________________
562
SAHRDAYĀLOKA expressed by abhidhā (mukha) according to the well-known rule - “nāmárthayor abhedenā’nvayah.” Thus the final śābda-bodha of the sentence 'mukham candrah', will be 'sādęśyábhinnam mukham'. Now, the question arises, what is then the difference between rūpaka which gives the sabda-bodha 'candra-sadrsábhinnam mukham' and upamā in 'candra-sadssam mukham ? It may be argued that there is slight variation in the ultimate sābda-bodha of the rūpaka and upama'lamkara which makes all the difference. While the sabda-bodha of rūpaka is 'candrasadrśā bhinnam mukham', as explained above, the sābda-bodha in upamā-sthala like 'candra-sadrśam mukham', is 'candrā’bhinnam yat sadṛśam tad abhinnam mukham'. The reason for the difference is this - According to the rule that only the 'samsarga' (relation) of the two padárthas expressed by two different words would appear in śābda-bodha by samsarga-maryādā. 'Candra' in 'candra-sadrśam mukham', expresses the sense 'moon', and 'sadrśa' by laksaņā expresses 'candrasadrśa'. Now 'candra' and 'candra-sadrśa' being expressed by different words, there will be abhedánvaya' between them (by samsarga-maryāda). Thus the ultimate - śābda-bodha will be, 'candra bhinna-candra-sadrsā'bhinnam mukham'. But in 'mukham candrah' (rūpaka-sthala) 'candrah' itself conveys the meaning of candrasadrsa by laksana and there is no possibility of abheda-samsarga between 'candra and 'sadrśa' because both of them are expressed by one word only and therefore the ultimate śābda-bodha is - 'candra-sadrśábhinnam mukham'. Thus there is a difference in the sābda-bodhas of upamā and rūpaka. But the objector suggests that such a slight difference in the final sābda-bodha is not sufficient to distinguish between the two alamkāras. For, if it were so, due to difference in śābdabodha, two expressions viz. 'mukham candra iva', and 'mukham candra-sadrśam' should be taken as separate alamkāras. So, the original position that there is absence of difference between rūpaka and upamā remains as it is - "bodhasya vailaksanyena prthag alamkāratāyā a-siddheḥ. anyathā 'mukham candra iva' ity atra candrasadrśam ity etadgatāt prthag alamkāratāpartir iti cet.” (pp. 465, ibid).
In reply to this objection, some are of the opinion that, though there is no difference in the sābda-bodha of these two alamkāras, there is difference in the ultimate result - ... laksaņā-phalībhūta-tādrūpya-samvedanam ādāya vailaksanyam nirbädham. (pp. 465, ibid). As the visayitávacchedaka (i.e. candrarva etc.) is ascribed to visaya (i.e. mukha), there is a tādātmya-jñāna in the rūpaka-stala which is not observed in the upamā-sthala. As pointed out above, the word 'candra' in ‘mukham candrah', conveys the sense of candra-sadrśaḥ by laksaņā and thus, as in śleșa-sthala, there will be apprehension of identity i.e. abheda-sampratyaya between
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
