________________
'Laksana'
549 - iti śleşa-rūpakayor vibhāgam vyavasthāpitavatā cakravartinā’py asminnudāharane rūpakopavarnanenā’tra ślesa-pāścātryasya sphutīkaraṇāc ca.” (pp. 62, ibid)
In the illustration viz. "vidvan-mānasa." etc., there is no requirement of resorting to laksanā to realize the identity between 'rājā' and 'hamsa' i.e. the king and the swan, because it takes place through 'samsarga-maryādā' or apposition i.e. 'sāmānādhikaranya' itself. There is a rule that if two 'nāmárthas' - names have come together, they are correlated through the relation of identity only. Following this rule, the two words such as 'rājā' and 'hamsa' which are placed in the same case (i.e. vibhakti), have their abheda-or identity realized through apposition or vākyártha itself and hence there is no need to resort to 'sāropā laksaņā”. Appayya observes - (pp. 62, ibid) : "atra idam tattvam, - 'vidvan'-mānasa-hamsa'. - ityadau 'hamsā"di padānām varnye rājani laksana na'ngīkartavyā, sāmānādhikaranyena varnyasya rājñah prasiddha-hamsa-jātīyā"dibhir abhedasya vākyārtha-vidhayaiva pratīty upapatteh.” If it is argued against this that let there be identity-abhedarealized between 'rājā' and 'hamsa', but the apprehension of tādrūpya' or identity based on similarity or sādrya also cannot be prevented which occurs to the aesthetes. So, laksanā is a necessity here. To this Dixit's reply follows like this. Rūpaka takes place, at places of apposition even where there is intention of mere identity. He quotes a verse from Varadarāja-stava to illustrate this point. The verse is, "ürdhvam viriñcibhavanāt tava nābhi-padmāt...” etc. In this verse, observes Appayya that, in the intention of conveying identity between “urah-sthala" the visaya and 'paramam padam' the visayī, their similarity-tādrpya-is underscored. And yet there is ‘rūpaka' here, and that only identity-abheda-is inteded by the poet is brought out by the words 'eva' and 'sāksāt'. Now here, if there is apprehention of 'abheda' or identity then, on the strength of the fact that rūpaka takes place due to similarity - i.e. tādrūpye rūpakam', or that rūpaka takes place when there is apposition between the visaya and the visayin - "visaya-visayi-sāmānādhikaranyasthale rūpakam” - then here we will have rūpaka. The ancients also think that, when there is apprehension of identity there is 'atiśayokti' - "abhede atiśayoktih”, i.e. "visyyabheda-mātra-nirdeśa-sthale atiśayoktih”, i.e. atiśayokti takes place when there is delineation of only the identity of visayi. So, in that case, in the illustration viz. "vidvan-mānasa-hamsa", etc., as abheda or (total nigarana) is seen between visayin-hamsa and visaya-rājā, we will have to go for atiśayokti here. But Dixit first of all finds fault with the observation of the ancients itself. For, according to this rule, we will start apprehending ‘atiśayokti' in the illustration of rūpaka, such
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
