________________
574
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
fear of such tādrpya-pratyaya in the case of the latter, because there is no laksanā in it; and tādrpya-pratyaya is only the phala of laksaņā. Jagannātha concludes that the contention of the ancient writers has thus to be accepted on the authority of the Mahābhāsya and such other works. In the Mahābhāsya, while commenting on Pā. IV. i. 48, viz. 'pumyogād ākhyāyām', Patañjali raises a question viz. how can abheda exist between two distinctly different things ? In reply he contends that the abheda is being ascribed on four grounds; viz. 'tātstya' (i.e. being on a particular thing), 'tāddharmya' (i.e. having the quality of a particular thing), 'tat-sāmīpya' (or being closer to a thing), and 'tat-sahacarya', (or being associated with a particular thing), and he furnishes four examples to illustrate these respectively. Here, the sentence, “tādrūpyam āropyate na tu mukhyam”, indicates that also in 'mukham candrah', the tādātmya is being ascribed by laksaņā. All this goes against the Navīnas. Jagannātha thus defends the view of the ancients by refuting the views of the Navīnas such as Appayya Dixita, of course here, without naming him . "tatsadrśa ity atra laksanāyā abhāvena tādrūpya-pratyayasyā'pādana'yogāt. tādrūpyapratyayo laksaņāyāḥ phalam iti prācām samayaḥ. mahābhāsyā"di-granthānām asminnevā'nukūlatvāc ca. navyamate tu tesām ākulībhāvah syād iti dik” - (R.G. pp. 499, ibid). See also Candrikā (pp. 189), on this - "navya-mate vācyayor evā'bhede, 'caturbhih prakārais tādrūpyam āropyate na tu mukhyam', ityāder asamgatih spastā eva iti sārāmśah."
After dealing with śābda-bodha of sāropā-laksaņā, Jagannātha picks up the topic of śābda-bodha in sādhyavasānā laksanā. Here he discusses two views. In the illustration, viz. "candra-rājī virājate”, where the upameya is completely omitted, the 'candra' sabda expresses the 'mukha' with its 'dharma', viz. 'mukhatva', but the ultimate śābda-bodha will be 'candratvaprakāraka' only. The idea is that here, the ‘mukha' will be cognized in the guise of 'candra', and not as 'mukha', and this difference between the padárthopasthiti and, sabda-bodha, as seen above, is the result of 'laksaņā-jñāna.' : "sādhyavasānāyām ca 'candra-rājī virājate',
candra"disabdaih laksanaya mukhyatvenopasthāpitasyā'pi mukhā"deh śābda-bodhaś candratvā”dinā bhavati, lakṣaṇā-jñānasyaiva māhātmyāt” iti eke. - (R.G. pp. 699, ibid).
The other view is - "laksanayā mukhatvena mukhā”deḥ śādba-bodhe vștte, vyañjanayaika-śabdópāttatva-prādurbhūtayā candratvena bodhaḥ" ity apare. (R.G. pp. 499, ibid) - This second view holds that even after the laksanā-jñāna the śābdabodha will be mukhatva-prakāraka-bodha, which is brought about by one vyañjanā, caused by 'eka-padópāttatva'.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
