________________
'Laksanā'
481 a lesser evil, as Sabara suggests that 'vākya' is 'pratyaksa' in 'laksaņā', but it is 'parokşa’ in vyavadhāna. - Read SB. on Mi. Sū. X. ii. 69, pp. 1861 - "khalevālyā yüpatā vidhiyate na yüpasya khalevālītā. tathā'vyavahitena bhavatinā sambandhāt pratyaksam vākyam. itarathā vyavahitena paroksam syāt. khalevālīšabdaś ca yah khale vārane pravartate tasya vācakah. tathābhūtaś ca yüpakārye viniyujyate. yah khalevālī sa yūpa iti. śakyate ca yūpakārye viniyoktum. yat tu yūpa-śabdah kāryalakṣaṇārtha iti. vyavadhānāllaksaņā api jyāyasī. pratyakşam vyavadhāne vākyam.”
What Śabara aims to explain here is that in the former though we have to resort to laksanā, yet the ‘ekavākyatā' we protect is direct, and does not involve any reshuffle of the constitutent words. In the latter case, there is absence of ekavākyatā if we do not re-arrange the words in a different way. Thus the ekavākyatā in the latter case is only indirect i.e. paroksa, while in the former it is direct or pratyakşa. Sabara suggests while commenting on Mi. Sū. XI. ii. 2, that laksanā is preferred to vākyabheda, where while discussing the meaning of the text - viz. "same darśa-pürņa-māsābhyam yajeta....” etc., he points out that the word viz. darśa-pūrņa-māsābhyām' in the text, must be understood as indicating the whole group of sacrifices like the 'āgneya', so that the text may be construed as one vākya. If we do not do this, we will have to admit the text as being 'anekártha' and thus admit 'vākyabheda' here. Here again two evils prop up, and we have to choose the lesser evil called 'laksaņā', as, ultimately, it being 'laukiki will yield good sense. 'Anekárthatva' of what surely is one vākya, will positively lead to confusion - SB. on Mi. Sū. XI. ii. 2; pp. 2136 - "nanu evam api laksanā”śritā bhavati. varam laksanā naika-vākyasya anekárthatvam. anekártharve a-gamakatvam. lakṣaṇā’nugamikā, laukikatvāt."
Thus for the Mimāmsakas, anekárthatva or vākyabheda is a greater blemish as compared to lakṣaṇā. This fact can be put in a different way also. Laksaņā, as is clear, is only a pada-dosa, i.e. it has reference to pada or śabda only to which it does some injustice by putting aside its vācyártha. But anekárthatva or vākyabheda is a blemish of a vākya, as we are doing injustice with the whole sentence in it. Thus
a more serious nature as compared to laksanā, and therefore, it should be considered as worse.
Thus, laksanā, a dosa in itself is preferred only as a last resort to avoid greater dosas. So, every acceptance of laksanā has to be defended or justified by itself. It is not correct to hold that if one word is metaphorically used in a given text, it is so everywhere. This is so even in ordinary usage where the word 'gangāyām' does not mean 'gangā taţe' in all expression. For the Mīmāmsaka, a lakṣaṇā, only if
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
