________________
'Laksaņā'
571 'mukham chandrah'. There is however, some difference between the two ślistarūpakas, and this simple illustration viz. mukham candrah. It is that in the two instances of ślista rūpakas, the sādhāraṇa dharma being not known, i.e. aprasiddha, it is pertinent to express it in so many words. But in the illustration viz. 'mukham candrah' the sādhāranadharma is well known and hence need not be expressed in so many words. But if abhedánvaya is held to be the cause of the apprehension of rūpaka, and if we do not place sadrśya in form of sādhāranadharma, i.e. if we hold that the dharma' is not mentioned, we do not get rūpaka. How do we explain this ? Or, where the 'sādhārana dharma' is not present there is no experience of camatkāra in such rūpakas. How do we explain this also ? On the contrary from the objector's point of view this should not happen, because at such places, the āhārya-abheda-jñāna between upamāna and upameya, without having expectancy of anything else, stays here independently on its own in a perfect form. So, accordingly here rūpaka also should take place and also the camatkara resulting therefrom. Now those who believe in the abhedánvaya' of nămárthas may say that, "for the apprehension of the abheda-jñāna between two padárthas, or for the camatkāra caused thereby, it is required that there is an apprehension of a special or particular sādhārana-dharma. But this also can not be held.
For, in the verse, viz. "yady anusno bhaved vahnir...” etc., even in the absence of the apprehension of the sădhārana-dharma, the āhārya-abheda or identification between 'anusna' and 'vahnih', and aśīta and 'jala' is apprehended. Thus you cannot say that the apprehension of sādhāraņa-dharma is a must for āhārya abhedánvaya. Now, if you say that the special mark of the requirement of the apprehension of sādhārana-dharma is only where it is a case of upamānópameya, i.e. when there is ahārya-abheda only, but then this is untenable since there is no authority in suggesting that the apprehension of that particular sūdhāraṇa-dharma is a must in case of upamānópameya only, when elsewhere there is apprehension of āhārya-abheda independent of this. Again, in the absence of a sādhāranadharma, all ālamkārikas accept the apprehension of abhedánvaya between ‘mukham' and 'candrah', in the illustration viz. “mukham yadi candrah syāt tadā bhūmy avasthitam na syāt.” (In this sentence, there is no escape from accepting abhedánvaya because the rule of vyutpatti-śāstra suggests that the anvaya between two nāmárthas is always through abheda-sambandha).
You may suggest that if it is accepted that there is only sādrśyalakṣaṇā in rūpaka, there will be no identity (i.e. tādātmya) between vişaya and viņayin, because, the abheda that is expressed in rūpaka, is only between the upameya and upamāna
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
