________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
715 fourth stage.” The supporters of indication accept that laksaņā or indication occurs when three conditions are fulfilled. Here mukhyártha-bādhā i.e. contradiction of primary sense depends on means of knowledge such as direct perception and the like. Even what is called 'nimitta' is also collected through other means of knowledge. But in case of "gangāyām ghosah” the extreme sanctity of the hamlet, its extreme coolness, etc. which are qualities in form of motive - i.e. prayojana - can not be conveyed by other words and this prayojana is also not apprehended by other means of knowledge, but is apprehended through the efficacy of word itself. So, it cannot be said that there is no use of word element : yat tu idam ghosasya atipavitratva-śītalatva-sevyatvā"dikam prayojanam, a-śabdántara-vācyam, pramāņántara-apratipannam, bator vā parākramátiśaya-śālitvam, tatra śabdasya na tāvan na vyāpārah.” (Locana, pp. 28, ibid) : Abhinavagupta clearly implies that the motive is collected only through the instumentality of word alone, and not through any other means of knowledge i.e. smrti, anumiti, etc., as done later by Mahimā and others.
Abhinavagupta elaborates his argument as follows - In laksanā, the first condition is contradiction of the primary sense i.e. mukhyártha-bādha. Now this beocmes clear with the help of direct perception or pratyakşa, the other condition is 'sakyártha-sambandha'. i.e. relation with the primary sense. These relations are manifold such as samipya i.e. closeness, sādrśya i.e. similarity etc. This relation isalso supported by direct perception or such other means of knowledge. The third condition of prayojanavati laksaņā or indication based on motive, is apprehension of motive - 'prayojana-pratipatti'. In the sentence 'gangāyām ghosah', the extreme holiness of the village and its coolness, and its being habitable make for the prayojana br motive. So also in the sentence viz. “simho batuh”, the great valour of the child is the motive. Abhinavagupta argues that you cannot say that the apprehension of this motive is not through the agency of the power of word-tatra śabdasya na tāvan na vyāpārah. For, if you do not accept the power of word as a means to the realisation of motive in these cases, then you have to admit either inference i.e. anumāna or smrti i.e. recollection or memory as a means of knowledge.
In case of an anumāna or inference, the procedure will be like this - The bank, i.e. the bank of the Gangā is having qualities of extreme holiness, purity etc., as it is close to the Gangā. The vyāpti - i.e. invariable concomitance will be like this - "whatever is close to the Gangā is pure, holy, as are the ascetics near the Gangā.” But this vyāpti is not all-pervasive (i.e. it is a-vyāpta), as we find skulls, bones etc.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
