________________
'Laksana'
567
not be found tenable if the śābda-bodha remains identical, and it remains so if laksanā is resorted to. Mammata did accept difference in the śābda-bodha here, and so the śābdabodha such as 'nārāyana-sadrśa' as seen in rūpaka, through resorting to laksanā, was not acceptable to Mammata, the obvious reason is that it is only by taking into account the anvaya of vācyártha that the upapatti or otherwise of anvaya is considered, and not by taking the anvaya of laksyártha into consideration. Because the vācyártha of upamita samāsa is not congruent here, therefore only the vācyártha of rūpakasamāsa has to be accepted here. So, laksyártha has no business at all here. In the second illustration also, for the lakṣaṇāvādins, if laksaņā is resorted to, or if rūpaka is accepted, in both the cases, the śābdabodha will be of the form of 'ambuja-sadrśa-päda' only. So it will be futile to suggest any anupapatti such as absence of anvaya between the anklet and the foot, and therefore ruling out of rūpaka in the end.
The lakṣaṇāvādin objector may now argue as follows. He may say that perhaps it is possible to arrive at the upapatti of śābda-bodha without resorting to laksaņā in such illustrations as 'mukha-candrah' which is a compounded construction. But when there is no samāsa (such as in mukham candrah) there cannot be any objection to laksanā. But the siddhāntin says that even this observation is incorrect. For, in illustrations such as, “krpayā sudhayā siñca.." etc. which has noncompounded single words, the 'upapatti' of the correlation (anvaya) of ‘artha' does not take place. The idea is that if laksanā is resorted to in case of words such as 'sudhā', and if it is taken to mean 'sudhā-sadrśa', then also the 'secana' or 'sprinkling of sudhā-sadrśa-krpā will not be possible. So, the śābdabodha caused by laksanā will not be of any use. On the other hand, the Navīnas believe in the abhedánvaya and tādrūpya-pratīti between krpā and sudha and hence the sprinkling of krpā in form of sudhā or nectar will give a meaning which will be congruent to the śābda-bodha.
Now if the supporters of laksaņā here say that, if by resorting to laksaņā, the cogruence of the sābda-bodha of laksyártha is not seen, then in that case, take the dhātvartha of 'siñcati' as visayin, and through this visayin, let there be swallowing nigarana - of 'kuru' (= visayártha), and now the upapatti i.e.-justification of the śābdabodha of laksyártha will be accomplished. The idea is that with 'siñcana' as visayin, as it happens in case of 'atiśayokti', let there be nigarana of the meaning of 'kuru'. So, the meaning of 'sprinkling with nectar' - will be, 'shower grace like sprinkling of nectar'. Thus the 'anvaya' will hold good. This is the argument in selfdefence by the laksaņā-supporters.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
