Or, as Kumārasvamin puts it, the very sentence in proper grammatical build gives its vākyártha by its own inherent nature. : “tarhy atra samsarga-rūpo vākyārthah katham pratiyata iti cet, tārkikāņām iva vākyamahimnā, na punaḥ tātparyena mīmāmsakānām iva iti brūmah. ata eva te varnayanti ākānksa"dimatve sati
adānām padárthānām vā samanvayaśaktih vākyam. tad balā”yāto vākyárthah.” (pp. 32-33 Pratāparudrīya vyākhyā, Bālamanorama Edn.)."
Now here we have to scrutinize this observation of Dr. Raghavan as supported by Kumārasvāmin on the Pratāparudrīya.
Dr. Raghavan's two remarks above need attention. As quoted above we read- "While he speaks of Tātparya as one of the four kevala-sabda-sambandha-śaktis, he uses Tātparya in the larger sense. Under it comes the Ābhidhīyamāná vākyártha which Anandavardhana urges must be the proper meaning of Tātparya. .... The Abhidhīvamāna is not called exactly tātparya."
Now these two statements seem to contradict one another. Bhoja's words as quoted above read - (pp. 246, Edn. Josyer, Sr. Pra) -
"yatparaḥ śabdaḥ sa sabdártha iti tātparyam. tac ca vākya eva upapadyate padamātrena abhiprāyasya prakāśayitum aśakyarvāt.
tacca vākya-pratipādyam vastu tri-rūpam bhavati. abhidhīyamānam, pratīyamānam, dhvanirūpam ca. yatra yad-upātta-śabdesu mukhya-gauņalaksaņā"dibhiḥ śabda-śaktibhiḥ svam artham abhidhāya uparatavyāpāreņu ākāńksāsannidhi-yogyatā"dibhir vākyárthamātram abhidhīyate tad abhidhiyamānam."
Thus for Bhoja there is clear recognition of what he calls abhidhiyamānatātparya arrived at as vākyártha. True, he has called tātparya to be “kevala-sabdasambandha sakti”, thus we can equate it - at least so far as "abhidhīvamāna tātparya' goes, - with the ‘tātparya' of the Mimāmsakas. That Bhoja also calls, it a 'śabda-Śakti' is absolutely clear. So Dr. Raghavan's remarks as quoted above do not explain exactly what is intended by Bhoja. Even Kumārasvāmin on Pratāparudra as quoted by Dr. Raghavan (pp. 161, ibid) also seems to be off the mark. Bhoja clearly calls the four viz. vịtti, vivaksā, tātparya and pravibhāga as “kevala-sabda
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
