________________
‘Lakşaņā
555 then what difference would there be of indication and a direct mode of expression - "A hamlet on the bank of Gangā ? (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 31, ibid)
The point is that to say that in the two varieties of suddhā laksaņā such as ‘upādāna' and 'laksana', there is apprehension of 'bheda' or separateness, but in gauni laksan, there is 'a-bheda' or no apprehension of separateness, is not proper. On the contrary, the apprehension of motive in prayojanavati laksanā takes place only if we apprehend a-bheda between mukhyártha and laksyártha, observes Mammața. This is acceptable to Jagannātha also but the condition of mukhyárthabadha is not acceptable as seen above as it keeps out such statements as 'käkebhyo.' etc. out of the scope of laksanā. Similar is the case of a statement such as, "naksatram dệstvā vācam visrjet.” Thus, 'tātparyā’nupapatti' or 'non-opprehension of motive' should be recognized as 'laksana-bīja' or the condition for laksanā. But even this 'tātparyā’nupapatti' can be explained in two ways -, either as - “mukhyārthatā’vacchedakā'dhikaranakaḥ tātparya-visayanvayitā’vacchedakatāyāḥ abhāvaḥ”, or as, “tātparya-visayanvayā”dhi-karanakah mukhyárthatā'vacchedakarūpena mukhyārtha-pratiyogitāyā abhāvah." (candrikā commentary, pp. 150, Edn. Chowkhamba Vidyābhavan, Benares, '55). The idea is that what is meant by tātparya in these cases ? By ‘tātparyā'nupapatti' is it meant that laksaņā takes place only when the two conditions - viz. 'mukhyárthávacchedaka' and 'tātparya-visayanvayitā'vacchedaka' - are present ? Or, is it meant that in the correlation - anvaya - meant by the speaker there is
the state of being 'mukhyārtha-pratiyogikatā' i.e. of being ‘mukhyarthiya' in what we know as mukhyárthávacchedaka ?
The substance is that by 'tātparyā’nupapatti' is it meant that the correlation of anvaya (which is the motive of the speaker) by its own form is not of the primary meaning ? Explaining the views in Candrikā, Dr. Ramacandrudu (pp. 250, ibid) puts it as - "In simple language it may, be said that the 'mukhyárthávacchedaka (i.e. gangārva etc.) should not be the same as 'tātparya-visayánvayitā’vacchedaka', and then only laksaņā arises. Or it may be explained that the mukhyártha, in its capacity of being mukhyártha should not be associated with the intended 'anvaya' while giving rise to laksaņā. But the first explanation of tātparyā’nupapatti is against the accepted theory of Alamkārikas, because in places like 'gangāyām ghosah', etc., they accept, in order to fecilitate the suggestion of pāvanatva etc., that the cognition of the taţa is only 'gangātva-rūpa'. Thus, tātparyavisayanvayitā'vacchedakatā' rests with 'gangātva' itself. Therefore, the second explanation of the tātparyā’nupapatti can be accepted, because, in the above
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
