________________
'Laksanā
565 buddhitvávacchinnam prati bādha-niscayaḥ pratibandhakaḥ.” The navyas also claim that their theory is supported by the well-known observation, viz. ‘atyantāsatyapi hy arthe jñānam sabdaḥ karoti hi', according to which such expressions as 'śaśa-srngam paśya' etc. can also produce a śābda-jñāna like 'gośộngam paśya', etc.
Now somebody may argue that according to this observation, expressions such as 'vahninā siñcati' will also produce 'sabda-bodha'. The answer is 'No'. Navinas say that such expressions cannot produce sābda-bodha because there is no 'yogyatājñāna' or knowledge of compatibility. But in case of 'mukham candrah', 'gauh vāhikah', etc. there is no lack of yogyatājñāna, at least the āhārya one, on account of the strong intention to have such sabda-jñāna for the ultimate camatkāra from such bodha or apprehension. Such āhārya-yogyatā-jñāna can not be accepted in the case of vahninā siñcati', as there is no such desire. This thinking of the Navyas has the support of the Prācinas also, who have gone for the general rule that yogyatājñāna is the cause for the śābda-jñāna : “mukham candrah', 'gaur vāhīkah' ityā"dau tvista-camatkāra-prayojakatā-jñānā"dhīnāyāḥ icchāyāḥ sattvād āhāryayogyatā-jñāna-sāmrājyam ata eva śābdabodhe yogyatā-jñānasya kāranarvoktih prācām samgacchate.' (pp. 467, ibid).
The Candrikā has (pp. 166 ibid) : "śābda-buddhitvávacchinne yogyatājñānam kāranam” iti kārya-kāraṇa-bhāvaḥ prācīnábhimataḥ...
This rule would have been useless because the śābda-boodha in 'vahninā siñcati' etc. can be averted by the badha-jñāna itself, if the 'śabnányatva' were not to be included in the 'badha-niscaya-prati-bandhyatā'vacchedaka-koti'. When the 'sabdányatva' is added, it justifies the above rule related to 'yogyatā-jñāna'. Because the badhajñāna is not powerful enough to obstruct the śābda-bodha in 'vahnināsiñcati', this rule comes in to stop this undesired bodha. Dr. Ramachandradu
es (pp. 266, ibid). 'Even if the 'sabdányatva' is not added in the "pratibaddhyatávacchedaka-koti, the Navinas contend, the abhedánvaya in 'mukham candrah', etc., will be taken as āhārya-jñāna, and so cannot be obstructed by the 'bādha-niscaya? Thus there is no need of accepting the āhāryajñāna to facilitate the sabda-bodha in 'mukham candrah' etc. In fact, the rule 'śābda-buddhitvávacchinne yogyatājñānam kāranam' is itself not necessary because the sābda-bodha in 'vahninā-siñcati' etc., can be prevented by the badhaniścaya itself. It is baseless to say that āhārya-jñāna can be accepted only in pratyaksa-jñāna, because we come across the āhārya-śābda-jñāna also in many places like atiśayokti.”
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
