________________
'Vyañjanā
665 As for the words "evam api anavasthā syāt yā mūlaksaya-kāriņi” - also note “anavasthā avasthāyāḥ sthairyasya antavattvasya abhāvaḥ. upapādya-upapādakayor a-viśrāntiḥ ity arthaḥ. upapādyam prathamam prayojanam. upapādakam dvitīyam prayojanam. punar api upapādyam dvitīyam prayojanam, upapādakam tộtīyam prayojanam. ity anena kramena prayojana-parmparāyā anantatvam.”
'mūlakṣayakāriņī means mūlasya prathama-prayojanasya kşayaḥ nāśaḥ anavabodhaḥ ity arthaḥ, tasya kāriņī, utpādayitri. The anavasthā or endless series of purposes would produce non-apprehension of the first purpose. ‘mūlaksayakāriņi is paraphrased by 'praksta-a-pratīti-krt.', which means, 'prakstam yat prathama-prayojanam tasya a-pratitih anavabodhah, tām kartoti iti." There is another kind of 'anavasthā', which is based on 'bijankura-nyāya'. That 'anavasthā is not regarded as a fault. 'mūlaksaya-kāriņi' excludes that 'anavasthā'. The udyota reads : 'etena bījā”nkurádivad anavasthā na dūsanam iti apāstam. 'mūlaksayakarīm cāhur anavasthām hi dūsanam' ity ukteh. At K.P. II. 18 bcd. Mammata observes :
viśiste laksaņā naivam
višeşāḥ syus tu lakṣite. "There is no indication with reference to the qualified object. But there would be (found) qualities in the indicated object.” He observes in the vṛtti - "tațā”dau višeşāḥ pāvanatvā”dayaḥ. te ca abhidhā-laksaņā-tātparyebhyo vyāpārántarena gamyāḥ. tac ca vyañjana-dhvananā”di-sabda-vācyam-avaśyam esitavyam. evam laksaņāmālam vyañjakatvam uktam." This means that the qualities of holiness etc. which are found in the bank etc., are apprehended by some other function than denotation, purport and indcation. And that (function) which is designated by the terms suggestion, reverberation, and illumination, and the like, must necessarily be admitted. Thus has been explained the suggestiveness based on indication
Before we end this part of the discussion it will be interesting to read Prof. Gajendragadkar's observations (pp. 318-22). On 'prayojanena-sahitam lakṣanīyam na yujyate' etc., he observes : This contains Mammața's reply to the view of the visista-lakṣaņā-vādin. A laksyártha or an indicated sense (lakṣaṇīyam) such as 'tata', qualified (sahita = visista) by the purpose such as the properties, holines others, (prayojanena = pāvanatvādinā), is not proper, that is, it is not proper to hold that a laksanā indicates a sense (= laksaniyam) qualified by purpose. This amounts to saying that it is not proper to regard “pāvanatvā"di-visista-taţa" as the lakşyártha. Hence it follows that 'viśista-lakṣaṇā' is not proper.
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
