________________
'Laksana'
557
pratiyogin in such sambandha, the above objection can be got over, because in the present case 'kāka' only is not the pratiyogin of such sambandha, but the 'bidālā"di'
But even if this objection is met, Candrikā contends, the first objection stands unanswered. (Candrika pp. 150-151)
It may be pointed out here, this objection is not so formidable as is opined to be by Candrikā. Even if the rāhu and candra etc. are cognised in their kacatvā"dyavacchinna-rūpas, importance is to be given to their rāhurvā"di only, in view of the vidheya i.e. trāsa, and the sakyatāvacchedaktā fades into insignificance. Thus there is nothing wrong in accepting the above theory. Moreover the same objection can be raised in the well-known example of laksanā, ‘gangāyām ghosah', etc., because even after the tira-laksanā, how can it be taken as the adhāra of ghosa when the 'gangātva' is lurking in the mind of the hearer? Whatever answer is found to meet this objection, can be applied in this case also, because it is against the common experience that the kacā"di rūpā’rtha would completely disappear from the mind of the hearer when he cognises the laksyártha.
In fact it is doubtful if this comes under laksanā at all. There is a possibility of taking it as an instance of gauni-laksaņā only; but even this does not seem to be justified here. For, it cannot come either under the sāropā or sādhyavasānā, because there is no mention of both the, visaya and the visayin as in ‘mukham candrah', etc., or of the visayin alone as in, 'vāpī kā'pi sphurati gagane', etc. (kuvalayā”nanda, p. 38), and the mention of visaya does not come under either category. Therefore it may have to be taken as 'bhrāntimad alamkāra-dhvani'.
It is interesting to note, Nāgeśa meets this objection in an altogether different way. In the Vaiyākarana-laghu-mañjusā, in the context of explaining laksaņā as 'sakyatávacchedaka', he states that there is nothing wrong in the 'kacataḥ trasyati' etc., because kacatva is ascribed to rāhutya etc. Though Nāgesa does not say like this directly, (he says that 'rāhutvā"di-visista' is expressed with kacatvā”di) it should be the purport of his statement, in view of the context of his definition of laksanā.
"atra sarvatra tat-tad-dharma-viśiste śakyatávacchedaka-dharmā”ropah. ata eva 'kacatas trasyati vadanam' ity adinā kacatvā”dau rāhutvā"di-visistasya bodhāt na trāsā”dyanvayā’nupapattiḥ.” (Parama-laghu-mañjusā - p. 122).
Nageśa's statement appears to be self-contradicting, because when there is āropa of the sakyatávacchedaka on the laksyatávacchedaka, the possibility of anvayā’nupapatti is more, for the rāhuvā”di would be cognized in kacā"dirūpa only. Even the commentary, Ratnaprabhā, on the above passage does not try
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
