________________
Vyañjana'
703 import-ascertainment takes place, even the verbal apprehension of the noncontextual sense is welcome, it being supported by practical experience. So, the cause, viz. import - ascertainment has apprehension of the expressed sense (abhidhā) as its result, and not the apprehension through vyañjanā or suggestive power. So, if the apprehension of all the senses, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, be held to follow through the cause in the form of importascertainment, then the apprehension of the non-contextual sense through the suggestive power, done later, will also possibly not follow. And even this is a matter of experience. So, it is better to hold import-ascertainment as the cause in respect of apprehension through the expressed sense alone. It is not advisable to accept import-ascertainment as the cause, even in respect of the unexpressed sense, because it is a matter of experience that through the power of expression, the noncontextual sense, which is not the import, is not gathered.
Jagannātha refutes this objection as follows :
It is not a happy situation that the objector is obsessed with the view that abhidhā or the power of expression can give the contextual sense alone, and not the non-contextual sense also. For, as in the instance of poetry with double entendre-such as, “sóvyād işta-bhujanga. ..." etc., wherein both the senses are derived through the power of expression (abhidhā) alone, in the same way, there is nothing which restricts us from gathering both the contextual and the noncontextual senses with the help of abhidhā or the power of expression, in the case of a word with multiple sense. : mā evam; sóvyād ista-bhujanga-hāra-valayas tvām sarvado madhavaḥ ity ādau śleșa-kavya iva prakrtépi prakstā-prakrtayor arthayor bodhasya svīkāre badhakábhāvāt.” (pp. 335, ibid, R.G. II.) - To say that, in the said instance of double entedre, both the senses are contextual, while it is not so in this case (i.e. dārstāntika), and therefore, import-ascertainment is done in respect of only one sense, i.e. the contextual alone, and it is advisable to hold that only contextual sense is gathered through the power of expression (abhidhā) - is not proper. For, the mentioning of an instance of double entendre is only meant to convey that when the simultaneous apprehension of senses throu expression is possible, it should be possible here also in case of a word having multiple sense, whose primary sense has been fixed by context such as conjunction and the like. In the case of double entendre, both the meanings are simultaneously the object of import-ascertainment, while here only one sense becomes an object; but the difference in these two cases would arise only if import-ascertainment itself is held to be the cause of apprehension through the power of expression. But in fact,
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
