________________
d.
514
SAHRDAYĀLOKA ratas tathā. gaunau suddhau ca vijñeyau...") appears to us to be decisive. There 'gauna' and 'śuddha' are mentioned together, from which we conclude that here the other division intended by Mammața is 'gauna'. 'Gauņa' then is 'upacāra-miśrita', - and is, therefore, vyāvștta or excluded by the characteristic 'upacārena amiśritatvam', which belongs to śuddha-laksaņā. Note - ‘ubhayarūpā ceyam udāhstā śuddhā, na tu gauņi. Upacāramiśrā hi gauni ity ucyate.” Pradīpa. This being so, ‘upacāra' here evidently possesses its restricted sense, viz. “sādrśya-sambandhena pravrttih", for it is only in this sense that 'upacara' can distinguish 'gauna laksana'
'suddha'. Thus the sentences 'ubhaya-rūpā ceyam śuddhā, upacarena amiśritatvat, read along with kārikā 7 abc, show that 'suddha' and 'gauna' are the primary divisions of laksanā, according to Mammața.
On the other hand the passage 'ubhayarūpā ceyam śuddhā. upacāreņa amiśritatvāt' is understood to imply, that while these two varieties viz. 'upadana' and ‘laksana' are 'upacārā-miśra', the other four, to be presently mentioned, are 'upacāra-miśra'. Thus, it is held that suddhā, covering 'upādāna' and 'laksana', is one division of laksanā, and 'upacaramiśrā' covering the other four, is another. If this be so, 'upacāra' must mean, 'atacchabdasya tacchabena abhidhānam' or 'the identification of one thing with another generally. Only in this sense, upacāra can be present in all four remaining divisions viz. śuddha sāropa, suddha sādhyavasāna, gauņa sāropa and gauņa-sādhyavasāna. But as the division upacāramiśrā has not been mentioned by Mammaţa anywhere, the above implication cannot be accepted.
(2) It is clear that in the passage "ubhaya-rūpā ceyam śuddhā, upacāreņa amiśritatvāt”, the characteristic 'upacāra-amiśritatvam' is intended to be vyāvartaka i.e. to distinguish śuddha-laksaņā from some other. If we understand that other to be 'gauņa-laksanā', upacāra in the sense of 'sādrśya-sambandhena pravsttih' will distinguish 'suddha' from 'gauna' all right. For, while ‘upacāra' in this sense is absent in 'suddha', it is present in 'gauna'. But if, as is supposed to be th implication, 'upacāra-a-miśritatvam' be 'vyāvartaka' of the other four kinds of laksanā, it will be found that 'upacāra' does not serve this purpose. We saw above that with this implication 'upacāra' must be understood in its general sense viz. 'atacchabdasya tacchabdena abhidhānam'. But 'upacāra' in this sense is not absent in (from?) suddha. For in 'kuntah pravišanti', and 'gangāyām ghosah', we have 'atacchabdasya tacchabdena abhidhānam', in the words 'kuntāh' which stands for 'kuntinah', and 'gangāyām', which stands for 'tate'. In other words, even in śuddha laksaņā we have 'upacāra' in its general sense, viz. the identification of one thing
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
