________________
550
SAHRDAYĀLOKA as 'vidvan-mānasa'. etc., as there is only identity between 'hamsa' and 'rājā' and there is no 'tādrūpya' or similarity observed. So, to denounce the belief of the ancients concerning the difference between rūpaka and atiśayokti, Appayya cites the illustration viz. "hrtpankajāni." etc. The meaning of this illustration is this - "O lord, the light - jyotsnā - (of the form of lustre of your nails) oozing out from the moon in form of your nails, acquires another nature as it blossoms the lotuses in
rm of the hearts of vour devotees, and it dries up the ocean in form of worldly existence.” In this illustration the visayi-pada in form of 'jyotsnā' completely swallows up - (nigarana) the visaya-in form of nakha-kānti i.e. lustre of the nails - and hence there should be atiśayokti in this illustration. But the ancients believe that there is rūpaka when there is similarity - tādrūpye rūpakam' and there is ‘atiśayokti' when there is (total) identity, 'abhede-atiśayoktih : Here, even if there is mentioning of only “jyotsnā' which is a visayi-pada, this 'jyotsnā' or moon-light
pecial as it blossoms the lotuses and hence this visayin jyotsnā is different from nakha-kāntin-the luster of the nails, which is 'visaya' here. So, we will acquire apprehension of similarity or 'tādrūpya' between the two and hence there will be realization of 'rūpaka' here. So, it is advisable, argues Dixit, to dispense with the view of the ancients taking "tādrūpye rūpakam”, and “abhede'tiśayoktiḥ”. We should go for a new belief. Appayya here suggests this new arrangement such as - “vişaya-visayi-pada-asāmānádhikaranye rūpakam” - i.e. rūpaka takes place when visaya-pada and visayi-pada are clearly mentioned as separate entities. And, when their is mentioning of only the visayi-pada, there is atiśayokti - "visayimātranirdese atiśayoktiḥ”. If we accept this new arrangement there will not be any mixup, because in the illustration viz. "vidvanmānasa." etc. as there is separate mentioning of 'rājā' and 'hamsa' clearly, it is a case for rūpaka, and in "jyotsnā tvad-anghri.” etc. only the visayi-pada, viz. 'jyotsnā’ is clearly mentioned, it is a case for atiśayokti only. Says he, (pp. 63, ibid) : "tathā ca, yadi 'tādrūpye rūpakam, abhede'tisayoktih, iti vyavasthām parityajya 'visaya-visayi-pada-sāmānádhikaranye rūpakam, visayı-pada-mātra-nirdeśe'tiśayoktih iti vyavasthā adriyate, tadā, "vidvan-mānasa-hamsa.” ityādau abheda-pratītau satyām api rūpakam sambhavati iti na kācid anupapattiḥ.”
Thus in case of rūpaka, Appayya has established a new norm in dispensing with sāropā laksanā, and also in rejecting the belief of the ancients that we have ‘tādrūpye rūpakam' i.e., rūpaka in case of tādrūpya, and ‘abhede-atiśayoktiņ'.
With this we come to the end of Appayya's treatment of lakṣaṇā. Jagannātha (R.G. pp. 464, Edn. Prof. Athavale, ibid) observes : “atha keyam laksanā,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
