________________
570
SAHṚDAYALOKA
(ii) mind will come into existence. Thus, by accepting lakṣaṇā, there will be "anyonya"śraya-dosa". Now this can be avoided by accepting āhārya'bheda-jñāna between the king and the 'hamsa' for which we need not depend on śleṣa. This abheda-jñāna would ultimately be justified by accepting śleṣa. Thus the śleṣa depends on rūpaka but the rūpaka does not depend upon śleṣa and there will be no 'anyonya"śraya-dosa'. Therefore, it is better to apply the general rule of abhedánvaya in rūpaka-sthala also.
-
Again, the Navīnas hold that the argument of the contenders of lakṣaṇā, viz. that the phala of lakṣaṇā, which indicates lakṣyártha in form of 'sadṛśa', is the ultimate tādrūpyapratīti or apprehension of identity in rūpaka, is also not acceptable, for, if we accept this, then, as in the expression 'tat-sadṛśa' also there is apprehension of similarity, i.e. even in cases of upamā such as, 'candra-sadṛśam mukham there will be tādrūpyapratīti, or apprehension of identity even here (i.e. even in upamā). Thus, the Navīnas hold that there is no requirement for acceptance of lakṣaṇā in the śābda-bodha of rūpaka, - "ato nāmárthayor abhedánvaya-saranir eva rūpakasthale ramaṇīyā. sadṛśa-lakṣaṇāyāḥ phalam rūpake trādrūpya-pratyaya ity api na hṛdayangamam. tat-sadṛśa iti śabdāt-sādṛśya-pratyaye saty api tādrūpyapratyaya"-patteḥ" - ity āhuḥ." (pp. 468, ibid)
Now Jagannatha proceeds to discuss the view of the Navīnas also. Says he - "atra idam vicāryate'. (pp. 497, ibid)
He refutes the view of the Navīnas with some very important arguments supported by common sense and general experience. He observes: 'yat tavad ucyate nämárthayor abhedánvaya-bodhena eva upapattau rūpake nā'sti lakṣaṇā iti, tatra camatkāri-sādhāraṇa-dharmā'nupasthiti-daśāyām upamā'lamkārasya iva rūpakālamkārasyā'pi násti niṣpattis' camatkāro vā iti sakala-hṛdaya-siddham." The general experience goes, argues Jagannatha, that there can be no existence of either upama-alamkāra or rūpaka-alamkāra, till the 'camatkari' or lovely sādhāraṇa-dharma is cognised. If at all there is such an instance in the absence of a beautiful sadhāraṇadharma, the alamkāra does not take shape, as there is no charm in it. This is common experience. If we do not hold that rūpakálamkāra does not take shape in the absence of a beautiful sadhāraṇa-dharma, then such example as, "bhāratam naka-manḍalam" i.e. the Mahabharata is heaven", or 'nagaram vidhumandalam' i.e. this city is the orb of moon', will not cause the apprehension of rūpaka, but this apprehension is surely caused when we hear such words as "suparválamkṛtam", and "sa-kala-kalam", respectively. What can be the reason behind this? Same is the case with reference to the famous illustration of rūpaka, such as
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
