________________
‘Lakşaņā
569 Now, here, the point is - "sa ca laksyamse sundaratvā"dinā viśesa-rūpena pratiyate uta āho sāmānya-rūpeṇa ?” - i.e. is that samāna-dharma of the form of sādņśya apprehended here in the special form of paritucularity of beautysundaratva - or in a general form ? These two options prop up here. The first alternative, viz. that sadrśya is apprehended in form of particularity such as 'sundaratvā"di', is untenable. Because in such a case, there will be paunaruktyadosa in, 'sundaram mukham candrah', for saundarya, the sādhāranadharma of a particular nature, is expressed by the word 'candra' itself by laksanā, and is again mentioned by the word 'sundaram'. To avoid this blemish, it may be said, that in such cases where the sādhārana-dharma is mentioned, some other dharma, i.e. other than what is mentioned, should be taken as 'laksyatā'vacchedaka-dharma'. But, even if 'paunaruktya' dosa can be avoided by this argument, it goes contray to the common experience, because we do not generally understand any other dharma except saundarya in the expression 'sundaram mukham candraḥ'. Again, in some instances, there may not be any possibility of an additional dharma over and above the one mentioned in a given illustration. "na caivam ādāv upātta-dharmake rūpake tad dharma'tirikto dharma eva laksyatāvacchedakābhūta-sādrsyarūpa iti vācyam. anubhava-virodhāt. (pp. 467, ibid). As for example in the verse, “ankitāny aksasamghātaih...” etc. We do not find any other sādhārana-dharma, over and above those based on ślesa, i.e. aksa-sanghatánkitatva' and 'sarogatva'. Thus the first alternative is unacceptable. In case, now, if the second atternative is accepted, it would be an illustration, not of rūpaka, but of upamā because the sādrśya is mentioned by sabda. It is not proper to hold that upamā would arise only when the sādrśya is vācya, because in that case, in instances such as ‘nalina-pratipakşam ānanam', where sādrśya is not vācya but laksya, will cease to be illustrations of upamā.
Again, if laksaņā be accepted in rūpaka, in the example of ślista-paramparitarūpaka such as, 'vidvanmānasa-hamsa. etc., where we know that 'sadrśya' will be apprehended only when śleșa is accomplished first, and due to the abhedádhyavasāya brought about by ślesa, sādrśya between the king who dwells in mānasa (= mind) and the swan who dwells in mānasa lake, will be apprehended and then only the rūpaka - “rājahamsa” - will take shape based on sādrśya-mülakalaksyártha. Then only we will be able to say that here is an instance of rūpakalamkāra. As against this, when rūpaka is derived as based on the la in 'hamsa-sadrśa', - i.e. when rūpaka is formed with a lakṣaṇā in form of hamsasadrśa at its base, then only the ślesa on "mānasa” meaning (i) mānasa lake and
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
