________________
572
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
sadrśa i.e. mukham and candra-sadrsa. In the obsence of such identity, statements like "simhena sadņšo nā’yam, kintu simho narádhipah”, which are focussed on conveying abheda between the upameya and the upamāna would be meaningless. But this argument does not stand because such tādātmya is acceptable even to the laksanāvādins as explained while discussing the second and third views of the prācīnas.
It may again be held that according to the laksaņāvādins, sādrśya also is included in rūpaka and as such, it may be wrong to deny the sadrśya (= simhena sadrśaḥ nā’yam) while having rūpaka in ‘simho narádhipaḥ. This argument is rejected by saying that the negation meant here is only of the upamā based on bheda-gharita-sādņśya, while favouring rūpaka based on a-bheda-ghatita-sādrśya.
Jagannātha now rejects an objection raised in case of “rāja-nārāyanam', and ‘pādámbujam', etc., as follows. As suggested above, the laksyánvayabodha will be only 'sakyatávacchedaka-prakāraka' and thus by accepting rūpaka in 'rājanārayana', the 'rājan' would be understood only in form of 'nārāyanatva' so there will be nothing wrong in his having the embrace of Laxmī. In the same way if rūpakalamkāra is to be accepted in 'padámbujam', the pāda-jñāna will be ambujatvaprakāraka and thus 'mañjira-siñjita-manoharată in it will be incongruous. That is why upamā is to be accepted here in order to give importance to 'pada' because the pāda-jñāna then, will be 'pādatvávacchinna’ “pādámbajam'ity ādau api rūpakasya svīkāre pradhānībhūtottara-padasyā’rthasyā’mbujatvenaiva pratiter mañju-mañjīra-siñjita-manoharatāyā anupapatteh. upamita-samāsā”yattópamāyām tu pradhānasya pādasya pādatvenaiva pratītasya nā’sti tasyā anupapattir iti, na kópi dosah.” (R.G. pp. 498, ibid)
Again, it is incorrect to hold that there would be no difference between upamā and rūpaka, on the ground that in both of them, the sadrśya is being expressed by śabda (though of course by lakṣaṇā in rūpaka); because the sādrśya in rūpaka is abheda-ghatita while in upamā it is bheda-karambita, and J. explains the difference between the two. - "bhedā’karambita-sādrśya-viśistasya rūpake laksyatvād upamāvyapadeśasya a-prasakteh” (R.G. pp. 498, ibid). If it is argued that there can be an instance where the speaker makes a laksanika-prayoga like 'mukham candrah', etc., with the specific intention of conveying bheda-ghațita-sādrśya', and this will have to be accepted as upamā, because sādrśya is bheda-karambita, but Jagannātha says that there cannot be any scope, in such places, for laksaņā at all, as the main purpose of laksanā is to convey tādātmya which promises negation of bheda :
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
