________________
558
SAHRDAYĀLOKA to give proper explanation. It simply says - rāhutva-viśiste kacatvā"ropāt rāhutva-visistatvāt trāsopapattih, kacatva-vaisistyena camatkāra-siddhir iti na dosah.” (pp. 125)
Jagannātha then proceeds to mention some relations following the famous kārikā of Bhartsmitra, as quoted by Mukula, viz."abhidheyena sambandhāt, sādrśyāt, samavāyataḥ, vaiparītyāt kriyāyogāt, laksaņā pañcadhā matā.” Jagannātha observes (pp. 464, Edn. Athavale, ibid) - "gangāyām ghosah ity atra sāmipyam, "mukham candraḥ” ity ādau sādęśyam, vyatireka-laksaņāyām virodhaḥ, 'yurghstam' ity ādau kāraṇatvā”dayas' ca sambandhā yathāyogam laksaņā-sarīrāņi.”
But, it may be noted that Jagannātha is not inclined to confine the number of relations to just five only. Jagannātha discards 'samavāya' and 'kriyāyoga' for which Mukula has cited illustrations such as 'chatrino yānti' and 'satrughnah'. Jagannatha's understanding is that in what Mukula takes 'samavāya' as group and illustrates with ‘chatriņo yānti' it is better to take 'sāmīpya' or nearness as the relation as those without umbrellas i.e. 'a-chatrinah' are near by or close to those having unbrellas and in the same way thinks Jagannātha that ‘kriyāyoga' can be discarded in favour of 'sādrsyä' and therefore 'satrughna' - the distroyer of enemies is a king who can be compared with 'satrughna', Rāma's brother as he had also destroyed the enemies. We have noted that Jagannātha calls these 'sambandhas' to be 'laksaņā
Nägeśa is dissatisfied with Jagannātha's, "sakyatávacchedaka-laksyártha-bodha" and therefore has this comment, viz. "laksaņājñāna-kāryatávacchedakañca tādrśa-sakya-sambandha-prakāraka-viśesyaka-śabdabuddhitvam iti prācīnálamkārika-matam. tad anantarañca vyañjanayā tādrśaśakyávacchedaka prakārakabodhaḥ iti ca. (pp. 146, N.S. Edn. 1888) This means that laksyártha-bodha would consist of śakya-sambandha only but not śakyatávacchedaka. But, the vyañjanā that follows laksaņā would produce the śābda-bodha consisting of sakyatávacchedaka also. This statement of Nāgeśa is approved and quoted by Candrika with a note (pp. 152, ibid) - etena śakyatávacchedaka-rūpeṇa laksyamānam mūloktam kațākṣitam.
Dr. Ramacandrudu observes (pp. 254, ibid) that it is not known, the views of which 'prācīna-ālamkārika-Nāgeśa is referring to. Mammata is favourable to accepting lakṣaņā-sthala, 'gangātvā”di-prakāraka-tīrā’di-bodha for the purpose of vyangyártha, for only such laksyártha can suggest ‘pāvanatvā"di' which stand as a prayojana. Mammața observes, as quoted above that, "tațā"dīnām gangā"di
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
