________________
546
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Again in writing off the variety called śuddhā sādhyavasānā Appayya argues that if someone holds that in suddhā sādhyavasānā as illustrated by, “āyur eva idam”, there is the relation of cause and effect i.e. kārya-kārana-sambandha, while in suddhā jahallaksanā, as in gangāyām ghosah, the relation is that of nearness i.e. sāmīpya-sambandha which is different from the kārya-karana-sambandha, this argument is not valid. For if the difference is with reference to the kārya-karanarelation, then due to such other relations as sva-svāmibhāva, tādarthya, tātkarmya, etc. also any number of varieties of laksana will prop up and in this case our basic stand that (phalavatī) laksana is seven-fold will be vitiated. Due to this also it is not advisable to accept difference between suddhā sadhyavasānā and suddha jahallaksaņā. Appayya observes - (pp. 56-57, ibid) -
"atrédam pratibhāti. - 'suddhāsu sādhyavasāyabheda-kathanam ayuktam, parártha-sva-samarpanasya a-višesena tasya jahallaksanā-'natirekāt. na hi tad avišesépi sāropa-laksanāyām visaya-vācaka-sāmānādhikaranya-krta-vaicitryántaram asti, yena tad-vad eva jahallaksaņātaḥ prthag udāhriyeta.
nanu-'kārya-kāraṇa-bhāva-sambandhena vṛttiḥ ity ata eva prthaktvam astu, kāryakārana-bhāvātiriktena gangā-tīrā”di-gata-samyogā"di-sambandhena yrttau jahallakṣaṇā’ity asamkaropapatte»'; - mā evam - 'rājakīyaḥ puruṣo rājā' 'indrārthā sthūņā indraḥ, 'a-taksā’yam takşā', 'agra-hasto'yam hastaḥ', iti sva-svāmibhāvatādarthya-tātkarmya-avayavávayavi-bhāveșvapi kārya-kāraṇa-bhāva iva sāropā'dhyavasāya-laksanayor akara-granthesuudāharanād, aśrayāśrayibhāvasambandhe api alamkāra-sudhā-nidhau udāharaṇāc ca, vaicitryántarábhāvépi vidhāntaropagame sambandha-bhedántaram avalambyápi vidhāntaropavarnanasya pratyākhyātum a-sakyatayā sapta-vidharva-niyama-a-sāmañjasya-prasangāc ca.”
Now, says Appayya Dixita, that if it is argued that in śuddhā sādhyavasānā the apprehension of suggested sense is preceded by that of identification, while it is not the case in śuddhā jahallaksanā, and hence both are different on account of this speciality of suggested sense brought about by identification preceding it, then this also is not a sound argument. Appayya says that even in suddhā jahallaksanā also there is apprehension of suggested sense with the apprehension of identity preceding it. In 'gangāyām ghosah', only after the apprehension of identity between the stream-pravāha-of ganga and the bank-tata-of gangā, the phala in form of the suggestion of coolness and piousness is apprehended. For this Dixit has quoted illustrations from 'Kavya-sarani', 'kavya-prakāśa' and also 'Ratnākara'. It may be said, observes Prof. Dr. B. D. Pandya (Ref. Appayya Dixita, kavi ane alamkārika - in Gujarati - pp. 216. doctoral thesis, published by Guj. Uni. '74, Ahd.) that the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
