________________
510
SAHṚDAYALOKA
Kavyaprakāśa, guided more, it seems to us, by extraneous considerations than by natural construction of Mammata's words, have advanced two other divisions, which they regard as intended by Mammața. That is why some discussion about this problem becomes necessary.
We regard the above as Mammata's classification for three reasons, which are as follows
-
(1) This is the only classification that naturally and directly follows Mammata's words. In Kārikā 5, Mammața treats of two divisions, viz. upādāna and lakṣaṇa, which he states are, 'suddha'. Kārikā 6 gives two more divisions viz. 'sāropa' and 'sādhyavasana', which are declared to be both 'gauna' and 'śuddha'. From this it follows that suddha has four varieties viz. upādāna, lakṣaṇa, sāropa, and sādhyavasāna, and gauna has two viz. sãropa and sadhyavasana. The above classification gives the divisions exactly in this manner.
(2) In kārikā 7 abc, four varieties of lakṣaṇa are mentioned and in kārikā 7d, lakṣaṇā is stated to be six-fold. The vṛtti explains this statement by pointing out that the six varieties are made up by adding previously mentioned two (adya-bhedābhyām saha) viz. śuddha upādāna and suddha lakṣaṇa to the four referred to in kārikā 7 abc. From this it is clear that the previously mentioned two varieties viz. śuddha-upādāna and suddha-lakṣaṇa, are on the same level as the four now mentioned viz. gauņa sāropa and gauṇa-sādhyavasāna, śuddha-sāropa and suddha-śadbhyavasana. In other words the explanatiory addition, 'adya-bhedabhyam saha', shows that upādāna and lakṣaṇa are the final divisions of suddha and not merely intermediate divisions, which are each to be further divided into sāropa and sādhyavasāna, as the Pradipa understands and gauņa two, viz. sāropa and sādhyavasāna.
(3) kārikā 7 abc - ("bhedāvimau ca sādṛśyāt sambandhántaratas tatha | gauņau śuddhau ca vijñeyau.") - corroborate the above view. From this it is clear that Mammata intends 'saropa' and 'sādhyavasana' to be different divisions of both gauna and suddha. It would therefore, not be correct to regard, as the Pradipa does, 'sāropa' and 'sādhyavasam' as the direct divisions of only 'gauna' and as the indirect divisions of 'suddha' through the medium of 'upādāna' and 'lakṣaṇā'. There is no justification whatsoever for making a distinction between 'gauņa' and 'suddha' in the matter of their subdivision into 'sāropa' and 'sādhyavasāna'.
Thus we feel sure that the above is the classification of Mammata.
It must, however, be remarked that Mammata's classification given above is not logically accurate, because the divisions are not mutually exclusive, but overlap.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
