________________
732
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA to the specific meaning of individual words. We have seen about how different means of knowledge such as pratyaksa or direct-perception, anumāna or inference, and arthāpatti or presumption are involved in the simple act of collecting the expressed sense only. This is done is an effortless and natural way for a child. Mammața uses terms such as (i) samanya, (ii) sāmānya-viśesa and (iii) ati-viśesameaning "correlated in a general form”, then, “karmatvā”dirūpena-anvitatva”, and "vyakti-rūpeṇa anvitatva”. The vyañjanāvādins argue that if we accept anvitábhidhānavāda, samketa takes us only to "anvita-artha" in form of a "sāmanya” only. But this is not enough. For example you want a pot. Now in place of “ghatam ānaya” if it is said, “vastu ānaya”, - this will not serve the purpose. Only a word 'ghata' which has a visesa-rūpa has to be used. Thus samketa with reference to "sāmānya-rūpena anvita”, will not do.
If it is argued that on the strength of the maxim, “nirvisesam na sāmānyam”, we will arrive at a “sāmānya-viśesa” i.e. a višesa qualified by a sāmānya, then to this the answer is that here the convention is with reference to a 'sāmānya-višesa' qualified by 'karmatva' or objectivity. Thus in "gām ānaya”, the word 'gām' is an object - karmabhūtasāmānya-višesa. Thus the word 'ānaya' gets correlated with this karma-bhūta-sāmānya-viseșa, which is 'gām'. 'gām’ is called 'sāmānya-višeşa', because ‘ānaya' is correlated with it. But here too the 'anvaya' is with 'karmatva’ staying in a 'sāmānya' form. As the 'sa-karmaka' word 'ānaya' is in need of a karma/object, 'gām' gets correlated with it in form of a 'karma' i.e. object. Here, ‘gām', 'aśvam' etc. though having a particular form or viseșa-rūpa, are correlated only through 'karmatva' which is of the sāmānya type. Hence, Mammața here uses the term 'sāmānya-visesa' to distinguish it from ‘sāmānya'. Thus the terms 'sāmānya' and “sāmānya-viśesa” are explained.
The third term used by Mammata is “ati-višesa”. By this is meant the individual cow or horse. Gotva, aśvatva are the 'sāmānya', karmatva is the sāmānya-visesa, and individual cow or horse - is the ati-višesa-meaning. This meaning is derived in practice from the statement. But theoretically this meaning cannot follow for the fear of anantya and vyabhicāra. So, when the ati-visesa meaning re samketita, vācyártha will be impossible. This 'ati-viśesa' meaning will have to be collected by a power beyond abhidhā. This means that even the anvitábhidhāna view will have to go for an additional power called either tātparya or any other name. Now, when, argues Mammața, even for the apprehension of a simple sentence-sense an additional word-power will be required, it is senseless to suggest that abhidhā will be able to deliver the suggested meaning !
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
