________________
'Laksaņā
553 is never observed in the secondary sense. On the contrary, this view holds that the special characteristic of the mukhyártha and that of the laksyártha should be one and the same. This means that there should be a relation of identity - abhedasambandha-between these two. Mammata and the like hold that between, mukhyártha and laksyártha there is no 'bheda-rūpa-tāțasthya' - i.e. difference. Jagannātha observes : “sakyatávacchedaka-rūpena laksyabhānasya svīkārāt." He further adds - "kim tu, tātparya-visayánvaye mukhyárthatávacchedaka-rūpena mukhyártha-pratiyogikatāyā abhāvo rūdhi-prayojanayor anyatarac ca tantram. mukhyárthánvayā’nupapatteḥ tantratve tu 'kākebhyo dadhi raksyatām'ity atra laksanótthānam na syāt. 'gangāyām ghosah' ity atra sāmipyam, 'mukha-candrah', ity adau sādrśyam, vyatireka-laksanāyām virodhah, ayur ghrtam' ity adau kāraṇatvā”dayaśca sambandhā yathāyogam lakṣaṇā-śarīrāņi.”
When the earlier alamkārikas counted the sāmīpya, sadrśya and other relations, they held that these relations are of the form of non-identity or 'bheda'. For them, between the mukhyártha viz. 'stream of Ganga' and the laksyártha viz. 'the bank of Gangā', the relation was only of nearness i.e. sāmīpya. Mammaţa pointed out a mistake in this view that if this bheda-sambandha is held in samīpya etc., the qualities of coolness - śaitya - and piousness i.e. pāvanatva will not appear in the bank while the chief purpose of laksana is to make one apprehend these qualities in the bank also. Thus, it is inevitable to accept, in any variety of laksanā, this relation of non-distinction or a-bheda between the primary and the secondary senses. If the apprehension of śaitya and pāvanatva does not occur in the bank through laksanā, then the whole process becomes futile, as the speaker can use a sentence such as "gangātīre ghosah”, in place of 'gangāyām ghoṣaḥ”. But one resorts to laksanā only with a special motive in mind and in this case it is the apprehension of saitya and pāranatva and this motive can not be realized without accepting non-distinction i.e. ‘a-bheda' between mukhyártha and laksyártha.
Though Jagannātha has not pointedly criticized Hemacandra here, but this discussion explains the futility of holding ‘gauņi as a separate vrtti from laksanā, for in the latter, i.e. in laksanā for Hemacandra the relation between the two senses is that of absolute identity, 'tattvena', while in the former i.e. gauņi, it is through
neda' and 'a-bheda'. Hemacandra's thinking and therefore his keeping ‘gaunī as a separate word-power, distinct from laksaņā, are both faulty.
It so happens that in some instances of laksana there is absence of a motive. This is termed rūdhi-laksaņā, or one based on popular usage, for example the word, 'kušala' primarily means 'kuśān lāti' i.e. one who cuts the kusa grass, and
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
