________________
666
SAHRDAYĀLOKA We must here note that the word 'prayojana' has been used in two senses. In the passage “nanu visiste lakṣaṇā', which explains the view of the visista-lakṣaṇāvādin, the purpose is declared to be 'adhikasya arthasya (= pāvanatvā”deh) pratipattiḥ; i.e. pāvanatvā”di-pratipattiḥ. On the other hand, in Mammața's reply to the viśista-laksaņā-vādin contained in the kārikā-“prayojanena sahitam laksaniyam na yujyate", prayojana means “pāvanatvā”di’. These two senses of prayojana must further be explained in somewhat technical terms in order to enable a student to grasp accurately the two interpretations which the kārikā-viz. "jñānasya viņayo hy anyaḥ phalam anyad udāhstam” yields.
The prayojana viz. pāvanatvā”di-pratipattiḥ is laksyártha-jñāna-janya (= laksyárthasya pāvanatvā"diviśista-tațasya jñānena janya. laksyárthe pāvánatvā"diviśista-tate jñāte sati pāvanatvā”di pratipattiḥ jāyate.) i.e. produced by, or arising from, the knowledge or cognition of the indicated sense viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others. For, when we know the laksyártha viz. pāvanatvā”di-viśista-taţa, we obtain the cognition of 'pāvanatvā”di'. Thus the prayojana pāvanatvā”di-pratipattiḥ is laksyártha-jñāna-janya, which is abbreviated into jñāna-janya, or ‘janya'.
On the other hand, the prayojana pāvanatvā”di is laksyártha-janya-jñānapratīti-visaya (= laksyárthasya pāvanatvā”di višista-tațasya jñānena janyā yā pāvanatvā”di-pratītiḥ, tasyāḥ visayaḥ, arthāt pāvanatvā”dir eva.) i.e. the object of cognition (viz. pāvanatvā”di-pratītiḥ), which is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense, (= laksyárthasya pāvanatvā”di-viśistasya tatasya jñānena janyā). When we know the laksyártha viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others, we get the cognition of those properties. The object of this cognition is naturally those properties themselves. So the prayojana, is 'laksyártha-janya-pratīti-visaya', which is shortened into 'jñāna-janya-pratitiviṣayā', or 'janya-pratīti-visaya' or jñāpya."
Prof. Ganjendragadkar also takes great pains to explain the cryptic remark, viz. “jñānasya visayo hy anyaḥ phalam anyad udāhstam.” He observes (pp. 318, ibid) - This kārikā has given quite an amount of trouble to interpreters, whose expectations have very often served to canfuse the student rather than to enlighten him. This is because the logical connection between the two interpretations, which this line is intended to convey according as 'phala' and 'prayojana' (Mammața uses
se two words as synonyms) is understood in one or the other of the two senses given above, is not properly grasped.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
